Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by martyb on Saturday April 18 2015, @01:11PM   Printer-friendly
from the not-going-to-end-well dept.

Any attempts to engineer the climate are likely to result in "different" climate change, rather than its elimination, new results suggest. Prof Ken Caldeira, of Stanford University, presented research at a major conference on the climate risks and impacts of geoengineering. These techniques have been hailed by some as a quick fix for climate change.

But the impacts of geoengineering on oceans, the water cycle and land environments are hotly debated. They have been discussed at a meeting this week of 12,000 scientists in Vienna. Researchers are familiar with the global cooling effects of volcanic eruptions, seen both historically and even back into the deep past of the rock record. With this in mind, some here at the European Geosciences Union General Assembly ( http://www.egu2015.eu ) have been discussing the possible worldwide consequences of pumping sulphate aerosols into the stratosphere to attempt to reflect sunlight back into space and cool the planet.

http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-32334528

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 0, Disagree) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday April 18 2015, @03:34PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday April 18 2015, @03:34PM (#172441)

    Al Gore is an example of what we see from the political left on a frequent basis. Outlandish claims are made, without any basis in reality. Several years later, it become obvious that the claims were outlandish. But by that time, the left has moved on to the next talking head, or onto the next subject they've gotten all riled up about.

    As somebody who is on neither side of the political spectrum, I see much more consistency from the right. They look at an issue, they analyze it, they come up with a logical opinion. This is exactly what they did with climate change. They acknowledged that it might exist, but didn't jump to the conclusion that humans were responsible. They wanted more evidence before coming to a conclusion. Some of that evidence suggests that climate change may not exist, so they consider that to be a possibility, too. The political right wants to deal with facts, not feelings.

    The political left, on the other hand, don't seem to care about facts. They don't care about the truth. They're driven solely by feelings and emotions. They get themselves worked up over fictional problems that they have created in their minds, and then expect everyone else to help them "solve" these problems that don't actually exist because they're just delusional thoughts in some leftists' heads.

    The right isn't always correct about all matters, but when it comes to climate change they're coming from a much more responsible and sensible position than the left is. The right is about facts in this case, the left is about emotion.

    Starting Score:    0  points
    Moderation   0  
       Troll=1, Insightful=1, Disagree=2, Total=4
    Extra 'Disagree' Modifier   0  

    Total Score:   0  
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday April 18 2015, @03:43PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday April 18 2015, @03:43PM (#172446)

    "I’m one of those Republicans who thinks we are getting warmer and that we contribute to that".

    - Mitt Romney, 2012

    But Mitt must be one of those overly emotional types who gets overwhelmed by feelings worked up over fictional situations, right? We need to listen more to people like Sean Hannity and Ted Cruz.

  • (Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday April 18 2015, @03:54PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday April 18 2015, @03:54PM (#172457)

    > As somebody who is on neither side of the political spectrum,

    Everybody thinks they are a perfectly reasonable centrist who gives equal balance to all arguments and that everybody else goes to far in either direction.

    Hint, you claim to be a centrist but then what you actually say proves otherwise.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday April 18 2015, @04:03PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Saturday April 18 2015, @04:03PM (#172464)

      So agreeing with rightists on climate change, but disagreeing with them on everything else would make one a rightist in your view? That's pretty fucked up!

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday April 18 2015, @05:21PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Saturday April 18 2015, @05:21PM (#172495)

        Haven't see any proof of agreeing with anything beyond than extreme right on climate change.
        And since you identify with such an extremist position its going to take a lot to 'balance' that out.
        Immediate amnesty for illegal aliens.
        $16 minimum wage
        That sort of thing.

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 19 2015, @09:04AM

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 19 2015, @09:04AM (#172774)

    Hairyfeet, is this you posting as AC? Sounds just like you. You know, the "I don't agree with the conservatives, but at least they are consistent" shtick. Yeah, whatever. Consistent insanity is still insanity. And when was Al Gore proven wrong? The right is totally buggered on Climate Change, and they know it. Now they have to find a way to always have been for it before they were against it. Don't get left on the wrong side when they finally switch, it will make you look like an imbecile.

    Hairyfoot Patrol Officer #27