Climate Change skeptics? [ot]

The concept of the Anthropocene might, therefore, become exploited, to a variety of ends. Some of these may be beneficial, some less so. The Anthropocene might be used as encouragement to slow carbon emissions and biodiversity loss, for instance; perhaps as evidence in legislation on conservation measures ; or, in the assessment of compensation claims for environmental damage. It has the capacity to become the most politicized unit, by far, of the Geological Time Scale—and therefore to take formal geological classification into uncharted waters.

That's why it makes sense to start thinking seriously about radical countermeasures. One of the biggest boosts to the idea of climate manipulation came last summer from Paul Crutzen, an emeritus at the Max Planck Institute for Chemistry. Writing in the journal Climate Change, Crutzen, who shared the 1995 Nobel Prize in chemistry for work examining ozone depletion, described a plan to shoot massive quantities of sulfur into the stratosphere. In theory, the sulfur would reflect sunlight – just as particles blown into the air by the eruption of Mount Pinatubo did in 1991 – cooling Earth and buying enough time for civilization to shift into green gear. Crutzen's not crazy, and he's no renegade terraformer. "Until a few years ago, I would also have been against the idea," he recently told an Australian newspaper. His journal article – and his clout – gave geoengineering an almost instant credibility boost. Soon other heavies, like Ralph Cicerone, president of the National Academy of Sciences, were also writing in favor of the concept. Their message: Geoengineering isn't, and shouldn't be, fringe science. "Given that the climate-change problem might be more serious than we previously thought," says Tom Wigley, a mathematical physicist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research, "we should consider these radical solutions more seriously."

Stanford's Caldeira is keeping an open mind – he's even helping to organize an international geoengineering meeting at NASA Ames Research Center.

Doing research about geoenginnering (or about vortexes or stability analysis) is not the same thing as doing geoenginnering.

There have been numerous threads discussing geo-engineering/chemtrails.

Oiy vey....that's how things are done, Raymond. You do research before you implement an action.

you to deny this just tells me you mind is closed.....or in denial. Sad, that.

In general, geoengineering technologies are categorized as either a carbon dioxide removal (CDR) method or a solar radiation management (SRM) method. CDR methods address the warming effects of greenhouse gases by removing carbon dioxide (CO2) from the atmosphere. CDR methods include ocean fertilization, and carbon capture and sequestration. SRM methods
address climate change by increasing the reflectivity of the Earth’s atmosphere or surface. Aerosol injection and space-based reflectors are examples of SRM methods. SRM methods do not remove greenhouse gases from the atmosphere, but can be deployed faster with relatively immediate global cooling results compared to CDR methods.

In addition to seeking an understanding of the science behind the different geoengineering technologies, policymakers are considering policies and strategies for addressing geoengineering at the national and international levels. To date, there is limited federal involvement in, or oversight of, geoengineering. However, some states as well as some federal agencies, notably the Environmental Protection Agency, Department of Energy, Department of Agriculture, and the Department of Defense, have taken actions related to geoengineering research or projects.

Of course there's a better way

As if you were driving your bus full speed towards a tree, hands in a death-grip on the wheel, while some engineers trapped on board try to quickly build air bags and attach power saws to the front of the bus.

Of course there's a better way to avoid crashing!

As if you were driving your bus full speed towards a tree...

Instead of trying to control nature, (totally stupid dumbsh!t idea), maybe just maybe you guys can once again become harmonious with it.

Nature is fully alive and fully conscious of what you're doing.

Don't try and conquer it, control it, abuse it, but listen to it telling you what it needs to keep us in a harmonious state.

You mean, develop alternative energy and reduce fossil fuel use gradually? If so it's the first time I've seen you say that.

So the chief disbelieves all science that claim that CO2 makes the world warmer because that knowledge would result in carbon taxes and carbon taxes are going to result in funding for scientists that want to change the climate with geoenginnering.

It makes "perfect sense" now but I would say that it would be easier and more natural to try to avoid geoenginnering by limiting the polution. One way to do it is to use carbon taxes.

But obviously you and the others can not see that the geoengineering is in place and will be the primary mitigation process funded by Carbon Tax revenues.

If not, please show where all the revenue from the billions in carbon taxes will actually go.