The most prestigious law school admissions discussion board in the world.
|
 |
 
|
PSA: Global Warming could be easily solved with aerosols, but libs ban research
| copper coiffed indirect expression | 09/23/18 |
| vibrant trailer park | 09/23/18 |
| copper coiffed indirect expression | 09/23/18 |
| Rebellious aqua dilemma | 09/23/18 |
| Exciting Autistic Stage Philosopher-king | 09/23/18 |
| copper coiffed indirect expression | 09/23/18 |
| elite range | 09/23/18 |
| copper coiffed indirect expression | 09/23/18 |
| elite range | 09/23/18 |
| galvanic submissive fat ankles | 09/23/18 |
| mahogany bearded laser beams pistol | 09/23/18 |
Poast new message in this thread
Date: September 23rd, 2018 4:44 PM Author: copper coiffed indirect expression In to an aersol solution because it go against the dogma that "carbon must be abandoned." You simply spray some inert aerosol components into the atmosphere to block 1% or so of sunlight and global warming is suddenly fixed. It would be extremely inexpensive and easy to do this.
They have been blocking any research into this for years and ostracizing scientists who propose to study it.
https://www.technologyreview.com/s/511016/a-cheap-and-easy-plan-to-stop-global-warming/
"That idea is highly controversial. Many climate scientists still consider field experimentation premature, and critics of geoengineering tend to believe it would be the first step in what would turn into an inexorable move toward full-scale deployment. Last year, a public outcry led by several international environmental groups helped shut down a simple experiment that a team of British researchers had proposed. The group wanted to pump water to a height of one kilometer through a thin hose held aloft by a helium balloon. The object would have been to test whether a similar system could someday be used to inject sulfur particles into the stratosphere at an altitude of 20 kilometers."
"No one thinks that field experiments involving tiny amounts of sulfur would be physically dangerous, says Parson. “What concerns people,” he says, “is the political and social consequences of the research going ahead, followed by bigger and bigger experiments—and then you’re on the slippery slope all the way to full-scale deployment.” These worries should be taken seriously, he says: “You need to encourage small-scale research, but you need some kind of limited governance to mitigate the risk of a slide to deployment." |
Date: September 23rd, 2018 4:44 PM Author: vibrant trailer park Cr Also carbon scrubbing tech |
 |
Date: September 23rd, 2018 4:45 PM Author: copper coiffed indirect expression That would be vastly more expensive, I believe. Unless you are just talking about planting trees. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4084982&forum_id=2#36870562) |
|
Date: September 23rd, 2018 4:45 PM Author: Rebellious aqua dilemma explain what you think their motives are for banning the research (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4084982&forum_id=2#36870566) |
|
Date: September 23rd, 2018 4:47 PM Author: Exciting Autistic Stage Philosopher-king It’s an easy solution that blows up the need for environmentalist orgs (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4084982&forum_id=2#36870575) |
|
Date: September 23rd, 2018 4:50 PM Author: copper coiffed indirect expression This too (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4084982&forum_id=2#36870596) |
|
Date: September 23rd, 2018 4:47 PM Author: elite range the real drive is for political control of world economies. a tech solution kills that. therefore a tech solution cannot be discussed. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4084982&forum_id=2#36870577) |
|
Date: September 23rd, 2018 4:50 PM Author: copper coiffed indirect expression Mainly, they have spent so much time forcing everyone to march in lock-step, chanting the mantra that carbon based fuels are bad and must be abandoned, renewables are good, that any deviation is an anathema and must be stopped. But here are some more specific reasons:
1. They think that people will use solutions as a reason not to abandon/reduce carbon-based fuels (this ignores the fact that there may be no reason to abandon/reduce carbon based fuels if you fix climate change).
2. They view carbon based fuel (especially oil and nat gas) as enriching companies and industries that they don't like. 3. They have a gut-level hatred for carbon based fuels (as well as nukes) and a love for renewable (wind/solar) fuels. 4. They view any technological solution to global warming as a fraud, perpetrated by the oil and gas lobby
|
|
Date: September 23rd, 2018 4:46 PM Author: elite range shows precisely their goal: not global temps but global control of political economy (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4084982&forum_id=2#36870572) |
|
Date: September 23rd, 2018 4:49 PM Author: galvanic submissive fat ankles Nothing could possibly go wrong. Libs really do hate human life. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4084982&forum_id=2#36870590) |
|
Date: September 23rd, 2018 7:33 PM Author: mahogany bearded laser beams pistol (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4084982&forum_id=2#36871569) |