Climate change: who's afraid of geo-engineering?
When it comes to the debate about possible solutions to climate change, environmentalists are forever banging on and on about the fact that it is they who are 'armed' with nothing but the latest peer reviewed science. As well as that, how many more times have I got to hear that climate change is the most pressing crisis facing the whole of mankind - now war, poverty and disease have been relegated to second place? What is worse is the fact that when a solution (other than micro-managing humanity back to the Dark-ages, or worse, the caves) is put forward as a possible solution, it is green activists who are normally the first to poo-poo such solutions - and normally, in just one sentence. This does make you wonder if environmentalists really do want to bring this climate change 'crisis' under control? Indeed, if humanity were to come up with a viable, reliable and peer reviewed scientific tool that could halt climate change, green activists would be put right out of business, they would affectively have their green rug snatched from right underneath them. Such is the emerging challenge that environmentalists appear to be facing from scientists involved in 'geo-engineering' plans and solutions. It seems that the greens would rather see the planet, and humans burn than support geo-engineering solutions.
For all the green talk about tampering with nature, human hubris, or how one environmental organisation based in Canada put it 'Gambling with Gaia', geo-engineering may very well offer some serious global solutions to climate change. Of course, it almost goes without saying, don't take my word for it, even the inventor of the hydrogen bomb, Edward Teller thinks the same, Teller argued that geo-engineering actually 'appears to be a promising approach'.
Ultimately, it is not the potential that geo-engineering has to halt climate change that is sneered at by most environmentalist, as far as most greens are concerned, geo-engineering does not address the core problem of climate change - for the greens, the core problem relating to climate change is in the domain of morality. The truth is, environmentalists do not really want to halt climate change, what they appear to want to stop, and attack, are all forms of overconsumption, overproduction and overpopulation. What the greens would really prefer is humanity to suffer first - and stop people believing in the idea that humans might one day conquer the threat of climate change. The greens dare not imagine such a thing as putting an end to climate change, that would just rob them of their raison d'etre - would it not?
Labels: Climate change
posted by Courtney Hamilton @ 4:57 PM
10 Comments:
The time for tinkering is over. The time for paradigm shift is now, Courtney
It is true, not leaving your TV on stand-by, Earth Hour day and abolishing cheap flights is certainly what I would call tinkering - but what do you mean by 'paradigm' shift?
If that means supporting grand, global geo-engineering projects then yes - what have we got to lose?
If we actually understood the climate well enough to know what was going on, geo-engineering would almost certainly be the best thing to do.
As it is, "speculative and unproven, and with the risk of unknown side effects" is a good description.
But of course, arguing (correctly) that we don't really know how the climate works is the one thing the "respect the science" alarmists can't do.
great post folk
An excellent post and many well made points. One suspects that the greens can often be characterised as people haters, rather than environment lovers.
Also, as I understand it, global temperatures have not risen since around the turn of the millennium.
Amcguinn does have a point in that we, despite the so-called consensus, it is arguable that we don’t really understand climate, what drives it and how it works. For the same reason I am suspicious of the orthodoxy of the AGW zealots I would also be a little concerned about possible solutions/fixes based on their theories .
can u say the future will be geopolitical warfare
On an unrelated note, cheers for adding me to your blogroll. I've returned the favour.
Thanks for the information, I like your take on blogging.
Their peer reviewed science says, in short: "it is not deniable that CO2 has an influence on total temperatures, but it is insignificant and there is good time to change a potential danger, or a potential good."
As the world has gotten more fertile, most likely due to carbon emissions, and the faults proven when it comes to climate models, there is no scientific basis for the claim that the world is going to end, and that the CO2 is the main culprit.
Al Gore and the IPCC has in fact been caught cheating, as well as they often has gotten slaughtered in peer reviews.
"environmentalists do not really want to halt climate change, what they appear to want to stop, and attack, are all forms of overconsumption, overproduction and overpopulation"
So right. Nice post.
Post a Comment
<< Home