nordicwarrior
Banned
- Messages
- 958
- Reaction score
- 79
- Points
- 0
- Ethnic group
- European Mix
- Y-DNA haplogroup
- I1 (M253)
- mtDNA haplogroup
- H
I recently watched a lively debate between author Clive Hamilton and Harvard Professor David Keith on C-Span (national television channel here in the U.S.) concerning the pros/cons of geo-engineering to fight "climate change". Professor Keith proposes that we should release 20,000 tons of sulphuric acid a year into the upper atmosphere to combat the greenhouse effect.
This is no longer the realm of crackpots and conspiracy buffs. The concept of geo-engineering is here to stay (unfortunately). Unlike the far more passive carbon credits debate, this fiasco will force each side into action ready camps-- we might be seeing tremendous activity in the upper atmosphere if the wrong team wins here.
What is your opinion on this stuff?
I think it is a HORRIBLE idea, one where we can only guess at the unintended side effects.
This is no longer the realm of crackpots and conspiracy buffs. The concept of geo-engineering is here to stay (unfortunately). Unlike the far more passive carbon credits debate, this fiasco will force each side into action ready camps-- we might be seeing tremendous activity in the upper atmosphere if the wrong team wins here.
What is your opinion on this stuff?
I think it is a HORRIBLE idea, one where we can only guess at the unintended side effects.
Last edited: