This topic definitely deserved its own thread. Actually, this topic is so important it probably deserves like 12 threads.
No one made you come in here, and if you think geoengineering isnt important I dont even know why you would bother to post in here. Why would it bother what thread people start anyway? I on the other hand happen to think it is important and so does time magazine, so do you have anything intelligent to say.
Look, I've made about 1,000 posts in 15 threads concerning global warming. Would it be too much to ask you to go and read some of that before reinventing the wheel? When you start out by insisting it is a hoax set up to control us then I tend to think you are a kook. Try posting some evidence to support your wild-ass claim and maybe you'll interest me in a debate. So far, you don't.
NO it wouldn't be to much to ask, but I have already read over a 1000 post about global warming, and with all the information I have accumulated and the way laws and subsidies are put in place to promote certain behavior. I have concluded that global warming isnt real and that huge corporations make more profits when their is less competition and these laws put in place make it hard for smaller business to succeed. Your entitled to your opinion and when I typed it; I was sure someone would think that. I was hoping some of the other things I mentioned that supported, my reason for opposing geoengineering would allow people to put in all into perspective and allow for a intelligent argument. Well Ive already posted the holdren is a eugenicists information its in other threads, and this article mentions that geoengineering could cause acid rain. Im not going to find articles about global warming isnt real, if you dont know that by now, then you have chosen to believe the other side of the argument.
I did watch a show on Discovery I think it was and they spoke of this possibility. I remember the one they were most interested in were getting these windmills in certain areas that would draw something earthed in the ground and release it into the air and that it was more than feasible to do, and would make a significant impact on reversing the trend of warmer temperatures. Maybe it was that sulfur they are talking about. I remember there were a few places on earth where the concentrations were super rich and we had ample supply of it. Anybody remember seeing this and have the details?
Good for you. The word is "You're". You're mixing kooky comspiracy theories now. Just stick to global warmig for a minute and try to back up your claims with some evidence. Because you can't. Global warming cannot be denied scientifically. Your idea is without merit. Well, Duhhh! Did you think that everybody here was just going to swallow your unsubstantiated claims? Just above you mentioned wanting an intelligent argument, and the first time someone asks you for evidence to support your claims, you refuse and say "If you don't know then I can't convince you" Well, that is for damn sure. You won't convince anybody by just saying it. Yeah, I've chosen to believe in environmental science because I've made a 30-year career of it. Better yet I've backed up my claims here with evidence many times. I know you're a new guy, but we've argued this out in detail for years here with tons of evidence presented by all comers. You can't just say "I've concluded this, so there!" By all means make your case for your ideas. But if you can't substantiate your claims in some fashion you will not be believed and perhaps even ignored.
Saying holdren is a eugenicist is not a conspiracy theory, Youve seen the articles Ive posted. Based off what he wrote in his book, he is a eugenicist. And saying geoengineering could cause acid rain isnt a conspiracy theory either. I can, I just dont feel like half assing it since I havent read any articles recently that I remember I dont want to bother reading global warming right now. The next one I read I will post it in here. Until then I will leave you with this, mind you I havent read. List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia