"Can Geoengineering Help Slow Global Warming?"

That's what I thought.

 

I'd like to hear your opinions first. But I don't suppose you will be providing any. For one, I don't understand how you deny the existence of global warming but think geoengineering is necessary to combat it. :huh:

Geo-engineering is conceptually neat, but suffers from practical problems of achieving something globally effective given the immense size of the atmosphere. The costs would be tremendous, the technology unproven, and the infrastructure to achieve this does not exist.

Geo-engineering should definitely be studied and may prove to be part of a broad spectrum of action to address global warming . . . but it ain't a silver bullet.

 

Like me, he doesn't believe that the rise in temperature this past century or so is mostly attributable to human activity, but the natural cycles that occur ever since the earth came into being. The fact is the temperature has risen and will continue to rise because we are in that cycle of rising temperatures (as has happened many times before on Earth), so that we must combat it to avoid ecological catastrophies.

It's not hard to understand, really.

 

That's not what he said. He said that "I dont believe in global warming, it is a hoax, being set up to control aspects of our lives."

 

I can't believe you tossed me this softball. I've actually shot it down twice before. A article from the Oregon Institute for Science and Medicine! Great stuff. Here is what Sourcewatch has to say about the OISM.

This is the Kook (Robinson) that published a bogus report saying that 31,000 scientists were opposed to global warming. It turns out that many on the list were totally bogus (Micheal Fox, Dr, Gerri Halliwell, etc,), most were not scientists (some were actually businesses), and very few were climatologists that could be considered experts on the subject and some of them claimed to no longer support the petition, since it's thesis has been rewritten at least seven times.

This is a much better pitch if only the numbers could survive scientific scrutiny. But it is impossible to tell from this article, since both his numbered references and his footnote references are not present for us to check out. No footnotes and no bibliography. Conveniently we cannot check out his sources.

You see, Mr. Gulachenski is an electrical engineer, not a climatologist and he has published a number of popular articles critical of the IPCC report. He has not yet published any peer-reviewed, substantiated articles in a scientific Journal. So I find his credibility low, although I would like to investigate his sources validity. Challenges to the consensus are scientifically important as long as they are valid.