View Single Post
Old 06-11-2019, 09:46 PM
wolfpup's Avatar
wolfpup is online now
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 10,835
Originally Posted by naita View Post
But you're the "Natural news" freak recommending apricot kernels, because it seems like if one poison works another should work as well.
FTR, the analogy with "Natural News" is quite accurate. When serious science has looked at the issue of atmospheric albedo management ("global dimming"), it has invariably concluded that even as a "last-ditch" emergency measure it is poorly understood and very highly fraught with major risks including the real possibility of the attempted cure being much worse than the disease, while potentially not in fact alleviating many (or any) of the principal problems. By "serious science" I mean, among others, the panel of international experts on the IPCC Working Group 3 who most recently produced the AR5 WG3 report in 2014 on mitigation of climate change, and the US National Academy of Sciences report on potential climate interventions published in 2015. The latter largely dealt with CO2 sequestration with some consideration of techniques like stratospheric aerosol injection and marine cloud brightening as a means of atmospheric albedo management.

In contrast, advocacy of such risky and unproven approaches has generally come from crackpots on the fringes of science or outside of it altogether, like the pair of lunatics who wrote "SuperFreakonomics", about which respected reviewers had this to say about the chapter on global warming:
In the book's fifth chapter, the author proposes that the climate system can be intentionally regulated by construction of a stratoshield.

The chapter has been criticized by economists and climate science experts who say it contains numerous misleading statements and discredited arguments. Among the critics are Paul Krugman, Brad DeLong, Raymond Pierrehumbert, The Guardian, Bloomberg News, and The Economist. Elizabeth Kolbert, a science writer for The New Yorker who has written extensively on global warming, contends that "just about everything they [Levitt and Dubner] have to say on the topic is, factually speaking, wrong."
So one need hardly guess who our resident genius SamuelA sides with, reflecting once again his uninformed and superficially tenuous grasp of a subject that he nevertheless chooses to pontificate about despite having practically no understanding of it. His conclusion seems to be based on his proven technique of sitting on his couch and thinking about it for five minutes.