Ah you forget, they’re all Communists, and so don’t care about money 
This is such a bogus claim. When Patrick Michaels, one of the contrarians on climate change, recently made this claim about the media, someone apparently did some research in one of those media databases to see which single climate scientist got the most cites in the press. Want to guess who it was? None other than Patrick Michaels himself! This is, of course, because reporters often feel the need to provide two sides to a story even when one side has the support of thousands of scientists and the other has the support of only a handful. Hence those of us who follow the story closely feel like we actually know Patrick Michaels, Richard Lindzen, Sallie Balliunas, Bob Carter, and the handful of other climate contrarains almost as well as if they were our close friends. (I did, by the way, hear Patrick Michaels give a talk here at University of Rochester a few years ago.)
The fact is that these scientists get their voices in the media way out of proportion to the amount they appear in the peer-reviewed scientific literature.
So, do you consider the U.S. National Academy of Sciences, the councils of the American Meteorological Society and the American Geophysical Union, Republican Governors Arnold Schwartznegger and George Pataki, Senator John McCain, British Petroleum, Shell Oil, and several major U.S. power companies (Duke Energy being one I believe) to be Socialists/communists? The actual fact is that the idea that anthropogenic global warming (AGW) is a serious problem is broadly accepted except for a small community of people almost all of whom seem to have close affiliations with the fossil fuel industry (or at least those companies who are still on the denying side) and/or conservative/libertarian think-tanks.
As for why your proposed solution has not been widely embraced, here are a few reasons why, in addition to the issues with this particular method, there are several inherent flaws with what I like to call the “swallow the spider to catch the fly” approach to dealing with climate change:
(1) Historically, we don’t seem very good at understanding the complexity of complex systems in sufficient detail to engineer solutions that go for this attempt to cancel out our harmful effects with counter-effects rather than just trying to directly reduce our harmful effects.
(2) In particular, this sort of approach requires a highly detailed understanding of the system. In fact, it is ironic to me that many of the same people who play up the fact that there are various uncertainties associated with our understanding of the climate system jump to these sort of solutions since they actually require a much more detailed understanding than the amount of understanding that is necessary to say: “We may not understand all aspects of the climate system, the carbon cycle, etc., but we do understand enough to know that the effects that we are producing with our perturbation are almost certainly going to be quite significant.”
This is not to say that we should not be considering such solutions. However, we should not use investigation of them…or the premature implementation of them before we fully understand all the potential consequences…as a substitute for getting to work on trying to reduce our emissions of CO2 and other greenhouse gases.
I just wanted to emphasize your point that they are sometimes one and the same. Guess what industry the Koch brothers are in? 
How is this different from your dismissal of the “leftist” theory of global warming?
I’d like to see these studies myself. AFAIK, there are no sea based studies that show a decent rate of long term carbon sequestration following Iron treatment.
Iron fertilization was a riveting idea when it first came out in the 80’s, but it seems to have lost much of its lustre in the ensuing years of experimentation. Who knows, maybe somebody will come up with a GE diatom that tastes bad to zooplankton, sucks up enormous amounts of CO[sub]2[/sub], and then sinks like a rock to the seabed, but it hasn’t happened yet.
And why is most of the focus on the USA? Because we use most of the energy, thanks our to our capitalist economy. All the socialists are licking their chops. The environmentalists don’t protest in China or Russia, they protest in Washington DC.
“Promising” means iron fertilization is a proven natural process that has just been studied only in the last 10 years. The experiments have shown a reduction in CO2 occurs. To me, at least, that seems promising. But if a person doesn’t want a solution, only taxes and treaties then it isn’t promising.
http://www.noc.soton.ac.uk/GDD/hydro/rtp/crozet/cruiserept/6_CO2.pdf
No matter WHAT we do, our existance as a living creature on earth will disrupt ecosystems. If the warming climate is such a serious problem, then why don’t they propose more research into iron fertilization?
I’ve read the literature, and I’ve read the literature that suggests we are in just another natural cycle of warming. Like I’ve said before, suppose we AREN’T the cause of the temperature increase, would the socialist countries crucify the capitalist countries? I can easily make the same accusation, your politics blinds you to see the possiblity that it is a natural occurance.
Is the New York Times mainstream enough? See, they talk about taxes and treaties as the solution.
"But he warned that if the United States did not sign the agreements, a carbon tax across Europe on imports from nations that have not signed the Kyoto treaty could be imposed to try to force compliance. "
Perhaps I’m dense here but, why does it have to be so long term? I mean, phytoplankton that don’t sink and immediately enter the geologic process is less than ideal but wouldn’t a huge increase in the biomass in the oceans amount to a huge carbon sequester? Sure… zooplankton eat the phytoplankton which is eaten by fish which are eaten by us or sharks or whatever and when we rot… some of that carbon is going back into the atmosphere but surely some isn’t, right?
and blamed on the Liberal media.
But listen to what they are saying: It is already TOO LATE!! They tell us we could be beyond the tipping point, etc. If we already have too much CO2, then we need to get rid of the excess amount in the atmosphere ASAP, right? So why don’t they try to get rid of as much as possible? Not just reduce our output, but reduce the amount already in the atmosphere with extraordinary means? Or is global warming not THAT much of a problem and all we have to do is tax the USA to make us happy?
Humans have been diving into many different ventures without considering the effects, and have managed to survive whatever things changed. All the highly educated scientists will naturally be averse to taking any action until “everything” is understood, but by then it will be too late, right? The authorities are telling us climate disaster is just around the corner, so what the hell, lets try something new. If iron fertilization creates an abundance of plankton, which creates an abundance of fish, we will just have to send out more trawlers.
Yeah, and that has nothing to do with the fact that China is very hostile to dissent, and Russia is becoming increasingly so. Yup, they just hate us for being capitalist.
What a surprise! The lefties at CNN give the Sierra Club more credence than Exxon. Another example of how the media twists the issue by making big business the bad guy.
A short dwell time for the fixed CO[sub]2[/sub] decreases the amount by which a bloom can reduce steady state concentrations in the atmosphere. This behavior rises from the rules which govern chemical reactions, particularly steady state kinetics.
If the process were irreversible, we could just fertilize until we’d gotten atmospheric CO[sub]2[/sub] back down to 300ppm, and then forget about the problem for 50 years. Conversely, if sequestration only lasts a millisecond, we’d have to cover the seas in plankton 10 feet deep, just to make a tiny dent in the atmospheric carbon pool.
As it is, you can’t fertilize the sea everywhere, so you need every bit of sequestration you can get from the areas where you can treat with iron. Unfortunately, It doesn’t look like we can do enough fertilization to take more than a minor bite out of the excess atmospheric CO[sub]2[/sub].
The Sierra Club was one member of a group that exposed Exxon’s attempt to twist science to benefit itself. I do not think Exxon is, in general, more reliable than environmental groups when it comes to global warming, because it stands to lose a lot of money implementing pollution controls.
By the way, if CNN is so liberal, why does it have the best ratings for cable news in the country? Wouldn’t a station divorced from the mainstream be largely ignored?
I’m still waiting for our guest to respond to this. So, ex747mech, do you think all of these groups are communist front organizations? Tell us what you really think.
It sounds quite interesting, regardless of the CO2 angle, increasing fish stocks would be rather handy.
I recently heard a fisherman on the radio saying that shore marine life had declined dramatically in the North Sea - he said that you used to look into rock pools and find them teeming with life, and now they are empty.
As for people like Shell supporting global warming, it makes perfect sense to jump on the bandwagon.
Simple answer, fixing ‘global warming’ would take the wind out of their anti-capitalist sails, and their ship would sink, where the zoo plankton would eat them.
We need a control planet, one where man has very little impact, perhaps a handful of man made probes, and a rover or 2 roaming around, as long as those rovers aren’t SUV’s, and see if that planet is going through global warming too, wait mars is going through global warming too, how the heck did we do that?!?!
Accepting man made global warming is ignoring the scientific method of having a control in your experiment (the experiment is will driving SUV’s cause the earth to heat up). That’s why many don’t accept it, and that also discredited any ‘scientist’ who ignores the scientific method and draws a conclusion.
A control is something similar to the actual tested thing, kanicbird. You can’t simply say “Here’s a planet, here’s a planet, they’re the same”. Mars is a world with an atmosphere much thinner than Earth’s, consisting of 95% carbon dioxide. No running water has been found yet, possibly because the highest temperature it ever reaches is about 20C. Plus of course Mars has not produced complex life.
Are you sure you want to judge Earth on the basis of Mars? Or are my objections merely the fevered ramblings of a rabid anti-capatalist?
Revenant Threshold I know that mars =/= earth, but it’s better then no control at all. Also when the major counter contention is that global warming is caused by the sun, it seems like a much better candidate then the 3rd planet around Alpha-Centuri.
Any control isn’t better than no control at all. If two things are different enough, then any comparison isn’t useful on complex matters. It could even hurt; I could compare a cactus to watercress. They’re both plants. But should I grow watercress in the same environment that a cactus thrives in? No, it would die. Much better to look solely at watercress to determine its best environment, or look at a control if it is similar.
I contend that Mars is different enough that we can’t simply say “This happens on Mars, therefore it happens on Earth, too”.
Kanicbird has a point, if Mars is demonstrably warming up, then it makes some sense to wonder why, after all Mars and Earth don’t have much in common … except for the Sun.