It is almost inconceivable that something this shallow in thinking could come from someone trying to convince you that co2 is responsible for the ills of our world. First of all, over the past 30-40 years, we have cleaned the air so much of pollutants that there are very few smog days here in the US. Billions have been spent over decades cleaning So2 out of the air. Now we want to put it back into the air to facilitate global cooling? What does this mean. That if we had left it there in the first place, we wouldnt have the problem that we do. Now let me explain to you how stupid, and that is the only word for this, this reasoning is. Suppose you are trying to get every person on the planet to believe co2 is the reason for all the ills in the world today. Why would you tell them that shooting pollutants into the air, the same ones you cleaned out, would cool the earth? All that says is co2 is not the cause, its cleaning the air that is the cause ( which by the way it is not, and neither is co2) But you see what a ruse this is. And how shallow the thinking has to be, the arrogant assumption that you and I are too stupid to say, heh wait a minute, if pollutants can cool the planet, why did we clean the planet and how can co2 have been the cause if the very thing we cleaned up is needed to cool it down.
But such talk about tipping points and going to this extreme exposes the irrational thinking here folks. You tell me. If you have to put back into the atmosphere the pollutants you cleaned out, so you can cool the atmosphere, doesnt it stand to reason if they were not cleaned out we would be cooler. And if so, then isnt it the cleaner, clearer air that is causing the warming, not co2. So they completely blow away their own argument by the faulty logic.
Now I dont care how many phd's you have. You have to be out of touch with reality to think that the average IQ cant put one and one together and it shows the shallow position here, that they would publicly say this is a solution, and not realize that it negates the very cause that they have been trying to force feed down your throat.
© www.scienceandpublicpolicy.org
Europe had better wake up. The reason: The answer is coming. If the earth continues to cool which it is: ( notice how bad the IPCC surface forecast is doing, its even further off at 25-40k feet in the tropics where it is predicting the most warming, then we know it cant be what they say, that other causes are stepping in).
For the academia in Europe that think I am mad bringing all this up, perhaps they need to take courses in common logic, that if you say you need something to cool the earth that you cleaned up, then it stands to reason its removal had to be a cause for warming, not some fictional bogeyman that is an essential element for human life.
How nuts is this? We have people advocating shooting pollutants into the air and not even realizing the issue of polluting the atmosphere and that the very notion tears down their own argument. And these are the people that want to set policy.
I will now grab my teddy bear, crawl into a fetal position, suck my thumb, and hope when I awake the nightmare is over
Read all sides of the issue, but trust your own knowledge!
if you ask me. In the AP article that Bastardi is responding to, John Holdren, Obama's new science advisor suggests shooting SO2 (Sulphur Dioxide) into the air. If you've forgotten your chemistry here are a few properties of SO2:
A. Appearance
Sulfur dioxide is a colorless gas with a suffocating, choking odor. It is toxic to humans and concentrations as low as 8 ppm will produce coughing.
B. Physical Properties of SO2
Sulfur Dioxide, O2
Atomic mass: 64.06 g/mol
melting point -72.7 oC
boiling point -10 oC
C. Natural Abundance
Volcanic activity is the primary source of sulfur dioxide in nature. Human activity, specifically the combustion of sulfur-rich coal and petroleum, accounts for much more of the SO2 in nature. Sulfur dioxide is the main culprit in acid rain.
Yep, great idea. But "Holdren noted that shooting particles into the air—making an artificial volcano as one Nobel laureate has suggested—could have grave side effects and would not completely solve all the problems from soaring greenhouse gas emissions. So such actions could not be taken lightly, he said."
You think? How about not taken at all?!