The Guardian : US answer to global warming: smoke and giant space mirrors

[PhilipShore]

January 27, 2007
http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,,1999966,00.html


The US government wants the world's scientists to develop technology to block sunlight as a last-ditch way to halt global warming, the Guardian has learned. It says research into techniques such as giant mirrors in space or reflective dust pumped into the atmosphere would be "important insurance" against rising emissions, and has lobbied for such a strategy to be recommended by a major UN report on climate change, the first part of which will be published on Friday.

The US has also attempted to steer the UN report, prepared by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), away from conclusions that would support a new worldwide climate treaty based on binding targets to reduce emissions - as sought by Tony Blair. It has demanded a draft of the report be changed to emphasise the benefits of voluntary agreements and to include criticisms of the Kyoto Protocol, the existing treaty which the US administration opposes.

The final IPCC report, written by experts from across the world, will underpin international negotiations to devise a new emissions treaty to succeed Kyoto, the first phase of which expires in 2012. World governments were given a draft of the report last year and invited to comment.

[sweetheart]

1. phhhaaa ha ha ha ... LOL !!!

:rofl: ha!

[DRoseDARs]

5. Not sure what you're laughing about; these are real proposals that predate Bush 43...

The only reason they're getting any play is because they could be mega-contracts ($$$$$) for the corporations that will be needed to even attempt enacting such plans. The mirror proposal was conceived of as a way to cool down and terraform Venus; a variant uses mirrors and lenses to warm up Mars. The dust can likewise help cool Venus whereas another variant powdered on Mars' polar caps would again help increase that planet's temperature and thicken the atmosphere by melting the caps, releasing the frozen CO2 and water. They seem far out there, but really it's only a matter of having the production capacity to build the mirrors/lenses (or the reflective/absorptive dust), delivering them to their intended targets, and maintaining their proper orbits.

[sweetheart]

9. its just so dang silly, technobull solutions to a plain problem

Greenhouse emissions have a simple source, and in all honesty for any government
of integrity, a simple solution; however hard taken the measures.... but to make it
in to a space-corporation contract area for more money to big military aerospace
just takes the cake... its inventive, gotta give'm that... but ha ha :rofl: ha ha

[Xithras]

37. Not so silly

Two points.

1) Nearly every atmospheric researcher who has looked into the situation has concluded that between 10% and 30% of global warming is natural...the result of typical solar fluctuations. That still leaves us on the hook for 70% to 90% of the warming, but that also ignores an important point: Even minus man made warming, we don't know how long the natural trend will last. While the progression of natural environmental swings may be slower and rate a "Who Cares" from a lot of people, keep in mind that natural temperature swings have caused massive die offs by themselves in the distant past. Eliminating human pollution may solve the problem, or it may just buy us time. If it's the latter, having this kind of technology around may prove to be very useful.

2) Many climate scientists believe that already emitted pollution will be impacting our climate for the next 50-100 years. Even if we eliminated all pollution today, the temp would still continue climbing for decades. Some scientists also believe that we have already started a natural feedback loop which will continue to feed global warming no matter what we do at this point. If THEY are right, learning to manage our climate on a global scale may become a necessity for us and all the rest of the life on this planet.

Besides, research and learning are never bad things. I personally don't mind if we research this sort of thing as an "insurance plan".

[barb162]

41. good points

I notice how certain things are never mentioned too like population control, getting people off the coasts across the world, etc. I look at nations like Bangladesh which is about 1 foot above the water and I shake my head. If people would start voluntarily get off the coasts in this country... but just the opposite is happening. We keep building on sandbars to get good views

[DRoseDARs]

42. Mother Earth does not suffer fools...

Unfortunately, there's precious little we can do about people in the West building in areas that will be hardest hit by climate change and even less we can do about the teeming masses living in the low-lying regions and along the coasts in undeveloped/developing countries. The only thing that will move them all is the rising water and frankly, it's too late to stop that from happening. To keep things in perspective no matter what we've done to the atmosphere up to this point, there have been periods in Earth's past that were far, far hotter. We will survive this.

[hatrack]

18. And with what launch vehicle will these get into high earth orbit?

Hint: if you say "the Space Shuttle", do not pass Go, do not collect 200 billion federal dollars.

Let's see . . . we could spend hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of billions more dollars we don't have, in addition to the 9 trillion in debt this country is already facing, on systems which we do not know will be effective, which could have potentially very serious side effects, for which we don't even have a launch system and which would probably take at the very least ten years to put together. In that space of time, since we're already at about 390 ppm CO2, we'd probably hit somewhere around 410 - 415, and with the Western Siberian permafrost already destabilizing, very possibly substantially higher than that.

Of course, we would have all kinds of contractor goodies dangling from this plan like ornaments on a Christmas tree, and we'd eventually have big mirrors and sunshades floating in space.

Perhaps we could sell naming and logo rights. The Pepsi Earthshield? Microsoft's Planet Protector? As they say, the sky's the limit. And if all else fails, we could at least paint a really big-ass American flag on whatever it is we stuck up there.

Or maybe, just maybe, we could try and start to change a system in which it makes economic "sense" to live 35 miles from where you work and where it makes thermodynamic "sense" to airfreight grapes from New Zealand to Toronto in the dead of winter, and spend all that money a bit more wisely.

[DRoseDARs]

30. You know, there's a reason they say, "Google is your friend..."

I strongly object to your arrogant tone, so I suggest you make the effort to inform yourself. Here's some links to get you started:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_elevator

- What isn't Wiki'd?

http://www.elevator2010.org/

- Best FAQ

http://www.space.com/businesstechnology/technology/space_elevator_020327-1.html

- Space Magazine article

http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2000/ast07sep_1.htm

- Yeah, NASA is taking a serious interest in a serious proposal that's ACTIVELY being worked on...

http://www.isr.us/SEHome.asp

-From their About Us page:
"ISR customers include NASA, the U.S. Department of Defense, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Air Force Research Lab, Office of Naval Research, National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration, U.S. Department of Energy, National Air and Space Intelligence Center, National Science Foundation, Carnegie Mellon University, Booz Allen Hamilton, and Ball Aerospace & Technology Corporation."

[hatrack]

34. So what?

Oh, you "strongly object to my arrogant tone"? Who gives a shit?

I'll tell you what I object to - your happy technology-will-save-us magic raindance.

Let's all just sit back and relax and keep on doing the same shit we're doing as climate feedbacks spin out of control. Soon the brilliant scientists will come up with something which (at staggering, astronomical cost) will let us keep on doing the same shit we're doing.

Whatever.

Buh-bye, techno-twit.

[DRoseDARs]

39. I'll spell it out for you...

...since you're being so damned dense. :eyes:

After just a few launches (not the dozens you're probably envisioning) this thing would be up in position. There are a number of ways the system can be powered, even by just the ocean-going platform that will anchor the cable currently being worked on (design phase, materials research, production capacity increase). The operation never needs to stop; can continue to operate 24/7 except for rare occasions storms reach the platform at the equator (and yes, by nature the equatorial regions are quiet). What does this mean to you? After the initial set of launches, the cable can bulk itself up with crawlers carrying additional cables to thicken it a bit more. Once that's complete (a few weeks, months maybe) we could easily do away with the space shuttle program. No further massive expenditure of fuel necessary, pumping greenhouse gases into air out the ass end of a rocket. Operating costs will be massively reduced compared to traditional launch systems (a geostationary and gravitationally-balanced orbit costs nil to maintain versus the space shuttle program). The power plant to run the system of crawlers up and down can be based on the very platform it's all anchored to or connected to a nearby shoreline plant. The $10 billion USD price tag being proposed isn't much to the United States and utilizing this space elevator system in lieu of more traditional launches will save a great deal of money; the cable will pay for itself after a few years. After a while, additional cable could go up, and together they could be sending probes out to the Asteroid Belt to begin mining them and bringing the spoils back. Earth-based mining will find itself falling out of favor as environmentalists put more pressure on the government and the industry to stop mining the Earth. I live in Nevada so this will hurt our economy, but we'll live.

Scientists and engineers are fleshing out the details, at least one manufacturer is seriously working perfecting the production of carbon nanotubes. NASA, the US government, as well as foreign bodies are taking an interest in this as a cost-effective, environmentally-friendly means of getting to space. The LiftPort Group, a conglomerate of companies working together towards a space elevator, already has a manufacturing plant in New Jersey producing carbon nanotubes for industrial consumption. Just because you don't believe or understand this technology doesn't mean it won't happen. It's happening right now.

[Nihil]

44. Hey, "dense" person ...

Maybe you should spend a little time in the E/E forum (Environment & Energy) before you
start calling one of the most environmentally awake people on the whole of DU "dense"?

Put simply, you haven't a fucking clue so start reading and get one.

(And if you simply alert or "ignore" then it simply shows the level of your stupidity.)

[DRoseDARs]

47. Funny, I don't recall ever having brought into question his environmental understanding...

...I only responded to his uninformed dismissal of one way to address several problems. Plus, he was more than willing to call into question my intelligence and understanding of alternate means of attacking environmental degradation, as you just have. Who has the reading problem here, you or me Nihil? While I rarely post in the E/E forum, I don't need to spend 27 (sic) out of every 24 hours in a day there just to prove I'm environmentally aware. Thanks, but I have plenty of awareness of environmetal problems and the variety of means of addressing them. I don't have to prove myself to you or anyone else and I'm not going to explain again why a space elevator (or a dozen) are a great way for us to take a big chunk out of those problems. I've already given you your clues, go find them yourselves. Or keep acting like spoiled brats, whichever. As far as placing anyone on ignore, hadn't crossed my mind but seeing as you brought up both actions I'm going to guess you've prompted A LOT of people to do so. I'll keep that in mind for the future...


"Hey, "dense" person ...
Posted by Nihil

Maybe you should spend a little time in the E/E forum (Environment & Energy) before you
start calling one of the most environmentally awake people on the whole of DU "dense"?

Put simply, you haven't a fucking clue so start reading and get one.

(And if you simply alert or "ignore" then it simply shows the level of your stupidity.)"

[Nihil]

48. Slightly politer response.

> Funny, I don't recall ever having brought into question his
> environmental understanding...
> ...I only responded to his uninformed dismissal of one way
> to address several problems.

Perhaps he isn't as uninformed as you believe?
Perhaps it is *your* dismissal of his posts (with or without rolling
eyes) that is uninformed?

> Who has the reading problem here, you or me Nihil?

Well you certainly do but it is also possible that I do too.

> While I rarely post in the E/E forum, I don't need to spend 27 (sic)
> out of every 24 hours in a day there just to prove I'm environmentally
> aware.

What's with the "27 (sic) out of every 24 hours in a day" bit?
Did you think you were quoting my post? If so, you have a reading problem.

Were you just trying to be smart in implying that I had written such
a thing? If so then you don't have a reading problem, you have a bad
case of GOPspeak - if the facts don't reflect your opinion then make
something up.

> Thanks, but I have plenty of awareness of environmetal (sic!) problems

Glad to hear it.

> I don't have to prove myself to you or anyone else ...

True.

> ... and I'm not going to explain again why a space elevator
> (or a dozen) are a great way for us to take a big chunk out of
> those problems.

Good, I read your posts the first time (interesting) so no point in
just repeating them. I understand the technology, I understand the
challenge, I understand the desire - I simply disagree that this is
in any way a productive use of time, energy & money. The resources
that will be consumed for this distraction (noble though it may be)
are not (IMO) justified. The biggest problem is that it does nothing
with regard to the urgent, vital and painful changes that need to be
made TODAY (not in the multi-decade timescale used by most space
projects). In fact, worse than that, it has a *negative* effect as
it generates a lot of gee-whiz publicity, takes all manner of resources
out of the pool for other action and allows the ostriches to happily
replace their heads in the sand, shutting out those voices who are
warning about the coming catastrophe.

> As far as placing anyone on ignore, hadn't crossed my mind but seeing
> as you brought up both actions I'm going to guess you've prompted A LOT
> of people to do so.

No idea - there's no way to tell if one is on ignore - so your guess
is as good as mine. On the other hand, I *have* had posts deleted for
daring to point out inconvenient facts to people in a less than tactful
manner. Normally this prompts me to rewrite the comment in a more
diplomatic post but sometimes (like last night) I get tired of "tact".
:hi:

[DRoseDARs]

49. My slightly politer response.

>>>Perhaps he isn't as uninformed as you believe?
>>Perhaps it is *your* dismissal of his posts (with or without rolling
>>eyes) that is uninformed?

Hatrack's very first post in this thread seemed to show just how "informed" he was about space elevators. His follow-up post was just more of the same "insightful" input on the specific topic. Again, at no point did I bring into question his understanding of environmental issues, just his dismissal of space elevators. Ask any Joe Schmoe on the street what a "space elevator" is and they'll scratch their head and say, "Huh?" Hatrack's initial response could have been like that, but instead he had to be an ass about it. And then he had to be an ass about it again.

>>>What's with the "27 (sic) out of every 24 hours in a day" bit?
>>>Did you think you were quoting my post? If so, you have a reading problem.

>>>Were you just trying to be smart in implying that I had written such
>>>a thing? If so then you don't have a reading problem, you have a bad
>>>case of GOPspeak - if the facts don't reflect your opinion then make
>>>something up.

You implied Hatrack was a prolific poster in the E/E forum. I checked, he is. The "27 (sic) out of every 24 hours in a day bit" is an variant of an old expression, suggesting that one spends a great deal of time with a subject or activity, setting up the impossible situation of spending more hours in a day than the standard 24 hours. The (sic) part is another quirk of English that means "literally" or "I purposely put that there." I wanted you to know that 27 wasn't a typo. If Bushisms were quoted properly by the MSM, you'd see (sic) a lot...

>>>Good, I read your posts the first time (interesting) so no point in
>>>just repeating them. I understand the technology, I understand the
>>>challenge, I understand the desire - I simply disagree that this is
>>>in any way a productive use of time, energy & money. The resources
>>>that will be consumed for this distraction (noble though it may be)
>>>are not (IMO) justified. The biggest problem is that it does nothing
>>>with regard to the urgent, vital and painful changes that need to be
>>>made TODAY (not in the multi-decade timescale used by most space
>>>projects). In fact, worse than that, it has a *negative* effect as
>>>it generates a lot of gee-whiz publicity, takes all manner of resources
>>>out of the pool for other action and allows the ostriches to happily
>>>replace their heads in the sand, shutting out those voices who are
>>>warning about the coming catastrophe.

And if Hatrack hadn't been so obstinant, instead posting as you have above we wouldn't be having this exchange. It's one thing disagree as you have, it's another to post what Hatrack did.

Aside, the group of scientists that originated the current effort had started around 2000 and had hoped to have the first one up by 2010. They were serious, not gee-whizzing. Obviously, that isn't going to happen, but not because it's impossible or infeasible. They thought they could build it for $10 billion, but couldn't find enough investors to jump on board this unproven technology (round and round we go...) and then you have the Bush Administration and its Reverse Midas Touch: Everything they touch turns to shit ... and everything that shit touches likewise turns to shit. *Cough* Anyway, the variants of the current project can be operable with just the initial cable - additional cables threaded along the first just improve it - so once the production of carbon nanotubes improves (again, plants already exist and are producing) they can get this off the drawing board. I'm not sure what their revised time frame is, but I doubt it's going to take until mid-century. I would think before 2020 since the LiftGroup already has an operational plant in New Jersey. What I was trying to get at, but I guess wasn't clear, was that having space elevators provides at least one longterm solution to some problems we currently have: They allow us to get to space without dumping ginormous amounts of rocket exhaust into the air (greenhouse gases as we've established) and with easier, cheaper access to space comes the ability to begin moving mining and manufacturing operations off-world, where there's nil risk of polluting Earth's biosphere and changing its climate. Space elevators provide a critical transportation infrastructure in order to move materials between Earth and wherever on the cheap. Launches are expensive, both economically and environmentally, so relying on the space shuttle program or any number of independent rocket programs (single-use or reusable) would be prohibitively expensive on both counts. Space elevators aren't relaunched every time we need to use them and they get their power from whatever source is available (doesn't have to be fossil fuels). Think of them as a bridge built across a river to replace ferries chugging to and fro. To maintain the integrity of the analogy, think it a pedestrian/bicycle bridge, not a spontaneous parking lot filled with idling cars and trucks...

Again, you and I are disagreeing and that's fine. Hatrack was doing something else.

>>>No idea - there's no way to tell if one is on ignore - so your guess
>>>is as good as mine. On the other hand, I *have* had posts deleted for
>>>daring to point out inconvenient facts to people in a less than tactful
>>>manner. Normally this prompts me to rewrite the comment in a more
>>>diplomatic post but sometimes (like last night) I get tired of "tact".

You should introduce your friend Hatrack to this "tact" concept. It'll help him whenever he finds the time in the day to venture outside the E/E forum... ;)

Goodnight. :hi:

[The Traveler]

51. Low probability of success

Biological systems have long served as a major component of the planet's temperature regulation system. it's thrmostat if you will. I think it was Lovelock who first showed that biological diversity contributed to system stability. Part of the problem here is that these biological systems are collapsing, both in terms of number of species and in terms of population. One of the effects of establishing a global, high technology civilization has been uncontrolled deforestation. Anyway, it is pretty clear that because of this the planet's ability to adjust to changes in solar input and atmospheric chemical composition have been impaired.

Additionally, it is looking like positive feed back loops have been triggered. A good example of one of these has been reported by the Russians. Melting of the Siberian permafrost is causing the underlying bog to outgas methane. Russian scientists estimate that at least 100,000 tons of methane are being replaced each day, and expect this rate to accelerate. Since methane is 20 times more effective at trapping heat than C02, this might make control of industrial greenhouse gas emissions moot. That is just one of the known positive feedback loops and it is unlikely that we have identified them all as of yet.

The above just serves to set up my point. The earth is a complex system under stress and rapid change. One cannot control a system through change of input variable unless one is able to measure the change in output variables and use those measurements to establish a control signal. Those measurements have to happen in a timely fashion. It's been a while since I've studied control theory but I believe you have to measure at twice the rate of change (Nyquist limit) in order to determine the output signal reliably. Well, we can't even develop one measurement of the outputs that everyone agrees upon.

In brief, we may be able to launch mirrors and dust and such ... but that doesn't mean we will know how to adjust the mirrors or how much dust to launch in order to produce the desired effect.

We're a long way from being able to successfully pull off planetary engineering on the scale implied by this proposal. Climate change is happening. It is happening faster than predicted. It is probably too late to stop it or even slow it down. I am wondering if what we call civilization can survive the implications. Perhaps a ring of solar mirrors pointing aimlessly into space would make a fitting monument to Cheney and the robber barons. (Hey, that would make a good band name ... "Cheney and the Robber Barons".)

[fNord]

2. Smoke and mirrors?.......

I think their Freudian slip is showing

:wtf:

[melnjones]

3. Why do we suck so much? nt

[motocicleta]

4. Here's a good idea:

Let's drop some nukes on Iran and let the bombs blow dust in the air to slow down climate change.

Am I the only one to go through this chain of thoughts on a regular basis? Am I paranoid or channeling crashcart Cheney? You be the judge.

[RC]

6. By yimminy I think ya got somethin' thar.

bu$h & cheney were working with us all along. :sarcasm:

[uppityperson]

23. Glad to see that I am not the only 1 who thought this.

My first line of thought was that.

[lumberjack_jeff]

31. Yup. It'll be a nuclear "autumn". n/t

[daleo]

7. It's a mad plan

It isn't smart to play with the whole planet's biosphere like this. God only knows how many ways this could go wrong. Just proposing it is stupid.

Earth has its own thermostat, if we would just leave it alone.

[Junkdrawer]

8. We killed 650,000+ people to get at that oil....It's worth 100s of $trillions...

Any hair-brained scheme that lets Big Oil continue to rule will be tried...

[lovuian]

10. Forget about decreasing consumption

let the scientists put giant Mirrors up

or pollute the air even more

George your pathetic

[daleo]

11. It's like someone who is putting on too much weight

But he wants to keep eating as much as he likes, so he takes speed to keep his weight down. Or a bulimic, who binges and purges. It's unhealthy and absurd.

[0rganism]

12. It's a flawless plan! What could possibly go wrong?

:scared:

[stubtoe]

38. No way in hell we could screw this up!

:scared:

[Az_lefty]

13. Calling Dr. Who...

[Paulie]

14. What an great choice!

Isn't that the episode where the Earth is destroyed? :)

[struggle4progress]

15. "We're gonna treat sunlight like the illegal alien it is"

[neverforget]

16. With the sun-blocker in place and the town aghast, I was on top of the world.

Mr. Burns from "Who shot Mr. Burns Pt 2"

Is satire going to become reality????? I guess if some "create their own reality"........

[rodeodance]

17. look here------they say what the US based its assessment on!

Scientists have previously estimated that reflecting less than 1% of sunlight back into space could compensate for the warming generated by all greenhouse gases emitted since the industrial revolution. Possible techniques include putting a giant screen into orbit, thousands of tiny, shiny balloons, or microscopic sulphate droplets pumped into the high atmosphere to mimic the cooling effects of a volcanic eruption. The IPCC draft said such ideas were "speculative, uncosted and with potential unknown side-effects".

The US submission is based on the views of dozens of government officials and is accompanied by a letter signed by Harlan Watson, senior climate negotiator at the US state department. It complains the IPCC draft report is "Kyoto-centric" and it wants to include the work of economists who have reported "the degree to which the Kyoto framework is found wanting". It takes issue with a statement that "one weakness of the protocol, however, is its non-ratificiation by some significant greenhouse gas emitters" and asks: "Is this the only weakness worth mentioning? Are there others?"

[cosmicdot]

28. Harlan Watson

Dr. 'No'


http://www.state.gov/g/oes/rls/12218.htm official bio

"Watson's value to the Bush administration would presumably be the same as John Bolton's over at the United Nations: He just says no, and tries to scuttle the very talks he's supposed to be 'negotiating'."

http://www.emagazine.com/view/?2989


"...the Bush administration removed Robert Watson as chair of the IPCC at ExxonMobil's insistance. Angered by Watson's criticisms of US inaction on the climate, the oil major sent a memo to the White House asking the President to withdraw support for Watson. (The memo was unearthed by the Natural Resources Defense Council through a series of Freedom of Information requests). As a result, Watson was ousted. The same memo recommended that the White House appoint Republican Congressional staffer Harlan Watson (no relation) to the Bush climate team. Shortly after appointment, Harlan Watson announced the us would not engage the Kyoto process for 10 years."
http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?id=7410

Harlan Watson campaign contributions
http://www.newsmeat.com/fec/bystate_detail.php?st=MD&last=Watson&first=Harlan

Watsy, You’re Doing a Heck of a Job!
http://itsgettinghotinhere.org/116


In the picture to the left, Dr. Watson has his arm around Marlo Lewis from the Competitive Enterprises Institute, a conservative DC think tank that has been at the center of the global warming misinformation campaign in the U.S. They’re celebrating CEI’s 9th annual dinner, probably with some of the $1,645,000 they’ve received from Exxon corporations since 1998.

Harlan Watson quotes:

“With regard to what the United States is doing on climate change, the actions we have taken are next to none in the world...”

“We're going to resist it, obviously.”

“A targets and timetables approach will not work for us.”

“We are working hard on some of the advanced technologies ... but the development and deployment of technology does not fit with rigid targets and timetables.”

“There are many, many different ideas. People are not yet ready to move ahead under the convention. The Kyoto (members) though, ought to be able to move ahead under the protocol.”

“One can argue whether it's slowing down fast enough, but it is slowing down. We're doing better than business as usual. That's the president's goal.”

“The United States is opposed to any such discussions.”

“There's a difference between climate and extreme weather, ... Our scientists continually tell us we cannot blame any single extreme event, attribute that to climate change.”

http://thinkexist.com/quotes/harlan_watson/

[Vinca]

19. Now I've heard it all - a giant hepa filter for the planet. nt

[Lorien]

26. We used to have one of those

it was called the Amazon rain forest.

[Delphinus]

32. Lorien,

those pictures just break my heart.

Back to the original post, these hare-brained (or hair-brained, don't know which one is correct) schemes just make me shake my head. Sometimes I think - no, I know - we really deserve our fate.

[AnOhioan]

35. Great response....

[DRoseDARs]

43. It's like the Brazillians have never heard of "planting trees" or "crop rotation"...

...concepts that have been around for centuries. :shrug:

[dbt]

20. So here's what we do:

We send up a big-ass fleet of jet planes that puff out trails of chemicals that expand and hang in the air, producing artificial cirrus clouds to reflect that one per cent of sunlight that Edward Teller says is necessary to stave off global warming.

THEN, we send out a horde of trolls to jump on anyone who dares to question all them lingering "contrails" in the sky, beating them severely about their :tinfoilhat: with SCIENCE and the assertion that we cannot possibly be seeing what we are seeing.

Yeah, that's it. THAT's the ticket!

:evilgrin:
dbt
Remember New Orleans

[arikara]

27. Frustrating, isn't it...

A lovely blue sky day here today, the first in months and the silent white jets are messing it up. But they are only contrails. Water vapor.

[MrPrax]

21. Sure it will work...

Worked for Mr. Burns!!

[Uncle Joe]

22. Maybe some giant Earth Sunglasses like the ones Neo wore in the Matrix,

we could be fashionable at the same time.

[dysfunctional press]

24. why not try just a dash of nuc-u-lar winter...?

we'll start with iran and north korea, and see how it goes from there.

[muriel_volestrangler]

25. Bush follows in the footsteps of the greats

Specifically, Futurama:

Wernstrom: Ladies and gentlemen, I have placed in orbit a giant mirror that will reflect 40% of the sun's rays, thus cooling Earth. Observe.

(He presses a button and the roof opens up. The audience shield their eyes from the sunlight. Fry pants.)

(Scene: The mirror moves in space and reflects the rays.)

(Cut to: Conference Centre. The room falls into shadow and Wernstrom dusts off his hands.)

Wernstrom: Problem solved.

(He laughs.)

(Scene: A piece of debris hits the mirror. It starts to spin and reflects more sunlight onto the Earth in a concentrated beam.)

(Cut to: City Street. A man shields his eyes.)

Man: Ooh! That's a little bright.

(The sunlight scorches the street and incinerates the man.)

(Cut to: Conference Centre. The sunbeam cuts through the building. The audience run around panicking. Gore continues talking.)

Gore: Alright, what else we got?

Thanks to Chicken Yoghurt.

[NashVegas]

29. Chemtrails, Baby

We're already doing it. Not very effective, is it?

[ohio2007]

33. Sounds like a space based weapon to me.

But whoever lands the contract to build such a solar away, congrat$

[Raydawg1234]

40. yeah I bet you Bush is just dying to burn liberals with a magnifying glass!

[Phoonzang]

36. Well it is a last ditch proposal...

Despite all the happy talk and optimism, there is the very real possibility that we won't be able to reduce WORLDWIDE emissions enough to halt global warming before....well...watch Gore's movie. So if we can't and things are getting worse and worse, maybe in a decade or two (I'm being optimistic myself with that estimate) we might have to consider "nutty" ideas like this.

Or just rely on government and corporate integrity. Hope that they'll stop debating and actually DO something before it's too late. Oh, and hope that China, India, and the rest of the developing world follow suit. Now THAT'S giggle-worthy.

[jbnow]

46. It might be worth looking at but

the problem is that it is not currently being presented as a last ditch attempt to halt warming if our reductions fail. It is being presented to replace our need to do so.

From the article we are also pressuring to steer the UN report, prepared by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), away from conclusions that would support a new worldwide climate treaty based on binding targets to reduce emissions - as sought by Tony Blair. It has demanded a draft of the report be changed to emphasise the benefits of voluntary agreements and to include criticisms of the Kyoto Protocol

[Courtesy Flush]

45. Yes, let's reflect the heat out

That's amazing. Translation: "Let's find ways to keep polluting."

I see this theme over and over in modern society. "Let's find ways to mitigate the consequences of our reckless behavior".

Never "Let's stop our reckless behavior".

[Swagman]

50. should I laugh or cry ???

[Lilith Velkor]

52. Yes.

:rofl: :cry:

And welcome to DU :toast: