Slashdot Mirror
UN May Ban Blotting Out the Sun
Supervillains and Mr. Burns are among those to be most affected by the United Nations' Convention on Biological Diversity decision on space sunshades. Even though organizations like NASA have been looking into them as a possible way to slow climate change, the UN is expected to limit research into the technology or ban it outright. From the article: "The Convention may consider banning or limiting research into space sunshades. Some question their wisdom. A space sunshade would have a rapid effect on global warming and provide time to develop more permanent measures, they say. The technique has already received serious attention from NASA and other organizations. But others, such as the ETC group, an environmental and social advocacy group, fear simply blocking the sun is a bandage, meant to cover up the problem, and allow humans to continue using fossils fuels. Another fear is that geo-engineering, as techniques like this are called, could have unforeseen consequences on the weather, ecosystem and agriculture."
Reflective rooftops have some conceptual similarities, but are somewhat less drastic.
Grammer Nazis - I mod you "troll" unless you actually add something on-topic. Yes, I know I have mispellings in my sig.
By "not on the same order of magnitude," you actually mean "one makes lies that slant toward my ideology and the other slants against it."
Do a scientific study and you'll find that those others are just as bad as, if not worse than Fox News.
the burning of fossil fuels has other issues, and blotting out the sun would only address one of them.
Let's break it down:
CO2 is toxic. Above a certain concentration, CO2 becomes a toxic agent.
Sunlight is needed to safely remove CO2 from the atmosphere (via photosynthesis. Yes, the oceans can absorb a good deal without the sun, but this results in ocean acidification, which leads to biosphere collaspe, which leads to a spiral of death and destruction in the ocean-- resulting in a massive release of CO2 as all those organisms die from toxic water.)
Continuing to release geologically sequestered CO2 reduces the earth's ability to eliminate waste heat into space as infra-red radiation-- EG, it causes global warming.
Attempting to blot out sunlight (energy in) to compensate for the obstruction on energy out of our planet to regulate global temperature would make the current energy crisis look tame; Plants and animals would be dieing left and right from the reduced energy reaching the earth. this would slow the earth;s ability to re-sequester that carbon, and make a bad problem into an even worse one.
The whole "We need to stop burning fossil fuels!" cry from the scientific community (and from your much derided 'greenie weenies') is non-trivial. It's like saying we need to stop dumping toxic waste in landfills, or stop producing biological weapons of mass destruction; the CO2 itself is dangerous. We need to stop INCREASING it's free levels in our atmosphere, if we intend to continue living on this planet.
It has nothing to do with money, or some insane desire for everyone to live in mud huts; It's a desire for everyone to CONTINUE living.
There are people who oppose geoengineering, some of them have good arguments, some of them are worthless pieces of garbage that need to die before they spread their diseases any further.
People with good arguments say things like "we need to think about this a lot more", "a environmental benefit for one nation state may be an act of war for another" and "please, please, for the love of all that's good in the world, don't try anything that's irreversible". You can deal with people like that, study the issues together, strike bargains - and the part about no irreversible large scale prototyping just plain makes sense.
People who need to be removed from serious conversation with a hazmat suit and a chainsaw say things like "it's unnatural", "we need to leave this to God" or, my favourite, "you shouldn't goeengineer because it might work and that would prevent the collapse of western consumer capitalism". That's the people who think we deserve to suffer for knowing too much, asking too many questions or having too much stuff. They think there's something inherently wrong about wealth and technological progress, something that removes us from nature, destroys out humanity or makes us impure. They cannot be reasoned with as the source of these views is usually their own sexual maladjustment. Working with people like that is always about minimizing the damage they cause. I suggest using dynamite - rectally.
(I've been watching a lot of George Carlin lately, in case you were wondering.)
Computers are useless. They can only give you answers - Pablo Picasso
I'm really getting tired of the FNC bashing. The other channels (MSNBC, ABC, CBS, etc) are no better.
Citation needed, because this one shows that as of 2003, 80% of fox news viewers fell for one of three lies the bush administration was pushing (weapons of mass destruction had been found in Iraq, the world liked the US going into Iraq, and Iraq had been giving al-Qaeda support). CBS: 71%, ABC: 61%, NBC or CNN 55%, and NPR 23%.
Only 20% of fox news viewers recognized that they were all false compared to 45% for NBC and CNN, and 77% for NPR.
I realize of course that some of that is probably inherent differences in viewing audience, and CBS or ABC aren't -much- better. And there is, in my opinion, something messed up with every 24 hour cable news channel out there. Still, it's ridiculous to say that all are just as bad as Fox. Fox is a thinly veiled propaganda machine, fueling ignorance, hyperbolic partisan politics, and getting us into wars we shouldn't be. Some of the other guys are simply incompetent.
For God's sake, you can't honestly tell me that the channel which hosts Glen Beck is equal to a channel that doesn't. You're deluded.
CO2 is toxic at about 100 times the current concentration in the atmosphere. I don't think we could reach that atmospheric concentration if we burnt up every bit of fossil fuel on the planet.
No, MSNBC and most of the 'liberal' media have shown time and time again that Fox News is clearly in the tank for the GOP/Tea Party/Conservative/Big Business groups.
Are MSNBC unabashedly liberal? sure, that's not the point. The point is that Fox tailors their coverage and flat out LIES to their audience. My favorite example was when Fox was covering/sponsoring one of the early Tea Parties using Hannity. He is clearly heard off the air asking how many people are in the crowd and is told about 5 thousand. He then goes on air and inflates it straight to almost 25 thousand.
Or the clear misuse of the Glenn Beck rally footage to bolster the Michelle Bachmann 'press conference'/rally. That was *not* just a video editing mistake. It happened again within a couple weeks.
Shall we talk political contributions? When was the last time a 'liberal' mainstream media outlet contributed directly to one side of the political spectrum? Kinda hard to be 'objective' if your owner is personally funding one side.
Shall we talk hyposcrisy? Remember the 'show us the funding' cries about the NYC Muslim Center? Who was that from? Fox and the GOP. Now, they say that asking for funding disclosures is unamerican when related to the Citizens United created groups playing a direct role in our political process.
Sorry, Fox News is *not* a media organization anymore than K Street lobbyists are.
People in cars cause accidents....accidents in cars cause people
They expected military retaliation after this; unfortunately, what they got was "Strategic Bombing" ... no, not just military installations, but CIVILIAN installations. We blew up schools, churches, houses... that's called terrorism today. It pissed them off, too, because attacking non-combatants is an honorless act of cowardice.
I'd suggest reading up on the Japanese bombing of Bombing of Chongqing:
A conservative estimate places the number of bombing runs at more than 5,000, with more than 11,500 bombs dropped, mainly incendiary bombs. The targets were usually residential areas, business areas, schools, hospitals (non-military targets).
Note the beginning date of the bombing campaign, 18 February 1938 (and that the bombings were covered in the U.S. media). In addition, bombings of other cities such as Shanghai and Wuhan took place, but Chongqing was probably the hardest-hit target.
>>>The difference between the ignorant liberals and the ignorant conservatives is that as a general rule the liberals are willing to listen to your idea or opinion and at least consider the validity
That's not the experience of the these Gay Republicans, who have been called everything from "uncle toms" to "nazis". Where is that so-called inclusion liberals espouse?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IEo4JEaBSgo
Two Gay Tea Partiers discuss Marriage and Liberal Bigotry
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
There is much legalese so maybe someone who is well versed in reading legal opinions could comment.
Besides, we did find WMD in Iraq. They were only a few hundred old leftover ones and weren't the massive stockpiles that were were told were endangering everyone, but it is literally true that we found some WMDs. This makes the poll question like those poll questions that ask if witches exist--answering what they said and answering what they meant are very different.