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."
A simple cloud already creates winds between the parts in its shade and the parts that aren't... it's obvious that a space-shade would influence the weather.
In addition, a space-shade that can actually influence the weather to such an extent that it counters global warming is one hell of a weapon.
I think that the UN may be on to something... It's easy to say now that it's a lot of fuss about nothing. But imagine how the world would have looked if (first of all the UN had existed in the 1940's and if) the UN had banned nuclear weapons. WWII would have lasted longer. The cold war would have escalated into WWIII pretty soon...
Ok, I am approaching this the wrong way... But you get the point.
if a sunshade were installed installed then global warming could not be used as a tool to control people and governments. I hate to bring up tinfoil hat topics, but sometimes I wonder if the UN has some dishonest ambitions when it comes to the topic of global warming. a centralized system of carbon credits and regulation to limit carbon footprints including mechanisms to enable inspection by some central authority seems like crazy conspiracy stuff, but it also seems plausible to me.
“Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
How many of them (other than Fox) have gone to court to establish that their "news" is meant only for intertainment and is not meant as a guarantee of there being any factual content?
Do a scientific study and you'll find that those others are just as bad as, if not worse than Fox News.
Someone did a study, and found that viewers of Fox News were much more likely to believe things that were factually false independent of the viewers' education level, political alignment, or other media consumed.
All media outlets slant, but there is one that goes above and beyond when it comes to misleading viewers.
Sorry if that goes against your "everything is the same so distinguishing just reveals bias" (aka the "yeah well everyone does it") ideology.
The enemies of Democracy are
1) And orbital sun blocking system is totally reversible, unlike some of the more idiotic suggestions like pumping chemicals into the atmosphere and crossing your fingers while hoping there are no side effects.
2) The fossil fuel thing is a self-solving problem. Believe me, in 40 years or so, it's contribution to global anything will be insignificant, since there won't be enough affordable, positive EROEI liquid or solid hydrocarbons being used as an energy source to matter. We may still be using natural gas, and while it does cause some pollution, it's quite a bit less than either coal or oil.
Please do not read this sig. Thank you.
It is hard not to feel arrogant when you really are intellectually superior to those you are debating.
I am a very socially conservative coworker with whom I have ongoing rational polite debates as to the nature of various political social and economic topics. I enjoy those conversations highly. We are able to disagree without vilifying the other.
But that is the exception to the rule. Most of the things I read from conservatives (and many liberals as well) show them to be ignorant of the facts and unwilling to approach the issues with logic and reason. 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, where the conservatives (especially social conservatives who base their opinions on religion) are willfully ignorant and really make no effort to educate themselves.
As for ratings, Three's Company and the Dukes of Hazard were top rated shows in the 80's, that does not grant them implicit value. Hell WWE Raw gets more viewers than O'Reily. Ratings !=value
You know, I think the combination of science and politics is a lot like the combination of rock music and religion. It makes both worse.
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).
To be fair, though.. they may have been convinced by statements by Democratic leaders about Saddam Hussein's acquisition or possession of weapons of mass destruction, instead of Fox News.