Slashdot Mirror
The Royal Society Proposes First Framework For Climate Engineering Experiments
Jason Koebler writes The Royal Society of London, the world's oldest scientific publisher, has unveiled a proposal to create the first serious framework for future geoengineering experiments. It's a sign that what are still considered drastic and risky measures to combat climate change are drifting further into the purview of mainstream science. The scientific body has issued a call to create "an open and transparent review process that ensures such experiments have the necessary social license to operate."
You mean like no warming in 17.5 years? That kind of evidence that your side ignores and name calls people who point it out?
To me its the supporters of AGW that need to provide a SHRED of evidence. They make models that show doom, and don't match up with reality. Then they redo the models to match the previous few years and again show doom. They have yet to create a SINGLE model in advance that matches reality.
Sorry you don't understand this and believe their lies while calling those who tell the truth liars.
You can increase algae to absorb CO2, but having more algae is not a good thing - it creates toxic environments that kill other types of life
So algae is not a pure, unalloyed good. Still doesn't mean that there's anything seriously wrong with creating algae blooms in certain areas in order to consume and sequester CO2.
The CO2 problem is a huge problem we've created that both environmentalists and anti-environmentalists usually vastly underestimate.
Where's the evidence of this vast underestimate?
Otherwise known as "groupthink", motivated in large part by the huge amounts of tax-payer's cash available for their institutions. I think if we learned anything from the "climategate" emails, if it's not an outright fraud, it's certainly motivated a lot of questionable behaviour.
The vast bulk of publication on this issue in the literature is a pile of stinking bilge. I can think of a few sceptics who get published, such as Curry, Lindzen, Spencer, Pielke, but they are a few out of thousands of researchers on the AGW gravy train, whose careers, tenure and professorships are directly linked to their ability to suck research funds out of government for their institutions.
Oh I see. Your opinion on whether or not someone is a crackpot affects whether or not they get their ideas published, does it? Can you not spot a very small (i.e. the size of Jupiter) hole in the process, right there? Pal-review is not a guarantee of general correctness. It's a guarantee of political correctness.