but all they have done is export it to other countries
[Citation needed].
The problem is who is going to fund china, india and the hundreds of poor countries that are resource rich and cash poor that will over the next 50 years go down the exact same route.
Those who have benefited from CO2 output when it was "free", that is, when the "poor countries" were resource sources. Today they are repeating by necessity the same route that the "advanced" countries had, because poor countries are denied the right to nuclear research, they are denied access to technology because of "intellectual property" laws and so on. It is almost as if those who have profited want to keep the profit and offload the costs to the victims.
This is the real problem.
Basically the US,EU, Russia
WTF has Russia to do with it? 75% of the accumulated CO2 is from the US and the 12 EU countries, Japan being a distant third.
In the mean time we should do anything sane that can help slow the process.
Which process? The process you need to care about is accumulation of CO2, spraying salty water in the air has nothing to do with it. Where's the funding for sequestration and separation research by the "rich" countries?
If you choose to argue for the sake of argument without any actual technology, you're arguing that "magic" or "thoughts and prayers" work. That is you're wasting your breath.
Yes, and it is not very hard. The staunchest proponents organize in bodies called political parties and those political parties have propaganda and policies. In fact, they poll themselves for me. Guess which party is most vocal about "responsibility" and against the science of climate change?
You're welcome for your dislike for the facts, but they are such as they are.
By all means, tell us how you really feel, but I don't see the connection between your comment and the one you reply to.
It is pretty hard not to notice that the US is and has been staunchly opposed to any global CO2 reduction policy, and that their attitude has been adopted by many other nation states, which find the precedent convenient. I'm sorry if you don't like facts, but your dislike for them ain't going to change them.
The point is that it is much better to not emit in the first place, than to try cooling by other means to offset.
Well, thanks for agreeing with my original point, then. But since we've already emitted a lot, it is better we stop and consider how to remove it rather than try other, even more nefarious schemes.
No, this bullshit "addresses" the completely unrelated issue of the total incident radiation. The increasing global temperatures are not increasing because of the incident radiation, it is quite constant. Therefore this is a non-solution. This crap proposes that we further modify an already untenable situation in the hope that two wrongs will make right, without any serious study of the consequences.
But the sales pitch makes this sound to the less educated bunch like a silver bullet for a low, low price, so we may see a lot of support for this and similar bullshit by everyone who is profiting from the CO2 emissions, because by using surrogates to divert attention from the real issues, they get to keep their political power.
In the West only the US - the largest cumulative emitter of CO2 in the world - is opposed to comprehensive CO2 reduction policies. The EU has managed a significant decrease over the last two decades, and is going on with more efforts in the next two decades. Even China is on board with reduction measures.
There is absolutely no need for risky "geoengineering" bullshit, when there are proven CO2 reduction strategies that work.
I live in the European Union, where the policies of reduction, which I support, have lowered the CO2 emissions by more than 20 percentage points since the early 1990s. The US, on the other hand, has seen no reduction of CO2 in that time. It is therefore a fact that reduction of CO2 emissions is both a possible and affordable course of action. That is, you're lying.
Only greed and obstinacy prevent similar policies from working elsewhere in the developed world.
There is no evidence of any other ill effects of CO2 emission than increased greenhouse effect.
That you don't know something doesn't mean it isn't there.
any effort to counter the CO2 greenhouse increase is not going to cancel it out evenly across the globe, and across the seasons.
So what? CO2 distribution isn't uniform and has never been. The effects of increase of CO2 are also not uniform. That doesn't make removing CO2 any less important, and one reason is that increasing warming has a lot more potential for creating conflicts than removing CO2, your made-up scenarios with no basis in fact or science notwidthstanding.
It is very funny how the staunchest proponents of "capitalism" and "personal responsibility" start screaming "Marxism" whenever personal responsibility means they have to actually pony up for their own mess.
It is also funny how they blabber about "world ending crap that never happened" and drop in the "ozone hole" or the risks of nuclear war or acidic rain, all of which are real and were removed or significantly reduced by policy.
It is even funnier how they mix up real problems (like water shortage, hunger) with bullshit in the hope that the real problems will somehow stop to be real because of that.
The level of stupidity, willful ignorance and lack of concern for anything but your own lardy ass is unbelievable. You are truly what you shit.
for the thing that needs to be done - which is actually reducing the CO2 output.
Why? Because it will not address the issue, and will add further stress to the biosphere, the thing that we're allegedly worried about.
We only recently had that story about another space cadet and their rig that was supposed to "clean" the oceans of plastic garbage, which proceeded to become plastic garbage instead.
So, nope, how about we address the real issue, and have the solution paid for by the people who have profited most from it.
It is not much different in the US. . The owners of the large corporations set the government agenda and policies, and the public at large has no influence over it.
Sadly, in today's world it is "educate instead of shaming, and you'll be swiftly ignored". With people like Betsy DeVille setting the standards for public education in the developed world (oh, yes, the US does, unfortunately, still have a lot of influence) education means nothing.
Today advertising rules, and modern society is a fucking popularity contest. The only result that matters is the polls, and these cater to the average.
Slashdot Mirror
Maybe it is time to stop hand wringing then. I'm carbon neutral, where do you stand?
but all they have done is export it to other countries
[Citation needed].
The problem is who is going to fund china, india and the hundreds of poor countries that are resource rich and cash poor that will over the next 50 years go down the exact same route.
Those who have benefited from CO2 output when it was "free", that is, when the "poor countries" were resource sources. Today they are repeating by necessity the same route that the "advanced" countries had, because poor countries are denied the right to nuclear research, they are denied access to technology because of "intellectual property" laws and so on. It is almost as if those who have profited want to keep the profit and offload the costs to the victims.
This is the real problem.
Basically the US,EU, Russia
WTF has Russia to do with it? 75% of the accumulated CO2 is from the US and the 12 EU countries, Japan being a distant third.
In the mean time we should do anything sane that can help slow the process.
Which process? The process you need to care about is accumulation of CO2, spraying salty water in the air has nothing to do with it. Where's the funding for sequestration and separation research by the "rich" countries?
Yeah, there is a "bit of a debate", and the side that makes the claim is a bit of a cheat.
https://www.washingtonpost.com...
If you choose to argue for the sake of argument without any actual technology, you're arguing that "magic" or "thoughts and prayers" work. That is you're wasting your breath.
Yes, and it is not very hard. The staunchest proponents organize in bodies called political parties and those political parties have propaganda and policies. In fact, they poll themselves for me. Guess which party is most vocal about "responsibility" and against the science of climate change?
You're welcome for your dislike for the facts, but they are such as they are.
By all means, tell us how you really feel, but I don't see the connection between your comment and the one you reply to.
It is pretty hard not to notice that the US is and has been staunchly opposed to any global CO2 reduction policy, and that their attitude has been adopted by many other nation states, which find the precedent convenient. I'm sorry if you don't like facts, but your dislike for them ain't going to change them.
Unfortunately 20% is next to nothing...
Yet it is a lot better than nothing at all.
what happened outside the developed world since the nineties:
They copied the irresponsible US stance on the issue one to one. Thank the US for the "leadership".
The point is that it is much better to not emit in the first place, than to try cooling by other means to offset.
Well, thanks for agreeing with my original point, then. But since we've already emitted a lot, it is better we stop and consider how to remove it rather than try other, even more nefarious schemes.
No, this bullshit "addresses" the completely unrelated issue of the total incident radiation. The increasing global temperatures are not increasing because of the incident radiation, it is quite constant. Therefore this is a non-solution. This crap proposes that we further modify an already untenable situation in the hope that two wrongs will make right, without any serious study of the consequences.
But the sales pitch makes this sound to the less educated bunch like a silver bullet for a low, low price, so we may see a lot of support for this and similar bullshit by everyone who is profiting from the CO2 emissions, because by using surrogates to divert attention from the real issues, they get to keep their political power.
In the West only the US - the largest cumulative emitter of CO2 in the world - is opposed to comprehensive CO2 reduction policies. The EU has managed a significant decrease over the last two decades, and is going on with more efforts in the next two decades. Even China is on board with reduction measures.
There is absolutely no need for risky "geoengineering" bullshit, when there are proven CO2 reduction strategies that work.
I live in the European Union, where the policies of reduction, which I support, have lowered the CO2 emissions by more than 20 percentage points since the early 1990s. The US, on the other hand, has seen no reduction of CO2 in that time. It is therefore a fact that reduction of CO2 emissions is both a possible and affordable course of action. That is, you're lying.
Only greed and obstinacy prevent similar policies from working elsewhere in the developed world.
everything that can be done should be done.
Yep, let's, as someone suggested upstairs, start a nuclear war in the hope of a nuclear winter.
reducing CO2 to acceptable levels will take decades
We've had warning for decades. People like you helped block any action. Thanks.
something needs to be done to reverse/mitigate those effects.
Yes, please. Make CO2 emissions costly.
Your approach is stick your head in the sand and pray for salvation that will never come.
Yeah? You positive? What facts do you base this conclusion on?
There is no evidence of any other ill effects of CO2 emission than increased greenhouse effect.
That you don't know something doesn't mean it isn't there.
any effort to counter the CO2 greenhouse increase is not going to cancel it out evenly across the globe, and across the seasons.
So what? CO2 distribution isn't uniform and has never been. The effects of increase of CO2 are also not uniform. That doesn't make removing CO2 any less important, and one reason is that increasing warming has a lot more potential for creating conflicts than removing CO2, your made-up scenarios with no basis in fact or science notwidthstanding.
It is very funny how the staunchest proponents of "capitalism" and "personal responsibility" start screaming "Marxism" whenever personal responsibility means they have to actually pony up for their own mess.
It is also funny how they blabber about "world ending crap that never happened" and drop in the "ozone hole" or the risks of nuclear war or acidic rain, all of which are real and were removed or significantly reduced by policy.
It is even funnier how they mix up real problems (like water shortage, hunger) with bullshit in the hope that the real problems will somehow stop to be real because of that.
The level of stupidity, willful ignorance and lack of concern for anything but your own lardy ass is unbelievable. You are truly what you shit.
for the thing that needs to be done - which is actually reducing the CO2 output.
Why? Because it will not address the issue, and will add further stress to the biosphere, the thing that we're allegedly worried about.
We only recently had that story about another space cadet and their rig that was supposed to "clean" the oceans of plastic garbage, which proceeded to become plastic garbage instead.
So, nope, how about we address the real issue, and have the solution paid for by the people who have profited most from it.
It is not much different in the US. . The owners of the large corporations set the government agenda and policies, and the public at large has no influence over it.
LOL, I am not making an argument, but a statement of fact. It is sort of funny that you use those big words and have no clue what they mean.
Well, there wasn't a whole lot to blow to begin with.
Well, correlation is not causation. More likely than not, it was the good-honest, conservative patriotic pollution that caused the hippies.
C'mon, the username fits the story very nicely.
Sadly, in today's world it is "educate instead of shaming, and you'll be swiftly ignored". With people like Betsy DeVille setting the standards for public education in the developed world (oh, yes, the US does, unfortunately, still have a lot of influence) education means nothing.
Today advertising rules, and modern society is a fucking popularity contest. The only result that matters is the polls, and these cater to the average.
And the average is abysmally stupid.
Yes, the so-called "intellectual property" system is completely broken. News at 11.
That would only work if you can erase the application completely. Somehow I doubt that is the case.
does the patent give enough information for others to reproduce the result he claims?
That one is clear enough - no.
Don't be silly, everyone on Slashdot has PhDs in at least three "STEM" fields, 20+ patents, at least 8 figures in assets and speaks 5+ languages.
Ah, and a wife and a mistress or two who are successful fashion models.