Study: Geoengineering by coalition would work where a climate treaty has failed

“… countries that aren’t included in the coalition would actually want to join so that they could move the thermostat, so to speak, in the direction that better suits their interests.”

Read the media release.

6 thoughts on “Study: Geoengineering by coalition would work where a climate treaty has failed”

  1. We’ve been geoengineering the climate since the first farmer plowed the first furrow. Land use decisions have affected climate for millenia. These are micro effects for the most part, but what we’re talking about in this context are macro efforts across large areas with indeterminable effects. How long before a nation or two decides this is a form of warfate inimical to their own interests. Wars have started over less.

  2. I don’t believe they can cause a climate catastrophe no matter how hard they try, but we need to stop them simply because it’s not good to have so may idiots on the loose. They are already causing a financial distress.

  3. Paul: And we should do it fast. With UNEP, WWF,Greenpeace and similar groups seizing power we are soon in deep ****.

  4. “Move the thermostat, so to speak…” To what? We have no clear data about what the Earth’s “optimum” temperature would be or even a definition of what “optimum” would mean. We do know that every spot on the globe experiences seasonal changes much larger than anything expected by the most absurd global warming models, usually daily changes much larger than that.
    Changes in the earth’s overall atmosphere would have some effect on climate, weather, and the biosphere. Before we attempt to geo-engineer, we need to have the technology to affect the overall temp, the means to measure it, and a practical parameter for determining if the earth’s climate is moving in a way that is “overall” better or worse.
    Al Gore’s and James Hansen’s “consensus” don’t count.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.