Skip to comments.
How to Cool the Globe
NY Times ^
| October 24, 2007
| KEN CALDEIRA
Posted on 10/24/2007 8:44:33 PM PDT by neverdem
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80, 81-96 next last
To: neverdem
SIMPLE SOLUTION TO GLOBAL WARMING:
NUCLEAR ENERGY. LOTS OF IT.
21
posted on
10/24/2007 9:28:23 PM PDT
by
WOSG
(I just wish freepers would bash Democrats as much as they bash Republicans)
To: neverdem
I know lets stop giving paper bags at stores and switch to plastic. That will save the trees. Then we can sink a whole bunch of old tires into the ocean and it will form a new coral reef. Then we stop controlled burns because that just pollutes the environment and kills plants.
Yes envirowacko ideas work all the time.
22
posted on
10/24/2007 9:29:53 PM PDT
by
Domandred
(Eagles soar, but unfortunately weasels never get sucked into jet engines)
To: neverdem
23
posted on
10/24/2007 9:32:35 PM PDT
by
rawcatslyentist
(Hey Jessie, how much melanin do you have to have to form a socially acceptable lynch mob?)
To: neverdem
Mount Pinatubo, a volcano in the Philippines that erupted in 1991, showed how it works... and they interfere - then another Volcano lets loose and we're plunged into a 2-3 year ice age of failed crops etc...
Leave things be! The earth - and the sun, which has the most effect of what happens down here - has been adjusting and readjusting for millions of years - cycles within cycles - and doing a far better job that man does at anything...especially government.
Government screws up everything it touches - these nuts have to be corralled
24
posted on
10/24/2007 9:40:31 PM PDT
by
maine-iac7
("...but you can't fool all of the people all of the time" LINCOLN)
To: Nachoman
Yes, your eyesight and reading comprehension test out A OK.
The solution is pollution.
25
posted on
10/24/2007 9:40:45 PM PDT
by
TigersEye
(This is the age of the death of reason.)
To: neverdem
We would need to ‘cool’ the Earth if we could determine what the actual temperature of Earth was supposed to be.
I’m sure somewhere Nostradamus or Da Vinci or De Sade wrote down the exact ideal temperature of the entire Earth and we’ll only need to adjust it to get back to that point.
I sure hope it wasn’t the perfect temperature back in the 1600s because it was really, really hot back then.
26
posted on
10/24/2007 9:52:33 PM PDT
by
bpjam
(Harry Reid doesn't even have 32% of my approval)
To: Cicero
Do we really want to toss a bunch of stuff into the stratosphere and then find out a few years down the line that, oops, we really screwed up and its getting very cold?
-
there’s a part of me that says “better to get a bit too cold than continue to let Al gore push new taxes to screw the economy forever.” I mean, just end the issue now and say goodbye to gore.
27
posted on
10/24/2007 9:55:57 PM PDT
by
ari-freedom
(I am for traditional moral values, a strong national defense, and free markets.)
To: neverdem
This is not to say that we should give up trying to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Ninety-nine percent of the $3 billion federal Climate Change Technology Program should still go toward developing climate-friendly energy systems.
-
why???????? why if you admit it won’t make a dent?
Because. Must. Worship. Gore.
Must. Screw. Economy.
Om.
28
posted on
10/24/2007 9:59:31 PM PDT
by
ari-freedom
(I am for traditional moral values, a strong national defense, and free markets.)
To: WOSG
But that would cause another Ice Age.
/sigh
29
posted on
10/24/2007 10:04:09 PM PDT
by
MaxMax
(God Bless America)
To: neverdem
Save the environment,
kill an environmentalist.
30
posted on
10/24/2007 10:14:20 PM PDT
by
TheDon
(The DemocRAT party is the party of TREASON! Overthrow the terrorist's congress!)
To: neverdem
And we’re taking the sulfer out of diesel.
31
posted on
10/24/2007 10:18:03 PM PDT
by
the_daug
To: neverdem
it looks as if we are not going to reduce emissions of carbon dioxide anytime soon. The amount in the atmosphere today exceeds the most pessimistic forecasts made just a few years ago, and it is increasing faster than anybody had foreseen. And yet the most accurate data shows that the Earth hasn't warmed since 1998.
If carbon dioxide has driven and caused the past warming and it's "increasing faster than anybody had foreseen" why aren't we in the midst of runaway global warming?
Just one of several thousand things the global warming religion can't explain.
32
posted on
10/24/2007 10:27:44 PM PDT
by
RJL
To: NurdlyPeon
I get the impression that the author is serious.
Or insane.
Why does it have to be one or the other. Why not both?
Seriously insane?
33
posted on
10/24/2007 10:44:25 PM PDT
by
FreedomOfExpression
(Dime: a dollar with all the taxes taken out.)
To: BerniesFriend
I thought the snip of the article when it said, "One idea is to counteract warming by tossing..."
My first thought was, 'Let me guess this idiot is going to want us to start tossing ice into the ocean to cool it off.'
To: neverdem
How is it that if a environmentalist-minded scientist comes up with an idea to dump crud in the skies, it's hearlded as wisdom, but if we so much as belch, it's contributing to global warming? Didn't the fathers of these same scientists warn us of a coming ice age? So now we should let these guys take a crack at permanently wrecking the planet? I think not.
Here, I'll put on my own mad scientist hat, here's my cure to global warming:
A Cure To Global Warming
Place all the nuclear weapons on the planet at a central location near the equator. I'll let the politicians squabble on the specific location. When the Earth's rotation is such that the weapons are in direct alignment with the sun, detonate them. The tremendous force will push Earth out of it's current orbit, resulting in a new orbit further from the sun. Hopefully the location isn't too far away. If it's a bit too far away we can always toss out the Kyoto protocol and rewarm the atmosphere enough the good old-fashioned way.
To: neverdem
36
posted on
10/24/2007 11:05:02 PM PDT
by
Dumpster Baby
("Hope somebody finds me before the rats do .....")
To: neverdem
So here's a nutjob complaining about unproven unintended consequences of a long-established practice of using carbon-based fuels. He wants to counteract such unproven consequences with a "risky scheme" of deliberately messing with our upper atmosphere with marginally predictable benefits and untold potential for negative, uncontrollable unintended consequences.
Conservative analysis that CO2 historically follows, not precedes warming = total heresy and unacceptable climate impacts.
Liberal activist nutjob climate mongering = can't fail - let's do it now - A-OK.
These people are dangerous and insane.
To: neverdem
Ninety-nine percent of the $3 billion federal Climate Change Technology Program should still go toward developing climate-friendly energy systems. But 1 percent of that money could be put toward working out geoengineered climate fixes like sulfate particles in the atmosphere, and developing the understanding we need to ensure that they wouldnt just make matters worse. How about if we just spend the 1%, and save the rest for feeding people who are starving due to ethanol production.
38
posted on
10/25/2007 1:03:02 AM PDT
by
AZLiberty
(President Fred -- I like the sound of it.)
To: NonValueAdded
Holy Acid Rain, Batman, do you think theyve thought this through? I really don't think they have, and this sort of plan sounds VERY dangerous. The liberals are going to get us all killed...and if it isn't terrorists it'll be them throwing junk up into the sky.
39
posted on
10/25/2007 1:06:16 AM PDT
by
highlander_UW
(I don't know what my future holds, but I know Who holds my future)
To: SFConservative; xcamel
Ironically, they’ve already tested the theory of high-altitude particulates causing “global cooling” ......
Measurements of average temepratures in wide areas between 9/11-9/12-9/13 2001 when aircraft were shutdown showed a measureable RISE in earth’s temperatures of about 1/5 of one degree:
Thus, we are ALREADY combatting the 1/2 of one degree global warming by using jet airplanes to artifically cause cooling that opposes the warming. At a profit.
40
posted on
10/25/2007 2:51:22 AM PDT
by
Robert A Cook PE
(I can only donate monthly, but Hillary's ABBCNNBCBS continue to lie every day!)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80, 81-96 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson