posted on Jan, 29 2007 @ 09:17 AM
i think the point of the article was to show that everything is on the table....
a statement was made that these ideas were just unproven, untested, not hashed out yet 'Options' that might be discussed, as the talks of
solutions gets ramped up.
As for a spaced based screen allowing some polarized light to reach the surface....hey, don't we utilize that principle in our everyday lives right
walk into the outdoor garden section of targets or wall-marts, what you got over your head? what about shade awnings attached to your patio for
nothing unique in principle of providing shade & coolness, its only the location out in space that's odd.
global warming will cause sea levels to rise...........Well, so what!
migrating populations are nothing new,
if groups want to keep living in a location, use "Venice" as a model for adapting to living in a water landscape.
sheeze, if the arguement is that 'we' dont want to radically alter the earth & 'we' want to perserve it, the way it is
Then Why Do 'We' build shelters that essentially divorce us from the environment & forces of nature we live in??
we create seperate & contained bio-spheres that estrange us from nature,
breathe HVAC air, thrive in artifical light, drink waters laced with cryptosporems, etc etc etc....
The nature that the propogandists want to 'save', is kicked out the front door of our habitats and we all complain that we even have to venture out
into the elements at all, wind, rain, sun, temperature, dark of night, are adversaries to this modern culture