Public supports geo-engineering ideas, study suggests

Hi everyone, I was going to let this one go, but the more I thought about letting it go under the radar, the more I thought perhaps it may have some significance, if only to draw attention the the conspiracy aspect.

Anyway, earlier today I came across this article on the BBC news website, which ordinarily I have to be honest and say I don't follow this type of news, largely due to a lack of personal interest (hey I'm being honest).

However I am actually quite disturbed, mainly due to this....

There is strong support among the public in the US, UK and Canada for more research on geo-engineering technology, a study has suggested.

Really ? Because from the limited amount I have been exposed to on this site (Ok granted it is not truely balanced enough/ large enough to be considered a reliable sample), I would have said the opposite would be more likely ?

It directly goes on to say ....

The survey focused on "solar radiation management", which involves reflecting energy from the Sun away from the Earth's surface, and received support from 72% of respondents.

Mmmmm, ok so maybe that is something most would support, after all we have all had the warnings of a possible future Carrington style event.

Of course there are still those who have reservation....

But opponents, such as the EcoNexus NGO, argue that even testing could have harmful impacts, and that questions of ethics and international law need to be answered.

Now I don't know about you lot, and maybe once you read the Link to the article you would all say "Hell yeah, of course we all would support it, and in such a number!" But for me regardless of what the proposed usage was for geo engineering, I would want it to only ever be used as an 11th hour last resort, the kind of option, when there is no option, I'm thinking, yeah things could be a lot worse before we start chemically altering our environment on such a scale, in order to see off something which may happen, but we don't know when, and if it did, well may actually hold some measure of disguisable blessing.

I know there will be many of you who say this is already happening, and I know many of you have strong feeling with regard to this, but my fundamental question to you is....

How much faith do you out in this article as to its accuracy? When I'm fairly sure there is a great number who don't entirely understand what geo egineering means, let alone be able to voice a considered response .

I know that I for one, don't have a clue whatsoever, all I can think of is let the sky be !

reply to post by solargeddon


Public supporting the man-made manipulation/destruction of our planet? Nah, sounds more like manipulated survey results to fit an agenda.

reply to post by CasiusIgnoranze


Yeah, thats what I thought.

Thank you, you have put my point across in a nutshell .

reply to post by solargeddon


And why would we not support geo-engineering? We've been doing it for centuries, with mining. In the future it will be weather control, which would literally be a godsend. Imagine no more floods, no more drought, no more weather related natural disasters!

We need to get our boys working on this, pronto.


Also, a survey isn't evidence of anything, thought I'd put that out there before the nuts come in here saying "oooooooh, public support == government acknowledgement of 'chemstuff'".

They support research, not actually doing it.

Like most people support research into nuclear weapons, but not actually using them.

reply to post by adeclerk


Yeah I see your point, but I quite like the unpredictable nature of weather, keeps me on my toes

I just see the article as geo engineering propagander, in so much as to say hey look how many people support this, I know in reality the figures would be quite different, and that one survey does not equate total support, but it is being banded around as an indicator.

By the way, mining the land, and manipulating the air to me are a bit like chalk and cheese, we need the oxygen levels to breathe

Originally posted by solargeddon
Yeah I see your point, but I quite like the unpredictable nature of weather, keeps me on my toes

I like that too, but keep in mind it wouldn't be used daily. If the weather turned to drought, they would somehow make it rain, as opposed to making weather perfect everywhere all of the time. Currently, we only have the technology to make clouds rain (see: cloud seeding).

Originally posted by solargeddon
I just see the article as geo engineering propagander, in so much as to say hey look how many people support this, I know in reality the figures would be quite different, and that one survey does not equate total support, but it is being banded around as an indicator.

By the way, mining the land, and manipulating the air to me are a bit like chalk and cheese, we need the oxygen levels to breathe

Keep in mind that this forum isn't a sample of people that is very representative of the population, I wouldn't doubt if support was actually that high.

That being said, Uncinus makes a good point.

reply to post by adeclerk


Yep I covered that in my OP

Really ? Because from the limited amount I have been exposed to on this site (Ok granted it is not truely balanced enough/ large enough to be considered a reliable sample), I would have said the opposite would be more likely ?

But still, I think this could all be a bit of a pandora's box type situation, if it isn't managed correctly, i.e there really is no margin for error at all.

Don't get me wrong I like research, and it has its place, however research covers quite a breadth, and can include, but not be limited to experimentation, in order to gain a more rounded understanding, lets just hope that in the quest for research no miscalculations are made.

reply to post by Uncinus


Yeah, and look how that turned out, we researched, and then used nukes

Damn our curiosity !

Humanity already alters the weather - forrestry, farming, cities, pollution all have at least local weather effects just to name to obvious ones.

research into exactly what those effects are, whether they also have significant climate effects, and how other things might affect the weather & climate seems like a damned good idea to me.

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul
Humanity already alters the weather - forrestry, farming, cities, pollution all have at least local weather effects just to name to obvious ones.

research into exactly what those effects are, whether they also have significant climate effects, and how other things might affect the weather & climate seems like a damned good idea to me.

And the laziest way to compensate would be geo-engineering when we should be changing our habits that destroy the environment.

It's the same as an obese person getting ridiculous surgeries instead of dieting.

Originally posted by Cuervo

And the laziest way to compensate would be geo-engineering when we should be changing our habits that destroy the environment.

It's the same as an obese person getting ridiculous surgeries instead of dieting.

A lot of climate scientists think we are already either near or past a point where geoengineering is unavoidable. Even if we stop emitting CO2 then it won't help.

And that irregardless of if you think man-made CO2 has any effect. The problem is the planet is warming, the arctic is melting, releasing methane, which could seriously alter the earth's climate in just a few years.

Methane release is thought to have caused the Permian extinction, in which 70% of all species on earth died.

en.wikipedia.org...

So it's more like an obese person getting emergency surgery instead of dying.

reply to post by Cuervo


And that is actually an argument put forward by David Keith....and then grossly misquoted in "What in the World are they Spraying"

Who did they poll? Scientific Journal readers?

I can honestly say the number of people I know who are aware of geo-engineering is very small. I don't believe the general public has any idea of what its about to be honest. I randomly asked my customers today if they support geo-engineering and 90% of the time I was given blank stares.

Originally posted by FreeSpeaker
Who did they poll? Scientific Journal readers?

I can honestly say the number of people I know who are aware of geo-engineering is very small. I don't believe the general public has any idea of what its about to be honest. I randomly asked my customers today if they support geo-engineering and 90% of the time I was given blank stares.

edit on 24-10-2011 by FreeSpeaker because: (no reason given)

That's pretty much the result they got, actually your customers were a scootch better informed, as the survey got 92% blank stares.

Measured familiarity was higher than expected, with 8% and 45% of the population correctly defining the terms geoengineering and climate engineering respectively.

Tomorrow ask your customers what "climate engineering" is.

The survey goes on to define what they things are, and then ask if they seem like a good idea. I don't think it's an incredibly useful survey, as much can be forced into the description. But it's a start.

We have been geo-engeneering our households for centuries, heating our rooms to fit our comfort needs.
Recently we've been cooling them down in the form of cool air conditioning as well......and in car environments too.

Steam saunas, indoor snow makers....and more.
Technology may reach the the "doable" point to expand these areas to include the outside (atmospheric areas).
........but not without public scrutiny first.....and with environmental considerations well researched among nations.
....which is what is being discussed as possibilities in the future.

....not really "Geo-engineering " per say (my above post), but you can see how most people like to adjust their environment for comfort. So it's not too hard to believe that many are willing to consider true geo-engineering to comfort the earth in some way.
I also think nearly everyone is also concerned not to harm it (or us) in the process.

Originally posted by Uncinus

Tomorrow ask your customers what "climate engineering" is.

Well it seems if I ask about "climate engineering" instead of "geo-engineering" most of the people I asked identified it with cloud seeding. They gave no other examples of geo-engineering beyond cloud seeding though.

Originally posted by FreeSpeaker
Who did they poll? Scientific Journal readers?

I can honestly say the number of people I know who are aware of geo-engineering is very small. I don't believe the general public has any idea of what its about to be honest. I randomly asked my customers today if they support geo-engineering and 90% of the time I was given blank stares.

I just noticed that this old thread existed - I guess chemmies are increasing public awareness.....and the general public actually thinks it is a good idea!! :

anyway - the article itself doesn'' seem to be linked anywhere - so here it is at the BBC

And to answer the question above - the abstract says

We report the results of the first large-scale international survey of public perception of geoengineering and solar radiation management (SRM). Our sample of 3105 individuals in the United States, Canada and the United Kingdom was recruited by survey firms that administer internet surveys to nationally representative population samples. Measured familiarity was higher than expected, with 8% and 45% of the population correctly defining the terms geoengineering and climate engineering respectively. There was strong support for allowing the study of SRM. Support decreased and uncertainty rose as subjects were asked about their support for using SRM immediately, or to stop a climate emergency. Support for SRM is associated with optimism about scientific research, a valuing of SRM's benefits and a stronger belief that SRM is natural, while opposition is associated with an attitude that nature should not be manipulated in this way. The potential risks of SRM are important drivers of public perception with the most salient being damage to the ozone layer and unknown risks. SRM is a new technology and public opinions are just forming; thus all reported results are sensitive to changes in framing, future information on risks and benefits, and changes to context.