The danger with the AGW belief is they plan to change the earths atmosphere based upon a contested theory....AGW. That is the biggest concern, the lessor ones, which are not quite so small are increased carbon tax, and further pollution in the oceans, with many of these geoengineering experiments.
17.Geo-engineering options, such as ocean fertilization to remove CO2 directly from the atmosphere, or blocking sunlight by bringing material into the upper atmosphere, remain largely speculative and unproven, and with the risk of unknown side-effects.
*The Cato Institute (denialists), whose senior fellow and director of natural resource studies, Jerry Taylor, says that if we end up forced do something about global warming, "geo-engineering is more cost-effective than emissions controls altogether."
*The Heartland Institute (denialists), whose David Schnare now advocates geoengineering as quicker and less costly to the economy than greenhouse gas reductions:
"In addition to being much less expensive than seeking to stem temperature rise solely through the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions, geo-engineering has the benefit of delivering measurable results in a matter of weeks rather than the decades or centuries required for greenhouse gas reductions to take full effect."
*The Hudson Institute (denialists) advocates geoengineering as substitute for reductions:
"Successful geoengineering would permit Earth's population to make far smaller reductions in carbon use and still achieve the same retarding effect on global warming at a lower cost. The cuts in carbon use proposed by international leaders and presidential candidates would have a drastic effect on the economy, especially since substitutes for fossil fuels will be expensive and limited for a number of years."
*The Hoover Institution (denialists) is home to not only to senior fellow Thomas Gale Moore, author of "Climate of Fear: Why We Shouldn't Worry About Global Warming" but also nuclear weapons engineer and original SDI "Star Wars" proponent Lowell Wood. Wood has become an outspoken geoengineering proponent and co-authored a recent WSJ op-ed in which he warns "But beware. Do not try to sell climate geo-engineering to committed enemies of fossil fuels," thus revealing that the point is to be friendly to fossil fuels.
And, of course, denialists' allies in the media and the blogosphere have been quick to take up the call. Conservative columnist (and climate "contrarian") John Tierney thinks geoengineering makes superfluous emissions reductions ("a futile strategy") and wants "a geoengineering fix for global warming," to provide an alternative to the idea that "the only cure [is] to reduce CO2 emissions." Wayne Crews of the denialist site globalwarming.org (a project of the Carbon-Lobby-funded Competitive Enterprise Institute) likes geoengineering strategies as possible "options apart from carbon constraint," while climate treaty opponent and "delayer" Roger Pielke, Jr. finds it encouraging that geoengineering's getting so much buzz.
It would be easy to go on. But the point is obvious: the Carbon Lobby, no longer able to deny the reality of climate change, is hoping to use the idea of geoengineering to undermine political progress towards reducing climate emissions through sensible, intelligent regulations and international treaties. Big Oil, Big Coal and the auto companies want you to believe that reducing emissions is too expensive to work, climate negotiations are too unrealistic to succeed, but we can keep burning fossil fuels anyways because geoengineering gives us a plan B. If you think that, you've been spun.
Deniers on the other hand, refuse to accept evidence that conflicts with their personal beliefs, desires or ideology. People in denial gather reasons and excuses, however flimsy, that allow them to not believe in whatever unwelcome truth they're trying to avoid.
For years, the Elites of the West have cranked up the myth of Man Made Global Warming
as a means first and foremost to control the lives and behaviors of their populations. Knowing
full well that their produce in China and sell in the West model and its consequent spiral
downward in wages and thus standards of living, was unsustainable, the elites moved to use
this new "science" to guilt trip and scare monger their populations into smaller and more
conservatives forms of living. In other words, they coasted them into the poverty that the
greed and treason of those said same elites was already creating in their native lands.
The essential feature of any religion is that its pronouncements are to be accepted
on the basis of faith as opposed to hard evidence. Questioning those pronouncements
makes one a sinner. No one denies that the Earth’s temperature changes. Millions of years
ago, much of our planet was covered by ice, at some places up to a mile thick, a period
some scientists call “Snowball Earth.” Today, the Earth is not covered by a mile of ice;
a safe conclusion is that there must have been a bit of global warming. I don’t know the
cause of that warming, but I’d wager everything I own that it was not caused by
coal-fired electric generation plants, incandescent light bulbs and SUVs tooling
up and down the highways. source article
Now their ridicules manipulated science has been accepted as fact and become a cornerstone issue for CNN, CBS, NBC, the Democratic Political Party, the Governor of California, school teachers and, in many cases, well informed but very gullible environmental conscientious citizens. Only one reporter at ABC has been allowed to counter the Global Warming frenzy with one 15 minutes documentary segment.
Coverage of climate impacts — extreme weather, melting glaciers and Arctic ice, warming temperatures and more —
dominated climate news, accounting for almost one of every three stories written on the topic in 2012.
That is the highest proportion in the five years that the website has been tracking coverage. www.eastbayexpress.com...
ABC, CBS, and NBC — who the groups say don’t focus enough news coverage
on climate change issues and, ....
when they do cover the issue, portray the issue as a “two-sided debate” by featuring climate skeptics.
We already know that the MSM is the Gatekeeper, would could go
a step further and say they they are nearly a state run propaganda outlet.
One of the big threats from the global warming moonbat types is that a rise in temperature
will melt the polar ice caps causing the oceans to rise, with the cataclysmic result of skyscrapers
being under water. Let’s face it, if you think that the commute into Manhattan is bad now…. just wait.
There is only one problem with this scenario, Mother Nature isn’t being cooperative.
First and foremost, our study is not a representative survey. Although our data set is large and diverse enough for our research questions, it cannot be used for generalizations such as “respondents believe …” or “scientists don’t believe …”
In addition, even within the confines of our non-representative data set, the interpretation that a majority of the respondents believe that nature is the primary cause of global warming is simply not correct. To the contrary: the majority believes that humans do have their hands in climate change, even if many of them believe that humans are not the only cause.
Yes, keep in mind this is just a projection, and they base this on modeling....
Satellite data proved that the first decade of the 21st century sea level grew by only 0.83 inches and there has been no rise since 2006.
Sea levels are rising 60 per cent faster than the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's (IPCC) central projections, new research suggests.