It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Well-known for its aggressive contrarian position on manmade global warming, and widely lambasted for its “I still believe in Global Warming. Do you?” billboard featuring a picture of Ted Kaczynski, the Unabomber, the Heartland Institute might seem unlikely to propose a solution to a problem it doubts exists. So why did the group run an article on geoengineering in the December 2007 issue of its newsletter Environment & Climate News?
In recent years, Bjorn Lomborg has often downplayed the threats from climate change while pushing geoengineering as a short-term solution. So too have Newt Gingrich, the former EPA staff economist Alan Carlin, and the American Enterprise Institute, which earlier this year posted a seminar calling solar radiation management “an evolving climate policy option” on its website…a site chock-full of climate contrarianism.
How might one reconcile such seemingly contradictory positions? and why do they often come from politically conservative individuals and organizations? In his recent book, Earthmasters: The Dawn of the Age of Climate Engineering, Clive Hamilton argues that this pair of positions maintains the dominant power structures of society, especially the roles of the energy mega-corporations that have a great deal to lose from any shift away from fossil fuels.
reply to post by Kali74
I don't doubt that the massive mess of crap we pour into the air has some affect on life on this planet. What I can't agree with is the global warming concept as it is currently presented because it fails as many tests as it passes.
Let me explain...
On any given day, there will be a headliner saying that global warming is an agreed scientific fact by the entire scientific community. But, then on the next page, there are headliners of how this lab or that study finds multiple flaws in the theory and that it is NOT a proven fact.
So... the average human being is left to choose between science A and science B. Worse still is all the political doo-doo that comes with it and the moment you question either school of thought, you are attacked and insulted with name calling from people you have never met and who don't know you.
How do people judge total strangers based on a subject so rife with division?
The only thing that is crystal clear is that this entire subject has been washed over by politics while it should have never, ever been political to begin with. In the end, you stand as far back as [possible and try to make sense of the madness... distancing yourself from either warring campfire and hoping that someday, real science emerges from the ashes.