reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul
These are the statements that I found particularly offensive:
(note I've removed ex tags in some places below 'cos of ATS's problems with multiple layers of tags)
Solar geoengineering offers the prospect of materially reducing climate risk for current generations and of slowing large-scale climatic change
such as the loss of Arctic Sea ice. While it sounds hyperbolic and promotional, there is literally no other method we know to achieve this.
so this is "offensive" to you? Can you explain that reasoning??
"Our climate choices would be easy if we really were facing an imminent existential threat. A true emergency justifies extreme measures, a
narrow focus on a single problem and suspension of democratic due process."
That last one sounds like 9/11 all over again.
Really? You equate global warming with a terrorist attack?
Why don't you consider that the 2 are somewhat different?
The rest is just rhetoric - an attempt to contrast a seemingly unattainable utopia (cutting emissions) with our current situation and thereby
And yes, of course he is trying to justify his position - that is what all people do - even you with this somewhat confusing babble, even me writing
this. "Just rhetoric"?? what is more important than conveying ideas??
cutting emissions is an "unattainable utopia"?? Nil emissions might be - but why is cutting them either "unobtainable", or "utopia"??
He's talking about solar radiation management - which may result in 10's of thousands of premature deaths, and saying that is a BAD THING! so as
far as I can see you are agreeing with him but are do not realize it.
WHAT WOULD YOU DO?
And while extra deaths is deplorable, they are not exactly "depopulation", whereas continued global warming actually come closer!
so choose - SRM with 10's of thousands of early deaths, or continued global
warming with millions of early deaths
Or do you postulate a 3rd way - if so what is it??
It's like one of those exercises in school where you have to put something into your own words. So each one of these guys cloaks depopulation
with their own justifications for it. It sounds different but it's all the same.
what depopulation? See below - he's talking about 10's of thousands of early deaths - which while deplorable are hardly "depopulation" of the 7
Billion of us (and increasing)
"and if you "do the math", then why would killing a couple of 10's of thousands of people need to be "disguised" at all? who would
actually notice it if you just shut up and went about injecting that SO2??"
Honestly, Gaul, lol, sometimes you just floor me. So...he's ok because he's talking?
He is HONEST because he is talking. He is HONEST because he is IDENTIFYING THE ISSUE and the IMPLICATIONS of it.
Where as you are just putting your head in the sand and deny everything, rather than deny ignorance!
Or are you painting him now as a closeted, left-handed whistle blower?
seems to be a fantasy of yours that there is something to blow the whistle on - I have no such issue and i'm not interested in you foisting it on
So here's a question:
What do YOU think are the implications of Global Warming it in terms of human survival? What do YOU think needs to be done about that, if anything?
(do nothing is always an option of course - but if so then an explanation would be good so we all know why)