or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:

Posts by franksargent

IMHO, it would fail no matter what combination of nation states were involved.Volcanic Explosivity IndexToba is my favorite on the above list, BTW. (hypothetical population bottleneck)The whole geoengineering shtick is a dodge from addressing our CO2 emissions directly.CO2 has a half-life of several decades to hundreds of years.SO2 has a half-life of a few years.Pumping/lifting ~20 million metric tons of SO2 into the stratosphere per annum is not a good idea IMHO.
First paragraph is a major tangent, a non sequitur as it were.I also saw what happened yesterday, and you know what happened yesterday.I engaged the subject. Head on. There were no personal attacks based upon my own observation of what transpired yesterday.You can't make others bend to your will or thought processes, by making them answer your specific narrowly defined question posed in the form of a false dilemma.What you are suggesting is equivalent to the USofA going it...
You started this thread using the rhetorical device of the false dilemma, it's right there in your first post for all to see.Stick to the subject matter, and not the countless tangents you have a proclivity to engage in.Obviously, ludicrous hypothetical arguments are not above your pay grade.Understanding the basic engineering, however, is clearly above your pay grade.Climate change methadone?I know orders of magnitude more about the relevant subject matter than you ever...
Solar radiation managementOf course there are no economics associated with any of these methods, but I'd expect their costs to be consummate with the current costs of fossil fuel extraction and usage on a global scale.Stratospheric sulfur aerosols (geoengineering)Mount PinatuboNote also, that the original link that started this thread made no mention of a single country making/taking a unilateral approach to combat CC/GW/AGW.
tftfy, based on the direct quote in your opening post.Because no single country has sole ownership of the entire biosphere of Planet Earth.In other words, how could the USofA act "unilaterally" (in the active sense) and not affect the biosphere of all other regions of Planet Earth?If you mean "unilaterally" in it's current passive context, all countries are acting "unilaterally" and have been for thousands of years.Also, the costs of an actively pursued geoengineered...
You're not embarrassing me in the slightest.You placed yourself in the embarrassing position by presenting the false dilemma in the first place in your opening post.As a "thought experiment" it fails miserably.Your last paragraph is a non sequitur, as the verbage has nothing to do with the original false dilemma.In fact, this isn't even new material, e. g. your "so called thought experiment". You have followed this line of either/or reasoning in previous CC/GW/AGW...
Your very words shown above fit the definition exactly.False dilemmaSo we see that the definition isn't strictly bases on two choices.I do believe that would cover whatever point you are not trying to make.
... for proving my point. You would need to take up these "issues" of our federal government with the SCOTUS if the "creepy" ideology of the Constitution Party (United States) has any standing whatsoever.PaleoconservatismDominionismAFAIK and IMHO The CP stands for The Creepy Party.
... false dilemma;Nuff said.
Thanks for proving my point for me.Denial isn't a river in Egypt....+11
New Posts  All Forums: