Naked Science Forum

Non Life Sciences => Technology => Topic started by: thedoc on 01/07/2014 18:02:40

Title: Should we engineer the environment to combat climate change?
Post by: thedoc on 01/07/2014 18:02:40
Could we stop climate change by pumping particles into the
ozone? Dr Kirsty Kuo thinks it's a possibility...
Read a transcript of the interview by clicking here (http://www.thenakedscientists.com/HTML/content/interviews/interview/1000775/)
or [chapter podcast=1000738 track=14.07.01/Naked_Scientists_Show_14.07.01_1002450.mp3](https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.thenakedscientists.com%2FHTML%2Ftypo3conf%2Fext%2Fnaksci_podcast%2Fgnome-settings-sound.gif&hash=f2b0d108dc173aeaa367f8db2e2171bd) Listen to it now[/chapter] or [download as MP3] (http://nakeddiscovery.com/downloads/split_individual/14.07.01/Naked_Scientists_Show_14.07.01_1002450.mp3)
Title: Re: Should we engineer the environment to combat climate change?
Post by: McKay on 07/07/2014 19:32:50
Ah, engineering climate to stop climate change.
Well, I do agree that we should stop polluting, but think about it - stop climate change? Climate has always changed, for better or worse, one cause or another and stopping climate change would be kinda.. well.. unnatural, for lack of a better word.
Title: Re: Should we engineer the environment to combat climate change?
Post by: smart on 12/04/2016 21:20:45
The pseudo-scientific voodoo of chemtrails may worsen global warming and destroy the ozone layer.

Quote
The only large-scale, special-interest-(carbon)-dictated/pushed(?) "countermeasure" that was initiated was/is Chemtrails, often listed under Geoengineering/SRM (solar radiation management), high altitude, 30,000 to 40,000 feet, spraying of toxic metals (aluminum, barium, strontium, others) in the form of (as per an insider deep throat) e-processed coal ash, "to lay a shield against some sun energy from reaching earth." Obviously, with pseudo-scientific excuses, designed to maintain carbon profits, it proved to be GW-worsening, and is now referred to by real scientists as "pseudo-scientific VooDoo", the "Climate Change blunder of the century", and X-rated definitions, BECAUSE IT DOES NOTHING – ZILCH – ABOUT THE REAL CAUSE OF GW, EXCESS CO2 PRODUCTION, poisons the environment beyond imagination, and wastes billions;

http://www.expertclick.com/NRWire/Releasedetails.aspx?id=74992

Quote
Therefore, geoengineering by means of sulfate aerosols is predicted to accelerate the hydroxyl catalyzed ozone destruction cycles and cause a significant depletion of the ozone layer even though future halogen concentrations will be significantly reduced.

http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/4/4/045108/meta

No ozone layer = no life...
Title: Re: Should we engineer the environment to combat climate change?
Post by: RD on 13/04/2016 04:26:36
Quote
The only large-scale, special-interest-(carbon)-dictated/pushed(?) "countermeasure" that was initiated was/is Chemtrails, often listed under Geoengineering/SRM (solar radiation management), high altitude, 30,000 to 40,000 feet, spraying of toxic metals (aluminum, barium, strontium, others) in the form of (as per an insider deep throat) e-processed coal ash, "to lay a shield against some sun energy from reaching earth." Obviously, with pseudo-scientific excuses, designed to maintain carbon profits, it proved to be GW-worsening, and is now referred to by real scientists as "pseudo-scientific VooDoo", the "Climate Change blunder of the century", and X-rated definitions, BECAUSE IT DOES NOTHING – ZILCH – ABOUT THE REAL CAUSE OF GW, EXCESS CO2 PRODUCTION, poisons the environment beyond imagination, and wastes billions;
http://www.expertclick.com/NRWire/Releasedetails.aspx?id=74992

The origin of that quote is "geoengineeringwatch.org (https://www.google.com/search?q=%22pseudo-scientific+VooDoo%22+%22Climate+Change+blunder+of+the+century%22+site:geoengineeringwatch.org)" ,
[See WOT scorecard here ... https://www.mywot.com/en/scorecard/geoengineeringwatch.org (https://www.mywot.com/en/scorecard/geoengineeringwatch.org/comment-77501453#comment-77501453) ] , in an article apparently written by a double-doctor : "Dr. Hans J. Kugler, PhD" who currently has 25 followers on Twitter (https://twitter.com/drkugler1).
 
The pill-pushers he lends his name to only have him down as a single doctor, (PhD , not Dr-PhD) ...

 [ Invalid Attachment ]


Quote from: quackwatch.org
In 1982, Kugler testified as an expert witness in a U.S. Postal Service case in which Braswell was ordered to stop making false representations for more than a dozen products. After hearing from experts on both sides, the administrative law judge commented:

    "Dr. Kugler attempted to substitute quantity of testimony for quality. He talked at great length, in generalities and frequently wandered from the subject. He did not support many of his conclusions with logical information. Additionally, I had questions with regard to his credibility, especially when he was asked whether he relied upon various articles. I felt that in many instances he was not truthful. There were contradictions in his testimony. I found him to be an unreliable witness".
http://www.quackwatch.org/11Ind/jlradvisors.html
Title: Re: Should we engineer the environment to combat climate change?
Post by: smart on 14/04/2016 19:26:04
Facts:


http://cen.acs.org/articles/88/i45/Countries-Agree-Ban-Geoengineering.html

Database Error

Please try again. If you come back to this error screen, report the error to an administrator.
Back