Environmental scientist David Keith proposes a cheap, effective, shocking means to address climate change: What if we injected a huge cloud of ash into the atmosphere to deflect sunlight and heat?
Posted: Nov 2007
While yesterday's US stock market close was poor, Asia and Europe didn't follow today as debt in Greece, Spain, Portugal, etc... rallied, their CDS narrowed and stocks bounced. The Greek finance minister said January tax revenues came in above expectations and that spending was below target for the month and said "that means the deficit reduction for January is well within what we have promised." The euro is rising in turn. Also helping is the story that Trichet is headed to the European Union leaders summit a day early in order to address Greece's problems even as the Greek finance...
read more »
January 11th, 2009 at 10:11 pm
What if we injected a huge cloud of money into the economy to save us from ourselves? Economic climate change is now undergoing the type of radical treatment he suggests for the atmospheric climate..
January 11th, 2009 at 10:57 pm
I’m sure this idea will help usher in the coming ice age sooner.
Great job, eco religious fanatics. Do you change your opinions when the facts change?
I thought not.
Earth on the Brink of an Ice Age
http://english.pravda.ru/science/earth/106922-0/
January 11th, 2009 at 11:03 pm
How bout this for an idea: recognizing that climate change is a bullshit pseudo scientific religion that gets liberal panties in as much of a not when you point out its flaws, as christian panties when you point out their God is no more rational than the Spaghetti Monster.
There are few people more religious than liberal environmentalists.
January 11th, 2009 at 11:40 pm
Someone should put that guy away. I’m very tired of BS from both the left and the right.
All I want is some truth.
January 12th, 2009 at 12:39 am
Wow, vic. You’re pretty resolute. But, I have yet to read anything from the pro-pollution lobby that I find persuasive. Often, I try to decide “who to believe” not on the data and models themselves — which I can’t interpret, because I’m no expert — but on the way the two sides debate the issue.
What I see from the pro-polluter side is a “throw up anything on the wall and see what sticks”.
January 12th, 2009 at 12:50 am
I also see similarities in Republican anger on the issue and on other issues dealing with health, safety, and science. It appears to me that many Republicans aren’t searching for truth but trying to discredit liberals…”because”.
January 12th, 2009 at 9:55 am
Every national science acadamy agrees that global warming is real and that mankind is the cause. If I have to choose between the scientists and the groups that think they are wrong, I’m going with the smart people. If they are wrong, we are out a ton of money. It the others are wrong, we are out a habitable planet.
I’ve read the IPCC reports and a lot of the counter claims. The IPCC reports are credible; much of the counter stuff is ideological nonsence. Much like Idiotic Design, it lacks any intellegence and scientific credibiilty whatsoever.
Could global warming not be true? Sure – scientifically, there is about a 4% chance that it is wrong. Why play those odds?
And if we develop sustainable energy technologies, what is the downside? Sure, its a painful transition, but we will have to make it at some point, unless the species dies out.
Try going to MIT’s site and watching soem of the videos that they have posted on the subject. Pretty smart stuff.
January 12th, 2009 at 3:13 pm
Didn’t they try this in the second Highlander movie and ruin the planet…there can be only one!