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

Category: Science, Video

Please use the comments to demonstrate your own ignorance, unfamiliarity with empirical data and lack of respect for scientific knowledge. Be sure to create straw men and argue against things I have neither said nor implied. If you could repeat previously discredited memes or steer the conversation into irrelevant, off topic discussions, it would be appreciated. Lastly, kindly forgo all civility in your discourse . . . you are, after all, anonymous.

8 Responses to “A surprising idea for “solving” climate change”

  1. Bruce in Tn says:

    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..

  2. Reasonable Guy says:

    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

  3. vic says:

    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.

  4. debreuil says:

    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.

  5. wunsacon says:

    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”.

  6. wunsacon says:

    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”.

  7. gnomic says:

    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.

  8. joshtabin says:

    Didn’t they try this in the second Highlander movie and ruin the planet…there can be only one!