Comments to comments

I have begun to receive comments on some of the posts here at Skeptic's Corner, most of which are greatly appreciated and some quite informative. A couple of particular note are from the post CHEIF Mad scientist alert!. A very interesting and detailed history of geoengineering/alarmist connection is given by Dennis A which you might be interested in here .

Richard Courtney has also left a very insightful comment to that same post which I will copy in it's entirety below. Although I completely understand his point and see the validity in it, my personal position is much simpler and probably naive but it is only my opinion;



Any policy or potential policy which is formulated on bad science should not be encouraged, because like the proverbial bad apple it has the very real possibility of infecting the whole. The entire AGW theory is, in my opinion, the offshoot of a very worthy ideal but science and scientific policy should not be determined by idealism. The momentum behind bio-fuels, solar, wind etc. though worthy scientific and societal endeavours which should be pursued in some form are given far more resources and attention not due to their real need but due to the promotion of bad science through the AGW hysteria. To promote one bad idea (aerosol injection etc.) to deflect impetus from another bad idea (AGW) it seems to me is a road we should not travel nor encourage. After all if nothing else, these scientist and politicians are spending other peoples money-ours or more accurately my grandchildren's.


Which brings me to the second point I wish to make. A large portion of the political support for AGW is not primarily based on the actual fear of global warming, but rather the drive for social change, increased revenues, and just an out right grab for power. The idea that geo-engineering schemes will somehow forestall political momentum from these goals is doubtful at best.

But thanks to all for comments I will respond when I can but this is a one man show :)

Jerry Brown

Dear Skeptics Corner:

I think the above comments have missed an important point.

Those - like me - who think anthropogenic (that is, man-made) global warming (AGW) will never become a problem should promote the idea of the geo-engineering. I explain this as follows.

Some people argue that decarbonisation measures are "insurance" against AGW, but they are not any "insurance" of any kind. And the proposed geo-engineering technology would be "insurance" against any possible effects of AGW.

At present AGW is a risk and not a threat because there is no evidence that AGW exists. However, the possibility that AGW might become "dangerous" is enabling (excusing?) policies with serious economic consequences. These policies are justified as a "precaution".

However, there could be no reasonable justification for now introducing decarbonisation measures such as carbon taxes, or cap-and-trade, etc. if there were potential geo-engineering methods to rapidly reduce the direct effects of AGW. This is because
(a) no decarbonisation measures would be needed until AGW began to become a problem and then the geo-engineering could be a 'stop gap' while the measures were introduced
and
(b) no decarbonisation measures would ever be needed if AGW never became a problem.

All the technology for such a 'stop-gap' exists and has been proven in use. Aluminium coated balloons could be launced into orbit to reflect some of the Sun's rays and, thus, to reduce radiative forcing from the Sun. A few such balloons have been orbited and it is merely a matter of replication to launch the required number to negate the enhanced radiative forcing from GHGs.

If AGW does not become a problem then the possibility of the technology would have avoided the costs of decarbonisation.

If AGW does become a problem then this technology would be expensive, but not as expensive as decarbonisation. Indeed, the savings made by not having had to decarbonise for some decades would probably pay for it.

So, the proven technology for a geo-engineering response to AGW removes any need for - and removes any possibility of benefit from - introduction of decarbonisation measures now.

Richard S Courtney