Climate Scientist: Climate Engineering Might Be the Answer To Warming

[DEAD7]

"Tom Wigley is one of the world's top climate scientists, and in this interview he explains his outspoken support for both nuclear energy and research into climate engineering. Wigley was one of the first scientists to break the taboo on public discussion of climate engineering as a possible response to global warming; in a 2006 paper in the journal Science, he proposed a combined geoengineering-mitigation strategy that would address the problem of increasing ocean acidity, as well as the problem of climate change. In this interview, he argues that hat renewable energy alone will not be sufficient to address the climate challenge, because it cannot be scaled up quickly and cheaply enough, and that opposition to nuclear power 'threatens humanity's ability to avoid dangerous climate change.'"

 

[DEAD7]

 

[Chris.B]

Global warming is still not a settled debate.
The liberals are pushing BS theories to raise my taxes

 

[DEAD7]

Global warming is still not a settled debate.
The liberals are pushing BS theories to raise my taxes

I dont think its "BS", but I disagree with legislation regarding it.

Simply raise awareness and be done... dont start taking more income form people.

 

[HoloGraphic]

HAARP coming to light, eh?

 

[Black Hans]

 

[acri1]

I sort of agree with him.

Nuclear energy isn't that bad (as long as safety is a top priority) and I don't have a problem with using science to solve problems. Looking at how things are going now, it really doesn't seem like there's going to be enough political will for anything else to be done about climate change (until it's too late) so if we can use science to mitigate the worst of it, I'm all for it.

Dealing with the risks of nuclear energy>Dealing with the risks up uncontrolled climate change IMO

This is one issue (nuclear energy) that I don't tend to agree with the left on.

 

[Meta Reign]

As if that's not happening right now.

 

[bigDeeOT]

There is no "debate" among climate scientists. Now there's a debate among POLITICIANS. But who are you going to trust when it comes to scientific issues, politicians, or scientists?

At any rate, climate engineering sounds like some sick shyt. If it is a taboo topic, it's surely because of the implications of it being weaponized. Imagine that, a war in which people engineer hurricanes, tornadoes, droughts, snow storms, and tsunamis on other countries. It's like we're playin god bruhs

 

[acri1]

There is no "debate" among climate scientists. Now there's a debate among POLITICIANS. But who are you going to trust when it comes to scientific issues, politicians, or scientists?

At any rate, climate engineering sounds like some sick shyt. If it is a taboo topic, it's surely because of the implications of it being weaponized. Imagine that, a war in which people engineer hurricanes, tornadoes, droughts, snow storms, and tsunamis on other countries. It's like we're playin god bruhs

That's dumb.

Almost anything can be turned into a weapon if people want to do that. That's not a justifiable reason to be a neo-luddite and avoid developing new technologies. Should we avoid research into microbes because somebody might try to create a biological weapon one day?

If anything, the risks of not doing anything about climate change (ie. wars, famines, droughts, in addition to anything you could do with a climate weapon) are much greater than the risks that somebody might make some kind of climate weapon. And let's be reality, nothing we create that's climate-related would be fukking with a nuke anyway.

 

[bigDeeOT]

That's dumb.

Almost anything can be turned into a weapon if people want to do that. That's not a justifiable reason to be a neo-luddite and avoid developing new technologies. Should we avoid research into microbes because somebody might try to create a biological weapon one day?

If anything, the risks of not doing anything about climate change (ie. wars, famines, droughts, in addition to anything you could do with a climate weapon) are much greater than the risks that somebody might make some kind of climate weapon. And let's be reality, nothing we create that's climate-related would be fukking with a nuke anyway.

Dude what are you trying to convince me of? I was just stating what the views are. I never said we shouldn't use climate engineering.