T. Boone Pickens actually makes sense. Not with wind, really, but with Natural Gas.

Other success stories are the rabbits in Australia and the Indian Mongoose in Hawaii.

To Ray,

I find the term “scientific ignorance” to be an oxymoron. The goal of science is to dispel ignorance, not propagate ignorance as the media and scientists, who whore out their disciplines, are doing. On second thought, perhaps a new area of study can evolve from the current situation. A new science, the science of ignorance, may be developed. There is a plethora of cases available to study for the development of theory and avenues of research.

To All,

The problem in science now is the excess of solutions and a paucity of problems. The grant money will go to the scientist who will invent the best problem for his solution.

To David Gladstone,

Social engineering is a euphemism for government control.

To retired engineer,

I see that you recognize that the environmentalists use the Fearless Fosdick method: Destroy, in order to protect.

To All Agin,

The solution to global warming/climate change that I favor are a multitude of gold-coated Mylar umbrellas, several miles in diameter and in geo-synchronous orbit, that can be opened and closed on command by ground control, with a number in lower orbit that can be applied to local hot-spots.

has an error in it, I meant to write 5.15 billion tonnes of CO2 is ONE part per million, not .15. Not that anyone noticed.
Sigh.

Anthony, where’s an edit button when you need one?

AV:Let us for the sake of argument accept that there is anthropogenic warming .
BC: No, anna, this battle is too important. The enemy can not be given into, not on anything, not in any way. The stakes are too high. Agreeing with liars and frauds would be to become liars and frauds ourselves. The truth is always more powerful than lies, it’s just that the truth has to be fought for, especially once a lie as huge as AGW becomes entrenched.

We shall fight for truth and die in the effort? Is that the attitude?

The fate of western civilization, and indeed global civilization, is too important to be played at such puerille games. It is much more important that the CO2 trading and other nonsense is deflated and becomes ineffective so as not to reproduce on a huge scale the disaster of ethanol, than to have Hansen admit “me culpa, mea maxima culpa”.

You are making the same mistake of confusing politics and science. To change policies one has to be flexible and diplomatic and yielding where necessary in order to reach the true goal. It is not necessary to convert the governments and the politicians to the true science. It is enough to give them non destructive solutions to their perceived and delusional problems.

“I’d like to see a better study of ’solar powered’ ships to seed clouds. Somewhat contradictory, as solar power doesn’t work when you have clouds. Collection area is also a problem. Solar isn’t that efficient. I’ve seen a lot of efficiency claims of 20+%, but you can’t actually buy any. How much energy will they need and how big? Autonomous? The AI folks have told us that was just around the corner, for the last 50 years.”

There is a study and work done on this, it is not just an idea in the air. Some months ago I had posted a link because I saw a documentary about it.

“The other problem is one of scale: The earth is rather large. To have any measurable effect, you need to change a large area. That may take more than five ships.”

They say they can do the job with twenty ships on the tropical oceans. They have some sophisticated engineering. I said give them 5 ships for the next El Nino because a quarter of the effect should be measurable.

There is a lot to be said for what you recommend. Someone who is already a trusted “insider” will have to do it though.

Wiki has a good description of “Group Think”:

“Groupthink is a type of thought exhibited by group members who try to minimize conflict and reach consensus without critically testing, analyzing, and evaluating ideas. During groupthink, members of the group avoid promoting viewpoints outside the comfort zone of consensus thinking”

(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Groupthink)

That article is a good read. Many here will recognize what we’re really up against w/respect to climate change ‘consensus’.

The other problem is one of scale: The earth is rather large. To have any measurable effect, you need to change a large area. That may take more than five ships.

Sorry, Anna, but I put this in the Solar Power Satellite bag. It looks good until you do more of the calculations. Us grumpy old engineers have a bad habit of raining on parades.

We have to be pragmatic. To sit on the sidelines claiming wisdom and correct science is personally satisfying, but it is not changing the AGW momentum, at least in Europe. It is practically a mantra all governments and government officials are parroting. Unless the coming winter is very severe in western europe ( the last one was mild) the army will continue marching to he AGW beat.

Pragmatic means: if you cannot beat them, join them so you can change things from within.

Let us for the sake of argument accept that there is anthropogenic warming . Governments accept it and skeptics are not making headway there.
What is the anthropogenic solution? All those idiot methods of sequestration and taxing and carbon credits that will destroy the third world economy and kill millions?

Seeding clouds is a much better tool and I do not think the ships seeding the clouds is bad geo-engineering, because it is completely under control, on/off, and the material is harmless. Instead of expensive sequestration of CO2, and destructive taxes and CO2 markets it offers a harmless cure for warming, if warming there is.

AGW adherents are mainly eugenicists and back to the stone age idealists whose real aim is not control of the weather but control of the people. They certainly will fight against any engineering solutions. If skeptics join them in this, they will be doing a disservice to the planet.

I believe if politicians are offered an economical alternative that will achieve the same goals as the CO2 gimmicks,( even though they are unnecessary) they will prefer it because: a) they will be seen as caring for the planet b) they can put off decisions to a better date.

Doctors know this better . If you have a patient who is convinced he/she has a specific disease, the easiest solution is to give a placebo and the patient gets well. The next is to give medicine even though it is not needed. The patient gets well because he believes he will get well.

Choosing a geoengineering solution works as medicine more than as placebo, but unless we get next year icebergs in the aegian I cannot see how the mesmerized hoi polloi will wake up from the AGW trance.