You are way off the mark here.

I’ll give you one example:

Here in Canada every political party with climate change policy based on climate alarmism sits low in the polls.

We possibly won’t have a change in government here before the Liberal Party of Canada makes serious changes to its climate alarmism position.

The solution (including the political one) is not to replace insanity & paranoia with patently worse [geo-engineering] insanity & paranoia, but rather to sensibly refocus the public’s attention on the real problems faced by our environment (without evoking fear & paranoia).

Obvious yes, but in the face of such candid cynicism, one is tempted to ask for confirmation.

And I shouldn’t worry too much about providing politicians with a ‘way out’, they are virtuosi of the pirouette – although this time it’ll have to be a good ‘un!

I am away from my base and have limited internet access here so this response is brief. Sorry.

John Wright:
You ask me;
“Was the proposed vitrification of nuclear waste a “political ploy” too?”
I answer, yes.
And the fact that after nearly 4 decades the vitrfication has still not been perfected makes that answer obvious.

Bruce Cobb:
I did not say;
“we “need” geoengineering to “stop global warming””.
I said;
“the geo-engineering option allows the AGW-scare to die a natural death by providing politicians with a ‘way out’.”

Richard

I could have said sociologist or lawyer. But I am a lawyer who retired after 48 years. And, I know enough about science to recognize that AGW is a fraud. Thus, I don’t want to denigrate those of us with highly refined BS sensors.

Was the proposed vitrification of nuclear waste a “political ploy” too?

(Incidentally, I am not in favour of nuclear power, although if vitrification could be proved viable, I might change my mind, but your last remark does not give much hope on that count, does it?)

With respect, everybody here seems to have missed the point concerning geo-engineering proposals: i.e.

the existence of the geo-engineering proposals provides politicians with the possibility of stopping their attempts to constrain emissions of greenhouse gases (GHGs) notably carbon dioxide (CO2).

Several here have reacted with knee-jerk reactions of horror at the suggestion of geo-engineering. I ask them to stop and think for a moment.

The emission constraints are a response to the hypothesis of anthropogenic (i.e. man-made) global warming (AGW).

At present there is no empirical evidence of any kind that the AGW hypothesis is correct. But supporters of the AGW-scare assert that action must be taken now to avoid the possibility of dangerous AGW in the future.

Politicians are responding to the AGW-scare by trying to constrain anthropogenic emissions of GHGs. Such constraints would do much harm and, therefore, they should not be accepted unless absolutely necessary. But politicians of several countries are committed to their having accepted the AGW-scare as being a potential threat which warrants the constraints.

The politicians need a viable reason if they are to back-off from this commitment to the constraints without losing face.

They cannot say they were wrong to have supported AGW because that would lose them votes.

And they cannot be seen to be doing nothing in response to the AGW scare because that would lose them votes.

They need to be seen to be doing something while really doing nothing unless and until something needs to be done. And a rapid response to an observed problem of AGW is needed.

The geo-engineering option provides the needed viable reason to do nothing about AGW now.

Simply, the geo-engineering option allows the AGW-scare to die a natural death by providing politicians with a ‘way out’ and it has very little risk. I explain this as follows.

The AGW-scare is founded on an unproven assumption that global temperature is determined by net radiative forcing, and increase to greenhouse gases in the air provides additional positive radiative forcing.

Increase to aerosols in the air increases cloud cover to provide additional negative radiative forcing. So, increasing atmospheric aerosols would drop global temperature. And this could be done at relatively little cost, for example, by emitting sulphates from commercial aircraft distant from land.

Hence, if AGW does prove to be a problem then the geo-engineering is a method to immediately stop its effects when it is detected. Actions to constrain the GHG emissions could then be implemented. The cost of the geo-engineering would be much less than the costs of the constraints to GHG emissions in the period until effects of AGW are detected. Indeed, the costs of the geo-engineering would be trivial compared to the costs of 20% reduction to world-wide GHG emissions for a single year.

Importantly, very importantly, if AGW does not prove to be a problem then no constraints to greenhouse gas emissions and no geo-engineering would be needed.

In the extremely improbable event that the geo-engineering were needed then it would have very little risk because aerosols wash out of the air in a few days so the geo-engineering and its effects could be stopped instantly in the event that it were to cause a problem. And no such problem is foreseeable.

And individual countries would be inhibited from unilateral geo-engineering for fear of accusations of harming their neighbours’ weather. Indeed, negotiations between countries prior to implementing geo-engineering trials could be difficult.

Whether or not AGW does become a real problem in the real world, the geo-engineering option is preferable to adopting constraints on GHG emissions in the near future.

And politicians could be seen to be doing something by implementing small geo-engineering trials with press publicity and with photo-shoots while continuing to talk about how to constrain CO2 emissions should such constraints ever become needed.

I repeat, the geo-engineering option allows the AGW-scare to die a natural death by providing politicians with a ‘way out’.

The alternative to the geo-engineering option is the naive assertion that polticians should do nothing in response to the AGW-scare. But that assertion is naive because ‘doing nothing’ is not an option available to the polticians (they would lose votes).

This suggested political ploy of potential geo-engineering is not fanciful and it has precedent. Opponents of the nuclear industry have objected that there is no “safe” method to dispose of nuclear waste. And the nuclear industry has responded by asserting that the waste could be vitrified. A practical method for the vitrification still remains to be developed, but assertion of the possibility of the vitrification has been sufficient to overcome objections to nuclear power in several countries for nearly 40 years. (Incidentally, I am in favour of nuclear power).

Richard

Ron de Haan (02:21:33) “Somehow the scientists from the different faculties are in a state of isolation.”

That’s how the system works. They all respect each others’ kingdoms.

This mutually-assured autonomy may be administratively convenient, but it cannot meet society’s complex interdisciplinary needs.

Institutions write policies and set up structures to appear to be promoting multidisciplinarity, but I can assure you from plenty of first-hand experience that in practice it amounts to mostly facade. This complex problem has deep roots. Sensible players must interfere in a subtle manner (that does not generate instability) to slowly coax the system to where it needs to go.

Paul, I agree with your assessment.
However, the people involved in the decision making process, from their isolated position at a certain moment in time become overconfident.
Gore made his remarks about World Government, Sarkozy and Rudd made similar remark at the G20 meeting in Italy this summer.

Their policies leak, the first measures are put in practice and the population wakes up. Their biggest problem in fact is that they underestimate the opinion of the man in the street. Their biggest fear is that it will backfire on them and that is the only reason why they are in a hurry to close the legal aspects of the Copenhagen Deal, which is centralized control over our financial systems, our economy, the free markets, our resources and our lives.
Government run Health Insurance also is a significant part of the control mechanism.
What was supposed to become an affordable insurance for those currently without, now arrived in the Senate as a rip off proposal that could criminalize millions of Americans if they are not able to pay for the premiums.
According to the current Bill, Americans that are uninsured must buy a 15.000 dollar policy. If they refuse or fall behind on their payments, they will risk up to 250.000 dollars in fines or five years imprisonment. With increasing job losses you don’t need to be a rocket scientists to conclude that, if implemented, millions of Americans will be criminalized and jailed in no time.
The others will fear any situation that brings them is a similar position so as a result they will have turned our our society into a “State of Fear”.
This is just another step on the way to dissolve the free world, undermine our democratic systems and turn their power grab into a success.
The discussion about CO2 mitigation will quickly move in the direction of over population. Strange enough most people agree that over population is a real problem.
Draconian policies and measures will be taken to achieve their objectives and it won’t take long before the true face of the new doctrine and it’s intentions become evident.
This is the very reason why sensitivity and subtle manners have to be applied at this moment in time, because we are dealing with a real monster here.
A monster with the intention to reduce the world population to 1 billion inhabitants.
With the facts at the table , informed and sane people have to come to a conclusion.
My conclusion is that humanity currently is under assault or more to the point, at war! The only problem is that they don’t know it yet.

What happened to the markets late last year despite the markets using advanced financial computer models?

“Why come out with a plan to cool the planet when the planet is apparently cooling all by itself? All this in the face of increasing C02 levels, recovering Arctic sea ice, expanding Antarctic ice, growing Polar bear numbers over 40 years etc., etc.,”

The warmists deny the facts of science and the real world conditions.
This is why we call it a the Religion of Global Warming.

“Ms Layzer is an assistant professor (tenure?) with a PhD in Political Science. She is hardly a credible source or qualified to analyze anything to do with any hard science. She might as well be a sociologist.”

Or a First World Revolutionary Apparatchik

Those who cannot learn from history are doomed to repeat it:
http://www.wisdomquotes.com/002322.html

Ron de Haan (08:30:18) :
“Climate Change, Human Impact, Creative Solutions
http://www.treehugger.com/galleries/2009/06/coolest_environmental_advertis.php?page=1”

“And watt will that poor little girl be hanging from – a sky-hook?”

It also indicates that we can expect a shift from CO2 reduction to population reduction.
This requires the Totalitarian World Government announced in Copenhagen Climate Treaty.

So, you are not only fighting for your freedom, but also for your life.
These crazy fascists should be locked behind steel doors in a mental institution.