Elsewhere

Yes, we agree entirely. So, where are those field trials? As one of us has pointed out half a decade ago, they’d be illegal. Dumping that waste product into the oceans, that waste that people will pay you to take and which will, as far as we know at least, be a partial solution to boiling those same oceans, is illegal. Even just a few thousand tonnes into empty water, something which might suck down a billion tonnes of CO2, two Britain’s worth.

The last field trials were in 2007. Positive results, it all looks like it will work, at low cost, and be that partial solution. But nothing is being done. No more research is being carried out.

The world simply isn’t serious about climate change, is it? And we’ll not believe it is until those field trials on this technology take place either.

13 comments on “Elsewhere

  1. I can see a big problem with this solution. It’d be relatively cheap & just might be successful.
    The cost in well paid jobs for the usual suspects would be devastating.
    Ain’t gonna happen.

  2. Given there is no, and never has been any, evidence that Man-made Global Warming is happening, I am not surprised that we are not taking it seriously.

    Scientists got cocky when they invented Nuclear Winter and the politicians took them seriously. They chose poorly and scientists will be paying the price for a generation.

  3. There are plenty of real problems before you start dangerous geo-engineering (with all the transnationalism and compulsion that go with it). This problem is not even properly sized or costed yet.

  4. Rhoda Klapp – “There are plenty of real problems before you start dangerous geo-engineering (with all the transnationalism and compulsion that go with it). This problem is not even properly sized or costed yet.”

    Dumping some iron into the sea is not dangerous. What compulsion by the way?

    The point is that it has not been properly studied because it has been pre-emptively banned. Because it might work. The dangers of doing nothing are obviously trivial because the Usual Suspects object to the slightly-non-trivial risks of doing something. They have picked the lesser of two evils – doing nothing.

  5. I assume all geo-engineering initiatives have unintended consequences. You are putting iron into the biosphere. You don’t know what will happen and you don’t know how it wtll scale up. Now in my opinion the whole climate change thing is a bandwagon based on a doubtful premise intended to extend power and control on a transnational extra-democratic basis. Fixing the problem, even if this were a good plan, is not wanted. The so-called problem is not to be fixed, it is to claim power.

    Which may be what Tim was getting at in his own way.

  6. SMFS is correct. There is buggerall to be serious about. We should leave the Paris Discord this week and waste no more money or time on the nonsense.

  7. Even if there were AGW, its proponents have no interest in stopping it, their real interest is in treating it. Forever. At our expense. Great expense, might I add, and always leading to a very good living for those proponents.

    Exactly what the left accuses the drug companies of wanting for AIDS and cancer.

  8. I assume all geo-engineering initiatives have unintended consequences. You are putting iron into the biosphere. You don’t know what will happen and you don’t know how it will scale up.

    So we run small-scale trials, gradually ramping up if no problems are encountered. It wouldn’t be expensive to do, but is impossible if you’re religiously enforcing the ‘precautionary principle’.

  9. “So we run small-scale trials, gradually ramping up if no problems are encountered. It wouldn’t be expensive to do, but is impossible if you’re religiously enforcing the ‘precautionary principle’.”

    You would risk Life On Earth for what?

  10. @Gamecock
    The point I was trying to make was that if you believe that AGW constitutes an existential threat to mankind, there’s no logical or scientific reason for opposing such trials. Unless, of course, you don’t really want to solve the supposed ‘problem’.

  11. “If you believe that AGW constitutes an existential threat to mankind, there’s no logical or scientific reason for opposing such trials.”

    Making belief in AGW an existential threat to mankind.

Leave a Reply

Name and email are required. Your email address will not be published.