Scientists clash over whether polar geoengineering is a dangerous gamble

6 comments

1. We’ll do anything but stop emitting ghg…

2. Scientists are not “clashing” over this. It’s pretty unanimous: polar geoengineering is a terrible idea. As someone involved in the polar sciences, I really cannot name or even know of any scientist who is on board with these ideas.

   The media insisting that there’s a legit debate about this is just insane to me. Fictional.

3. Any time humans intercede it never turns out well.

4. There is a complete bias towards inaction by scientists and environmentalists, yet they are happy to inflict changes such as the reduced sulphur in marine oil which accelerated climate change.

   Everyone acknowledges decarbonization is not going to go as fast as ideal, risking tipping points which are irreversible over the next 1000 years.

   Yet short lived and easily reversible interventions such as marine cloud brightening, is being opposed for no clear reason.

   How do scientists square this thinking? **If you know for certain that decarbonization is not going to be fast enough to prevent Antarctic glacier tipping points, why oppose interventions which could prevent it?**

5. Pretty sure “wack geo-engineering” is the center square on all of our apoc-bingo cards

6. Every movie I have seen around controlling weather says yes, that’s f*cking dumb.

Comments are closed.