In other words, "scientists" have no obligation to provide full disclosure, dispassionate reasoning, or respect for anyone else's view that is "unworthy" according to the person withholding the information and mixing science with political axe grinding. That's a pretty lame trope, ESPECIALLY as no one said they were obliged to do anything.
:roll:
Scientists
do provide transparency, weigh the evidence, and pay attention to other actual scientists who present contrary evidence.
That doesn't mean they are obligated to treat cranks and shills as though they are anything other than cranks and shills. They certainly have no obligation to respect an uneducated anonymous WUWT poster, who chucks out a bunch of denialist nonsense, the same way they would a professional published climate scientist.
I am as impressed with your claims as I am with any list of unsupported assertions - NOT. After having done my own review of the literature on environmental economics (DIME etc.) and alternatives to "prevention" I disagree. Passing the buck is the best outcome.
Oh, I had no idea that you
did your own review. It's not like that statement is an unsupported assertion. Silly me. :lamo
Is it better to get stabbed in the gut and taken care of by a surgeon who has never handled knife wounds, or not to get stabbed in the first place? That is, after all, what you're suggesting.
Any even remotely rational person who has looked at geo-engineering should realize that the risks are enormous, the outcomes unpredictable, and capabilities insufficient. We have never deliberately engaged in the kind of projects required to reverse some of the damage we've already done; e.g. dumping massive amounts of aerosols could wreak havoc with the environment, in ways known and unknown. Most geoengineering projects won't mitigate existing harms, such as ocean acidification, coral losses, marine cloud brightening, ice losses and more. Not to mention that just a moment ago, you were saying we don't understand the environment -- yet you're fine with untested (and untestable) global geo-engineering projects? How does
that fly?
Your position also seems rather irresponsible.
If you recognize the need for those types of geo-engineering projects, then you realize that human activities are harming the climate. Worse yet, your attitude displays one of the big risks -- namely, people will assume that "since it's a snap to cool the climate, who cares? Let's just keep cranking out the CO2!" -- a mentality which, surprise surprise, results in
greater emissions of GHGs, which can overwhelm our newly-produced capacity to reduce the harm we're doing.
By the way, we
do know how to reduce emissions. We can produce less waste and less garbage; we can push for energy efficiency standards, in buildings and with vehicles; we can push for sustainable and green energy generation, to name a few. We've already seen how the cost of renewables has been falling through the floor over the past decade, and it is likely to continue to fall. There is no grand mystery, we just have to get on it.
Another bonus? Even though it's very difficult, the reality is that
we can cut emissions right now. We are decades away from even the start of any sort of geoengineering projects.
Ultimately, we are doing so much harm and may need to move with enough alacrity to need some types of geoengineering. That is a far, far cry from suggesting that it is the
first option we should consider.
NewsPoll, Australia out of Paris, July 2018.
