|
|
|
|
|
by NoMoreNicksLeft
1067 days ago
|
|
The right has been accused of denialism for decades at this point, but any time solutions they might be in favor of are proposed, the left gives us hysterics about how geo-engineering is too dangerous to contemplate. This leads me to believe that they're lying about how important it is to them. Supposedly, it is a world-ending scenario... at least when it comes to wrecking economies. But the moment real fixes are discussed it's "oh no, we can't do that". Considering how much they've had hardons for economic meddling for a century and a half at this point, why should I believe that it's anything other than a ploy to do what they've always wanted? |
|
Yeah, Nuh.
"detonating thermonuclear weapons to throw enough dust above the troposphere to cool the planet down" isn't a real solution, and we've done this before .. leaving aside the two atomic detonations at the end of WWII and looking just at the 2,000 test detonations since (many larger, much larger, than the H & N explosions) the absolute worst case examples were ground level blasts that lifted material into the sky. [1]
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castle_Bravo
Better fixes include inflating bubbles between the earth and sun to reduce incoming light .. at least that one is reversable and fine tuneable.
Or, you know, maybe consuming less and winding down a bit on the baby making?