|
tatankatonk posted:People regularly encounter co2 levels of 1500 to 2000 ppm in buildings that have a lot of occupants wothout noticing. Yeah, but there's a difference between occasional exposure in one location and being exposed for your entire life. I know human physiology operates differently at high altitude, for example, and you wouldn't necessarily notice that. But if the answer is "no real effect, it's too small", that's cool too.
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2012 16:45
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 29, 2024 05:02 |
|
|
CO2 is pretty inert and does not harm you to breathe it. When that one lake belched out pure CO2 and killed a whole town, it was through suffocation, not poisoning. As long as the atmosphere has enough oxygen for us, the CO2 level is not a concern for our bodies. http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lake_Nyos
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2012 17:32
|
|
|
I don't know if anybody else has been following the live coverage of the Doha climate talks, but there's some choice quotes in there (and hold on to your hats, but it looks like it's been pretty disappointing overall).Asad Rehman, spokesperson for Friends of the Earth International posted:It's an empty shell, an insult to our futures. There is literally no point in countries signing up to this sham of a deal, which will lock the planet in to many more years of inaction. What the world and its people need is more urgent action on cutting climate pollution, more help to those transforming their economies and more help to those already facing climate impacts. This text fails on every count. LIdy Nacpil of Jubilee South Asia Pacific posted:[The Doha texts are] a million miles from where we need to be to even have a small chance of preventing runaway climate change. As civil society movements, we are saying that this is not acceptable. The Philippines' negotiator almost broke down in tears during his speech - later followed by goggle-eyed chump Christopher Monckton giving this short speech and being subsequently kicked out of the talks and apparently permabanned from the UNFCCC. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mwjC-MMKwRY Plenty of blame to go around but many people are apparently not happy with how the event has been organised. quote:...A source at the talks, who asked not to be named, accused the Qatari's of treating the event like they were hosting a World Cup instead of a climate conference. Guardian environment correspondent Fiona Harvey posted:Haven't spoken to a single delegate who thinks the Qataris are doing a good job. They don't seem to mind people being here all night and have failed to force countries to make a decision. They need to get a grip, I'm told, perhaps with the aid of other countries. And further confirmation that we're as good as locked in to 2°C at this point. Prof Nigel Arnell, Director of the Walker Institute at the University of Reading posted:The talks in Doha are trying hard to set the agenda for a new global treaty in 2015 binding countries to reductions in emissions. However, to have even a 50% chance of limiting warming to 2C, global greenhouse emissions need to peak by 2020 and then come down at several percent per year. It’s hard to see how this can be achieved now, even if a new global emissions deal is agreed by 2015. Bob Ward, policy and communications director at the Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment at London School of Economics and Political Science posted:This meeting is making excruciatingly slow progress on tying up issues left over from last year, including formal agreement on a second commitment period for the Kyoto Protocol and on the provision of financial support from rich countries to developing countries between 2013 and 2020. It is important that these issues are resolved during this summit, even though the negotiations are running on beyond their scheduled finish. This is all just from today's session. They're running over into an extra day of negotiations tomorrow and I'm sure there will be plenty of good summary coverage afterwards, but... yeah.  Also: diagrams!  (From http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2012/dec/07/carbon-dioxide-doha-information-beautiful) TACD fucked around with this message at 17:50 on Dec 7, 2012 |
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2012 17:42
|
|
|
tatankatonk posted:People regularly encounter co2 levels of 1500 to 2000 ppm in buildings that have a lot of occupants wothout noticing. Depends on the individual - some individuals demonstrate susceptibility once the 1000 ppm threshold has been reached; others can go up to 1500 without noticing. Generally, CO2 monitoring in the workplace is used to determine if the interior ventilation of the building is bringing in enough fresh air (as a measure of the air exchange rate) - higher CO2 levels can often correlate to other adverse indoor-air quality gasses, such as volatile organic compounds offgassing from surfaces, printer toner gasses, cleaning solvents, and so forth. The human body uses CO2 levels to determine the amount of air we need, and not oxygen. You could reduce the oxygen levels below the human threshold without seeing any immediate physiological reactions; but once you raise the CO2 levels (even with an increased oxygen amount) the "I'm not getting enough air" feeling kicks in. The argument of having CO2 levels at 1000ppm and people not noticing is valid; however, don't forget that it is fresh, outside air with a lower concentration of CO2 that helps dilute and bring down CO2 levels to levels around 700ppm for a well-ventilated building. If your fresh-air intake is already at 1000ppm, then I shudder to think what your indoor CO2 levels are going to be. (EG: If your ventilation intake for your building happens to be streetside, or in a high vehicle traffic area, parking garage, or poorly-designed baffling system). I don't have the report in front of me, but there is a relationship between highter CO2 levels and human productivity. If Atmospheric CO2 levels keep climbing, it's going to take more and more clever ways to ventilate these buildings with fresh air - since we use outside air to bring down CO2 levels. Life would suck if we needed CO2 scrubbers everywhere we go. (EDIT) - also, why the hell do they always have these climate talks during the fall / winter? With respect to our southern-lattitude counterparts, if they wanted more action - have these talks during the middle of July, when heatwaves are scorching throughout the world and newspapers publish reports of people dying of heatstroke. Guigui fucked around with this message at 20:32 on Dec 7, 2012 |
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2012 20:23
|
|
|
TACD posted:The Philippines' negotiator almost broke down in tears during his speech - later followed by goggle-eyed chump Christopher Monckton giving this short speech and being subsequently kicked out of the talks and apparently permabanned from the UNFCCC. YouTube comments...   "My Lord!" 
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2012 20:30
|
|
|
The phillipines video is incredibly touching and I just posted it to facebook pleading with everyone to watch it. I doubt more than a few of my close friends will.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2012 20:59
|
|
|
Well, now here's some good news: http://thinkprogress.org/climate/20...schwarzenegger/ quote:“YEARS OF LIVING DANGEROUSLY” to feature Matt Damon, Don Cheadle and Alec Baldwin as first-person narrators on the ground; series also to be executive produced by “60 Minutes” veterans Joel Bach & David Gelber. That Cameron quote has me optimistic for this. There's a dude who typically accomplishes what he sets out to do. I suppose that Schwarzenegger might lend some modest Republican credibility along with star power, and the whole project is anchored by folks who know what they're doing. Maybe this moves the needle a little bit?
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2012 01:35
|
|
|
From the BBC Headline: Climate talks: UN forum extends Kyoto Protocol to 2020 Breaking news Delegates at UN climate talks in Qatar have agreed to extend the Kyoto Protocol until 2020, avoiding a major new setback. lol The deal, agreed by nearly 200 nations, keeps the protocol alive as the only legally binding plan for combating global warming. However, it only covers developed nations whose share of world greenhouse gas emissions is less than 15%. lol
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2012 17:37
|
|
|
Does anyone know what the general consensus is amongst the population of European countries that already have invested a lot of money into renewable power generation - such as Denmark and Germany - in regards to the demand to enact legislation aimed at reducing further greenshouse gas emissions? Here in Canada there is a division between provinces receiving heavy funds from the oil extraction industry, and other provinces (such as Quebec) that have large amount of renewable electricity generation (such as Hydro). I don't know how much influence the fossil fuel lobby has amongst various European countries, but I know they have a very large influence here in Canada in altering public policy. Any information would be greatly appreciated - thanks!
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2012 18:17
|
|
|
The Experience posted:From the BBC Headline: Every conference these clowns have reinforces my belief that nothing will get done if we wait for the various leaders around the world to act. Time and time again they've shown they're utterly incapable of handling climate change. Any real progress will have to come from the bottom-up.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2012 18:21
|
|
|
Thank God the celebrities are going to speak out. Maybe make a movie! 
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2012 19:05
|
|
|
Guigui posted:I found it interesting that Civ 1 and 2(and I think Civ 3) both had global warming penalties. Wasn't the main plot of Alpha Centauri that The Earth had been made uninhabitable by unrest caused by global warming? I'm also relatively sure that you had to balance your technology use with not screwing up the climate of the new planet you had settled. Anyway. Here in Minnesota, we haven't yet had any snow this year like we should. It's causing a lot of people I know from classes to freak out, thinking that their Christmas is going to be ruined. I've been surprised-- because of this, a lot of them have been more accepting of the idea that climate change is behind the problem, and they seem to be (uncharacteristically) concerned about it. Maybe the zeitgeist is changing. McDowell posted:Thank God the celebrities are going to speak out. Maybe make a movie! The battle against global warming is on two fronts: science and political opinion. Whatever helps for one will help the other.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2012 20:21
|
|
|
Guigui posted:Does anyone know what the general consensus is amongst the population of European countries that already have invested a lot of money into renewable power generation - such as Denmark and Germany - in regards to the demand to enact legislation aimed at reducing further greenshouse gas emissions? This is from a Pew study I linked before:  I often wonder if these studies don't end up creating a bias because of the mental framing put around them. Like, in certain countries, the concept of "paying more" to reduce climate change sparks in people's minds this fear of Soviet bread lines or the economy collapsing around them or whatever instead of a mild decrease in the standard of living. In reality, even if we look at it from a cynical neoliberal perspective, the transition over to renewable/nuclear energy sources and the creation of adaptation infrastructure (seawalls, etc.) is exactly the sort of "job creation" people seem to be looking for. Reducing GHG emissions doesn't necessarily have to mean "we have to shut down all the factories," but it does mean that the power for the factories has to be provided in some other way, and that necessarily involves investment (but also economic return as a result).
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2012 20:28
|
|
|
I remember some old videos of Bill O'Reilly being skeptical about climate change. Is this still his current position? Reading through the Fox News website, it seems Fox now agrees that climate change is real and is actually praising Gore and bashing Obama over the issue. How has he responded to the new line?
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2012 20:32
|
|
|
I've finally started to read Craig Dilworth's Too Smart for Our Own Good: The Ecological Predicament of Humankind, and it has thus far exceeded my expectations, which were already pretty high. The language is somewhat dry and he takes some time at the beginning to set up the basic ground rules of the physical world that have lead us to our current circumstances (the first twenty pages or so are devoted to a physics overview), but this only adds to the comprehensive and scholarly approach he takes in explaining the human condition. I can't emphasize enough how well-researched and complete it is in explaining why humans are the way they are (1700 citations for 500 pages of analysis), and the claim on the back of the book that it is an evolutionary and biological look at human development that picks up where Darwin left off is not at all unfounded. If you are even remotely interested in understanding why climate change is but one part of a larger problem that human society faces, I can't recommend it enough.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2012 20:46
|
|
|
I'm currently embroiled in debate with a pretty intelligent and well-informed skeptic. I presented Nordhaus's piece and he immediately responded with this refutation from Anthony Watts. I find many of Watts' counterpoints pretty easily dismissed, namely the social/political ones ("I am paid to do research, therefore I am a paid shill for Al Gore, etc.) but I'm not enough of a statistician to handle his graphs showing little to no warming etc. I sense that at heart these are basically cherrypicks selected to prove his point but he's presented them convincingly. What am I missing? Can anyone give a hand with a summary of where I should focus in trying to tear these down?
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2012 23:30
|
|
|
rivetz posted:I'm currently embroiled in debate with a pretty intelligent and well-informed skeptic. I presented Nordhaus's piece and he immediately responded with this refutation from Anthony Watts. I find many of Watts' counterpoints pretty easily dismissed, namely the social/political ones ("I am paid to do research, therefore I am a paid shill for Al Gore, etc.) but I'm not enough of a statistician to handle his graphs showing little to no warming etc. http://skepticalscience.com/argument.php
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2012 00:02
|
|
|
Baron Bifford posted:I remember some old videos of Bill O'Reilly being skeptical about climate change. Is this still his current position? Reading through the Fox News website, it seems Fox now agrees that climate change is real and is actually praising Gore and bashing Obama over the issue. How has he responded to the new line? Fox News says whatever is convenient its agenda. Any acceptance of climate change is in line with a political attack (as you stated) and they will broadcast any and all skepticism towards it while advancing business interests (Keystone pipeline, Cap and Tax, assaults against the EPA).
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2012 00:04
|
|
|
Uranium Phoenix posted:Every conference these clowns have reinforces my belief that nothing will get done if we wait for the various leaders around the world to act. Time and time again they've shown they're utterly incapable of handling climate change. Any real progress will have to come from the bottom-up. tl;dr we're hosed.  Also;- http://news.sciencemag.org/sciencenow/2012/12/ticking-arctic-carbon-bomb-may-b.html quote:by 2100 permafrost holding 436 gigatons of carbon could thaw.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2012 01:50
|
|
|
duck monster posted:tl;dr we're hosed. quote:...the IPCC Fifth Assessment Report, due for release in stages between September 2013 and October 2014, will not include the potential effects of the permafrost carbon feedback on global climate. So basically even though the next IPCC report isn't due until 2014 (at which point the deniers will inevitably start up their banshee shriek about alarmism) we already know it's going to ignore at least this one significant feedback effect entirely. Which will mean all their estimates downplay the actual risks / effects by some unknown enormous amount. TACD fucked around with this message at 03:08 on Dec 9, 2012 |
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2012 03:05
|
|
|
TACD posted:So basically even though the next IPCC report isn't due until 2014 (at which point the deniers will inevitably start up their banshee shriek about alarmism) we already know it's going to ignore at least this one significant feedback effect entirely. I have a somewhat long-standing question about this exact topic: When the effects of global warming start becoming completely undeniable, exactly how far will industrial interests go to keep the current status quo alive? I'm not what I would call an astute student of history, and I can only speak from my own experience as an activist against coal companies in Kentucky. I just want to know, exactly how deep down will the rabbithole probably go when the poo poo hits the fan more than it already has?
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2012 08:24
|
|
|
TheFuglyStik posted:I have a somewhat long-standing question about this exact topic: When the effects of global warming start becoming completely undeniable, exactly how far will industrial interests go to keep the current status quo alive? As long as there's profit to be made, they'll fight tooth and nail. The effects of smoking tobacco were completely undeniable, and that didn't stop that industry at all. When facts become inconvenient to ideology or profit, most people ditch the facts. Climate change is already undeniable. Waiting until it fucks us with storms, flooding, drought and famine won't suddenly make oil executives see the light, so there's no reason to wait.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2012 09:04
|
|
|
TheFuglyStik posted:I have a somewhat long-standing question about this exact topic: When the effects of global warming start becoming completely undeniable, exactly how far will industrial interests go to keep the current status quo alive? Industry will push for climate remediation over pollution reduction and will be happy to take government money to do it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2012 09:29
|
|
|
Yep. Reduction flies in the face of the entire global economy's core assumptions. It's going to take a serious and unlikely awakening to actually try and turn back the causes, because the vested interests go way beyond merely the captains of industry here. This is way worse than tobacco, because the entire Western lifestyle is addicted to the products of these industries to the point that imagining a life without the products of industry is unfathomable for us. We argue in this very thread what level of reduction is acceptable and realistic, and we believe in climate change. What chance has the greater public in this when there is no money in marketing a genuine reduction in consumption. Any advertising with an ecological bent is about encouraging a different kind of consumption, rather than stopping it entirely. Reusable items are suddenly seen as innovations although they are still, in the end of the day, manufacturing new stuff to replace perfectly useful existing products. The consumption train has a poo poo load of momentum, with or without the captains of industry keeping their foot on the throttle.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2012 10:48
|
|
|
Judging by this tweet, Murdoch believes in climate change but believes all proposed solutions are bad, which is probably the position Fox and industries will take when climate change becomes too bad for them to deny any more. What's more, this article suggests that Murdoch thinks one thing but lets Fox News say something else, which is downright bizarre and suggests that he doesn't have total control over everything that is said in his company.
Baron Bifford fucked around with this message at 22:42 on Dec 9, 2012 |
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2012 21:10
|
|
Baron Bifford posted:Judging by this tweet, Murdoch believes in climate change but believes all proposed solutions are bad, which is probably the position Fox and industries will take when climate change becomes too bad for them to deny any more. What's more, this article suggests that Murdoch thinks one thing but lets Fox News say something else, which is downright bizarre and suggests that he doesn't have total control over everything that is said in his company. One thing is what Murdoch thinks, the other is what makes him money. Murdoch is obviously a good enough businessman to tell the difference.
|
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2012 23:15
|
|
|
Baron Bifford posted:Judging by this tweet, Murdoch believes in climate change but believes all proposed solutions are bad, which is probably the position Fox and industries will take when climate change becomes too bad for them to deny any more. What's more, this article suggests that Murdoch thinks one thing but lets Fox News say something else, which is downright bizarre and suggests that he doesn't have total control over everything that is said in his company. http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/how-roger-ailes-built-the-fox-news-fear-factory-20110525 I don't know how accurate this article is, but it suggests that Roger Ailes has total control over Fox News and that Murdoch is afraid of him.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2012 23:31
|
|
|
Uranium Phoenix posted:Every conference these clowns have reinforces my belief that nothing will get done if we wait for the various leaders around the world to act. Time and time again they've shown they're utterly incapable of handling climate change. Any real progress will have to come from the bottom-up. My experience shows this is the case. I can only speak for the U.S., but everything I heard tells me that most local governments are taking climate change seriously. I've seen life-long Republicans not only agree that climate change is happening, but also take steps to reduce their city's/town's/village's carbon impact. One example is the U.S. Conference of Mayors' Climate Protection Agreement, which asks local governments to reduce their emissions to match the Kyoto Protocol. Mayors from all over the country have signed it. Unfortunately, a local government can only do so much. A local government can't mandate higher mileage in cars for instance. However, local governments can shut down coal power plants, such as the recent closings in Chicago after weeks of protests.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2012 14:36
|
|
|
quote:I'm currently embroiled in debate with a pretty intelligent and well-informed skeptic. I presented Nordhaus's piece and he immediately responded with this refutation from Anthony Watts. I find many of Watts' counterpoints pretty easily dismissed, namely the social/political ones ("I am paid to do research, therefore I am a paid shill for Al Gore, etc.) but I'm not enough of a statistician to handle his graphs showing little to no warming etc. The short answer: the graph that Watts's argument hinges on has been doctored, and pointing out the Medieval Mega-Drought Period (err, sorry, Medieval 'Warm' Period) as a benchmark to compare contemporary warming against is a pretty terrible idea. The long answer: Just by eyeballing it, that graph looks like it's Fredrik Ljungqvist's.  You can see quite easily what Watts did: he simply cropped-out the contemporary temperature increases, and 'adjusted' the timeline to show that the Medieval 'Warm' Period was hotter than today. It's also worth noting that the Medieval 'Warm' Period involved widespread desertification of North America. Sure, Greenland & Northern Europe (back in time when population densities were low) were no doubt lovely; but there were loving sand dunes in the Midwestern United States. I have no doubt that it was total Hell elsewhere in the world too, but I'm not familiar enough with any other data to talk about it. EDIT: Also, Monckton is not a member of the House of Lords. This isn't important to the debate, but it apparently grates on his soul whenever someone mentions that his title is phony, so I like to mention it a lot. The Ender fucked around with this message at 00:08 on Dec 11, 2012 |
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2012 23:47
|
|
|
Baron Bifford posted:Judging by this tweet, Murdoch believes in climate change but believes all proposed solutions are bad, which is probably the position Fox and industries will take when climate change becomes too bad for them to deny any more. What's more, this article suggests that Murdoch thinks one thing but lets Fox News say something else, which is downright bizarre and suggests that he doesn't have total control over everything that is said in his company. Whats loving annoying me is the answers are not as hard as its made out to be. We don't need TOO significant a reduction to at least buy us some breathing space in this fight, and thats entirely achievable. The Australian govt (amidst much screaming and moaning from the conservatives) introduced a Carbon emissions tax, targetted at specific industries. Its barely affected the price of anything. Recently I got a monsterous $400 gas bill for being a bad greenie and leaving my gas heater on all summer. On the bill it outlined the Carbon emmissions tax for the bill. $14. gently caress all. After under a year of introduction, however, we're actually right on target to hit all of the commitments made on climate change, fuckwit conservative states notwithstanding, simply on the basis of a number of industries transitioning over to non or reduced CO2 emitting processes, and coal stations starting to decommission to switch over to slightly less bad gas fired stations. Thats still the "hey lets just do 2% rise" targets though, and I'm starting to think when you factor in permafrost , "only" 2% isn't good enough. But hey, its a start right. Now to convince the US and China to get it right, and perhaps build some Tory proofing into the system.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2012 00:09
|
|
|
McDowell posted:Thank God the celebrities are going to speak out. Maybe make a movie! This was my knee-jerk cynical reaction as well, but honestly, this is the world we're dealing with: a place where Johnny McFucktard and his buddies determine national policies via ballot after tuning-in to soundbytes on Fox News / CNN to become 'informed'. People like Cameron & Gore recognize this and put together these experiences for this generation of soundbyte-driven constituents. It would be nice if they could spend the same amount of time just reading the IPCC reports, but they won't, so we have to go play something flashy on the idiot box and hope they respond to it. quote:Whats loving annoying me is the answers are not as hard as its made out to be. We don't need TOO significant a reduction to at least buy us some breathing space in this fight, and thats entirely achievable. We need to peak emissions in 2020. I mean, sure, maybe Australia can do that. America? Hahahahaha. It's just a joke. There is zero political will to do dick all other than point fingers and blame someone else for being MORE IRRESPONSIBLE!!!, and the 'progressive' political parties just use climate change as a loving tennis ball.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2012 00:21
|
|
|
The Ender posted:We need to peak emissions in 2020. I mean, sure, maybe Australia can do that. America? Hahahahaha. It's just a joke. There is zero political will to do dick all other than point fingers and blame someone else for being MORE IRRESPONSIBLE!!!, and the 'progressive' political parties just use climate change as a loving tennis ball. And convince China to stop investing in coal plants and ramping up mining operations in Inner Mongolia to record levels year over year. And convince Indians not to buy cars to use on the new highways they are building.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2012 02:43
|
|
|
On the flip side, China is building more wind farms and solar panels than anywhere else, and a city in India (I think Mumbai) just built a fantastic metro system ahead of time and under budget, and 88% of citizens use public transport.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2012 02:50
|
|
|
Yeah Climate Change at this point can only be 'solved' by a strong U.N oh gently caress it I cant even finish this sentence.  The only real solution will be aggressive Geoengineering and climate change mitigation to repair the damage that will be grudgingly done once major cities begin to flood and climate change begins to seriously stress the world economy. The Great powers of the world will do this and strongarm every nation into following or global society will collapse under the stress and violence unleashed on it, full stop.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2012 03:01
|
|
|
Countdown until someone unironically proposes nuclear winter as a solution.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2012 03:04
|
|
|
Spazzle posted:Countdown until someone unironically proposes nuclear winter as a solution. I wish I was kidding. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stratospheric_sulfur_aerosols_%28geoengineering%29
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2012 03:08
|
|
|
Lawman 0 posted:I wish I was kidding. I'm aware of that. I want to see people propose going all out nuclear.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2012 03:17
|
|
|
Spazzle posted:I'm aware of that. I want to see people propose going all out nuclear. Considering how hosed things may become I can see that as a distinct possibility.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2012 03:20
|
|
|
quote:The only real solution will be aggressive Geoengineering and... I just want to interject here and say that 'Geoengineering' is not even a thing. It's basically "We will intentionally throw a bunch more pollution around, and hope that one pollutant cancels-out another without destroying so much of the biosphere in the process that the old problem is now overshadowed." It's massive scale intentional pollution, and it smacks of naive technocratic bullshit.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2012 03:35
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 29, 2024 05:02 |
|
|
The fact that the word geoengineering is used at all outside out of science fiction bothers me since it implies a level of understanding of large scale climate systems that we just don't have.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2012 03:50
|
|
