monitoring Trump and relevant contemporary events

The scientists who welcome fraudulent data?

No thanks.

If I want to find facts, they are the last place that I'll go.

Neither does Google. There is a browser addon that forces Google to produce a plain link though.

I forget what the addon is. I use DuckDuckGo, since they care about my privacy.

In fact, that line of gibberish whenever you touch a Google or Bing link is their way of creating a permanent record of your search actions (so they can then sell your life history to advertisers).

------

Plus, if you use DuckDuckGo and you need to use a different search engine, simply adding !g to your search will jump over to Google. Adding !gn will jump to a Google News search. Adding !b will jump over to Bing. Adding !a will make it an Amazon search. Adding !w will make it a Wikipedia search.

I can even do !wowpedia and !wowhead if I am looking up something for World of Warcraft.

------

Way off topic here, but since I brought up World of Warcraft: any oldschool WOW players who haven't been paying attention lately might want to take notice that Blizzard is creating official classic vanilla servers.

Official classic BC and Wrath servers are likely to follow if (when) vanilla is wildly successful.

I think he just meant to suggest clicking on the link and going to the page, then copying the address from your browser's URL bar.

Although.... Why in the world would anyone ever use anything other than DuckDuckGo? Do people like having their privacy violated?

Since most Democrats call to violate people's civil liberties for fun, it can accurately be said that they do not respect the Constitution.

It is reasonable for the US to expect the rest of the world to shoulder a fair portion of the burden. Climate lunatics oppose this because their real goal is the destruction of the US.

That's why climate lunatics oppose efforts by the US to offset fossil fuels with nuclear power.

And why climate lunatics oppose research into putting particles in the upper atmosphere to block sunlight and actually cool the earth.

Asia is burning fossil fuel to run factories that make exports. In other words, they are polluting to produce what we and other rich consumer markets of the world buy.

Reducing trade will cause Asia to pollute less. The US, EU, etc. just have to rise to the challenge of producing more locally without upping their own pollution, which includes nuclear waste.


The radioactive waste problem of nuclear power has been publicly understood since the 70s. It's not a solution. It is part of the problem.


That's more pollution. It would disrupt nature. Artificial solutions just create more problems.

All we need to do is work at 1) de-industrializing as much and as fast as possible; and 2) reforming technologies that we really need to have a smaller footprint/impact.

Because that's not an answer, it's deflection of the problem.

Plan to avert global warming by cooling planet artificially 'could cause climate chaos'

Proposal to inject tiny reflective particles into the upper atmosphere to block out sunlight could lead to droughts, warn scientists

Steve Connor @SteveAConnor
Wednesday 8 January 2014 01:05

A controversial proposal to cool the planet artificially by injecting tiny reflective particles into the upper atmosphere which block out sunlight would cause droughts and climate chaos in the poorest countries of the world, a study has found.

One of the more serious plans to “geoengineer” the global climate would in effect create another climate catastrophe that would result in misery for millions of people, according to a computer model of the plan.

Some climate researchers have suggested that mimicking the cooling effects of volcanic eruptions with massive injections of sulphate particles into the atmosphere may be necessary in an emergency if global temperatures and carbon dioxide levels continue to rise unabated.

It is known that the sulphate particles produced by volcanoes, which are relatively quickly washed out of the atmosphere, can reduce incoming solar radiation significantly, and so cause average global temperatures to dip.

However, a study by scientists at Reading University has found that the effect of a massive and continuous injection of sulphates into the air would be to alter the rainfall patterns over vast regions of the world, notably Africa, South America and Asia which could as a result be devastated by drought.

“We have shown that one of the leading candidates for geo-engineering could cause a new unintended side-effect over a large part of the planet,” said Andrew Charlton-Perez of the University of Reading, a co-author of the study published in the journal Environmental Research Letters.

“The risks from this kind of geo-engineering are huge. A reduction in tropical rainfall of 30 per cent would, for example, quickly dry out Indonesia so much that even the wettest years after a man-made intervention would be equal to drought conditions now,” Dr Charlton-Perez said.

“The ecosystems of the tropics are among the most fragile on Earth. We would see changes happening so quickly that there would be little time for people to adapt.

“Discussion of geo-engineering often prompts heated debate, but very often there is a lack of understanding of what putting large amounts of aerosol in the stratosphere will do to the complex climate system. Our findings should help to fill in some of the gaps about one of the leading candidates,” he said.

Volcanoes, such as the Mount Pinatubo eruption in 1991, can cool average global temperatures significantly for short periods, but to reverse the expected 4C rise in global temperatures as a result of global warming would need large quantities of sulphate aerosols to be injected into the upper atmosphere over the course of several years.

“To reduce global temperatures enough to counter effects of global warming would require a massive injection of aerosol – the small particles that reflect sunlight back into space. This would be equivalent to a volcanic eruption five times the size of that of Mount Pinatubo every year,” said Angus Ferraro of Exeter University.

“Previous predictions of how stratospheric aerosol injection would affect climate were based on a number of assumptions. By actually modelling what would happen if aerosol were to be pumped into the atmosphere around the equator, we have revealed a new impact of geo-engineering on tropical climate,” Dr Ferraro said.

“As well as reflecting some of the incoming energy from the sun and cooling surface temperature, the aerosol also absorbs some of the heat energy coming from the surface which warms the stratosphere. We have shown for the first time that warming the stratosphere makes the troposphere below more stable, weakening upward motion and reducing the amount of rainfall at the surface,” he said.

Professor Ellie Highwood of University of Reading, a co-author of the study said that there is an understandable desire to explore alternatives to deep-cuts in carbon dioxide emissions, which do not seem to be materialising as a result of the failure of countries to reach a binding international agreement.

“Climate scientists agree that cutting carbon emissions is still necessary to curb the damaging effects of future climate change. However, since such cuts are far from certain to materialise, proponents of geo-engineering research argue that whatever the world decides on its carbon emissions, it would be prudent to explore alternatives that might help us in the decades ahead,” Professor Highwood said.

“On the evidence of this research, stratospheric aerosol geo-engineering is not providing world leaders with any easy answers to the problem of climate change,” she said.

Like apologizing for Islam? That is a deflection of a much more serious problem, and I have plenty of facts to back that up.

Thanks. That was an interesting article.

This is the problem with humans in general. They only want to take action that involves sacrifice if others are as well. As long as they are all waiting for other people to do something before they choose to themselves, they won't change anything. There's no collective agreement that can solve that problem.

Most here seem to agree that destroying America is one way to solve it.

that is flat out nonsense

Not at all. The only solution that climate lunatics will accept is the destruction of the American economy.

Having other countries shoulder a fair portion of the burden is not acceptable to them.

Offsetting fossil fuels with nuclear power is not acceptable to them.

Research into putting sunlight-blocking particles into the upper atmosphere is not acceptable to them.

It is pretty clear what their real goals are.

That supposed waste is actually more fuel for reactors. If we get rid of the environmentalists, we can start using that "waste" as fuel. Then it isn't waste at all and there is no need to dispose of it.

Not necessarily.

We aren't going to de-industrialize.

Even if we were willing to do so, we would not be willing to do so unilaterally.

Solving the problem is hardly a deflection.

Perhaps.

How about we have scientists do research into whether it can be done without adverse side effects?

No, unfortunately it is not. Very disappointing.

Unfortunately it is. You have never once posted anything accurate about liberals or the people who accept the mounds of evidence for anthropogenic climate change. You spin a farrago of pure fantasy.

The paris accords, idiot child.

None of that is true.

Since leftists routinely call for the violation of people's civil liberties for fun, he is quite accurate to describe leftists as not having respect for our Constitution.