If a few powerful individuals can just do it on their own and screw everybody, then shouldn't you be in favor of an international, organized attempt to do it?
A few powerful individuals are also capable of poisoning the continental US water table too, why I should prefer an organized international attempt to do it before them? Those aren't the only two options. What I want is, like wantonly releasing waste into the water table, for the idea to be reviled as irresponsible and to have legally enforced punishments for people who gamble with others' lives and health like that. In fact given the lack of consequences for the Ohio train crash, I want even stricter punishments than that.
Also I question why the fuck you're even here if you think organized international projects just happen spontaneously from the will of the global populace, and aren't almost universally the result of the will of a handful of global political elites (the very definition of a few powerful individuals).
You can't just censor and try to hide things you're scared of. You have to confront them and deal with them in a rational way.
The fuck do you think I'm censoring here? I'm very happy to talk openly to any idiot who wants to advocate covering their eyes and shooting randomly at the stratosphere to defeat the global warming boogeyman. Censoring ideas and punishing actions are very different. Talk about geoengineering all you want, just don't try and do it if you don't want me to join the line to beat some sense into you with a baseball bat. The idea that you're just supposed to allow anyone to take whatever risks they want with your life is smoothbrain cuck delusion.
It's not currently a cheap, safe, effective, solution to a problem. It's not safe, multiple times in recent years have solutions been proposed and published based on computer modelling, then revised within a few years with an "oops that would actually destroy the ozone layer, don't do that, my bad". It's not proven to be a solution, other theoretical plans have been later revised to show negligible cooling effects, or even to actually accidentally warm the troposphere up. Hell it's not even proven there's a problem, that the amount of warming that would happen without intervention would cause more harm than good to human civilization.
It's just cheap to get results from, whether that's improving our living conditions or destroying them is yet to be seen or adequately proven.
And then there's you when you hear "like a volcano" you say "but supervolcanoes bad!" lol.
A few powerful individuals are also capable of poisoning the continental US water table too, why I should prefer an organized international attempt to do it before them?
For that analogy to make sense there'd have to be some global, world-saving benefit from poisoning the water supply, some attractive righteous draw that's leading them to want to do it. But there isn't. That analogy is dumb.
You sure are mad. And scared. Maybe calm down, go off by yourself for a bit, and think about why.
Volcano in iceland - Oh look the world ended! There's thousands of eruptions that you never even heard about because they were so minor
"Gun didn't go bang bang once, gun always safe!" You must be a real whizz a Russian roulette with that unstoppable power of deduction.
For that analogy to make sense there'd have to be some global, world-saving benefit from poisoning the water supply
Nope it's perfect, because there's no world saving benefit to blocking off the sun either. For that analogy to work all you need is for some powerful idiot to be lead to believe "lead is great at blocking radiation, if we dump a bunch of lead in the water we'll drastically reduce cancer because everyone will be protected from radiation"
You sure are mad. And scared. Maybe calm down, go off by yourself for a bit, and think about why.
Haha, "man incapable of defending his point or self reflection suggests people should leave and reflect on why they're pointing out he's wrong". Speaking of irrational fears, why are you so dead set on blocking out the sun again?
"Gun didn't go bang bang once, gun always safe!" You must be a real whizz a Russian roulette with that unstoppable power of deduction.
Me: "It's like shooting a gun"
You: "But what if it was the Gustav gun?"
Me: "I'm talking about a regular gun"
You: "But a regular gun and a Gustav gun are both guns! Haha I win"
Geoengineering by stratospheric aerosol injection is by definition putting enough aerosol into the atmosphere to have a tangible effect on terrestrial albedo and global temperatures.
Normal volcanic eruptions don't do that, as you've already so painfully fixated on. Only super eruptions do that.
So more like:
You "It's just like shooting a gun"
Me "To have that effect you'd need a 'gun' that shoots 7 ton high explosive shells, we should be extra careful with that"
You "Haha people shoot guns all the time, wheeee, big gun go brrrr"
Uh huh, right, whatever you say chief, it's never happened before.
A few powerful individuals are also capable of poisoning the continental US water table too, why I should prefer an organized international attempt to do it before them? Those aren't the only two options. What I want is, like wantonly releasing waste into the water table, for the idea to be reviled as irresponsible and to have legally enforced punishments for people who gamble with others' lives and health like that. In fact given the lack of consequences for the Ohio train crash, I want even stricter punishments than that.
Also I question why the fuck you're even here if you think organized international projects just happen spontaneously from the will of the global populace, and aren't almost universally the result of the will of a handful of global political elites (the very definition of a few powerful individuals).
The fuck do you think I'm censoring here? I'm very happy to talk openly to any idiot who wants to advocate covering their eyes and shooting randomly at the stratosphere to defeat the global warming boogeyman. Censoring ideas and punishing actions are very different. Talk about geoengineering all you want, just don't try and do it if you don't want me to join the line to beat some sense into you with a baseball bat. The idea that you're just supposed to allow anyone to take whatever risks they want with your life is smoothbrain cuck delusion.
It's not currently a cheap, safe, effective, solution to a problem. It's not safe, multiple times in recent years have solutions been proposed and published based on computer modelling, then revised within a few years with an "oops that would actually destroy the ozone layer, don't do that, my bad". It's not proven to be a solution, other theoretical plans have been later revised to show negligible cooling effects, or even to actually accidentally warm the troposphere up. Hell it's not even proven there's a problem, that the amount of warming that would happen without intervention would cause more harm than good to human civilization.
It's just cheap to get results from, whether that's improving our living conditions or destroying them is yet to be seen or adequately proven.
Volcano in iceland - Oh look the world ended! There's thousands of eruptions that you never even heard about because they were so minor.
And then there's you when you hear "like a volcano" you say "but supervolcanoes bad!" lol.
For that analogy to make sense there'd have to be some global, world-saving benefit from poisoning the water supply, some attractive righteous draw that's leading them to want to do it. But there isn't. That analogy is dumb.
You sure are mad. And scared. Maybe calm down, go off by yourself for a bit, and think about why.
"Gun didn't go bang bang once, gun always safe!" You must be a real whizz a Russian roulette with that unstoppable power of deduction.
Nope it's perfect, because there's no world saving benefit to blocking off the sun either. For that analogy to work all you need is for some powerful idiot to be lead to believe "lead is great at blocking radiation, if we dump a bunch of lead in the water we'll drastically reduce cancer because everyone will be protected from radiation"
Haha, "man incapable of defending his point or self reflection suggests people should leave and reflect on why they're pointing out he's wrong". Speaking of irrational fears, why are you so dead set on blocking out the sun again?
Me: "It's like shooting a gun"
You: "But what if it was the Gustav gun?"
Me: "I'm talking about a regular gun"
You: "But a regular gun and a Gustav gun are both guns! Haha I win"
It's pathetic and beneath you.
Geoengineering by stratospheric aerosol injection is by definition putting enough aerosol into the atmosphere to have a tangible effect on terrestrial albedo and global temperatures.
Normal volcanic eruptions don't do that, as you've already so painfully fixated on. Only super eruptions do that.
So more like:
You "It's just like shooting a gun"
Me "To have that effect you'd need a 'gun' that shoots 7 ton high explosive shells, we should be extra careful with that"
You "Haha people shoot guns all the time, wheeee, big gun go brrrr"