[–] Tallest_Skil 3 points 48 points 51 points (+51|-3) ago
They’re going to do nothing but spread poison (because we can’t do a damn thing to the climate) and when the temperatures fall off naturally they’re going to claim that “we saved the world from global warming ha ha now it’s time for communism goyim.”
[–] [deleted] ago
[–] MuslimPorn 0 points 2 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago (edited ago)
There's a simple problem with deliberately blocking the sun with particles. Photosynthesis needs light on a virtually global scale.
If you consider what likely done the dinosaurs in then it likely wasn't just the cold from all. The dust would have almost certainly had a significant impact blocking much of the sunlight over much of the planet for months to years. Everything at the bottom of the food chain that uses photosynthesis takes a huge hit. From plants to algae.
Deliberately blocking the sun and lowering the temperature is actually really easy for us to do but not without screwing up the ecosystem.
It's a desperate measure that only makes sense if able to minimise the impact on photosynthesis and causes less disruption than climate change would.
Not to mention controlling it if it goes wrong. This is also the only way to easily bring about a Noah's Ark scenario. It's a WMD.
This is why nuclear winter is so devastating. It's not just cold and darkness for years but all farming collapses, no yield for a year, the whole ecosystem crashes and virtually everyone starves planet wide. In fact a weapon that can do that is more dangerous than nukes. Nukes will destroy cities but saturating the upper atmosphere in light blocking particles wipes out most life on top of the food chain.
[–] FlyinToadstar 0 points 13 points 13 points (+13|-0) ago
I'm looking forward to the lawsuits from agricultural areas of the country. How is Harvard going to prove that they're not responsible for any/all negative weather deviations that occur during the "experiment".
[–] [deleted] 0 points 1 point 1 point (+1|-0) ago (edited ago)
[–] FlyinToadstar ago
I didn't say anyone was going to win against the machine. That doesn't mean there won't be class action suits. Lawyers, you know.
[–] Smells_Like_Tacos 0 points 9 points 9 points (+9|-0) ago
Less lawyers and more bullets.
[–] Deplorablepoetry ago
One + one = lawyer in a box.
By that math it takes only one bullet per lawyer.., or, you could use a high powered rifle and kill a dozen lawyers with one bullet if you line them up in a row...
Still, when it comes to killing lawyers (justice), the economics of ammo should not enter the equation.
Spending spree with a double tap every time.
Happy hunting!