EUBanana wrote:
I've been having some fun trolling on Reddit where I back up geoengineering and genetic engineering as a solution to climate change.
There are various geoengineering methods being proposed, the cheapest seems to be artificial clouds made by spraying seawater into the air to increase the Earths albedo, thus having a cooling effect.
All these geoengineering projects, even the grandiose ones, cost peanuts compared to 'greening' the economy - of the order of 1%. Seems to be the ideal solution therefore.
But whenever you talk to environmentalists about this stuff it quickly becomes clear that fixing the problem in the most efficient manner possible is actually not their intent. As I asked someone directly, if you could fix climate change and nobody had to change their lifestyle at all, for a very minimal cost, is that not the ideal solution? This just makes everybody I challenge with that angry, I've noticed. They would much rather we wear hair shirts than fix the problem as cheaply and easily as possible.
So it's really NOT about climate change at all. It's about piousness, virtue signalling, and sneering condescension for the lifestyle of others.
Yes, indeed and fully. Not to mention that the nature of "the problem" remains one of scientific inquiry, not of scriptural absolutism.
There is NO QUESTION IN SCIENCE, YET, that is or could possibly be as settled, finished, and closed up as the Climate Hysterics will insist their pseudo-science to be.
Sometime in the 1990s, perhaps in the 1980s, major sections of the broad family of movements we might call "Environmentalism" became religious movements. I am an environmentalist to this day, but that means that, for example, I am very much in favor of the promotion of hunting of deer in the Eastern U.S. (as one heretical example).