• Howdy! Welcome to our community of more than 130.000 members devoted to web hosting. This is a great place to get special offers from web hosts and post your own requests or ads. To start posting sign up here. Cheers! /Peo, FreeWebSpace.net
managed wordpress hosting

US urges scientists to block out sun

It sounds like one of his hair brained ideas and I'm sure the senate is laughing it up. But it will never happen, this country won't take the risk of losing its crops which supports the vast majority of the country and other countries rely on us for food as well. I highly doubt scientists will get funding for such a lame idea. Something like that could negatively effect the environment more than its being effected now. Besides, the best astronauts can barely work in their space suits for a couple hours. And its not something that could be launched like a satellite. It'll be years before we can do something like that. Scientists can't even agree on which way is the best way to blow up a killer meteor let alone devise a way to block out the sun.

The only way the world is going to cut emissions is to set a world wide emission standard that everyone must abide by. (Good luck getting that done and enforcing it) Else emissions will continue to rise.
 
Idiots, idiots, idiots, idiots, idiots, idiots, idiots, idiots, idiots, idiots, idiots, idiots, idiots, idiots, idiots, idiots, idiots, idiots, idiots, idiots, idiots, idiots, idiots, idiots, idiots, idiots, idiots, idiots, idiots, idiots, idiots, idiots, idiots !!!

I would be interested in who actually came up with this idiotic idea and who supports it, and what percentage of those people know anything about anything.....although I can predict that to be 0%.
 
Why couldn't place these mirrors on the earth? If it's 1% of sun energy, it shouldn't take up too much place..
 
Zeppelin said:
Why couldn't place these mirrors on the earth? If it's 1% of sun energy, it shouldn't take up too much place..
Click to expand...

Seriously, before making any comments, I suggest you research what you are talking about.

The goal of what the US is....proposing, is to reduce the global temperate, placing any amount of mirrors on Earth would do nothing to achieve that goal, or any for that matter. In fact it may make things worse, because it would reflect the radiation (depending on what kind of mirror, it will reflect different kinds of radiation) back into the atmosphere, making the global temperature even hotter. Like having two suns.

But this whole notion, of blocking out the sun, is just so utterly ridiculous....I mean really - were the people who thought up of this high?
 
idiotic. foolish. pathetic.
There is already a simple solution. - Limit emissions.

No, let's go for a dumb and overblown idea.
Let's BLOCK OUT THE SUN! :evilb:

The US complains how the Kyoto Protocol is "Kyoto-centric". If it is "Kyoto-centric", how come The Kyoto Protocol now covers more than 160 countries globally and over 55% of global greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions.

Stupid idiots in government. Stop bull----ting about everything and comply to what makes the world a better place, and not what benefits the US only.
 
did anyone else read the whole report? cause they are not talking about blocking the sun completely, just talking about reflecting 1 per cent of the sunlight so that most sunlight will still be there and we wouldn't even notice a difference besides less greenhouse effects. i am also sure that this has been in play since before Bush was in office for one, and two, not every so-called stupid idea is Bush's idea either. there are many people that make up a government, and a lot of the time, there are ideas that are thrown in front of ANY president, that is in office, in hopes for approval. and if you read the article, it does not sound like that bad of an idea to try and keep this planet suitable for supporting life. as we do need to restrict emissions more, that will only do so much. so, i am not saying i agree with the idea of blocking the sun, but it is something to learn more about and find out about all the different aspects of.
 
Honestly, this idea sounds more like an attempt by the US to avoid increasing pressure to cut down on its greenhouse gas emissions. While it's not necessarily a solution, it just seems like a classic situation of where someone will throw money at a situation in the the hope that it'll solve it.
 
global warming is not just a cause of the US though. it is just US scientists that have thought of a possible solution. we will see what happens i guess.
 
It's not the cause of the US, but the continuation of it pretty much is.

If the US cut emissions then we wouldn't be in the same situation we are today.
 
I did read the whole article, the proposal ranges anywhere from retarded to "this deserves a good bitchslap".
 
If the US cut emissions, its economy would not have grown to what it is today.

To ask a country like the US and many others, to cut back on emissions at this point will cost billions of dollars and seriously damage the economy. I think that the consequences of doing so is not worth the "possible" results; because we, humans, have no been around long enough to say that we have influenced global warming at all. I mean, we weren't around here the last ice age came around, but it still happened. Maybe global warming is just the earth's way of recycling itself. I am not denying that there is global warming, though it isn't as significant as the media makes it to be, and either am I denying that humans create harmful gases; but I AM saying that we don't know and have no proof that what we are putting into the atmosphere has ANY affect on global warming.
 
The US economy isn't doing that great anyways. I work in the landscaping business and being so, I notice a significant drop in the economy. Housing developers need less landscaping work done because they're not selling houses at the rate they were a year ago. When the economy starts to take a crap, the housing industry is the first to suffer and everything under it suffers as equally.

Interest rates are expected to keep rising. People simply just are not spending money right now. Its mostly because of the war in iraq. This is another reason why US citizens want to see an end brought to this useless war. But its only going to get worse. The government is starting to focus on Iran now, so a project like blocking out even 1% of the sun will see minimal funding if any at all.

Sometimes I really hate living in this country, the government gets more corrupt every day.
 
computerhelpworld said:
If the US cut emissions, its economy would not have grown to what it is today.

To ask a country like the US and many others, to cut back on emissions at this point will cost billions of dollars and seriously damage the economy. I think that the consequences of doing so is not worth the "possible" results; because we, humans, have no been around long enough to say that we have influenced global warming at all. I mean, we weren't around here the last ice age came around, but it still happened. Maybe global warming is just the earth's way of recycling itself. I am not denying that there is global warming, though it isn't as significant as the media makes it to be, and either am I denying that humans create harmful gases; but I AM saying that we don't know and have no proof that what we are putting into the atmosphere has ANY affect on global warming.
Click to expand...


Much of the developing times, we did not have any other choice except fuel. But now alternative sources are available. Wind, water, solar, nuclear, etc.
The big oil companies are just trying to not let us research in that direction and they have lobbyists in washington.
 
methodcomptech said:
did anyone else read the whole report? cause they are not talking about blocking the sun completely, just talking about reflecting 1 per cent of the sunlight so that most sunlight will still be there and we wouldn't even notice a difference besides less greenhouse effects
Click to expand...

Yeh I did, the funny thing is, that would be far more expensive and worse long-term, and short term than just reducing the emissions.

computerhelpworld said:
If the US cut emissions, its economy would not have grown to what it is today.
Click to expand...

$9 Trillion in debt?

computerhelpworld said:
To ask a country like the US and many others, to cut back on emissions at this point will cost billions of dollars and seriously damage the economy.
Click to expand...

That's the stupidest thing I've heard in my entire life, and the biggest myth in existence.

The only thing damaging the US economy, is the defense budget of $500Bn - more than twice what it was during the bloody cold war, and the horrific corruption amongst the congress, who get paid off millions to sign multi-billion defense contracts, which are utterly useless.

If they cut it down to $100Bn at most, or maybe $50bBn, they could reduce greenhouse emissions by 90%, and still have enough money left over to reform healthcare, to that of a 1st world country, rather than a 3rd world country.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top