The pros and cons of trying to adjust the global thermostat - latimes.com
In the theoretical scenario Keith outlined, two or three jets would disperse about 20,000 tons of sulfur into the stratosphere every year, starting in 2020, with a goal of slashing the rate of warming in half. That's a minuscule amount of sulfur compared to the amount that's emitted into the lower atmosphere as pollution, Keith said. Because carbon emissions would also continue, however, the amount of sulfur injected into the stratosphere would have to grow over time, possibly reaching 100,000 tons in 2030. Even then, though, the cost -- maybe $100 million -- would be a fraction of the amount spent on clean energy technology, which Keith said was about $270 billion last year.Fear-Mongering ABC Hypes Latest Global Warming Disaster: The End of Coffee! | NewsBusters.org
"It's frighteningly doable. All of the hardware is there ... and a lot of the science is there too," Keith said. And if the goal is reducing the risks of global warming in the near term, he argued, "this is essentially the only thing you can do."
The alarmist journalists at Good Morning America on Sunday hyped a new report that fretted over whether global warming will spell the end of coffee. Reporter John Muller warned, "...The coffee bean may be going to way of the dinosaur. We're talking about extinction if you believe this new study..."Global warming may bring pollen onslaught – The Chart - CNN.com Blogs
But if Superstorm Sandy didn't bring climate change concerns home for you, here's something else that might: Allergy mayhem.Grover Norquist: Bonehead of the Day [UPDATE] | JunkScience.com
A conference presentation does not come with the same level of scrutiny as publication in a peer-reviewed journal. But the findings make sense to Dr. Clifford Bassett, a New York allergist and ACAAI fellow who was not involved in this particular study.
"As you increase CO2 (carbon dioxide), it tells the allergenic plants to produce more pollen to the tune of three to four times more, and the pollen itself, we think, may actually be more potent," Bassett said.
I will explain in a forthcoming commentary why a carbon tax is pointless and inflationary — regardless of any illusory tradeoff. Stay tuned.
Meanwhile, why is Norquist giving aid and comfort to greens who manufactured the “climate crisis” in order to arrest and control the economy?
Update: Politico reported late this morning that Norquist has backtracked on support for a carbon tax...