If I shoot you in the leg, your response isn't going to be "gee, thanks for not shooting me in the head!" It's going to be "don't fucking shoot me, asshole!"
I can't see the "moronic point" and can't comment on it.
But I'm going to entertain heresy. Understanding geoengineering may become necessary. Not because it's a great idea. But because it may turn out to be a "cut off the leg to save the patient" kind of idea. i.e. less bad than the worst of climate change.
However, doing the experiments like it was done this time seems quite wrong.
Comments
> This is a fairly common chemical compound with many biological uses.
Your point? Eutrophication can be pretty nasty. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eutrophication
[deleted]
Your point was completely moronic.
If I shoot you in the leg, your response isn't going to be "gee, thanks for not shooting me in the head!" It's going to be "don't fucking shoot me, asshole!"
"They could've done something worse" doesn't justify a rogue geoengineering project.
I can't see the "moronic point" and can't comment on it.
But I'm going to entertain heresy. Understanding geoengineering may become necessary. Not because it's a great idea. But because it may turn out to be a "cut off the leg to save the patient" kind of idea. i.e. less bad than the worst of climate change.
However, doing the experiments like it was done this time seems quite wrong.
The now-deleted argument was "at least they didn't dump <some nasty chemical>". Totally irrelevant.