> Where did I say that? Nowhere, that's where I never said that you did. I did, and you're taking it out of context. >> Solar radiation management [problems]

> Where did I say that? Nowhere, that's where I never said that you did. I did, and you're taking it out of context. >> Solar radiation management [problems] > And where did I write this was "good"? That's right: nowhere again. I said "bad, but manageable" You're misquoting youself. You said that climate warming is bad, but manageable. And I don't agree with you there. > See the Simon / Ehrlich wager This bet was over a relatively short timescale and on a very narrow selection of resources, and so doesn't definitively prove or disprove the larger issues raised by the Club of Rome. > You can't make this stuff up. See: Lomborg views are very controversial, and even this article has some serious problems. - resource abundance - while it's true that predictions about running out of certain resources haven't come to pass thanks to technological innovation and more efficient usage, this doesn't mean that all resources are infinite or that extraction doesn't have environmental costs. Extraction and use of fossil fuels, for instance, is one of the leading causes of climate change - innovation - innovation isn't guaranteed to solve all problems, dependence on it to resolve issues of resource scarcity or environmental degradation might be risky - economic growth - exponential economic growth is unsustainable in the long term given the finite planet - pesticides and organic farming - he oversimplifies the issues, organic farming isn't solely about avoiding pesticides - it's also about soil health, biodiversity, and long-term sustainability - pollution: is still a major problem worldwide, particularly in developing nations, he doesn't address climate change (a form of pollution) with poses massive risks at all > "my approach", the one you agree with You're misquoting me again. I tend to agree that nuclear should be a part of the solution. However, based on the opinions of more knowledgeable experts in the field, I'm not entirely convinced that it's possible or feasible on the scale and timeline required. I'm not with you on your stance on solar radiation management. In my opinion, it's not a solution at all, and it would be extremely irresponsible and almost stupid to even attempt it. Sure, I don't have any sources to back up my claims - just as you don't, and that's fine. That's why the White House is calling for further studies, not the implementation of the idea, while a number of experts express serious concerns and strong reservations about this "solution".