> (Otherwise, you'd be calling CO2 itself a pollutant.) "EPA finds carbon dioxide is a pollutant" http://www.pulpandpapercanada.com/issues/ISArticle.asp?id=98967&issue=04202009
On May 6, 11:57 am, [email protected] wrote: > James: > > The trouble with your pollution standard: > > "Putting clouds of sulphur dioxide into the atmosphere is itself > polluting and hence violates the second criterion" > > is that you have no clear definition of pollution. > SO2 occurs naturally, driven by volcanoes etc. > Further, pollution is when a substance is harmfully present, not just > detectable. That's a higher standard and the subject of much work, as > it requires understand a system, not just measuring a parameter. > (Otherwise, you'd be calling CO2 itself a pollutant.) > > Further, you seem unaware that unforeseen effects can and are dealt > with by doing experiments, perturbing systems, etc, as physics has done > for centuries. You can't learn through definitions; that takes > experience. > > Gregory Benford --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "geoengineering" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
