I find the response to this sort of paper to usually be an interesting litmus test for the degree to which people have projected their own politico-socio-economic wishes onto the canvas of climate change.
There are those for who this will obviously negate the need to think further about fossil fuel consumption, as it basically solves the problem (if there ever was a problem). There are others who will argue that this is no good, it is bound to have other effects, and what we really need to do is reduce consumption of fossil fuels (and probably everything else). Probably the truth really is somewhere in between (by which choice of words I am trying to avoid the trap of indicating that the truth is likely to be half way between the worst extremes on both sides, ina "false balance" stylee). James David B. Benson wrote: > Irrigated afforestation of the Sahara and Australian Outback to end > global warming > http://www.springerlink.com/content/55436u2122u77525/ > (The pdf is available to all). > > This geo-engineering proposal considers some of the side-effects. > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Global Change ("globalchange") newsgroup. Global Change is a public, moderated venue for discussion of science, technology, economics and policy dimensions of global environmental change. Posts will be admitted to the list if and only if any moderator finds the submission to be constructive and/or interesting, on topic, and not gratuitously rude. 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/globalchange -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
