Carlin Economics and Science

With emphasis on climate change

How Skepticism Concerning the UN Hypothesis Fits with Interest in Geoengineering

Some may have wondered how I reconcile my skepticism about the United Nations hypothesis that emissions of CO2 and other greenhouse gases have an important effect on global temperatures fits with my interest in stratospheric geoengineering as an attractive alternative to reductions in CO2 emissions? This interest is shown in four of my previous publications in climate science under publications. If there is no real risk of a significant global temperature rise due to CO2, we may not need geoengineering after all. My view is that we still have much to learn about Earth’s climate and that the history of interglacial periods suggest that we could be faced with global cooling within a few thousand years. It would therefore appear prudent to be prepared for the eventuality that significant global warming or cooling could occur.

For reasons explained in my geoengineering papers, CO2 emissions control is unlikely to be effective in controlling global warming and useless for global cooling. For a comparatively modest cost, however, we could acquire the capability to carry out stratospheric geoengineering. Chances are very good that it would not be advisable to actually use it, but acquiring the capability would appear to be a wise precaution. It might also reassure those who believe in the UN hypothesis that possible potential warming could be stopped if there should ever be agreement that something needed to be done.

So in summary, I believe that significant global warming is unlikely this century, particularly as a result of increasing CO2 levels, but if it should start to occur it might be useful to be prepared to deal with such warming or the slightly more likely global cooling if necessary through stratospheric geoengineering. One other advantage of being prepared to use effective geoengineering techniques is that we would no longer have any need to undertake extremely expensive efforts to reduce CO2 emissions on the chance that there might be damaging global temperature increases or other adverse effects until the effects actually started to occur.

Share this Post:

Share on facebook
Share on twitter
Share on linkedin
Share on pinterest
Subscribe
Notify of
guest
3 Comments
Newest
Oldest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Olevia Borde

I’m actually glad I discovered this post. I’ve been looking for info on solar energy for some time.Looking forward to reading through more posts about energy.

Lizbeth Rensing

I really liked your submit and I’ll really say that the last post posted about this subject explained everything. And this post is truly a booster. I will say how the starter of this post was really in require of this info and so was I, I did search for this subject, but bang you people posted about this. Thanks all for posting this thread and truly making valuable contribution. It truly will assist me and also the post starter as well!

Kurt Keydel C'54

Hi Dr. Carlin –

We saw each other last over 50 years ago in the hallowed halls of Cranbrook; I found your website from Dwight Davis’s recent report in Tradition. Your raise some interesting questions regarding the “hot topic” (no pun intended) of global warming and CO2 emissions, especially how the data are regarded by different “SIGS”.

I might have preferred a more neutral venue than the Glen Beck show for a presentation of your findings, but so be it. I hope to access your website from time to time to see what is coming down the pike.

Best regards,

Kurt Keydel, C’54

Scroll to Top