Carlin Economics and Science

Applications of economics and science for rational public policy by Alan Carlin
  • rss
  • Home
  • About
  • Publications
    • An Evaluation of U.S. Government Aid to India, June 1964
    • Environmentally Responsible Energy Pricing, 1993
    • The United States Experience with Economic Incentives to Control Environmental Pollution 1992
    • Environmental Investments, The Cost of a Clean Environment, A Summary, 1990
    • Environmental Investments, Cost of a Clean Environment, Report by the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency to the Congress of the United States, 1991
    • Implementation and Utilization of Geoengineering for Global Climate Change Control, 2007
    • Mr. Udall’s Analysis, An Unrepentant Rejoinder
    • Risky Gamble
    • Vehicle Safety, Why the Market Did Not Encourage It and How It Might be Made to Do So, 1968
    • Why a Different Approach Is Required if Global Climate Change Is to Be Controlled Efficiently or Even at All
  • Added Sources

How Skepticism Concerning the UN Hypothesis Fits with Interest in Geoengineering

Alan Carlin | July 22, 2009

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.

Categories
Geoengineering
Comments rss
Comments rss
Trackback
Trackback

« Comments on Proposed EPA Endangerment Technical Support Document Global Temperature Charts Suggest Implausibility of UN CO2 Hypothesis »

3 Responses to “How Skepticism Concerning the UN Hypothesis Fits with Interest in Geoengineering”

  1. Kurt Keydel C'54 says:
    January 6, 2010 at 5:59 pm

    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

  2. Lizbeth Rensing says:
    March 23, 2010 at 4:20 pm

    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!

  3. Olevia Borde says:
    March 30, 2010 at 3:13 pm

    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.

Leave a Reply

Click here to cancel reply.

Recent Posts

  • Why a Copernican Revolution Is Needed in Climate Change Research
  • My Presentation on Climate Change Causation and Geoengineering at Moscow Conference on November 8
  • EPA Inspector General Finds Procedures Used in Preparing GHG Endangerment Finding Did Not Follow OMB Requirements
  • Murry Salby Presents Simple Analysis Showing that Variations in Atmospheric CO2 Are Primarily Due to Natural Temperature Changes, Not Humans
  • Obama’s Multifaceted Global Warming Doctrine Agenda and What Might Be Done to Slow It Down
  • Heartland’s 6th International Conference on Climate Change June 30-July 1 in DC
  • My New Article on Climate Change Economics and Science Published in a Peer-reviewed Journal
  • How Big Brother Is Using the National Parks and Other Agencies to Promote His Climate Religion Using Your Tax Dollars
  • Warmists’ Meager Hopes for a Climate Bill in 2010 Dashed by Lack of Votes for Even Drastically Scaled Down Energy Bill
  • July 22 May Well Mark the End for Major U.S. Climate Legislation and Global “Climate Control”

Search

Archive

Recent Comments

  • Joachim Seifert on Why a Copernican Revolution Is Needed in Climate Change Research
  • Scaffeta on his latest paper: Harmonic climate model versus the IPCC general circulation climate models | TaJnB | TheAverageJoeNewsBlogg on Why a Copernican Revolution Is Needed in Climate Change Research
  • Scaffeta on his latest paper: Harmonic climate model versus the IPCC general circulation climate models | Watts Up With That? on Why a Copernican Revolution Is Needed in Climate Change Research
rss Comments rss valid xhtml 1.1 design by jide powered by Wordpress get firefox