And you would force this to happen how? You cannot get anyone to pay for anything in the current corrupt legal system they have built.

Then you are pretty easy to convince. I suppose that if a vacuum salesperson shows up and tells you how their vacuum with suck evil CO2 out and save the world, you will say "I'll take 3"? Come on, really? The evidence says climate is changing. End of data. No man made, no anthropomorphic, no anything, until conclusive evidence is presented. It was 3X more concentrated in deep past, so did man cause that too? Dinosaur farts? Will sea levels change? Maybe. Try using some data and not propaganda, watch Diamond at Oppenheimer Ranch for a while...

https://youtu.be/TdoRvly02Bo

https://youtu.be/5BRURdS3-PM

https://youtu.be/fv2xNm8gMPo

https://youtu.be/eycwagUnr2c

So, why do you insist on doing that? You ignore little details like: https://co2islife.wordpress.com/2018/...

https://www.accuweather.com/en/weathe...

"The problem is that no one knows what the problem is.It is quite clearly not CO2 action directly, and every geoscientist knows it. "
It's outside my area, but my understanding is there's a direct line from CO2 emissions to global warming.

I see the problem being that no one knows the solution. I am not clear that reducing emissions moves the needle, unless it somehow leads to a breakthrough in an energy source and storage vehicle that don't cause global warming. So the idea CO2 causes global warming, so lets reduce CO2 might be simplistic.

I find the notion of denying the reality of the problem to be pure wishful thinking. Science is open to new evidence, and there are breakthrough where we discover happy surprises, like butter being more healthful than margarine. It's wishful thinking to cling to the hope that new evidence will uncover we were wrong and things are exactly as we wished they were.

"4) Who should pay for developing these “more powerful tools”? [And #5]"
Using the metaphor of the lake from my other reply, it's the people who deploy the fertilizers causing the algae growth. If they had to pay for the lost value of their neighbors' property, they might find an alternative fertilizer, choose not to fertilize, or find some anti-algae treatment that counteracts the fertilizer that rolls off their property. In all cases, the property owners pays, either by more expensive fertilizer, an unfertilized lawn or garden, or by paying for the anti-algae. It's the owner's choice, whatever maximizes value for her.

[#8 and #9]
If the anti-algae treatment has unforeseen costs, the person who deployed it has to pay for the value he accidentally destroyed.

[Answering 2, 3, 6, 7 together]
This is a question we should be working through right now. I do not have the answer. My inclination is for prudence: "when in doubt, don't" The only lever we have that the evidence points to being reliable is reducing carbon emissions. Maybe there are other low-impact approaches, like increasing the albedo of human structure. I suspect these will be a drop in the bucket, so I don't rule out categorically stronger interventions.

Thanks for the questions. I'll answer one at time.
"1) Who are “we”?"
That's the rub. It's like having many land owners around a lake using various fertilizers that contribute to algae growth. Imagine the algae growth impedes various uses of the lake more than others. Somehow, they (the "we") have to figure out exactly how much net destruction of value there is who contributed how much of it. (I say net value b/c there may be some benefits to increased algae.) It's so easy to say this sounds like collectivism, so I'd rather pretend that the lake is big enough that activities on the surround land really don't have an impact. Obviously pretending is wrong b/c reality is what it is regardless of whether its consequences are problematic or helpful.

Of course the climate is controllable. There's no doubt in my mind whatsoever. The evidence points to we are changing it in costly ways. We need to face reality.

The UN shouldn't meddling in a soveriegn countries affairs. They should be doing their geo-engineering over China, India and other third world countires. Of course their planes would be shot down!

Well done....

The problem is they leak, but then are ridiculed and they apply distractions and false flags to cover them up, and people see crazy stuff on the subject, and then they will disregard all future ideas on it, even if correct.

Absolutely, and for too long. Hillary was for population density, using Green programs to control. Obama promised them he would get gun bans for them. He failed, but he left in power his "shadow government", as he called them. They have been scared to death of people asking about HAArP. When Jess Ventura went into the Congressional offices, they ran from him and closed the door.

There has actually been a study done to see how long conspiracies with different numbers of people in them would take to leak. It's not a very long time https://phys.org/news/2016-01-equatio... .

Re: “We need to find more powerful tools to deal with climate change and use them very wisely.”
A few questions come to mind:

1) Who are “we”?
2) Who should determine the specifications for these “more powerful tools”?
3) Who should be in charge of developing these “more powerful tools”?
4) Who should pay for developing these “more powerful tools”?
5) Should such payment be voluntary or coerced?
6) Who, specifically, should determine when, where and how to use these “more powerful tools”?
7) By what criteria should “we” decide the best way to use these “more powerful tools” “very wisely”?
8) Who should pay for any damage caused by these “more powerful tools”?
9) Who should be held responsible if these “more powerful tools” are not used “very wisely”?

Looking forward to your answers.

Like most tax money.

Now there is a good idea...may not have to wait too long, most solar minimums result in a few popping off, and a Grand Solar Minimum sees the big boys wake up. I have heard it is a result of the change in solar flux and basically heating the core, which is also what causes the overall increase in activity and earthquakes.

Of course, the problem has several possibilities, the most logical, and data driven is the solar cycle and the Grand Solar Minimum, some other possibilities I have heard are axial tilt, the pole shifting, as well as a possibility of a relation to acidification of the oceans due to pollutants and sunlight reactions. All I know is that "manmade" is a BS notion, especially when they have been caught cherry picking data on several occasions and NOT owning up to it.If they were serious, why do they insist on using private jets and big vehicles? Why is their contribution of no consequence but mine is so great I need to be taxed at every level of production to fix it? Hmmm... maybe because there is a huge pile of money to be scammed and no way to account for it? Oregon and Washington are pushing hard to encase a carbon tax into the price of gas (15 cents a gallon in Washington) and all they say is "to combat climate change". Never a specific, never a program, just vague notions and the money will disappear...

Yes, I do understand that, however, there have been several aeronautical engineers who have pointed out the differences and the environmental conditions needed to sustain a contrail over a long duration, and then brought up cases where that was not the case. There are several websites detailing HOW to "theoretically" geoengineer the atmosphere to reduce heat and CO2. For instance, look at the WW2 air battles, Battle of Britain and Bombing missions, very heavy contrails lasting a long time, due to the large water vapor content of exhausts.

All you list seem to reflect what we have been told the deep state's goals are...hmmm...connection maybe?

The problem is that no one knows what the problem is. It is quite clearly not CO2 action directly, and every geoscientist knows it. You should too.

We should propose a rule with the UN that Geoengineering by this body can not be begun without a consensus vote, since whatever is done affects everyone.

That ought to ensure nothing ever happens.

And kick them out of our country!

These stupids need a good volcanic eruption like Krackatoa (sp?) to freeze their butts off. Volcanoes throw 2-1/2 CUBIC MILES of dirt into the air annually.
If that isn't enough to reflect heat back into space, maybe we need to go primitive and sacrifice important people to Pele (like the UN and their lemmings)....

Yes, let's all of us globalists in the UN's Environmental Assembly fly on big fat jet airplanes to Nairobi to discuss pulling carbon dioxide out of the air so crops can't breathe.
Then to further discuss this with huge meets and tasty eats, let's next all fly to Singapore, then to Tokyo, then to Geneva, then to Bora Bora and then to even Timbuktu.
Anyone else got a bucket list for places for us all to fly to before the world comes to an end?
Let's hurry now. AOC, the new darling socialist goddess of AC during her oft-traveled jet flight, pontificates that~oh, woe!~we only have 12 years to go!

I second the motion.