I finally got to read (in its entirety) a previously referenced article (Aliens Cause Global Warming) by Michael Chricton. One must read this again to fully understand how science has debased itself in its attempt not to play second fiddle to politics in formulating public policy. A scientist by training, I have chosen to attribute this to the corrosive effect politics has on anything, and not an inherent flaw with science. Or alternative, to the human weakness that will lead scientists (funny that is always the more mediocre ones) who approach the unknown with hubris as opposed to wonder.

Is it ok to nuke North Korea if we all get bigger SUVs?

As a resident of Massachuetts, I for one could stand to see a good deal more global warming than we've had this year. What a rip-off!

I think Sagan's little nuclear winter fraud has been thoroughly debunked.

Ah, but I'm scientifically-minded--let's run the experiment.

Your little joke contains a kernel of truth. If indeed the human race decides to cool global climate, it is far preferrable to institute such cooling by decreasing insolation rather than by decreasing atmospheric carbon dioxide. I rather think that mylar sheets in orbit make a bit more sense that terrestrial nuclear blasts, however appropriate the target.

Quite right, Michael - moderate our winters and our summers. Of course, this would bring more mosquitos.

Kill them.

Timothy:
The terrorists, or the mosquitos?

It occurs to me that global warming would reduce fuel-oil and natural gas consumption in cool climates, thus reducing CO2 output. I wonder if the vaunted computer models control for this?

Mike --

That tweak will be rolled out in V2.0, but only if you pay $29.95 extra.

History -- our only guide when science is inapplicable, as it is here -- says we're going to cool anyhow, big time.

Like exporting our work, it makes no sense to hurry it along.

No, no, not orbiting shades! You want to hang them at the Sun/Earth L1. Then we could adjust the amount of insolation to make the US climate optimal. Now that's unilateralism!

Optimal for who, AOG? Bring on the heat, I live in Minnesota.

Let the Europeans buy Air Conditioners.

AOG:

Well, if we place them properly, we can redirect Texan sunlight to Minnesota.

The Russians were seriously considering launching a big mylar mirror to reflect light onto St. Petersburg so it at least wouldn't be dark for 22 hours a day during winter. I believe they actually launched it and it didn't deploy properly; anybody else see this?

I'm still looking forward to the Brothers Judd Holocaust Contest in which readers get to guess just how many civilians around the world Orrin wants to kill. I come up with about 15,000,000.

Steve:

You keep leaving out China.

Mr. Earl;

The Soviets never deployed that system, but it was something on which serious planning was done. Note that orbiting mirrors work in that case because the goal is to increase sunlight in a specific region. Shading the whole planet, on the other hand, works better at L1.

As for Texas vs. Minnesota, I've wondered whether one could create structures complex enough to redirect sunlight rather than simply scattering / shading. Could one conceivably turn off the sun for a particular region? I'm sure it's theoretically possible, but technologically feasible? I have no idea. It would certainly be far more difficult than simple shading, which is trivial - get a big, very thin disk, put some weight on the edge and spin it. Put some attitude mirrors on the edges as well as you're done.