1) Produce an excess of energy using methods that do not release CO2

2) Use the excess energy to sequester atmospheric CO2

3) Repeat until atmospheric CO2 levels are at pre-industrial levels

There are no shortcuts. If you skip step one and attempt step two, you have a net increase in CO2 release. If you avoid this whole plan by adjusting insolation, you get a break on the temperature while we inevitably ignore the continually increasing CO2 and all the other issues it brings, and you make us dependent on maintaining the new artificial insolation management system - and when it one day fails, there will be that much more CO2 to deal with.

You may also want to consider that with rising CO2 levels comes cognitive impairment. It won't be much of an issue outside with the numbers we're talking about, but indoor air (which we spend an awful lot of time breathing) only reduces CO2 levels by mixing with outdoor air. The indoor CO2 levels are always higher, and that will get worse as outdoor levels rise.

> The failure of successive COPs to agree to get rid of fossil fuels means that this is going to become necessary

Nobody believes this anymore.

Global temperatures are cyclical and the current trend is very close to the normal periodic cycle. All the "models" have failed. Sure, 95% of "Climate Scientists" believe their funding should continue but the jig is up.

If they actually attempt to blot out the sun there is no limit to what normal thinking people will do to stop them.

Fortunately they are very unlikely to get any real support for this harebrained scheme.

Oh dang, you're right! That's explains everything! ;)

Nobody will benefit from a half-baked fantasy sponsored by a few lucky imbeciles, who got rich because they successfully lobbied for tax cuts and subsidies from the rest of us and blocked the COP process in the first place.

And the rest of the world may very well respond directly to the ecological threats of trumpism, if its unabashed cretinism continues for too long.

Not at all. If climate change was not occurring the same outcome would have been reached.
With the level of mismanagement they did, the outcome was invariable. Therefore climate change could be removed as being a factor in the outcome and thus 0 percent a result of climate change.

"When it concerns English-speaking people, we call it" idiocy under the sub-category "Tragedy of the Commons".

"rational individuals optimizing their personal well-being" is a euphemism that greedy fools like you use to avoid acknowledging your own greed and foolishness.

Keep projecting. I am sure it will help.

They exist to present to the public as a viable alternative to renewables and transitioning to renewable energy resources in general.

It lets you tell the public that the scientists will figure it all out so they don't need to make any changes to the way we do things today.

It's the exact same scam plastic recycling turned out to be and for the exact same reason.

We are blind men attempting to describe an elephant.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

I don't think Poland or Lithuania would be cool with sending missiles over their airspace.

Contrary to common belief, Britain has not very much rain. It just happens to rain often, but very small amounts. Rome for instance gets more rain per year than London, it just gets it in some very intense rainstorms, and is dry for other periods during the year.

I think most people in similar situations would act similarly. What's interesting is Ukraine military strategy supports this sort of thing. I'm guessing much of the amusing behavior from Ukrainians we see on social media would get an American soldier in trouble.

Maybe they can send it to Transnistria.

ChatGPT has three aspects that make this practice - what you describe - very dangerous.

Firstly, ChatGPT implements universal positive regard. No matter what your idea is, ChatGPT will gush over it, telling you that it's a great idea. Your plans are brilliant, it's happy for you, and so on.

Secondly, ChatGPT always wants to get you into a conversation, it always wants you to continue interacting. After answering your question there's *always* a followup "would you like me to..." that offers the user a quick way that reduces effort. Ignoring these requests, viewing them as the result of an algorithm instead of a real person trying to be helpful, is difficult in a psychological sense. It's hard not to say "please" or "thank you" to the prompt, because the interaction really does seem like it's coming from a person.

And finally, ChatGPT remembers everything, and I've recently come to discover that it remembers things even if you delete your projects and conversations *and* tell ChatGPT to forget everything. I've been using ChatGPT for several months talking about topics in a book I'm writing, I decided to reset the ChatGPT account and start from scratch, and... no matter how hard I try it still remembers topics from the book.(*)

We have friends for several reasons, and one reason is that your friends will keep you sane. It's thought that interactions with friends is what keeps us within the bounds of social acceptability, because true friends will want the best for you, and sometimes your friends will rein you in when you have a bad idea.

ChatGPT does none of this. Unless you're careful, the three aspects above can lead just about anyone into a pit of psychological pathology.

There's even a new term for this: ChatGPT psychosis. It's when you interact so much with ChatGPT that you start believing in things that aren't true - notable recent example include people who were convinced (by ChatGPT) that they were the reincarnation of Christ, that they are "the chosen one", that ChatGPT is sentient and loves them... and the list goes on.

You have to be mentally healthy and have a strong character *not* to let ChatGPT ruin your psyche.

(*) Explanation: I tried really hard to reset the account back to its initial state, had several rounds of asking ChatGPT for techniques to use, which settings in the account to change, and so on (about 2 hours total), and after all of that, it *still* knew about my book and would answer questions about it.

I was only able to detect this because I had a canon of fictional topics to ask about (the book is fiction). It would be almost impossible for a casual user to discover this, because any test questions they ask would necessarily come from the internet body of knowledge.

Yeah, I'd say it's the nationalism that's problematic.