Read the article here.
. . .
Please tell me if you disagree, but the slant that both the Science and the BBC reporters take on this idea suggests that this here sulphur idea is, well, not smart.
At least, it seems like a self-evidently stupid idea to me.
Has anyone else noticed that the press has begun to use "climate change" interchangeably with "global warming?" Here, the BBC reporter writes, "Sulphate injections are one of several 'geo-engineering' solutions to climate change being discussed by scientists." Now, if a "sulphate injection" affects the ozone layer over the Arctic and Antarctic poles, or blocks enough sunshine to cool the planet, then it changes the climate, and it is itself "climate change." So, what's the difference? "Global warming" is the increase in average atmospheric temperature. "Climate change" refers to the chage in average weather over longer periods of time, like seasons, years, and decades. Global warming causes climate change.
Also, does the phrase "suphate injection" make anyone else uncomfortable?