WRT your third paragraph, you seem to be lumping a whole load of very diverse opinions together then criticising them as a whole, when in fact many environmentalists don't want the measures which governments are advocating. Governments and politicians want them because (a) they don't want to take bold action, because that might backfire at the polls, and (b) if they get a chance to surreptitiously increase their power over other people, well, that's what politicians do, isn't it? There's also (c) the issue of corporate manipulation of the so-called "green agenda", to the point where profits are more important than environmental problems, however serious they might look.
Engineering solutions are, or are not, a solution depending on who you talk to. I'm worried that too many people want to cash in on the problem by offering snake-oil solutions which can't be tested in advance, like this one:
If you can't test it, don't kid yourself that a big roll of the dice is going to help in any way. (And remember, I live here too, so the fact that you like to gamble should take into account the fact that I don't :)
As an engineer, surely you can appreciate that making a change, any change, is relatively easy, but making the correct change can be very difficult. In damaging the environment, we've moved the dials on a very complex machine, and we could do something else and move them again. Maybe we'll even get lucky and set them back to where we started, but of course getting them back to where we started probably won't fix the problem.
Lovelock has always been a radical, and I've never taken his Gaia theory seriously. I think he was quoted a few years ago as saying that nuclear energy was the only viable immediate solution, but now he seems to have changed his mind. It doesn't matter; what matters is making sound decisions based around the scientific analysis, ignoring the personalities and the near-religious fanaticism of some campaigners. In the final analysis, I think there is a real problem because (although I'm not a scientist) I can't see why so many people who are would lie so deliberately, so persistently, and about such a serious issue.
"you seem to be lumping a whole load of very diverse opinions together then criticising them as a whole" - well, duh. No HN post can possibly tease apart all the possibilities. That's really a null criticism unless you want everyone to be typing books back and forth at each other.
You seem to work off the assumption that engineers won't be interested in testing the solutions before implementing them on the large scale. I think you may have them confused with scientists on that point. Engineers are well aware of the issues of complexity and inability to predict... hell, half the reason I have a hard time buying what climate scientists are selling is precisely because I am an engineer, I do have that understanding, and I am completely unconvinced that they do!
Any real engineer would be religious about testing. Each plan would be phased in, with observations taken after each phase to make sure we're going in the right direction, and if at all possible, plans on how to undo what we just did if it becomes obvious it's really not working. (That may not be possible, but any plan for which it is possible would be that much more preferred.)
I'm serious about this: The biggest bioengineering risk would ultimately not be about the bioengineering at all. It would be that a politician (probably egged on by scientists) would overrule the good judgment of engineers. How many times have we read that story in a programming context? It's not unique to programming engineers, we just lack the authority to tell our bosses to go to hell, we're not doing it that unsafely. (The one good thing we'd get from a programmer certification process. I'm broadly against it, but it does have its good points.) Politicians could and probably would blow right past that.
By the way: I don't hate scientists (a stupid position for an engineer). The opinions expressed in this post are based on observations of climate scientists "in the wild". Scientists in general are far more humble before the face of a complicated universe, as well they should be, as is ultimately the entire point of the scientific process.
Engineering solutions are, or are not, a solution depending on who you talk to. I'm worried that too many people want to cash in on the problem by offering snake-oil solutions which can't be tested in advance, like this one:
http://blog.wired.com/wiredscience/2008/02/geoengineering.ht...
If you can't test it, don't kid yourself that a big roll of the dice is going to help in any way. (And remember, I live here too, so the fact that you like to gamble should take into account the fact that I don't :)
As an engineer, surely you can appreciate that making a change, any change, is relatively easy, but making the correct change can be very difficult. In damaging the environment, we've moved the dials on a very complex machine, and we could do something else and move them again. Maybe we'll even get lucky and set them back to where we started, but of course getting them back to where we started probably won't fix the problem.
Lovelock has always been a radical, and I've never taken his Gaia theory seriously. I think he was quoted a few years ago as saying that nuclear energy was the only viable immediate solution, but now he seems to have changed his mind. It doesn't matter; what matters is making sound decisions based around the scientific analysis, ignoring the personalities and the near-religious fanaticism of some campaigners. In the final analysis, I think there is a real problem because (although I'm not a scientist) I can't see why so many people who are would lie so deliberately, so persistently, and about such a serious issue.