ShareThis Page
News

A space idiocy

| Monday, July 11, 2005

Where does one go after devolving beyond self-caricature?

For Chicken Little tree-huggers petrified of global warming -- "The sky is warming! The sky is warming!" -- they go off the deep end and into deep space.

Solutions to this junk science multiply like construction costs for the Peterson Events Center at the University of Pittsburgh. But this proposal by Star Technology and Research Inc. goes where no man has gone before.

To counter global warming, even though it and global cooling are ever-changing parts of the atmosphere, the coneheads at that South Carolina company envision an artificial ring in space of small particles or spacecraft circling the equator to shade the tropics and moderate climate extremes.

Picture a junkyard ringing Saturn.

Ecuador never would get warmer. Neither would Western Pennsylvania.

Why anyone would have faith in NASA to accomplish this, considering that keeping shuttle crews out of harm's way has been a challenge, was not addressed.

Ringing the Earth with space junk makes the radical environmental scheme of the Kyoto Protocol to limit American productivity appear plausible.

These space cadets with the wrong stuff estimate the cost of the particle system to be between $6 trillion and $200 trillion. The armada of small spacecraft creating gridlock around the big blue marble -- $500 billion.

Comedic value of this space idiocy -- priceless.

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.

click me