8
   

Scientists doubt inventor's global cooling idea — but what if it works?

 
 
georgeob1
 
  1  
Reply Mon 22 Dec, 2008 03:04 pm
@Francis,
It appears that Francis is just as stubborn and persistent as I am. While those qualities in a cheerful, indeed lovable, Irish American are always welcome, in a Frenchman they could be dangerous. (Though I will concede that Francis does have a strong and redeeming sense of irony - even amiability.)

I have made no inaccuracies. Indeed I specifically noted the absorbtion of thermal energy near ground level. We are talking about an atmospheric phenomenon here, and my choice of the specific heat of water vapor (instead of that of liquid water) was appropriate. My point was that the very marginal benefits promised in the author's theory are entirely dependent on particular (and intuitively hard to believe) outcomes in the very atmospheric transport phenomina that are known to be unpredictable by any available method, particularly including those he used.

I certainly would not deny the author and his supporters the opportunity to continue their investigations. However, I would be highly unwilling to pay for it myself, either directly or through forced taxation.

What the world needs now is cheap, abundant energy. If we have that, we can solve all of the related problems, from poverty to environmental contamination. If we don't have abundant, cheap energy we won't be able to do anything. I suspect that many self-styled environmentalists are motivated by an unstated loathing for humanity (but oddly excluding themselves). Many, I suspect, see the earth as a benign place harmfully contaminated by a human contaigon. My world view is quite different.

Francis
 
  1  
Reply Mon 22 Dec, 2008 03:43 pm
@georgeob1,
Geez, George, talk about stubborn!

You distorted the original idea by heating the water in order make vapor, then you tell me it would use too much energy.

Whatever, I've no interest in defending the topic against Irish irrationality.

Cheers, George! How's your knee doing?
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Mon 22 Dec, 2008 03:50 pm
@Francis,
Francis wrote:

Geez, George, talk about stubborn!
How's your knee doing?


He's trying hard not to shoot himself in the foot too often ...
georgeob1
 
  1  
Reply Mon 22 Dec, 2008 04:11 pm
@Walter Hinteler,
Walter Hinteler wrote:

Francis wrote:

Geez, George, talk about stubborn!
How's your knee doing?


He's trying hard not to shoot himself in the foot too often ...


My knee is much better now, and thanks to you both for your consideration. The recovery took more time than I expected (I had to work hard to get a full range of motion) but that reflects more my unrealistic expectations than a slow recovery. Now I need to exercise daily to keep it fit, but that helps in other ways too - and I've kept off the weight I lost after the operation..

I think that we three are among those least able to fault others for stubbornness.

My feet have long since acquired an immunity to such shots.
0 Replies
 
Mr Stillwater
 
  1  
Reply Mon 22 Dec, 2008 09:57 pm
First things first. Even if the 'solution' plays out - it is still going to **** things up for someone, somewhere - and it is indefensible to just discount the suffering that millions may possibly suffer as irrelevent to the 'common good'. Especially IF the 'common good' is the soft, flabby, SUV-driving, US-centric backsides that contributed so much to the problem. It could contribute to the solution, it could also contribute to hurricanes across Asia that would displace millions. First question - is it ethical? Not: First question - will the average citizen of the US like this?
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 09/24/2021 at 07:07:49