@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.
