On Wed, 04 Feb 2009 00:17:41 +0000, the infamous Mark Rand
scrawled the following:

On Tue, 03 Feb 2009 11:48:26 -0600, F. George McDuffee
wrote:

I would be a *LOT* more impressed if the global warming fanatics
weren't playing "Yes, but."

Larry would probably class me as amongst the global warming fanatics. so:-


Every proposal to limit or reverse co2 emissions is beaten down
except for us to stop having kids and go back to subsistence
farming, i.e. do it their way. This is just the 60s counter
culture with lipstick on.

A few specific examples:

(1) Wind power -- Yes but it ruins the view and might hurt a
bird.

Wind power is intermittent and low density. Use fission for now and develop
fusion like your life depended on it..


(2) Wave power -- Yes but we never did it before and it might
hurt a fish.


Wave power is intermittent and low density. Use fission for now and develop
fusion like your life depended on it..

(3) Hydroelectric power -- Yes but it drowns farmland and might
hurt a fish or stop wildlife from migrating.

Hydro electric power is low density. Use fission for now and develop fusion
like your life depended on it..

(4) Reforestation -- Yes but we just don't like it and it might
not work.

Do it. Grow teak, walnut, maple, other nice stuff. conifers for paper and
board are already farmed to the extent needed :-)

(5) Adding iron to areas of Open Ocean to promote algae growth --
Yes but it might hurt the fish and it might not work.

Better to control the sewage going into the sea in the first place.



(6) Nuclear -- Yes but we tried it once and didn't like it.

If France can generate 102% of their net electrical consumption with nuclear,
without any incidents, then WhyTF can't the rest of us???


And on and on and on.

Fusion is the way to go. Burying CO2 in spent oil fields is insanity.

....or in the ocean, liquified, as some fool now want to try. Here's
what happens: http://www.snopes.com/horrors/freakish/smother.asp


wind is
cheap, nasty and ineffective (although visually attractive. Natural gas is a
chemical feedstock, not a fuel. etc and so forth.

You can't come up with a solution that they do not "yes, but."

We've got solutions, so F'ing well get on with it. What's the hold up?

I suppose that I'm biased by having an engineering degree and a power industry
employment, but "three is greater than two even for large values of two". its
so obvious that even a politician should be able to understand it.

I'm right with you on everything so far, Mark.


Mark Rand (Don't get me started on water vapour and positive feedback)
RTFM

Mum's the word.

--
Never tell people how to do things. Tell them what
to do and they will surprise you with their ingenuity.
-- George S. Patton