What if it doesn't work? What if it kills all the salmon and worsens global warming? The reason there's so much negative press is that this was done pretty much unilaterally and it was done to make quick cash. This type of large-scale geoengineering project is almost certainly what will get us out of the current global warming mess, in my opinion, but it must be approached carefully and scientifically.

What science do we get out of this project? Virtually none. It doesn't appear there were any controls, or careful measurements, or whatever. Just a cash grab.

What if it does work?

I do agree with you and I'm not trying to defend the way this guy has gone about this.

However, the path we're on now is basically, "we know we're fucked, but let's do nothing."

The UN is not going to be able to agree on anything more active than Kyoto. In the US, Romney is using Obama's previous comments on climate change as a laugh line. The EU has plenty of luddites themselves; they would never agree to fertilizing parts of the ocean for fear of negative side effects. For the scientific community to come to a consensus would take decades.

So I agree that we need to be cautious. But right now it seems we're just rearranging the deckchairs on the titanic.

I have a theory that shooting holes in clouds makes the rain pour out. I can't get the UN to agree on it, but I do have a lot of bullets and a rifle.

"It takes too long" isn't a good excuse for acting in an unsafe or illegal manner. If it does work, good. But the guy should still be punished for acting in an unsafe and illegal manner. If he damages the environment, he should be punished for breaking the law and for the damage done. If he succeeds, he should be celebrated for his solution, but still punished for breaking the law.

Driving at a steady speed between freeway and city driving and blowing through stoplights will save on greenhouse gas emissions from accelerating a car, but it's still dangerous and illegal.

The reason people are up in arms is because there's significant concern in the scientific community that what he's done can be actively harmful. You simply don't dump 100 tons of crap in the ocean without having an idea of how it will react with the ecosystem.

I'm all for geoengineering experiments, but only if they're based on solid science and not a hunch.

Yes. The "do nothing" crowd IMHO makes things worse

"Nuclear is bad", "Wind will kill the birds", "Hydro is evil", etc, etc, guess what, countries will use coal then.

There's also the "not economically viable" crowd, that rejects anything if it "costs" more than oil (usually under fallacious arguments and/or ignoring some oil costs and/or inflating alternative energy costs.

Every activity causes an impact. Deal with it. The objective should be to minimize that impact.

I was with you until the "cost more than oil" line. My reasoning on that is the third world is going to need large amounts of energy to boost themselves to everyone else's standard of living. Like India and China, they are going to use the same, proven sources we did unless the alternatives are cheaper to implement and just as reliable. It isn't a do nothing attitude, its a realistic assessment based on human behavior. That's why alternatives really need to have an advantage over oil.

Three Gorges dam?

Your reasoning is right, I don't think alternatives will pick up in developing countries first (unless it's something really groundbreaking that's being overlooked, or something specific)

The problem I see with some opinions is the attitude of "oil is best" without considering specifics. For example, wind power may be more expensive, but there may be a case that for powering something in the middle of China it may be cheaper, since oil has to be transported there.

Also, electric cars, "oh they are useless since our power plants are coal/gas based". Yes, but tomorrow they may be powered by something else.

"Three Gorges dam" = "China's Hoover Dam"

Their might be local bests for non-oil, just like there are in the US, but overall oil gives a well-understood, cheap playbook.

Electric cars are more problematic because they are more costly than gas vehicles (I still don't get this, but lookup new car prices). Limited range and utility are other problems.

I am very hopeful. It looks like railroads in the US are going to move to natural gas (I submitted the article a couple of days ago) which will cut down the emissions. I would imagine when the quickly rechargeable battery shows up , its all going to change.

It is a lie that any serious environmentalist is against wind energy because of bird mortality.

It is not a lie that many people who are against wind energy claim to be environmentalists afraid of bird mortality.

It doesn't take much looking to prove that they aren't in fact that. But few people look, and so it's a great cover for both NIMBYs and entrenched interests.