Originally Posted By: dnewton3
I'm not really sure where you believe the "innocence" was lost in my first post; just what is it that "shall not be discussed" that I brought up???
This is a thread about the underlying onset of unintended consequences, and IMO, a large dollop of irony ...
StevieC's concern is valid, IMO.
Let's consider other recent programs where we tried to solve a problem, hastily. Or, more to the point, may have leapt into a program not so much in ignorance, but in arrogance, promoting one technology over another, because the detracting concerns were voiced prior to the wide-spread deployment of such efforts.
Wind energy has had limited success; depends upon whom you want to believe, but ...
- one thing that cannot be denied is the amount of avian deaths attributed to wind-power generators. An unintended consequence. And not just barn birds by the tens-of-thousands, but protected birds like bald eagles, gold eagles, falcons, migratory birds, etc.
- additionally, wind energy has been now proven to be inconsistent, and when back-up power generation has to occur, it becomes grossly inefficient to restart boiler processes, adding to delays and greater emissions than had they just been left "on"
(From Forbes here:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/jeffmcmahon...e/#4fdf9f2d1267)
Solar energy has it's pitfalls not in use, but production. Allow me to quote K. P. Green (irony of his name in regard to this topic a mere humorous coincidence ...)
"
Solar cells do not offset greenhouse gases or curb fossil fuel use in the United States according to a new environmental book, Green Illusions (June 2012, University of Nebraska Press), written by University of California-Berkeley visiting scholar Ozzie Zehner. Green Illusions explains how the solar industry has grown to become one of the leading emitters of hexafluoroethane (C2F6), nitrogen trifluoride (NF3), and sulfur hexafluoride (SF6). These three potent greenhouse gases, used by solar cell fabricators, make carbon dioxide (CO2) seem harmless. Hexafluoroethane has a global warming potential that is 12,000 times higher than CO2, according to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). It is 100 percent manufactured by humans, and survives 10,000 years once released into the atmosphere. Nitrogen trifluoride is 17,000 times more virulent than CO2, and SF6, the most treacherous greenhouse gas, is over 23,000 times more threatening."
(
http://www.digitaljournal.com/pr/738098)
For decades we're told we need to stop buring fossil fuels, and quit putting chemicals into the air. And now with this cloud-seed program, we're going to be ever-increasingly shoving chemicals into the air, and burning fossil fuels to achieve the effect. This just drips of irony, and begs for an unintended consequence to rise up.
Bear in mind that this quote (unless "accidentally edited later", as sometimes happens when engaging with DNewton) was prior to my last post.
Calling into question the ROI/ROE, and environmental soundness on alternate technologies is and has always been labelled "P", borders on R, and has the stated rule of topics that shall not be discussed.
Calling into question policy for/against those technologies, or the CO2 impact is ALWAYS moderated as a violation of "P", along with that topic that shall not be discussed.
As to innocence...the OP posted legitimately about people intentionally trying to make rain...which is NOT that topic that shall not be discussed.