per too:
>> http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2016EF000416/full
>>
>>
>>
>> doug
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* geoengineering@googlegroups.com [mailto:geoengineering@googleg
>> roups.com] *On Behalf Of *Peter Eisenberger
>> *Sent:* Sund
ey.
> com/doi/10.1002/2016EF000416/full
>
>
>
> doug
>
>
>
> *From:* geoengineering@googlegroups.com [mailto:geoengineering@
> googlegroups.com] *On Behalf Of *Peter Eisenberger
> *Sent:* Sunday, August 06, 2017 6:04 AM
> *To:* Andrew Lockley <andrew.lock...@gmail.com>
n of Technology*
>
>
>
> *From:* geoengi...@googlegroups.com [mailto:
> geoengi...@googlegroups.com ] *On Behalf Of *Douglas
> MacMartin
> *Sent:* Sunday, August 6, 2017 14:38
> *To:* peter.ei...@gmail.com ; 'Andrew Lockley' <
> andrew@gmail.com >
> *Cc:* 'geo
there are no particulates in the supercritical fluid. As the technology is refined, it could burn anything.Mark E. Capron, PEVentura, Californiawww.PODenergy.org
Original Message
Subject: RE: [geo] Bullshit in geoengineering discourse
From: "Douglas MacMartin&qu
:04 AM
To: Andrew Lockley <andrew.lock...@gmail.com>
Cc: geoengineering <geoengineering@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: [geo] Bullshit in geoengineering discourse
I am not sure if this approach does not risk making the same mistake that
critics of geopengineering do in using r
I am not sure if this approach does not risk making the same mistake that
critics of geopengineering do in using real examples of absurd arguments
and then generalize
to discredit others that are not worthy. I agree with some of your list but
I personally know that it cam easily be proven
