Most people aren't reasonable, so it's sad it works like that.

I'm not a believer in the Church of Global Warming. That doesn't mean I want to "wreck" the atmosphere. If fact, I prefer to err on the side of caution, and I’ll give the alarmists the benefit of doubt. That is why I’m an avid supporter of nuclear power.

1. If the panel was flat on the roof, then you would be correct. But as soon as you change that angle, you’ve created a second surface.
2. The longest HVDC line in operation is less than 800 miles. The distance from western deserts to northeast population centers is over 2000. Besides, it would take about 10,000 square miles of solar panels to power the US electrical grid. That’s just too much land to take away from other uses, like wildlife habitat and scenic vistas.
3. Actually I know a bit about the process to gather energy from algae. It doesn’t involve burning the stuff, but burning the methane. Oops- that awful CO2 again! ASCE: Plankton Power

You're assuming that man alone is responsible for global warming and you're assuming that global warming is a bad thing. Could it be that the environment is simply adapting to human adaptation on the planet?

__________________
A panda walks into a cafe. He orders a sandwich, eats it, then draws a gun and fires two shots in the air.

"Why?" asks the confused waiter, as the panda makes toward the exit. The panda produces a badly punctuated wildlife manual and tosses it over his shoulder.

"I'm a panda," he says at the door. "Look it up."

The waiter turns to the relevant entry and, sure enough, finds an explanation.

"Panda. Large black-and-white bear-like mammal, native to China. Eats, shoots and leaves."

Of course global warming is a bad thing, unless you think it's good millions will be displaced, die, and economics will crash, and that thousands of species will either disappear or fall into jeopardy.

This is a no-brainer.

Well, one could argue that these would simply be adaptations to changes in the environment.

Nature has a way of correcting itself and sometimes that includes population reductions.

__________________
A panda walks into a cafe. He orders a sandwich, eats it, then draws a gun and fires two shots in the air.

"Why?" asks the confused waiter, as the panda makes toward the exit. The panda produces a badly punctuated wildlife manual and tosses it over his shoulder.

"I'm a panda," he says at the door. "Look it up."

The waiter turns to the relevant entry and, sure enough, finds an explanation.

"Panda. Large black-and-white bear-like mammal, native to China. Eats, shoots and leaves."

But the first surface (the solar panel) shields the second surface from the wind, so there is no or extremely minimal wind force on the actual roof.

Although DC is optimal, we can still use current power line, the power plants don't have to be in the deserts.

On a second note, to power all of the US, it would actually take about 26,000 square miles (with today's solar panels). Which at today's cost would be about $50 trillion dollars, but no one is advicating that we use solar and nothing else. And seeing as solar has dropped 96% in cost ($ per W, oh and the cost dropage is also not factoring in inflation, so it is actually a lot more than that) in the last 50 years, and increased in effeciency (W per sq meter) by 670% in the last 50 years, it is showing a lot of promise in the next 20 years.

That CO2 which is then recylced back into the power plant for the algae to use to make more, it is completely CO2 neutral.

__________________
Set your destination with your heart, get there with your mind.

"The wisest men follow their own direction." - Euripides

Could be. The jury is still very much out. And, true, the Earth doesn't give a crap if we're here or not.

Still, I don't much like the idea of excusing ourselves from our impacts, as much as we can determine we cause them.

As a kid, I grumbled that my not cleaning my room wasn't going to end the world. Now that I am older, I realize I was missing the point of the lesson.

__________________
"Oh, bother", said Pooh, as he chambered another round...

Of course there will be adaptations. Nature's way of doing that is killing off large numbers of animals and plants in the process. That's not a "good" solution. That's a natural one, and nature's solutions aren't necessarily desirable. Nature has a way of cutting populations down too: having you die of diseases. Does that mean it's a good thing and we should not use medicine to countermand it? No.

The only reason man exists today is because of his ability to control and adapt his environment. We have big brains, and we invented tools to make up for our physical shortcomings. From clothing to A/C, we bend our surroundings to our will. Unlike animals, we are not limited to particular surroundings or conditions.

Given a history of manipulation of our environment to suit our needs, I think it's a bit odd to suddenly say we are helpless to manipulate our current environment, and dismiss global warming, or pollution, or overpopulation as inevitable and out of our control. Through policy, we've improved our air, water and sanitation. We no longer blacken the skies of London with coal smoke, like in the 1800s, for example.

Never has our ability to control and affect the environment been greater. So, when evidence emerges to support the theory that at least some of this apparent change is our fault, then we should man-up and do what we always do. "Going green" is intelligent and responsible, and I applaud our efforts to begin addressing what might be a severe issue.

I don't buy the blithering excusemaking for one minute.

__________________
"Oh, bother", said Pooh, as he chambered another round...