Sorry, but it is so hard to take these Tyndall guys seriously.
pdf here
Some little tidbits from this pearler.
Carbon Sequestration Viability
On the whole, both groups were in agreement that global warming was a problem and that it was at least partly due to the industrial activities of humankind over the last century and a half. Only one member of the first focus group was not convinced by these claims, contending that the earth was currently in an interglacial period and that the changes in temperature were therefore predominantly a natural phenomenon.
[Ed: Denier! Burn the heretic!]
On the subject of whether carbon sequestration and storage should be considered as a potential solution to the problem, or whether it was merely an unacceptable proposed technical fix to a problem, there was reasonable agreement that the proposals would, in principle, attract little public opposition:
Researcher Is it an acceptable solution, not merely a technical fix?
Paul It is a technical fix though. Researcher Would it be rejected by the public on the grounds that it was a technical fix?
5 Alan On the grounds that the public can keep running their cars and get their electricity cheap it will be accepted.
Paul It’s not a contentious issue, like, to take another scientific example, GM foods; there’s not the same type of animosity towards it.
Tim Is it pure CO2 or does it contain pollutants. Is it safe to put those underground?
[Ed - according to the EPA, CO2 is a pollutant]
Paul What percentage of the CO2 will be captured in the power stations?