Jed, you certainly have a right to your opinion and to express it. In the case of LENR, there are well respected scientists in positions of power in the US government that claim LENR doesn't exist - "it is bad science". They say this either from being right (I don't think so personally), from being wrong (even though they are respected experts), or because they have a purpose for claiming the LENR research false even though they know it to be true. There are politicos that are using their "Global Warming" position to bolster their political support - whether they believe in the science or not is irrelevant because they are getting something for having taken the position (I.E. Gore).
In any business, all of the scenarios are equally examined. What would the situation be if we do nothing? What would happen if the world truly made its best possible effort? What would happen if the world worked on remediation - subtracted out all of the CO2 from the atmosphere to pre-industrial levels (at great expense)? How much difference will there be between the best possible scenario and the worst scenario? AND, how much will it cost for the best possible scenario? What alternative uses could be made of that money? I am not saying the world should continue emitting CO2 without regard to its effects on the Earth. Reduction of CO2 emission is important to keep from poisoning our atmosphere. The Chinese suffer from this so badly in many of their major cities that they will be compelled to change (hopefully to LENR from coal). Reduction of CO2 in the US will do nothing to help the Chinese problem. I am stating that I believe CO2 elimination/remediation is not an emergency. I believe that with the best effort the world can muster, the global warming rate will continue unabated. CO2 policy creation deserves balanced treatment over the next 100 years as does preparation for warming; and elimination of poverty and war. On Mon, Dec 14, 2015 at 12:55 PM, Jed Rothwell <jedrothw...@gmail.com> wrote: > Bob Higgins <rj.bob.higg...@gmail.com> wrote: > > For fear of being branded a card carrying republican, I hate to comment on >> such topics. I believe the "global warming movement" is a false flag - >> just another lie being broadcast as propaganda to achieve some government's >> pet objective. >> > > Scientists often do rotten things. They can be political animals. Few > people have as much direct experience of their shenanigans as I do, or > greater contempt for them. But one thing they have never done, in the > history of science, is what you describe here. They have NEVER organized a > large scale conspiracy to fool the public. They are not capable of it. > Three reasons: that violates the rules of science; scientists are inept at > communicating or convincing the public of anything (look at the cold fusion > researchers for proof of that); and their social skills are so undeveloped > they could not conspire their way out of a paper bag. > > Furthermore, as I said before, one of the most important lessons of cold > fusion is that experts are usually right, and you should not listen to > strange people from outside the scientific establishment. The mainstream > researchers who confirmed cold fusion are right. > > If experts in climatology say there is global warming induced by humans, > you can be sure they mean it, and you can be pretty sure they are right. > People outside the field of climatology -- including you -- do not know the > details and your critiques are probably wrong. I have seen many critiques > of cold fusion written by scientists outside the field, including > distinguished experts in physics and plasma physics. These critiques had no > merit. They had glaring errors, omissions and misunderstandings in them. > Some are outrageous nonsense, such as some the DoE panel comments: > > http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/DOEusdepartme.pdf > > Critiques by scientists who have not done their homework or have no > knowledge of calorimetry are wrong. Even when they are supportive of cold > fusion, they usually miss the point. Needless to say, critiques written by > Wikipedia-style amateurs are beyond the pale. Years ago when I reviewed the > Wikipedia article I could not find a single accurate substantive assertion > about cold fusion. Not one! Everything from tritium to reproducibility was > nonsense. > > I cannot judge climatology, but I can see that it is complicated science. > It seems likely to me that all of the outside critiques are as bad as the > Wikipedia-style critiques of cold fusion. > > Science works. In the end it gets things right, or mostly right. No one > should disagree with this. It is self evident. No one would dispute that > engineering works. Airplanes do not fall out of the sky; bridges do not > collapse; your computer CPU does a billion operations a second without a > single failure for months on end. Science and engineering are closely > allied and closely comparable to one another. They both work, for similar > reasons. > > Weather forecasting is different from long term climatology in some ways, > yet closely related in others. They both use data from satellites and earth > station observations. They use the same basic physical models. They deal > with an enormous number of variables and gigantic databases. Weather > forecasting is astoundingly accurate and reliable compared to how it was 20 > or 50 years ago. It is undeniable that great progress has been made in it. > It is foolish to imagine that similar progress has not been made in long > term climatology. > > - Jed > >
