Jed, I think a problem in this dialog is that you are not an expert even in a related field. I happen to be an expert in a related field. I spent my career in computer modeling of linear and nonlinear systems. The climate modeling problem suffers in many ways from the same problem as LENR.
Poincare proved that even the 3-body orbit problem was infinitely complex. There are infinite solutions depending upon the starting state vector. In LENR, because the interaction with condensed matter comprises many, many bodies, the solution depends entirely on the simplifying assumptions made to formulate the problem mathematically. The problem is nearly infinitely complex to formulate with so many bodies participating, and it is impossible to completely know the starting state vector. And, this is with the presumption that the forces-reactions are linear. The instant you add non-linearity to even the smallest problem, the results become infinitely complex, highly dependent on the starting conditions, and highly dependent on the amplitude of the reaction. Getting solutions in such a domain generally requires already knowing the answer to start, and then working back to understand what caused it. There has been a century of evolution in paleoclimatology - grand research in determining the climate of the last million years. It has shown the positive feedback effect of greenhouse gasses and how quickly the planet snaps out of a glaciation and into peak warm earth with no influence of man. This is a highly, highly nonlinear process that simply cannot be computed with accuracy today - perhaps never. If we stopped adding all greenhouse gasses today, we would not be able to predict with any confidence the rate of temperature rise, the difference in temperature rise, the change in timing of the temperature rise snap, nor the peak warming that will be reached. If you look at hurricane track modeling, and look at the disparity between solutions for track and intensity by different models, you see the problem. Beyond a day the results diverge significantly. Yes, you can compute the average track, but the hurricane doesn't usually follow the average. Like many things that are uncorrelated, the average is simply a useless number. I assert that consensus in the climate issue is akin to "averaging" and is a useless metric. If all of the models are wrong (and due to the simplifications, problem complexity, and the nonlinearity, they are all by definition wrong), then the average is wrong too. I have no confidence what-so-ever in consensus in climate modeling. Some one model may be closer to being correct but we don't know whose, and the correct solution is probably not close to the average of the predictions. Such inaccuracy in modeling begs for a moderate response. I say, do the right thing in general, and proceed with moderation. Kerry is proposing that the Paris Accord will cost the US $50T over 35 years. If we spent $1T on LENR, much of the problem would be solved. The remaining $49T is such a huge amount that it could relieve 1B of the world's most poverty stricken population. Expending it instead in emergency elimination of carbon emissions, and the number in poverty will probably grow. On Mon, Dec 14, 2015 at 9:36 PM, Jed Rothwell <jedrothw...@gmail.com> wrote: > MarkI-ZeroPoint <zeropo...@charter.net> wrote: > > Here’s the real issue Jed… >> >> >> >> Didn’t you once argue vociferously, that science is NOT done by >> consensus??? >> > > As Damon Runyon said, "The race is not always to the swift, nor the battle > to the strong, but that's the way to bet." > > What I am saying is that when you are an outsider to a field, and > especially when the issue is highly technical and takes years to master, > your best bet is to assume that the consensus is correct. This sometimes > leads you to make an error of judgement, especially a Fallacious Appeal to > Authority. > > http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-authority.html > > For example if you assume that the people at the DoE are experts on cold > fusion, you will incorrectly conclude their opinion on the subject is valid. > > If you know little or nothing about a subject, it is safest to say: "I > assume the experts are right, but it is possible they are wrong. I cannot > judge." > > Some technical issues are not difficult to judge. For example, most well > educated people have enough knowledge of statistics to see that vaccinating > children is safer than not vaccinating them even though in very rare cases > children die from vaccinations. Climate change, on the other hand is very > complex. I have read enough about it to confirm that. I have written > technical manuals and papers for the general public on cold fusion. I am > usually pretty good at judging when an area of science or technology can be > grasped by ordinary laymen -- or even a Georgia politician -- and when it > is likely to be far over their heads. Climate change is one of these things > that most people do not have the background to understand. You can see > that, for example, in two claims often made: > > 1. We cannot even predict the weather beyond a few days, so how can anyone > predict the distant future? > > 2. It is cold here this winter where I am in Washington DC, so there is no > global warming. (This is particularly ignorant when the southern hemisphere > happens to be experiencing record high heat.) > > It is also a highly politicized issue, and politicized science attracts a > large numbers of irrational, angry people -- as you see the Wikipedia war > on cold fusion. It also attracts conspiracy theorists. In the case of cold > fusion, these are nutty people who think the oil companies have suppressed > it, and in the case of global warming they are equally nutty people who > think that large numbers of climatologists are gulling the public so they > can . . . live the high life of a researcher, with the hot tub, the babes, > the free booze, the 4 hour optional workday, the 7 figure income. > > > >> And, >> >> I want to know what % of the ‘consensus’ (proponents), who are >> knowledgeable about the issue, AND, AND, AND, are NOT receiving some of >> their funding for climate-related research??? >> > > Probably not many. How can you do climate research without being funded by > some agency that funds climate-related research? This is like asking how > many cancer researchers are not funded by medically related organizations > such as the NIH, the CDC or the drug companies. Who else is there? Nobody > else funds cancer research as far as I know. > > Some of the anti-global warming experts are paid for by fossil fuel > companies. I suspect that influences their judgement. Or perhaps their > judgement came first and that influenced the fossil fuel company to pay > them. I do not think that NOAA has quite so large a financial stake in the > outcome, because I am sure that we will continue studying the climate even > if it turns out global warming is not happening. NOAA will not be disbanded > if global warming is not happening, whereas the coal and oil companies will > be disbanded if it *is* happening. The motivations are unequal. > > >> > >> I want to know exactly where each person is getting funding . . . >> > > You can always find that out. All scientific papers published in the last > several decades always list the source of funding, in any legit journal or > web site. > > > >> , or who’s ‘soft’ research position is being funded by climate-change >> related research, so their ‘opinion’ can be weighted appropriately. >> > > That does not work. You cannot magically "weigh" people's judgement. > That's a logical fallacy. You cannot read minds. You might suspect that > people funded by coal companies have an ulterior motive to reach a > conclusion, but the only way you can prove that is to find a technical > error in it. If you do not have the knowledge to find a technical error, > you cannot tell whether it is valid or not. > > > >> The internet and social media makes it soooo much easier to spread >> propaganda, to ‘manage the perception’, that I need to know how one’s >> livelihood is being funded… PERIOD. FOLLOW THE $. >> > > That may be a good way to decide whether there is reason to be suspicious, > but you cannot judge something as complex as climate change on that basis > alone. You have understand the technical issue in depth. > > To take an easier case -- > > It was recently revealed that the Coca Cola Company has been funding > obesity research, and the researchers they fund were downplaying the effect > of drinking sugary drinks, and saying that the major cause of obesity is > lack of exercise. I suspect that is not true. I have seen other research > that disagrees. This is a lot easier to judge than climate change. I > suspect the research conclusions were influenced by the millions of dollars > paid by Coca Cola. I suspect that, but unless I were to read the papers > carefully, I would not know it for sure. As it happens, everyone knows that > looks bad, so Coca Cola withdrew support. > > I do not see how funding from the NOAA could be considered as potentially > biased as obesity research money from Coca Cola, or global warming research > funding from the Greening Earth Society. (That is run by the coal companies > and it tries to show that global warming is desirable, and we should hope > for more of it.) > > The NOAA is part of the Federal Government, and the Federal Government is > highly in favor of capitalism, U.S. corporations, banks, and so on. It > often leans over backward to assist them, for example in the 2008 TARP > "bailout" (which actually made a profit for Uncle Sam). People who think > the government has it in for big business, for coal companies and oil > companies do not much about the Federal Government or agencies such as the > DoE. > > - Jed > >
