*There are some far-out theories about cold fusion, relating to things like magnetic monopoles. Most experts dismiss these theories. I cannot judge them, but I would be very careful not to say the authors are idiots*.
The human mind is compelled to make sense out of the quantum world even if what is being observed is beyond comprehension. The results of cold fusion experiments... the theme park of quantum mechanics... are almost always Rorschach tests which are incomprehensible; a series of spots, light and dark, hiding a meaning that the human mind demands yet is incapable of understanding, a truth both foreign and far beyond the experience of the observer. But the mind must make an attempt to find order in the face of the incomprehensible. In this pressing need, the observer is compelled to form a Rorschach construct which gives the required shape to his world, an illusion both pleasing and false. In this necessity is born the magnetic monopole as an illusion in the mind of man. But even if the magnetic monopole is fanciful, the flight of unrestrained imagination, and an affront to accepted doctrinaire, it answers the question that must be answered and gives form to the magic that pleases. It’s simply a phantasmal placeholder for the ultimate truth to come, and interim step down the long and winding road to the reality that lies beneath. On Sat, Mar 31, 2012 at 9:06 AM, Jed Rothwell <jedrothw...@gmail.com> wrote: > Jarold McWilliams <oldja...@hotmail.com> wrote: > > I am not a republican, and I think global warming is a sham. >> > > I believe you are technically wrong about that. However, it is somewhat > off topic. I think we can agree that cold fusion calorimetry is much easier > to understand than climate science. The facts are less ambiguous. The > opposition to cold fusion is more clearly motivated by politics and > self-interest. > > By the way, I certainly did not mean that only Republicans disagree, or > that all Republicans disagree. I know some staunch Republican chemists and > physicists. I am saying that in general, disputes relating to science tend > to break on party lines, with the Republicans against whatever the > scientists or engineers propose. That was not true decades ago. Richard > Nixon was one of the best Presidents for the environment in U.S. history. > He started the EPA and made other agencies. I cannot imagine Republicans in > the 1960s opposing something like CFL lightbulbs! > > I think this is a fad. As I said, the country went through a similar > anti-intellectual phase in the 1950s, which ended abruptly with the Sputnik > scare. > > > >> According to your theories, couldn't global warming just be a ploy to >> get more money out of consumers? >> > > No. It does not transfer money from many people a specific small group of > people. Nor it would not bankrupt any group. Accepting the theory and > acting on it, or rejecting it, would not bankrupt the oil companies or some > other powerful interest. It would not cause something like the MIT plasma > fusion lab to close down. Climate scientists are not all going to fired if > it turns out global warming is not real. We need them for many other > reasons. So I do not think the two are comparable in terms of society or > academic politics. > > > >> The climate always changes. Even in a worst case scenario predicted by >> some scientists, it will not end in the apocalypse like some idiots believe. >> > > I would hesitate to call them idiots, if I were you. Unless you know a > great deal about it you probably cannot judge with high confidence. That is > not say you have no right to an opinion, but I recommend caution. There are > some far-out theories about cold fusion, relating to things like magnetic > monopoles. Most experts dismiss these theories. I cannot judge them, but I > would be very careful not to say the authors are idiots. > > Over the last several thousand years, the climate and terrain in many > countries has been drastically altered by human activity, usually for the > worst. See J. Diamond's book "Collapse." It is foolish to assume people > cannot cause worldwide havoc and terrible conditions. > > > >> The Earth probably is warming, but there has also been a cold period for >> the past couple of decades or centuries so it could just as easily be >> natural rather than manmade. >> > > Not "just as easily." Possibly, but not according to most experts. The > lesson of cold fusion is that experts are usually right and you should be > very careful about second-guessing them. > > > Besides, people only focus on the negatives of global warming when there >> are positives. >> > > I know enough about climate, farming, and natural science to say with > confidence that there are no positives. It is all bad. > > > >> Warmer periods in history have usually led to great growth in human >> society, as well as other forms of life. Big fancy windmills, along with >> solar panels, etc. are never going to deliver a large portion of our energy >> needs cheaply. >> > > That, I know about. That is manifestly wrong. EPRI and others have shown > that wind turbines and concentrated solar can replace 20% of generating > capacity in many parts of the country, and they already have in Denmark and > other parts of Europe. So there is no question it can be done. The cost is > high but not unthinkable. > > There is no doubt the potential wind capacity is there, in many states. > That's simple physics. You can't argue with it. Only the cost is at > issue. Intermittency and other problems have been largely solved for an > overall system with up to 20% wind power. > > 20% is a very significant fraction of generator capacity. It would reduce > coal fired electricity by nearly half. 20% of our electricity now comes > from nuclear power. If you were to suggest we can do without nuclear power > I think most experts and electric power consumers would strongly disagree. > > - Jed > >
