I am not surprised that bringing up Al Gore here yesterday stirred up some more discussion of anthropogenic (man-made) global warming — AGW. This topic is bound to come up in discussions about the benefits of LENR/Cold Fusion, since so much energy debate and policy is centered around the reduction of greenhouse gasses (LENR produces none). However AGW is a topic that has the tendency to stir up heated debate and strong passions from people who have different opinions about the topic of global warming and climate change.

Because I don’t want E-Cat World to become another site where a debate rages over whether AGW is real or not, I’d like to set some guidelines for commenters to follow when the topic comes up.

Please feel free to state your opinion about what you think about AGW. I want people on all sides of this issue to feel comfortable expressing themselves on the topic. But please do not enter into lengthy arguments about the topic with other posters, and please do not apply derogatory labels to people who think differently on the topic (or any topic for that matter) than you. Let’s keep the conversation here respectful. I’ll be moderating posts that get personal or insulting.

The focus of this site is on LENR, and I think it’s something that people on all sides of the climate debate can be enthusiastic about. It seems to me that where ever one stands on the political/environmental/social spectrum, LENR offers advantages above other energy sources.

  • GreenWin

    Michael Crichton’s insightful novel “Climate of Fear” pretty well spelled it out. And then came the Wall Street-invented carbon credit scheme. But even if I am mistaken, why would any viable alternative to carbon be shunned, dismissed, figuratively spit upon?

    If there was even the slightest chance that LENR could work, why not support it for the last 20 years?? Some people say it stepped on too many toes. Okay. It looks like toes will be stepped on anyway – for the greater good.

    The most annoying part of E-Cat’s success is that it comes not from the expert academic world of the ivory towers. It comes from a scrawny guy and his aging physicist partner – the least likely of characters to change the world for the better. Such is the motion of the Earth.

    “Still, it moves.” Galileo Galilei on release from prison.

    • Job001

      Revolutionary change comes from the “out guy”, not the “in crowd”.

      • Barry

        Good one Job. That must be Janus. MIT made the “Janus Particle” (I think that’s the proper name). They had a sculpture made to honor the particle, nano I think. The incredible sculpture is in my vid. thought you might be interested.

      • Roger Bird

        The scientific term is “dude”, not “guy”.

        • fortyniner

          As a Brit I have to say that we have reluctantly accepted the word ‘guy’ into our language after a mere 90 years or so of seeing it used across the pond. But only braces-snapping baby banksters in the City of London would ever use the word ‘dude’ over here, and they are already frozen out of civilised society.

          • Roger Bird

            But you guys, er dudes, invented the word “guy”. Remember Guy Fawks, the guy who tried to blow-up Parliament because the Protestants had control of Parliament and were oppressing the Catholics. (Yes, we Westerners at one time killed each other over questions of how one should worship G0D, you know, the Inner Dweller in every heart. Fortunately, most of us have matured.)

            That is where the word comes from, believe it or not.

          • Barry

            I’d like to visit England but I’d like to learn the language first.

  • Bernie Koppenhofer

    Thank you Admin. I am not a climate scientist, I must rely on scientists and scientific data. The overwhelming evidence with over 90 percent of the evidence pointing to climate change is real and it is man made. This has become a political issue, Republican/Democrat, I am only interested in hard scientific data and will not respond to rhetoric.

    • psi

      Hi Bernie, in keeping with the requested moderation, let me point out that

      1) science is not determined by majority opinion;

      2) there are many reasons to suspect that your “90%” is at best misleading. Try asking some geologists what they think. They are not, by and large, sympathetic to the methodological bugaboos of very many “climate scientists.” Perhaps this is at least in part from the fact that their professional expertise has required examining global climatological patterns over the “long durree” of millions of years and they are naturally skeptical about the naivete of those who think that they understand and distinguish the causal variables of these long term fluctuations in the earth’s climate system from the alleged consequences of the magic anthropogenic molecule, C02. Anyone who says he does is not being very honest with you.

      • Ben

        My father-in-law worked with a bunch of geologists for a work project. He told me that all the geologists that he worked with very much supported AGW. That’s the only first or second-hand knowledge of the opinions of geologists that I have.

        • psi

          Hi Ben,

          Well, overgeneralization is perilous; obviously there are all kinds of folks (including geologists) who for one reason or another have or even still do support the AGW model. Nor can I point you to a specific citation on this point. But I think that further investigation will confirm a strong (and growing) residue of skepticism among geologists. I suspect that a considerable majority of practicing geologists would be in this camp.

          Also a number of statisticians who have examined the statistical reasoning used by Michael Mann and some of the other most voluble “climate scientists” have come away unimpressed.

          I put the term “climate scientist” in quotes because its not really clear to me what this means, really. One problem with the whole discussion is the authority that has been granted to a group of newly minted professionals who place what to others, me included, seems an inordinate confidence in computer models that may or may not (and in many instances demonstrably *do not*) track reality or take into consideration all the many complex variables involved in the earth’s climate systems. To me, Climategate caught some of these guys with their pants down. In their practice, ideology and self-interest are blended with “science” to the detriment of the latter. In this there may well be a parallel to the way Hot Fusionists have damned LENR.

          I highly recommend the Anthony Watts website cited elsewhere in this discussion. One does not have to agree with the politics sometimes expressed by posters there in order to see that, at worst, there are two sides to this question. One can be an environmentalist and even a lefty (or even a geologist) and see that there is a problem with AGW.

          • fortyniner

            If only some of the AGW supporters here, especially those claiming to be scientists, presented such well reasoned and respectful comments in support of their own views on the matter.

    • fortyniner

      Bernie, perhaps you missed the link posted by GreenWin in an earlier thread:

      The fact is that the ‘scientific concensus’ and much of the cited ‘evidence’ is just as manufactured as the rest of the house of cards that is ‘AGW’.

    • Redford

      The amplification and pretty clear will to build that consensus is one of the thing that put a red light here. Scientific are pressed to give an opinion and potentially bullied if it’s not the good one. But if you look at russian scientific community, or even more telling, Japanes scientific community, they clearly are in the opposite consensus. Again, vs social science, this is easily explain by group behaviour, exactly like Cold Fusion becoming the trendy thing, then the cursed thing in regard of the scientific community.

      Reality doesn’t care about those consensus. No matter what both sides demographic are, your best bet is that both have some insights on the reality. No one is totally right or wrong – at least that’s my default stance.

      • AlainCo

        about local consensus.
        Chinese academy of Science publish and translate Skeptic Climate book.
        China see AGW and an US conspiracy… Like republican see AGW as a watermelon conspiracy… I think it started with reasonable fear, then love of fear, then budget of fear, then industry of fear, then economy of fear, then global commitment in fear, then religion of fear…

        About agnostic position, the position of nassim Nicholas taleb is
        – that all prediction are doomed to be wrong (IPCC model finally broken as expected)
        – that things go nice does not mean they will go nice (turkey syndrome)…
        – that prediction and trend are wrong, dont mean how it will be wrong : AGW, AGcooling, AGcalm, AGfurror,AGcatastrophe,AGanythinggood,AGanythingbad,AGanythingyoucanexploitorsufferfrom

        His position is to forget information and prediction.
        Injecting CO2, or anything in the global atmosphere may cause something, and that something maybe global because the injection is global… we should use various energy sources with various smaller pollution… like we should have smaller banks that are not to big to fail, or to big to save.

        We should organize the energy mix so that global pollutions are spread equally among various pollutants.

        for LENR, if as it looks it pollute very few, we could use it for much of our energy source.
        When it start to pollute a little, we could start to use other energies for some application…
        some oil, some agro-fuel, some small nuke, some PV panel, some wind… all those energies pollute much more than LENR, but maybe fraction of % of oil/agro/nuke/PV/wind may pollute just like the 99% of LENR…

        for hydroelectricity, maybe we could use more as it is polluting few, compared to old energies.

        taleb vision is that you should simply use prudences without “risk modeling”. you should balance the trouble, and don’t care of balancing the source, or modeling risk…

        His model is a bit shocking for my education, but after few catastrophes it seems that intelligence and modelisation is the most modern form of stupidity, so simplicity seems better on the long term.

  • Ben

    I believe in respectful conversations on the issues that affect us all. I promise that I will never refer to AGW-deniers as morons.

    • fortyniner

      In the same spirit I promise never to refer to AGW-alarmists as imbeciles, or to mention flecks of saliva in this connection.

  • Kim

    I’m at a lose.

    The E-cat

    If the earth is heating up = win
    If the earth is cooling down=win


    • psi

      + 1.

    • fortyniner

      If the Earth was heating up (it isn’t) then cold fusion would be the answer to ‘greenhouse gas emissions’ AND to dwindling fossil fuel resources, AND to political instability resulting from this, AND to atmospheric particulate pollution. Three out of four isn’t bad.

  • LilyLover

    The “AGW” debate usually degenerates into a war with soldiers of both sides wearing same uniform and rampantly killing without knowing foe from friend.
    Let Frank do his great LENR work. Amidst all mass media chaos, Frank is helping us focus on the ‘Issues That Matter’.
    Magnitude of AGW, if “real”, could never reach the levels of significance to matter enough to discuss.
    This should clarify some basic misconceptions.
    1. Is Green House Effect real? Yes.
    2. Is it good or bad? It is essential for survival of life.
    3. What is it? Longer wavelength black-body-radiation shielded from completely- escaping the Earth. In other words, to retain some warmth; not too much; and not ZERO. Net steady state is zero; with a buffer that keeps us warm. Think of it as buffering in online streaming. Advance buffer consumes some memory but allows smooth playback; infinite buffer will delay or slow down things ( warm us too much); no buffer… don’t stretch the analogy too much. Or think of it as a warm water Jacuzzi in a desert. No heat-water cold-you die. Boiling water-too-hot-you die. Warm enough water-you happy-you live.
    4. In the absence of GHE Earth will be cold & dead. Ozone is a green house gas. Water vapour, CO2, and Earth rotation are magnificently great systems with almost infinite inertia and equilibration potential against CO2.
    5. Earth’s black body mass is too large to matter 100 times more CO2. CO2 does not affect Ozone layer.
    6. SOx, NOx, CFCs are bigger problems.
    7. With LENR, efficiencies in refrigeration won’t matter, CFCs can be eliminated.
    8. With LENR energy, SOx & NOx could become history.
    9. Imagine your heavy globe in Geo-Lab rotating furiously. Imagine Magnetic lines & Imagine Gravitational lines. Poles are more sensitive to warming. Like a chemical titration. The first coloring happens instantly but buffer may be down or up the pH scale. Polar ice melting is sensitive but not when compared to massive inertial forces of equilibrium. Equitorial temperature rise matters more.
    10. Cold Earth gets hot every morning. Solar flares and distance are more important than GHE. Think total enclosed system; system boundries; Earth as a ball in a room; think seasonal & daily rotations, think Surface radiation coefficients…
    11. Politicizing “AGW” to strip away your liberty is a sin. Carbon trading is a sin. I do not believe in sin. 😉
    12. Inside a green house, soil vs yellow grass vs green grass will yield different temperature. But even if all our food came from green houses, Earth’s Temperature will not alter enough to matter.
    If you must fight- Know the soldiers on your side.
    Have a good day.

    • HHiram

      Admin invited us to state our opinion about AGW. My opinion as a scientist is that folks who are not scientists have absolutely NO IDEA what they are talking about.

      For goodness sake, please at least bother to read wikipedia entries before posting utter nonsense!

      “Ozone is a green house gas. Water vapour, CO2, and Earth rotation are magnificently great systems with almost infinite inertia and equilibration potential against CO2.”

      Ozone is NOT a significant greenhouse gas.

      Earth’s rotation has absolutely nothing to do with “equilibrating potential against CO2”.

      “5. Earth’s black body mass is too large to matter 100 times more CO2. CO2 does not affect Ozone layer”.

      This doesn’t even make any sense. Earth is not a black body, and the only contribution its overall mass makes to atmospheric composition is via gravity. The Ozone Layer has only a marginal effect on climate by virtue of filtering out UV radiation. Small changes in CO2 in the atmosphere, however, DO have a significant effect on climate because CO2 exerts a strong influence on the radiative balance of the atmosphere because it is opaque to IR radiation. We know this from the geological record, as well as from extensive laboratory tests.

      “10. Cold Earth gets hot every morning. Solar flares and distance are more important than GHE.”

      Again, completely false. Solar activity has actually been on a declining portion of its natural cycle while mean atmospheric temperatures have risen:

      • Redford

        From your very article:
        “The primary greenhouse gases in the Earth’s atmosphere are water vapor, carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, and ozone.”

        So your own source put you flat wrong. I precise I didn’t read enough from your comment to know your side of the fence.

        • HHiram

          Admin deleted by earlier response. Here it is again:

          “So your own source put you flat wrong”

          This is incorrect. I am a scientist, so I choose my words very carefully. I didn’t say ozone was not a greenhouse gas; I said it was not a *significant* greenhouse gas. The reason why is complicated, because climate science is not simple stuff.

          Here are the details:

          “There are two opposing effects: Reduced ozone causes the stratosphere to absorb less solar radiation, thus cooling the stratosphere while warming the troposphere; the resulting colder stratosphere emits less long-wave radiation downward, thus cooling the troposphere. overall, the cooling dominates; the IPCC concludes that observed stratospheric Ozone losses over the past two decades have caused a negative forcing of the surface-troposphere system of about −0.15 ± 0.10 watts per square meter (W/m²).”

          So the net anthropogenic effect of ozone is COOLING, not warming.

          • GreenWin

            HH – the more complex a system appears, the greater study it takes to understand it. Greater study means research grants for “climate scientists.”

            What makes you think the this formula does not constitute analytical bias: climate complexity = scientist income?

          • HHiram

            This is a very discouraging conspiracy-theorist attitude.

            A typical scientist makes less than $60,000 per year, and with their qualifications could easily find much higher paying jobs with private companies.

            I could double my income immediately, for example, just by making a few phone calls – if I were willing to work for an oil company, a big agribusiness firm like Monsanto, or a Wall Street investment bank. I have no desire to do this because money is not my priority in life. Discovering what is true about the universe is my priority, and the only way to do that is with science.

            If you think scientists are in it for the money, you have a very cynical perspective on other human beings – and you probably don’t know many scientists.

          • LilyLover

            Not responding to your agenda; but offerring you a benefit of doubt that you might be sincere but deluded.
            Other “significant” green house gases derive their significance from their ability to harm ozone layer. So, effect on ozone gives them their significance. Significance and importance are two different things.

            If ozone’s causing cooling, shouldn’t you be happy for more CO2 balancing the warming?

            Yes, “managed complexity” is income for pseudo-scientists.

            With clean understanding of physics, Newtonian and Randal-Mills, which also includes thermodynamics, “Climate scientist” means “quack” to me.

      • GreenWin

        “My opinion as a scientist is that folks who are not scientists have absolutely NO IDEA what they are talking about.”

        This is precisely THE problem with science today.

        • Roger Bird

          Let us make sure that we give credit where credit is due for this wisdom quote of the century. It is our very own HHiram. Thank you so much HHiram for giving us a perfect example of what is wrong with science today.

          • HHiram

            See my post above. You will see it is an example of what is RIGHT with science, and therefore what is wrong with simple-mindedness and ignorance.

          • Barry

            Pooh asked Piglet “Rabbit has brain doesn’t he Piglet?”
            “Yes Pooh Rabbit has brain.”
            Pooh thought for a while and said “I guess that’s why he doesn’t understand anything.”

          • GreenWin


          • GreenWin

            Given your premise that “only scientists” have any idea what they are talking about… here’s climate scientist Dr. Richard Lindzen of MIT:

            “The field is corrupt, without any question. I would say most scientists don’t believe this and didn’t believe it 20 years ago. But the young scientists know they have trouble if they say it, and so they don’t.” Lindzen, 2012 Sandia Labs, NM


          • HHiram

            Lindzen did some good work in the past, but his reputation has suffered in recent years. He is no longer taken very seriously as a climate scientist. Note that this is not because of his conspiracy-theory statements like the one you mentioned, but rather because of some major errors he has made in his research – errors that he himself later acknowledged.


          • GreenWin

            Plain old corruption does not require a conspiracy or theory. It is simply men and women who take short cuts for prestige and power.

            Many scientists value prestige more than money which is why they fight so hard to remain “perceived experts in their field.”

            Any who have studied even marginally the CF story know full well the field is loaded with corruptive bias – starting with APS’ Robert L Park. And Jonnie Huizenga.

    • AlainCo

      Whatever is you opinion, if you are honest problem is solved with LENR.

      The problem is that behind each position there is politics and funding. today AGW and depending industry is funded about trillion, and have NGO funded about billion, and hold control over nearly all politician in western democracies…
      installed industry of oil which for a decade is adapting to the new AGW fashion and using few million of lobbying to get subsidies and advantages, and pay it’s quietness about a billion to NGO …

      Today skeptics are of two kind. The cheerleaders skeptics are mostly political activists afraid that AGW is an ideology to add more control over economic and individual freedom…
      Beside that you have scientist and science lovers who have realized painfully, like me, that AGW supported were using awful methods to impose their truth, like they did on LENR, like some do in religious influenced democracies.

      Today the evidence, that are not even skeptics but the hidden consensus emerging slowly, beside the public exaggerated words :
      – AGW is not linked to extreme weather
      – Extreme weather is not increasing. Tempest are stable, and even lower than usual over a century
      – sea level was increasing since centuries and is decelerating
      – temperature have been increasing since centuries and is decelerating
      – official climate sensibility to CO2 is below 2, far below the panic we heard before
      – negative retroactions that were hidden by IPCC consensus start to be rediscovered
      – the climate model are all broken facing recent history.

      china have translated a skeptic climate book, with many peer-reviewed papers, as a raised finger to faked consensus

      like on LENR all the scientific evidence converge toward evidence that the public consensus is based on manipulated data, on peer-review manipulation, on frauds, on bad methodology, on models that don’t match reality…
      in both case there is no serious theory to face the official consensus, and many pet-theory that don’t work much better than AGW.

      another scientific tragedy, that in both case costed us few hundred trillion over last 20 years.
      and much real research to do, to find a working theory for the reality.

      and me I’m not even sure AGW is false, there is simply no good science to support it.

      • GreenWin

        Wait… China raised a finger to the faked consensus? 🙂 They may be correct on AGW but they still got to do something about 1M+ annual respiratory deaths from a REAL problem – choking particulate pollution. AKA SMOG. FAR worse than AGW.

    • fortyniner

      All the above is true, but if this was an argument about facts rather than belief, it would have been over a long time ago.

  • Roger Bird

    I have been saying for about a week that anyone who argues about AGW and believes in LENR is sort of a hypocrite. A belief in LENR makes arguing about AGW nothing more than a love for arguing.

    • psi

      Roger, I half agree with you, but only half. Even if LENR is real (I believe it clearly is) and Rossi et alia are on the verge of commercialization (as seems increasingly probable at this point in time), the AGW theory still matters because it goes to the problem of how science is done and the unsolved problem of “groupthink” in scientific enterprises. But yes, if LENR is real then among other benefits it would seemingly ameloriate even the worst case scenarios of the AGW theorists.

      • Grek

        And if AGW theory is wrong, but LENR is right. Rossi will indirectly help the AGW crowd to perpetuate the myth that AGW theory was true. They will then claim that LENR saved the day.

        • Roger Bird

          Grek, I think that if we are lucky the current steady temps will hold and it will take maybe 20 years for LENR+ to have an impact. This would allow us to be able to say that AGW was false.

          • Grek

            That would be good.

            A concern that I have had with LENR+ is that it will radiate vast amounts of ambient heat if widely used. Will this cause “true” global warming, or will the heat just radiate into space? I have tried to pose this question on JONP but my post was moderated.

          • Roger Bird

            Can you do the math? 10KW per person out of 10 billion people, divided by the number of square meters on earth. I get 0.000000089 watts per square meter, or 1 watt divided by 11,182,755. I’ll take that. I also see no positive feedback, unlike CO2 induced GW. I invite other people to check my math. I forget what the Sun gives us, I think that it is like 1 KW per square meter. And what does current industrialized society give us, not counting CO2 or other unwanted pollutants?

    • lenrdawn

      I disagree. Believing in LENR doesn’t mean it will be the solution for AGW. LENR may never be practical. It may be dangerous. It may have implications or restrictions we don’t see yet. It may not exist at all. Betting the farm (or the planet) on the hope that LENR is what the most optimistic among us think it could be (cheap, scalable, harmless and just around the corner) would be at least as irresponsible as ignoring it, IMHO.

      • GreenWin

        Betting the farm and powering the farm with a Distributed Energy Resource are two different things. Why gamble when you can empower?

        • lenrdawn

          Go ahead then. Buy an e-cat. Oh – you can’t.

          • GreenWin

            Nor can I buy an energy producing Tokamak. Difference is Tokamak has sca-mmed $240BillioN taxpayer dollars over 60 years and delivered ZERO useful energy.

            The E-CatHT2 has been verified by an international team of scientists to produce energy an order of magnitude greater than it uses. It has taken 3 years and ZERO taxpayer dollars.

          • lenrdawn


          • Roger Bird

            So, we have one energy source, which is not really an energy source but a money pit, that is fed by politicians for the past 65 years and is supposed to be the future, that has never given back even so much as a single watt. And then we have another energy source that has given back thousands of kilowatts-hours and which has never accepted a dime from politicians. Which one are you going to choose? Which one is the future?

    • Warthog

      Not at all. Here is the ACCURATE scientific position. Increasing CO2 “should” increase global temperature according to known physics (just like LENR should be impossible….by known physics).

      But in the case of “climate change” (which is just a weasel-phrase, because “warming” is the postulated effect), how does “the earth” as a totality respond. IF all you look at is the physics model of light absorption/reflection/radiation, then there must be warming. And MEASUREMENTS of temperature over the short past “doe” yield a slight warming….but nowhere near as large as predicted by pure modelling.

      And in actual fact, for the least 16 years, there has been no temperature increase, despite the fact that CO2 continues to be emitted and increase in the atmosphere. Hence the existing models must be lacking.

      Correct public posture. Continue to study and improve both data and models.

  • Roger Bird

    About 1/2 of the people here believe in AGW and about 1/2 disbelieve in AGW. If the guys whose thinking on AGW you disagree with or oppose, are so stupid, how come they found themselves here with you? This being one of the most revolutionary discoveries in the history of the world. Your opponents on AGW would have to be just about as smart as you are to have gotten here.

    The smarts that I am talking about is the ability to paradigm shift and to see other viewpoints. These kinds of smarts has very little to do with IQ or science. Remember the psychology demonstration of perception where the picture can be either two girl’s faces facing each other or one skinny vase. Being able to switch from seeing the two girl’s faces to the skinny vase is an ability, and this ability has nothing to do with IQ or science. Of course the AGW debate is a much bigger picture and much more important.

    But the next time you want to call someone stupid because they don’t agree with you about AGW (or anything else) or if you just find yourself having to control your anger when conversing with someone about AGW (or anything else), remember the vase/2 faces perceptual lesson.

    If you are here, you are not stupid. If you are here, you are special in ways that Psychology has not even developed a test for.

    And the AGW debate is and should be moot for LENR believers.

    • Joe Shea

      I think the cofrrect term for what is happening is not AGW but “climate change.” That covers the whole spectrum between cooling and heating, and I think it’s what describes our planet. If you are curious, see The American Reporter tonight; our top story is “How to Save the Planet,” by prize-winning Randolph Holhut.

      • fortyniner

        I don’t think anyone can disagree with the premise that the climate changes (oscillates) over time, but the idea that humans are a significant force in the process, i.e., that ‘AGW’ is real is another matter.

        The former is supported by solid evidence in the historical record, dendrochronology and in geology, the latter is simply a theory with little supporting evidence of any kind.

        • GreenWin

          There is the Devonian and Cambrian @1200-1900ppm CO2. The two periods when Earth’s flora and fauna “exploded.” W/o thermal runaway (like Venus.)

          • Roger Bird

            CO2 is called a greenhouse gas, yet the professional greenhouse managers pump CO2 into their greenhouses to a concentration of CO2 of 1000 ppm. I like the idea of 1000 ppm.

            Also, people stop their personal anxiety attacks by rebreathing their own breath from a bag. Perhaps higher CO2 levels would help people not have so much anxiety, including but not limited to anxiety about the environment.

            I oppose pollution most stridently, whether it is deliberately like pesticides, food additives; or inadvertent like coal burning, automobile exhaust.

      • Charles

        I think the cofrrect term for what is happening is not AGW and is not “climate change”. It is weather.

        • Grek

          Yes, climate is just weather on a longer time scale. And note one thing: The climate has always been changing. Infact the environment is constantly changing. What is strange is that scientists somehow are very conservative. The world according to scientist should always be exactly the same as it always was. Nothing should be allowed to go extinct. The dinosaurs, and the mamoth should preferably be revived.

          But the fact is that instead of always trying to preserve everything as they were it is often better to adapt to the changing world. It is actually usually much cheaper.

  • Roger Bird

    I started out as an AGW believer. Honest. But, I had no baggage. I had not written any books supporting AGW. I did not have any beloved professors that I still corresponded with who had taught me AGW. I had not done a big study about how AGW caused red tree toads to turn orange 2 months out of the year. I was just a regular joe. Then I started studying. But when one has a lot vested in a particular perception, changing one’s mind is not easy.

    I believe that the same mental processes that brought me to my current opinion about AGW is the same that ALL scientists will have to go through for LENR+. But they do have a lot of baggage. This makes people like Kim a towering giant of clear thought and vision. Even Einstein couldn’t get with quantum physics.

    Al Gore is no scientist. I am sure that he would admit this. He is a good comedian. Perhaps when LENR+ gets rolling the baggage that keeps him fixated on AGW will lighten sufficiently that he will be able to reconsider his original position on AGW.

    • GreenWin

      Er, Roger, I suggest Al’s no comedian either. He is a former politician who once wanted to be a Minister. But he has influential friends and I expect him to bring them to the LENR fold. Al’s friends George Clooney or Leo DiCaprio heating/cooling their homes, charging their Tesla S EV with a prototype E-Cat will help raise awareness.

      Welcome aboard Al. You found the right ship!

      • Barry

        GreenWin, did you see him in this? Didn’t know he had it in him.

        • GreenWin

          Never seen this Barry, thanks. He exhibits that most valuable comedic instinct, self-deprecation. This got me thinking, Al also appeared on our own NBC sitcom “30 Rock” – celebrating Earth Day:

          As Al’s advises, “We need to go far, quickly.” Dear Al, I was wrong, you ARE funny! Please help us spread the good news about LENR. Think of your grandchildren and their no-carbon footprint mansions. Lotsa love,

          A GreenWin.

      • Roger Bird

        I found the first 1/2 of this talk to be hilarious: But, of course I don’t let my hatred and politics get in the way of good laugh. And I find it to be a very positive character trait to be able to laugh at one’s self.

  • Anonymole

    I’m actually looking forward to 450ppm CO2. Two ppm for the next 25 years, yeah I could stretch it until then. The great human engineered terraforming experiment continues; will all this AGW cook us all? Will the boreal forests and oceanic algae blooms suck down all that tasty CO2? Will the added heat energy add so much evaporated moisture as to cloud up and darken the planet – shuffling us into a premature ice-age? Will Siberia become the world’s bread basket? Will they grow avocados in Quebec? Will LENR finally come to fruition? Will David Attenborough continue to make documentaries until he’s 150? Who knows. But we’ve bought our tickets and we’ve all ring side seats; best to sit back and enjoy the show. If nothing more I’m sure it’ll be entertaining.

    • Redford

      There has been far higher temperature with life on earth. Actually, latest analysis on temperature history from tree slices indicate the middle age was still noticeably warmer than the current era. So chill =)

  • Roger Bird

    The compulsion to argue is a sickness. I confess that I have the sickness. LENR+ is real. I am happy to learn lessons from the AGW debate, but I won’t argue about the truth or untruth of AGW. It no longer matters. Bring on LENR+!

  • Gérard2013

    It is very clear today that LENR is not stopped or ridiculed by politicians. If we compare the speech with the Bush era.
    When Mr. Al Gore speaks cautiously of cold fusion. It gives potential importance and reality of the new fire. Arbitration for the new fire is underway.

    In french

    Il est très clair aujourd’hui que LENR n’est pas arrêté ou ridiculisé par les politiques. Si on compare les discours avec l’époque Bush.
    Quand Monsieur Al Gore parle avec prudence de la fusion froide. Il donne une importance potentielle et une réalité au nouveau feu. L’arbitrage en faveur du nouveau feu est en cours.

  • Grek

    If ECat works (as I suspect it does) it will give the AGW believers a chance to save face. As the world adopts ECat the AGW believers will be able to claim that AGW was averted thanks to ECat.

  • David
    • Redford

      Actually if you’re not a skeptic you do have to explaing why it has stopped climbing. And mocking criticism, as ever, is not an especially convincing way to do so.

      Actually, it’s even more interesting if you look a bit further:

      I think this curve actually ask severe questions vs man made rise. The rise slope is roughly the same between 1910-1945 and 1979-2000. If you say that 1979-2000 is man made because it’s too fast, then 1910-1945 is too. Then why does it stop for nearly 40 year in between, 1945-1979 ?

      At the very least, if you think it’s man made, you have to ackowledge non man related factor can be strong enough to completely cancel man action, ie that man action isn’t stronger than other factor. Consequence: the speed of the heating can’t be considered as a proof of man made heating. And cast doubt whether it has any action at all.

      Also I have doubt about measures, because I caught a huge mistake (read: far beyond any psychological bias) in my area once. And because the sea level isn’t rising. The Groenland is said to melt, but it doesn’t do anything noticeable to sea levels.

      From social science perspective thus, there indeed is a constant trend in the scientific world to see a potential doom impending. It has been global warming, acid rain destroying the woods in Europe (actually, we have more woods there than most of the time now), global cold, impending epidemic, impossibility to sustain 1 billion inhabitant on hearth, etc. When I was a teenager TV terrified me with amazon forest: it was pretty clear that if nothing was decided, we’ll be all having trouble to breathe (sic) past the 20s. Well, except a cold, I have none of those. So I don’t mean disrespect to the people thinking there is man made global heating (I do admit there are reasons to think so) but before stamping it as “for sure”, I’ll need a bit more than what I’ve seen so far.

      • Roger Bird

        Great graph, Redford.

        But I guess HHiram would tell us that we are not scientists so we are too stupid to discern any trend in that graph.

        But I do see a trend. I see that between 1942 and 1982 there was a cooling trend, which AGW can’t possibly explain.

    • Felix Fervens

      another escalator:

      cherry picking is easy

  • Ingo Heinscher

    Carbon dioxide has certain known physical properties. Among them, there is the ability to let shorter wavelenght radiation (such as visible light) pass through, but longer wavelength radiation (such as infrared radiation, also know as heat radiatishining on dark surfaces) not, which is what the energy in the visible light becomes when) not. Increase the amount of CO2 in a multiple-kilometers-thick atmosphere, and the inability to let infrared radiation pass through (back up o into space) adds up.

    Now, humanity increases the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere dramatically. So of course, there will be an increase in infrared radiation that doesn’t leave the planet, and that causes heating and climate change (such as a “centennial river flood” in Germany every ten years, lately). That will cost money to adapt to.

    Now, LENR opens up and entirely different form of global warming, albeit still in the future: Direct warming by all the LENR reactors.

    Think about: One day, every car, every airplane, every building, ever ship, even every cellphone might have its own LENR reactor – producing energy that does not come from the sun, and thus, adding waste heat to Earth’s system. Sure, the amount of energy needed for that to have an impact is enormous, but with cheap LENR energy, we might hit that point sooner than we can imagine today.

    • Steve

      Hope the G8 don’t read this.

      A tax on heat pollution will be drafted ASAP.

      (This is meant to be a light-hearted comment by-the-way).

    • lenrdawn

      Do the maths. Even if everybody powers their cellphone with a 1kW LENR reactor round the clock and owns a 5000hp LENR car, it won’t make a dent compared with the heating caused by even a single additional ppm CO2 in the atmosphere.

      • Ingo Heinscher

        Yes, thinking in today’s categories, it is not an issue, hence my “in the future” remark.

        But imagine a world where LENR is abundant, where you can use extremely cheap power to basically do *anything*. Flying car? No problem! Heating your house with all windows open? No Problem! Having your restaurant’s terrace be summerly warm in winter? No problem! Use electric arcs as lightbulbs? The required amount of power is there!

        And so on. People will find uses for all that power. This will be interesting to observe, and might produce a problem at some point.

        • Roger Bird

          Almost free energy means the continuing input is almost free. It does not mean that the units and the logistics and the space requirements will be free.

      • Andrew Macleod

        I agree, There is no comparison between small localized heat increases, and multiplying the power of the sun.

    • kasom

      “So of course, there will be an increase in infrared radiation that doesn’t leave the planet, and that causes heating and climate change”

      Mention as well: So of course, there will be an increase in infrared radiation that IS REFECTED AND doesn’t REACH the planet, and that causes LESS heating and climate change.

    • MikeP

      Unlike you, I see Al Gore’s interest in a different light. IMHO Al Gore has always been a money chaser. He’s enriched himself with everything he’s been involved with. So when he shows an interest in LENR, I see it as being a sign that he sees money in it for himself rather than any benefit it might have for others. However, this is another sign that LENR works and in this light a good thing (as long as AL doesn’t actually gain an interest in any of it).

      CO2 is a greenhouse gas. However, it’s impact on the planet is modified by the behavior of the atmosphere, the hydrological cycle, and the carbon cycle (including all living things). CO2 aids in plant growth, drought resistance, health, and hardiness. I won’t go farther because this would be going too far off topic. But ask yourself why the Sahara is greening. Why do we have a record amount of time between landfalls of major hurricanes on the U.S., now approaching 2900 days since the last major hurricane to strike the U.S.?

    • Roger Bird

      Did you remember to subtract out all of the heat necessary to mine coal, oil, and gas, refine it, and transport it to where it is needed, then store it where people can get access to it?

    • Roger Bird

      Also subtract out all of the hot air generated by people arguing and fretting about AGW and energy policy issues and much of conservation talk. (:->)

  • andreiko

    Build reservoirs in mountain areas, hence water supply tubes, no floods of the rivers direction SAHARA more food production ect ..
    The Earth is nice and cool, where necessary.

  • theBuckWheat

    AGW is an agenda in search of a horse to ride to Utopian glory.

    No significant warming for 17 years 4 months

    Posted on June 13, 2013 by Guest Blogger
    By Christopher Monckton of Brenchley

    As Anthony and others have pointed out, even the Washington Post has at last been constrained to admit what Dr. Pachauri of the IPCC was constrained to admit some months ago. There has been no global warming statistically distinguishable from zero for getting on for two decades.

    The Post says the absence of warming arises because skeptics cherry-pick 1998, the year of the Great el Niño, as their starting point. However, as Anthony explained yesterday, the stasis goes back farther than that. He says we shall soon be approaching Dr. Ben Santer’s 17-year test: if there is no warming for 17 years, the models are wrong.

    [impressive graph]

    The fact that an apparent warming rate equivalent to almost 0.9 Cº is statistically insignificant may seem surprising at first sight, but there are two reasons for it. First, the published uncertainties are substantial: approximately 0.15 Cº either side of the central estimate….

    • Anonymole

      Increased volcanism can explain the pause in the increase in average global temperature over the last decade.

      • Roger Bird

        I spent 2 minutes looking for volcanism rates and came away empty. How does one determine the volcanism rate, and of course there are many different kinds of volcanoes with many different mixes of output. But, ALL volcanoes put out CO2, lots of it, so the chances are that more volcanoes would mean more CO2. This doesn’t help the AGW argument any.

        • Anonymole

          Search for : sulfur dioxide volcanic planet cooling

          • Roger Bird

            So what is the net effect, if anyone knows? And how do we know if volcanism has increased lately or decreased.

          • Anonymole

            Well, that’s the question. Or rather it adds an additional question to the vast list of questions we already have. But it is an affect that influences climate. As to which way recently? My guess is increased volcanic activity. There maybe some site out there that has such a thing mapped out over time and geography.

  • K

    Don’t WE use infrared telescopes when searching for INTELLIGENT extraterrestrial life ?
    With our CO2 blanket, others will not detect our civilisation.

  • Arthur Wendel

    To aid in consideration of AGW from a scientific as opposed to a political perspective, I ask if everyone is familiar with this paper:

    • GreenWin

      From Institute for Mathematical Physics,
      Technical University at Carolo-Wilhelmina, Brunswick, Germany:

      “The atmospheric greenhouse effect, an idea that many authors trace back to the traditional works of Fourier (1824), Tyndall (1861), and Arrhenius (1896), and which is still supported in global climatology, essentially describes a fictitious mechanism…”

  • Thinks4Self

    I find the AGW debate to be much like the cold fusion debate in the scientific world, but reversed. AGW has been adopted as true by those in charge of academia and since money in is being thrown at it for study anyone from the research side that comes out against it is ridiculed and viewed as a heretic. Greed and groupthink are ruling the day instead of observation and the scientific method. The fact that it has been much warmer with far less CO2 in the atmosphere than now and far colder with more than double the CO2 levels we currently have show that CO2 is not the strong overwhelming factor put forth by the AGW theory. The models are not accurate enough yet to make the claims that have been made. Like my grandfather use to say even a broken clock is correct twice a day, AGW models only hold to be correct and on target for short periods of time. The models need improvement before we start making life altering decisions based on them. If those models can’t predict the quantity, intensity, location and duration of large events like hurricanes only one year in the future how can anyone claim they are accurate enough to prove global parameters 20, 50 or even 100 years into the future?

    • psi

      Agreed completely, thinks! For a long time I was a “true believer” – by predisposition more than study – in AGW. When I began reviewing the science I was astounded to realize how vulnerable the AGW meme is on multiple levels.

      • Roger Bird

        But psi, almost every scientist believes in AGW, just about 97% by last count. So you need to get with the program and conform.

        Except of course those 31,487 scientists who signed the Global Warming Petition and said that they didn’t believe in AGW. So, let’s do the numbers: 31,487 divided by .03 equals 1,049,566 (rounding down) scientists in the USA. That does seem a little high.

        And not one of these scientist will get funding if they start out their funding requests with something more polite than but with the same meaning as “A Study to Determine Why People Are Afraid of Disagreeing with AGW” or “Why I Came to the Conclusion that AGW is not True”. Such funding would not happen anymore than if an astronomer tried to publish an article demonstrating that the Big Bang theory was flawed. Either stay in the dominant paradigm of perish.

        Conform or DIE! Just like LENR.

    • Neil Taylor

      Yes, Mr. Saul’s sun cycles, subtle changes in the earths axis angle, changes in north south polarity, who knows what else yet to be discovered, could have effects on current AGW models…

  • AlainCo

    Off topic:
    I’ve just jound ( )
    the wikipedia article that jed proposed for cold fusion controversy

    and also the comments on BTE-Blog
    by jed rothwell

    these are gem, to reuse and send to the face of pathoskeptics that abuse of the usual pathologic anti-science arguments.
    That article prove how anti-science are critics. with quotes..

    • AB

      This strange behavior is probably explained by LENR skeptics not reading the literature or generally being poorly informed. The resulting void of knowledge is then filled with fantasies. From that we get popular criticisms such as “it has never been replicated” that have nothing to do with reality.

      It’s a catch-22 situation. Journals rarely publish on the topic to conform to the popular sentiment on the topic, thus perpetuating the ignorance which creates the sentiment in the first place.

      • Felix Fervens

        >LENR skeptics not reading the literature or generally being poorly informed

        “The Dunning-Kruger effect occurs when incompetent people not only perform a task poorly or incompetently, but lack the competence to realize their own incompetence at a task and thus consider themselves much more competent than everyone else. Put more crudely, they’re too stupid to realize they’re stupid.”

  • Barry

    I have to admit one of my fears of CF, perhaps the CF darkside is, I once saw a presentation of how we are throwing back heat into the atmosphere. The example was a night-shot of the earth with all of the collective lighting and the cities were glowing like the entrances to Disneyland. Heated outdoor pools, more lighting, air conditioning, with unlimited energy will we dangerously heat up the globe???

    ps Thanks Jed Rothwell

    • MikeP

      To me the “dark” side of LENR is the fear that the power will be used inappropriately by some. Just imagine people living on the edge of Greenland discovering that they can multiply their crops and standard of living by just melting that pesky ice. Then you really would get enhanced sea level rise for the rest of us 🙂

      The “bright” side is that only rich societies care about the environment and only rich societies can afford to do it. So LENR should ultimately be a net benefit. This will fix one of the major flaws in the present push to expensive energy. Almost by definition it winds up harming the planet directly or indirectly.

    • Omega Z


      A legitimate Concern Barry.
      We waste Expensive resources.
      What happens when it’s cheap.

      All technology is a 2 edged sword.
      We will need to develop a new mind set or we will just create new problems. Maybe worse then what we already have.

      • Barry

        It’s funny you say that Omega, it’s almost word for word what Peter Hagelstein said to me “Technology can be a double edged sword.”

      • fortyniner


        We’re fairly royally f****d if we go on as we are. Can we be more f****d if we get somewhat cheaper energy and stop ploughing up the planet looking for more stuff to burn?

        • Roger Bird

          But the ploughing won’t stop. We’ll just be looking for other things. People will want more fish; but we are already down to funky-ass tilapia. People think that getting more and more will make a person more and more happy. And so we will have more resources depleted. Fulfilling our needs will reduce misery; chasing after desire fulfillment in order to be more happy will only cause more misery.

  • Felix Fervens

    CO2 is rising at 2ppm per year, pretty much linearly in recent years.

    Each doubling of CO2 (absent any cascading methane melting) will raise global temps about 1C. a NASA study says 1.6C* , some say as low as 0.45C*

    So, to double our current 400ppm, will take 200 years–raising global air temps 1C (and that assumes all of the warming stays in the air).

    If man is burning fossils in anything like 200 yrs., in light of the exponential advance of technology, it would be astonishing.

    The average temp at Antarctica is -50C. I think it will take a 50C warming before that land ice, kilometers deep in places, will even begin to melt.

    I could argue cogently against the cascading effect of warming on other forcing gasses, but have gone on long enough.



    • fortyniner

      An alternative explanation might be that as the oceans warm (slightly) as they have done from about 1900, less CO2 is held in solution, increasing the atmospheric load (slightly). There is therefore a delay of a few decades between warming and resultant CO2 concentration increases. In a few more decades it is possible that atmospheric CO2 levels will fall, i.e., eventually reflecting the current cooling trend.

      New Scientist: “Ice cores show CO2 increases lag behind temperature rises, disproving the link to global warming.”

      • HHiram

        “An alternative explanation might be that as the oceans warm (slightly) as they have done from about 1900, less CO2 is held in solution”

        That might makes if it were not backwards…

        As temperature rises, MORE CO2 and other gases go into solution. The oceans have absorbed more than half of all anthropogenic carbon emissions already. If it weren’t for them acting as sinks, CO2 levels in the atmosphere would be much higher than they already are.

        • fortyniner

          The solubility of gases in water decreases with increasing temperature. That includes CO2.

          If you can’t even get the basic science straight then it’s not surprising that you misunderstand this subject.

          • Roger Bird

            OMG, HHiram was mistaken! I thought so when I read his message, but I didn’t dare question a SCIENTIST. Perhaps HHiram will have to turn in his scientist badge.

            I am so confused. If I can’t depend upon a SCIENTIST to always get things right, oh, who can I depend upon?

            I have a great idea. Let’s depend upon ourselves. What a concept!!! We could call this “The (Scientific) Reformation” where we don’t need a scientist to interpret everything for us but rather we do as much thinking as possible for ourselves.

          • HHiram

            Individuals make errors, especially outside of their fields of expertise. Atmospheric science is not my expertise.

            The point is not to have blind faith that scientists get everything right, but rather to trust that the scientific *process*. Part of the process is peer-evaluation, error-correction and critique. I appreciate having my error be corrected by fortyniner.

            Nevertheless, it is very safe to assume that atmospheric scientists are not making this particular error in their models of marine C02 uptake.

          • HHiram

            That is correct, my mistake.

    • Roger Bird

      Since hysteria has taken over for many people, I doubt if good science will have much of an impact.

      • Neil Taylor

        Right Roger, it seems that hysteria appears on both sides of this argument!

        • Roger Bird

          The right is hysterical about the left voting in stupid policies like CO2 sequestration. Beyond hubris and silliness.

    • Zedshort

      “(and that assumes all of the warming stays in the air).” Not sure what you meant. Did you mean to say that all the CO2 stays in the air?

      “The average temp at Antarctica is -50C. I think it will take a 50C warming before that land ice, kilometers deep in places, will even begin to melt.” Um, no to melt ice you need only bring it up to 0.0001 C. I guarantee you it will be liquid water at that time.

  • Bill Nichols

    Managed while in the Air Force high level projects, one was involving AGW in late 1980 into early 1990s and the other was Stealth Technology applications and involved LENR phenomena potential impacts in early 1990s.

    Offer 12 basic groupings of questions derived from decades of experiences, the reader can decide for yourself their merit.

    1.) If the key principles (as understood now) of science apply to AGW, why is there any lingering discord? Direct measurements (“Beer’s Law”) should clarify quantitatively any positive (higher temperatures) feedback? Are special interests in control and how? At the extreme ends of positive feedback, doesn’t this provide a simple and efficient new energy source through expansion of Carnot and Rankin processes among using other Thermodynamic principles?

    2.) When comparing energy budgets, the implementation of carbon taxes (i.e. Kyoto); how much of these limits would reduce actual carbon emissions to the full earth carbon cycle? Would these actions just produce more money for Governments versus the environment? If so, are the governments honest brokers? Is the actual carbon and water cycles actually measured and fully understood? If so, would these actions be useful using scale analysis as it pertains to the full energy budget of the earth? If not, why take these actions?

    3.) Doesn’t (tens) thousands of tests prove LENR phenomena is real? Why does it have to be just exothermic, why not also endothermic and hasn’t this been confirmed? Natural examples, could they be of value and provide insights?

    4.) Don’t governments and special interest always try to serve themselves without full transparency and maximum accountability?
    Isn’t history full of examples of this…part of the flaw of human condition? Are governments really accountable? If not, how do we address this issue for the benefit of all of us?

    5.) Are we more ignorant then we profess? Coupled with other unexplained phenomena (i.e. what is really gravity, etc.) isn’t most of our key pillars of science incomplete based on wrong frame of references of gravity and inertial? One example: Gravity is 10<33-39 orders of magnitude less than other 3 poorly understood forces. Then how can Special and General Relativity be complete? Impacts to chemistry, nuclear and thermodynamics?

    6.) Does quantum physics explain causality or the 4 forces? Impacts to key principles of which Heisenberg and Schrodinger (just two)?

    7.) If nature (at all scales) "spin" or "rotate", isn't the concept of charge (poorly understood) potentially better explain this ubiquitous phenomena then our current frames of references? If so, doesn't this limit our current understanding of key concepts of physics such as Coulomb Barrier" to name just one? What is resonance and coherence? Why or why not?

    8.) Doesn't LENR and other unexplained phenomena suggest we will be able to manage earth's weather sooner versus later if we don't blow ourselves up? Aren't their examples and data in nature suggesting this?

    9.) If "science" is roughly the explanation of our world that is testable and verifiable, then why is opinion used? Is "consensus" a science or opinion? What does history show of the flat earth or our position in the universe?

    10.) Is mathematics actually science or just a tool of science?

    11.) Don't Observations suggest the LENR phenomena is still poorly (very?) understood and likely were still not asking all the correct questions and experiments? Is part of the problem our adherence to key scientific concepts that are incomplete? Is so, which ones? Doesn't this provide a fertile ground in the future for experiments that are currently considered "out of the box"? Could this slow down commercialization due to unforeseen factors if not pursued?

    12.) Doesn't the truth have no side? Isn't this what all of our goals should be?

    Final overall comment. Always found the truth empowers all of us all the time and promotes comfort and contentment…not discomfort and emotion.

    Hence, observationally in various conversations, aren't we limiting ourselves? If so, shouldn't we start to better address this in a more constructive manner of which the above 12 broad questions may provide some insight?

    Others may be able explain the flaws and limitations to the above, or expand on them for the purpose of hopefully a constructive dialog.

    2 cents.

    Bill Nichols
    Atmospheric Scientist

    • George N

      A good start would be for the pro AGW Scientific community to release their raw data, so that science can actually take hold rather than political pandering for “consensus”

    • Tappanjack

      Thank you Bill: I hope you stay with us!

  • Chris I

    Yup I knew that would happen, I avoided even looking at the discussion.

    The very name of that guy stokes up the flames from some folks of the opposite camp. Oddly enough, some Americans hoot about him even when they hear news that has little or nothing to do with USA politics.

    • Iggy Dalrymple

      AlGore preaches to the masses about reducing our CO2 footprint, yet he has a footprint like a Saudi prince…..but that’s OK, he’s Gaea’s sacred prophet.

      Humanity might be “sitting on a ticking time bomb,” but Gore’s home in Carthage is sitting on a zinc mine. Gore receives $20,000 a year in royalties from Pasminco Zinc, which operates a zinc concession on his property. Tennessee has cited the company for adding large quantities of barium, iron and zinc to the nearby Caney Fork River.

      • Robyn Wyrick

        With all due respect, if Gore was a convicted bank robber, it wouldn’t matter – it’s not his science that he is declaring.

        Dismissing the science of global climate change because of a perceived moral failures of one of its non-scientific proponents is, well, not scientific.

        • Roger Bird

          Robin, I don’t think that they are dismissing the science because of Al Gore’s moral failures. They are dismissing Al Gore as an authority figure and as someone who actually believes what he says, not because of moral failures in general but because of his failure to do what he suggests everyone else should do.

      • Chris I

        As I can’t read that link till Sat at least, I’ll spend the next 48 jours wondering what the zinc mine’s got to do with practising what he preaches.

        Yup, by the time I hit the submit button for that post, I already tawt I smelt a fishy little scent, like… which kind of fish? Herring? Which colour of?

  • Zeddicus Zul Zorander

    For those that still think that Rossi spends all his time in what must be the greatest hoax of the century, you can grasp at this straw for a while longer:

    “UPDATE: I have been in contact with a representative of PCE Instruments UK Ltd who has confirmed that the PCE-830 cannot detect DC tension. When connected to an AC source with an offset DC tension it will display the graph of the AC tension correctly but it will not detect the offset DC”


    We’ll have to wait for the following test to finally bury this one.


    • GreenWin

      John Millstone and yugo are the last-gasp skeps still trying to find a way to accuse the Swedish/Italian team of missing a “hidden” wire powering the E-Cat control box. They were twitching with excitement like a triumphant PI who’s snapped a picture of the secret lover… Except Mats Lewan replied:

      “John, I don’t know if it helps you, but when I did 4 tests of the old E-Cat in 2011, all published on, I brought my own cables, checked tension and current on both sides of the control box, both AC and DC. I never found anything strange.”

      Cognitive dissonance/paranoia strikes deep.

      • daniel maris

        That’s interesting! 🙂

      • Bernie Koppenhofer

        Will this hidden power source nonsense ever go away, this is my definition of super skeptic.

        • GreenWin

          “Super” is too kind a word.

          “The foil phonograph, [Edison’s] most original invention was unveiled to the world in 1877. Ridicule and criticism followed. Some even accused him of ventriloquism.

          Or hidden actors, magnetic choir boys, alien radio beams… etc.

        • Zedshort

          It is the responsibility of the experimenters to account for all means by which energy can be added to the system and to account for all reasonable means by which energy can leave the system. It is perfectly correct to neglect small components of energy out of the system as that is a conservative assumption, but not OK to assume the inventor is being honest and to miss a major source of energy into the system. One needs to check for all those sources and if not found say so and remove it from the check-list but it is unconscionable to simply not check because they “think” it is not a source of energy input. Any experimenter that does so has wasted his time as he has not created an energy balance. If it is true that they failed to account for DC into the system then the energy balance is worth nothing; it is trash.

      • Zeddicus Zul Zorander

        Yeah, saw that too GW, but it’s still a straw for the patho’s.

        Best to ignore them, cause if people don’t want to accept the facts they will not be swayed by whatever argument or proof.

        • Alp

          Maybe. Or maybe best to do the tests in an unimpeachable manner. Best: sell the darn things already! To someone who will let the public see them. Or at least the press.

          • Zeddicus Zul Zorander

            Unimpeachable, ironclad… We’re headed for the same discussion again, aren’t we?

            Instead, let’s ask you some questions:
            1) Why, in your opinion, would Rossi tamper with the tests?
            2) What, in your opinion, would Rossi gain with the tampering?
            3) What would you do if you were in Rossi’s position, especially in respect to the Patent problems he is facing. Assuming his ECAT device is real of course.

          • lenrdawn

            1) Money from selling licenses
            2) See 1
            3) Reveal the secret, become rich and famous and save the planet

          • Alp

            I agree. One of things I find deeply disturbing is that, when valid if picky criticism of his earlier tests were raised, Rossi never went back and redid the tests properly.

            For example, when asked on JONP why he did not do a “dummy” run (like they did on the current test) on his earlier ecats, Rossi said he didn’t do it because he knew what it would show– that there is no energy without hydrogen.

            That’s true but misses the point. Rossi *must* know that the reason for dummy tests is to verify the measurement instruments as well as the methods. Why he answered as he did and why he refused to redo the October 6, 2011 test, for example, with a dummy run, is a mystery only Rossi knows the answer to.

            Roger, I agree using DC would be a big risk. But the skeptics say that Levi chose all the instruments so that Rossi knew there would not be a DC meter. He also forbade oscilloscopes, presumably to avoid revealing secret “frequencies”.

            It is also unlikely that unsuspecting experimenters would ever check an AC supply line with a DC meter. Most people assume that what comes out of a mains socket is what is supplied by the power company. That’s what I’d have done under the circumstances.

            This would all be resolved without delay if Rossi would simply reveal a customer unrelated to him or his associates. I hope he does that soon!

          • Zeddicus Zul Zorander

            I’m not going into old tests with the latest and best conducted test result to date available now.

            “But the skeptics say that Levi chose all the instruments SO THAT ROSSI KNEW there would not be a DC meter.”

            Do you have proof that Rossi knew what devices Levi chose or are you just making things up? Source please.

            Rossi would forbid a spectrometer because that would indeed reveal the catalyst. How do you think astrophysicists measure the materials of a star or planet? (

            You cannot seem to understand that Rossi cannot give away his IP until it is protected by a patent. Why is that so hard for you to understand?

          • Roger Bird

            What Alp said.

          • Alp

            “Rossi would forbid a spectrometer because that would indeed reveal the catalyst. ”

            Well… didn’t Rossi’s latest patent not involve a catalyst? At least that’s what I read here!

            I wasn’t citing a report but since Levi and Rossi are friends and perhaps even neighbors (in Italy anyway), doesn’t it make sense that Levi would share with Rossi the information on the type of instrument he was planning to use? And I did read somewhere that Levi supplied the power meter.

          • Zeddicus Zul Zorander

            Quote: “Well… didn’t Rossi’s latest patent not involve a catalyst? At least that’s what I read here!

            I wasn’t citing a report but since Levi and Rossi are friends and perhaps even neighbors (in Italy anyway), doesn’t it make sense that Levi would share with Rossi the information on the type of instrument he was planning to use? And I did read somewhere that Levi supplied the power meter.”

            Really? That’s your answer?

            So you’re just guessing. You cannot be swayed by facts, but then again you don’t use facts yourself. I think you are not a true skeptic, but a patho-skeptic with an agenda.

            I’m done with you.

          • Zeddicus Zul Zorander

            1) Way, way too complex a scheme that hasn’t worked out so great so far. As far as I know, he has spend a lot of personal money in the development. The number of licenses is probably not very high so this is not making him much money. He’s also working with the military who are of course so easy to cheat. So if this was a fraud he would have the US military out to get him. Way to go, really great scam…

            2) Again, way too complex. Also, the fact that LENR is real, as proven by many many reports by many respectable institutions and scientists, would indicate that Rossi has something more than just a hoax. I cannot believe the amount of people he would have to cheat just to sell a few licenses. I think Rossi has more to loose than to gain by tampering with the tests or creating a hoax.

            3) You would probably get nothing because others would be able to:
            – Patent your idea
            – Sue you based on their patents
            – Sell devices based on your idea
            – Get filthy rich

            You may get a post script note in the history books though

            So really, all this to sell some licenses?

          • LilyLover

            As soon as the secret is revealed, the zombie patent applications will come to life containing that revealed secret. Laws will be changed regarding prior art. The oligarchs will hold the LENR patents. Humanity will be doomed again. Rich Rossi is Powerful Rossi is kind Rossi. Charitable Rossi will be Tesla 2.0

          • Roger Bird

            OMG, I didn’t realize that I was doomed. Thanks for letting me know. I thought that I was living like royalty of 250 years ago and was very happy and lucky. Stupid me!!!!

          • Barry

            The idea that Rossi is putting on a large scam is starting to sound beyond paranoid. When I first put out this video (shortened version) you wouldn’t believe the number of comments like “This was never filmed at MIT” “It’s not Peter Hagelstein” “They don’t have chairs like that at MIT” on and on. I couldn’t believe it.
            The whole “Rossi’s a con with a hidden wire” thing and “nuclear transmutation can only happen in a super nova” is not bordering the ridiculous it has gone way past it.
            Do you actually think Rossi is going to con the world and then lock the doors and sit on a pile of money in the Caribbean where no one will find him???

          • Roger Bird

            Barry, I have seen your video before. I must say that the showing of the head sculpture at the beginning is absolutely perfect because it is sort of a perspective thing. There is a head there is you stand just in the right place and a mess if you stand in the wrong place. Just like LENR. If you stand off with a bad attitude, you aren’t going to see anything. If you look closely with a good attitude, REVOLUTION!!!!!

          • Barry

            Cool sculpture isn’t it Rog. It was commissioned to celebrate the Janus nano particle where half has one element and the other half another.

          • Roger Bird

            I still like it as a metaphor for scientific revolutions.

          • Roger Bird

            Rossi could not and would not risk the testers checking for a DC current. He would have no way of knowing what they would bring with them and what they would look for. A bad test would have ruined him.

            And anyway, Mats Lewan tested for a DC current in a previous test. Poor Occam, these skeptopaths are trying so hard to fit the data to their theory that it is getting so very, very complicated.

          • Deleo77

            Well the new skeptic line following Mats now saying that he brought his own instruments and tested for AC and DC, is that Rossi was faking energy output in the Mats test, and he was faking energy input in the latest test.

            It would be incredibly difficult for Rossi to fool multiple people in different tests, and now we are to believe, using different ways of doing it each time. But that is the latest. If Rossi has done all of that, it is pretty impressive in its own right. Of course Millstone will tell you it’s all quite easy to do.

          • Zeddicus Zul Zorander

            If you believe the skeptics, then Rossi is simply a genius. All those exquisite ways he found to cheat everybody is truly marvellous. The man deserves a Nobel prize for his inventiveness alone!

      • psi

        Good for Mats.

    • Omega Z

      Yugo & Friends know the DC theory is BS. Or Maybe NOT. Maybe they aren’t smart enough to know this.

      Doesn’t matter. Their just trying to spread confusion.
      They know Many people can easily see through this. The Masses are their target.

      The Masses are less likely to be aware that Isolators/Filters would have to be placed in line to prevent the distribution of DC voltage throughout the facility. Include the hardware also necessary to inject this DC voltage & you would have quite a problem hiding it.
      With all the combined tests someone would have noticed.

      This is just a last grasp on their part. They can’t make the temperature readings go away. To much differential for errors to cause it. They can’t claim Rossi fed juice through the Ground. It wasn’t connected.

      Even the “Their all in Cahoots together” doesn’t Fly. The Numbers make it incomprehensible.(No Payoff). True, You may find 1 person willing to destroy his career & reputation for small change, but Dozens- I Don’t think so.

      And this is what we’re talking about. NOT just (7) authors of the report, but over a dozen. It’s easy to overlook the fact that many others were involved with the test.

      It’s easy to forget that since the Beginning, At least 2 dozen experts & Entities in their field have been involved. And Highly probable even more we aren’t aware of.

      But as I stated above. They know this, therefore what the are doing is just trying to delay LENR. Rossi isn’t taking the bait. He just keeps on keeping on. 🙂

      • Zeddicus Zul Zorander

        I am Zeddicus Zul Zorander and I approve this message


        • Barry

          Good enough for me ZZZ.

    • Zedshort

      That is a sad thing to hear about the instrumentation and if I was Rossi, I would say of the experimenters failure to test for DC current, “It is a Clownery.” I think the experimenters need to practice their technique and maybe even talk to a few of us here who might alert them to a few “slip-up” they should avoid.

  • artefact

    Brussels LENR meeting presentations in pdf:[email protected]/msg82993.html

    • AB

      Spread the word. Here we have four research institutes saying that cold fusion is real.

    • Bernie Koppenhofer


      • psi

        Keep the good (and all) news coming.

  • Fibb

    Frank, with all due respect, with your above post, you are sanctioning the use of your site by paid shills who claim that the vast majority of climatologists have been faking data for decades in a grand conspiracy to change the world order.

    There is, in fact, no conspiracy. AGW science is real and valid science…. there is NO controversy.

    This site should not be about completely fake political debates.

    If you really want to attract the right crowd to this site… I suggest you take a different approach.

    • GreenWin

      Fibb many here disagree with your entire statement. The fact you say, “there is no controversy,” indicates you have chosen not to acknowledge data and evidence refuting AGW.

  • LilyLover

    Worrying about GHG or “AWG” is like worrying about ‘minimum payment’ on that 300$ Credit card AFTER winning a 10,000,000$ lottery.
    It makes a lot of sense.
    It gives something to worry about. People like to worry needlessly.
    Why? Then they don’t have to deal with the real issues.
    Barry, we cannot overheat the Earth, even with 100 times Energy consumption.
    I don’t promote waste. I think our energy consumption can be optimized. We waste it a lot.
    Why optimize in the face of abundance?
    Just for feeling good or mental exercise or bragging.

  • Christopher

    It’s astounding how much skepticism about AGW there is at this point. One of the facts that scientific skeptics need to digest is that every academy of science of each G8 nation acknowledges AGW, and not one of them denies it. This is not up for debate and is factual. Look it up. What is factually conclusive from this is that more than most of the scientific community acknowledges AGW.

    • Roy O’Neil

      Nations and scientific communities have been wrong before and they will probability be wrong again. AGW is not settled science. LENR will be settled soon, I hope.

      • Christopher

        It is possible that all of the G8’s scientific academies are wrong about AGW, but it is less likely than each being correct. These iuitions aren’t guessing, or acting on feelings, or on some per-conceived narrative. These are scientists performing science at its best in that those that are considered exemplary (in method, not opinion) are concentrated in national scientific academies. This is where objectively you would go to get “good science”.

      • Christopher

        Your argument would make more sense if four of the G8 national academies of science (or even one) was undecided about, or denied AGW. The fact that all of the G8 scientific academies conclude the reality of AGW (as well as those of China, Brazil, and India) means that they would ALL have to be wrong. It would seem unlikely that there are a group of ‘special’ scientists that hold the key to what the G8 missed. These ‘special scientists’ are unlikely to have methodologies are so pure as to trump the methodologies of the nations’ most respected scientists (for these high-caliber scientists are the ones that inhabit national scientific academies). level of scientific institutions of the developed world for calibre of science performed

        • Roger Bird

          This is just more dependent thinking. If the entire scientific establishment is too corrupt and/or fixated on one perspective to see the reality of cold fusion and to even persecute those trying to do experiments with cold fusion, then they can also be too corrupt and/or fixated on one perspective about AGW.

          The scientific community’s perspective on LENR SHOULD cause a thinking person to at least consider the possibility that their beloved scientific community could have gotten it wrong about AGW. And given the fact that they had it wrong about Wegener and continental drift for ***50*** years and so many other matters, a thinking PERSON would not depend solely on their thinking.

    • GreenWin

      Chris, at one time essentially all Academies of Science and “scientists” believed the Sun orbited the Earth. Any who proposed otherwise were branded heretics or “crackpots.” Many great minds have been led astray by consensus.

      And many great minds have been forced to hide their true interests. Sir Isaac Newton, arguably the most revered scientist and President of the British Academy, The Royal Society – spent 20 years secretly dabbling in alchemy and metaphysics.

      • Barry

        GreenWin, he altered science with his alchemical beliefs as well. For instance he introduced color in a pattern of seven (snuck in indigo between blue and purple) when color makes sense in pattern of 6 (3 primary 3 secondary) but 7 fits into metaphysics- 7 chakras, 7 days of creation etc. 7 being the perfect number. His model is still used today at times even though it doesn’t add up.
        He also prided himself on being a virgin all his life. Maybe that explains our high-school grades. Sorry Frank way off topic.

        • Roger Bird

          Newton was also vindictive and malicious and should never have been the head of the Royal Society. You forgot the important part.

          • AlainCo

            Newton hated the differential calculus and was using geometry instead. he fighted the techniques of Leibnitz.
            He also abused his position to block achromatic lens technology.
            He was an hysterical religious integrist too.

            Beside a genius he was a “fiéfé salopard”.

      • Christopher

        The potential for error in modern science is not comparable to the errors made during Galileo’s era. The example you speak of was not a scientific consensus but a religious worldview k the two are not equivalent in comparison.

        • GreenWin

          To the contrary Christopher, the Ptolemaic geocentric view WAS the scientific consensus in 17th century, having evolved from the pre-Socratic Greek philosophers (modern PhDs are still doctors of philosophy) the scientists of their time.

          The Ptolmaic model brought to Europe by Islamics, was adopted in the Middle Ages by the Scholastics into Christian philosophy. i.e. the “consensus” of educated men for 2000 years before Copernicus was the universe revolved around Earth.

          As to potential for error, given scale, read how modern science’s universal constants (Planck, speed of light, gravitation, fine structure) reportedly fluctuate over time:

          The potential for scientific error is perhaps the only universal constant.

          • Roger Bird

            What GreenWin said, only not as well said as he said it.

    • psi

      “Most” is a rapidly fading illusion. The skepticism, as has been often repeated, is substantially a result of the failed predictions and poor models of the proponents, viz.:

      Real science always involves cross examining assumptions and testing models, not being wedded to only one.

      • Christopher

        The scientific academies of the G8, as well as Brazil and China are not wedded to a single view. They are scientists, and, using their standard methodologies, do cross examine assumptions and test models. The result is already in: all acknowledge the existence of AGW and none deny it. Look it up. The debate for over 95 percent of scientist (that’s a lot of scientists) is not whether AGW is real, it is a debate of how large it is now. These are not petty institutions, they are the national academies of sciences for every nation state of the G8, plus Brazil and China. They collectively do “real” science.

        • GreenWin

          Christopher, yours is the tepid appeal to authority relied upon by most climate alarmists. That wikipedia lists dozens of academies as conscripts to “consensus” is meaningless – given its exclusion of skeptical AGW views.

        • Thinks4Self

          I see the factoid of “The debate for over 95 percent of scientist (that’s a lot of scientists) is not whether AGW is real, it is a debate of how large it is now.” thrown around quite a bit. Is a mandatory to return questionnaire sent out to every scientist on the planet every so often? Or does this come from a guesstimate from a pro-AGW body? The difference matters. If it is a questionnaire are the identities protected to stop any potential blow back from an honest answer? This matters when considering the validity of the answers.

  • Pipmon


    To my mind there’s only one niggling problem with all those anti AGW sentiments. For sure if you look for articles on the issue you encounter any number you may desire that support your position. It reminds me of the CFC debate of some years ago. Remember that one, the deniers were vociferous and adamant down to the last man, and curiously mostly from the States. Tobacco, DDT, and many others also went through the same rigmarole. Behind them all were vested interests that did not want change. Change costs money.
    For a while denying climate change was the rage, then it became “OK maybe climate change but not due to us” etc etc
    My niggling suspicion is that of the two options, denying, leaves us with a “clear conscience” and no need to do anything. Acknowledging a problem would actually require us to support initiatives for change. Whoa too much trouble and money! On that basis alone I smell a whiff of something rotten in the air (CO2?).
    PS:CAUTION! poetic licence in use. I know CO2 is odourless.
    PPS:license for the Americans

    • Thinks4Self

      Of course the climate is changing, unless you are very narrow minded and aloof of the facts of the world we live in you would know this, but the cause is what is up for debate.

      – The moon is moving away one inch per year changing its effect on our tides ever so minutely each year and thus our weather patterns.

      – The shape of the earth’s orbit is changing to a more circular shape causing us to be nearer the sun for longer periods of time.

      – The suns output constantly fluctuates directly effecting our weather and climate.

      – Due to the above factors the water vapor content of the atmosphere is in constant flux.

      Ignoring the above and fixating on CO2 does not take into account the many variables that are involved with our climate. If you look at the basic science of what happens when you burn a hydrocarbon(fossil) fuel the question of if it is the wrong thing to do becomes murky. Look at CH4 the current darling of the energy industry.

      CH4 + 2 O2 -> CO2 & 2 H20

      Water is an absolute necessity for our type of life as well as carbon since all life on this planet is carbon based as far as we can tell. CO2 is an easily usable form of free carbon for plant life on this planet. Water is important enough that small battles/wars have been fought over it already. Increasing the amount of water should be a good thing as well as increasing life usable sources of carbon. The earth is quite good at sequestering carbon to the point that on a geologic time scale the earth will sequester it to the point that life will become less and less abundant.

      So the question becomes how much CO2 is too much for the earth to deal with? The earth has dealt with levels more than triple our current level and life continued to flourish. Life in general is not in danger from the current level of CO2 in the atmosphere, some lifestyles might be endangered but life as we know it should continue.

      • Roger Bird

        Thinks4Self, you really have to stop thinking for yourself. HHiram is going to report you to the Magisterium of Science and they will have you arrested and tortured for thinking for yourself instead of consulting with a Scientist.

      • Pipmon

        You are of course correct. There are many factors, and if memory serves, climate was actually the ‘poster child’ for a chaotic system back when I was in school. So by definition even minutely different perturbations can result in wildly divergent paths! So just about anything might transpire from a sufficiently strong kick at the can.
        But sitting back and saying “it could be, then again it might not be, so let’s just keep on keeping on” will not resolve much of anything. Let’s say the prudent approach might be to admit that dumping megatons of CO2 in the air is a bit like spitting in the wind or tugging on Superman’s cape. There’s likely more downside to it than upside. (even more dangerous perhaps than that pesky butterfly beating its wings down in Brasil!)
        As to the fact that “life forms” will survive in whatever conditions, I totally agree. I believe life is more of an ineradicable stain than a delicate flower from the Universe’s point of view! But that was of little comfort to the dinosaurs.

        PS:What’s with the condescending attitude towards “Scientists” spewed out at regular intervals on these posts. It really is more telling on the “commentor” than the “commentee”.

        • Thinks4Self

          I have no problem with banning harmful emissions but the proof is just not there yet that CO2 is harmful. At most it might be proven that it is annoying. CO2 is a building block of life. Just like bacteria in a petri dish life on this planet will grow to meet its food supply. CO2 happens to be a food at the bottom of the chain so the more CO2 the more food at the bottom of the chain.

          Conservation of mass applies to life as well as chemical reactions. If you want more biomass (food for the starving, fish in the ocean, birds in the sky, etc) the material to make it has to come from somewhere. If it doesn’t come from other living things then the mass must come from something else, hence my rant on CH4. It is dead biomass releasing it through combustion allows more living biomass as well as releasing some useful energy. But sure it is possible that it might cause issues until it is absorbed into the food chain, but what those issues are haven’t been proven yet. There are theories, but not laws.

          As for scientists I have no issues with scientists themselves. I think the way we conduct science is far too political and good ideas and worthwhile experiments get passed over due to politics, greed and human nature.

        • Roger Bird

          ” I believe life is more of an ineradicable stain than a delicate flower from the Universe’s point of view!” This your attitude and belief tells me all that I need to know about your mindset. Thanks for the heads-up, which will save me the trouble of reading your posts.

      • HHiram

        “Ignoring the above and fixating on CO2 does not take into account the many variables that are involved with our climate”

        Do you honestly think climate scientists ignore these variables? That is like suggesting automotive engineers ignore everything except pistons. It’s absurd.

        • Thinks4Self

          I don’t necessarily think climate scientists ignore the other variables, but I do believe they minimize the effect of them by treating them as constants. After all isn’t the hallmark of a good experiment controlling everything other than the variable you are testing?

          CO2 has reached the level of 400 ppm stated that way it sounds like a lot. But in fact we are talking about the concentration of CO2 reaching .04% of the atmosphere by volume which doesn’t sound like a lot. CO2 has a thermal conductivity 75% of that of oxygen, which it what it replaces in the atmosphere. So if you take the 25% reduction times the concentration this whole debate is concerning .01% change in the thermal conductivity of the atmosphere for all of the CO2 in it. A 5% change in the cloud cover for the planet for an entire week, causes a similarly sized effect for the total amount of solar energy impacting the planet for a year.

          • Thinks4Self

            As an added dimension for thought Argon makes up .934% of our atmosphere and has a thermal conductivity 67% of oxygen. It causes a .307% change in the thermal conductivity of the atmosphere when compared with oxygen.

          • Roger Bird

            Thinks4Self, why don’t list of all of the significant gases and their thermal conductivity. That might be interesting. And does thermal conductivity have any thing to do with atomic weight?

          • Thinks4Self

            This was posted earlier in the thread it will give you all of that and more.

    • tobacco is an awful story of science and lobbying by a desperate industry having no exit that deny the evidence. The are the dinosaurs of business… other industry adapt better.

      for DDT it is the opposite, DDT was forbidden after the patent expired, when companies had more expensive products to sell.
      The real losers were the poor countries unable to kill mosquitoes for cheap… No so loosing because I admit it started to raise resitance.
      but reasonable use of DDT would have stopped malaria in african cities, and with some intelligence we could have avoided resistance.
      the real problem for environement was that american farmes were flooding their field with DDT above any rationality…

      similar technology change were forced for the same reason, like fluocompact, or REACH (it was a trial to overtake chinese industry, but they adapted faster than us), or even photovoltaic.

      about environmentalism, you have to see that vested interest today are behind the green industry, and that oil industry is following, just asking for subsidies to hide CO2, change technology…

      today green industry is pumping trillion in our economy, and I suspect it is part of the source or our loss of productivity (beside finance and attorneys), that cause our loss of wages (don’t forget that we don’t need job, we need wages and goods – low productivity keep jobs but hinder wages and goods).

    • Roger Bird

      I wish that I could get some of that vested interest; it would be nice. Perhaps I could pay off my mortgage with some of that vested interest. Unfortunately, I have to come to my own conclusions all on my own without monetary incentive.

      NO ONE supported Big Tobacco or DDT other then themselves and their literally paid shills.

      I recognize that we have a BIG PROBLEM, but it is not CO2. It is pollution and a phucked up science establishment.

  • Jed Rothwell

    Please see my book “Cold Fusion and the Future,” chapter 9 Global Warming (p. 80):