World Bank Official on Managing the ‘Carbon Bubble’

There has been a lot of discussion here over the years about what the impact of LENR and other new energy technologies might have on the largely carbon-based energy economies, and how one might transition to a world where fossil fuels play an increasingly less important role.

In an article published by Yahoo News (via the AFP), Rachel Kyte, World Bank Group Vice President and Special Envoy in the Climate Change Group, expresses the view that this transition needs to be dealt with very carefully. From the article:

The transition from fossil fuels must be carefully managed to avoid an economically disastrous bursting of the “carbon bubble,” the World Bank’s top climate official said on Saturday.

Decades of reliance on oil, gas and coal have made them central to the global economy, and polluting industries risk a potentially catastrophic crash as the world shifts to alternative energies, said Rachel Kyte, the Bank’s special envoy for climate change.

In the run-up to the Paris climate summit in November there is a lot of discussion among government leaders about what kind of deal will be possible to reach there. The general consensus seems to be that in order to keep the climate at ‘safe’ levels, there should be no warming beyond 2 degrees Celsius by the end of this century.

If a binding agreement is reached in Paris to reach this target, it will mean that countries will have to dramatically curtail their use of fossil fuel assets, and most of the carbon fuel left in the ground will be unburnable — making them ‘stranded assets’ — which would greatly affect the financial valuation of the companies that own the assets, and putting at great risk the trillions of dollars in investments and loans that have been committed to development of these assets.

Rachel Kyte is quoted in the article:

“If we accept that we need to have less carbon in our growth, then we might have a financial risk associated with the prominence in our economy of companies who are heavily invested in carbon. That’s the whole question of the carbon bubble.”

The question that is not addressed here is, how does one ‘manage’ this transition? It seems to me there are two separate issues involved here if carbon assets are taken off the table. First, there is the financial fallout to deal with if investors and banks lose a great deal of money on their investment in these carbon resources.

Second, if the carbon assets mentioned are taken out of the picture, they have to be replaced with some other source of energy. Solar and wind are the technologies that most people are hoping can make up the gap. No one in high levels of government is publicly talking about LENR as being a viable replacement — but it would seem to be well poised to step in to provide a low-cost solution in many applications.

But carefully managing all this on a worldwide scale seems to be a tremendously difficult task, especially considering the political tensions that already exist between various governments for a variety of reasons — and with so many fossil-fuel rich nations being led by governments depend on their fossil assets for their very existence.

I don’t know what the best solution might be, but I am sure that this will be a major topic of discussion and debate in the coming years, especially if the E-Cat hits the market in the near future.

  • Jag Kaurah

    I do not buy that. Between stranded carbon assets and saving our one and only small blue dot in the vast cosmos, strand all the carbon assets ASAP.

  • Gerard McEk

    I am sure financial theorists will be able and may have already modeled such a phase shift to the New Fire. To avoid a total chaos politicians will use every handle to contol this and we will not like it. I assume they will invoke: unreasonable demands to prove safety; high tax for the fuel ingredients; make the access to the fuel ingredients impossible for common people; launch campains to discredit LENR; Rossi may be discredited again; etc. etc. Beside this, unlike you would expect, LENR is not supported by the ‘greens’ and the enviromental lobby groups, for whatever reason. The LENR lobby may stay small, untill we encounter a energy crisis.

  • Alan DeAngelis

    The transition from drug trafficking must be carefully managed to avoid an economically disastrous bursting of the “heroin bubble”.

  • georgehants

    Just one more clear example of the waste and stupidity of the capitalist system.
    Could be worth our expert economists devising a new fair honest and efficient system to replace it.
    It seems that just like scientific Dogma economic Dogma is to ingrained to except Cold Fusion, so we must stay in the stone age and condemn anybody that proves there could be a better way.

    • Bob Greenyer

      Those that profit want ‘capitalism’ as long as there is only an upside in at least nominal terms. Give them any chance of a loss then subsidies or bail-outs are called for.

      My understanding of capitalism and the bit I like most, is the notion of creative destruction – where old inefficient, obsolete approaches are destroyed to make way for a better approach – this is not the ‘capitalism’ we have now.

      In India only 2% people pay tax. The VAST majority of Indians look after themselves with little state intervention for most of their day to day activities. They grow their own food and barter.

      What is really scary for profit takers, life skimmers (banks) and governments, is that technologies such as renewable energy remove the supplier user relationship, making it hard for them to tax or even justify taxation on energy. In India, I had solar electricity, for lighting and fans and could charge my e-bike, my water was from a well. Just a little more panels and a bigger inverter and I could have run my induction cooker and fridge – there would be very little that a government could do to control that cost to me then.

      LENR, if viable, would take this to the extreme.

      • georgehants

        Bob agreed, but the same brain-washing that exists in science and the general population to except the dictates of the ruling classes over Evidence regarding Cold Fusion exists the same with capitalism and many other subjects.
        This topic page proves the damage that capitalism can do.
        I have made my clear honest and indisputable comment above and just as with Cold fusion one only has to go on the net and Google —- better alternatives to capitalism —- to become a wise expert.
        Not the way things are done by the majority, they just like MaryYugo argue infinitely what they have been informed by the priests and those financially gaining from a situation that the World must stay flat.
        I have no more to say on the subject.

        • Observer

          Central control is only as good as the person behind the controls.

          Self regulating systems survive the storms better than those based on inductive reasoning.

          There is always a new unforeseen extreme to survive.

          • georgehants

            “Central control” was never mentioned only a better system.

          • Warthog

            “Central control” is inherent in socialism (another name for which could be “crony capitalism”) . “Crony capitalism” exists in all non-communist varieties of socialism. “Crony capitalism” is the use if the power of the state to reduce or eliminate competition. REAL capitalism is unrestricted competition, and results in the “creative destruction” that Bob Greenyer referred to. In “Americanist” terms, “free enterprise”.

          • georgehants

            Warthog, socialism was never mentioned in my comment only a better system.
            First you have to agree or disagree with my point that present capitalism is dirty and needs cleaning.

          • Warthog

            Based on your past posts, the term socialism is correct. Is there corruption that should be scrubbed… betcha. But you have never come across with any details about what your proposed alternative would be, and why it would be better. Just nebulous “Hant-waving”.

          • georgehants

            Warthog, thank you for agreeing with my only point that the present system is “corruption” .
            It would now seem obvious that you would join me and all others wishing to improve that corrupt system or are you saying you do not want to change it for the better?

          • Warthog

            “Improving” is not the same as “discarding”, which is what you have advocated the entire time I have been reading your posts. Your whole “shtick” has been “capitalism is evil, get rid of it”. Like it or not, “capitalism” has and is working better than any other economic system devised by humankind. Show me ANY historical evidence of a system that has worked better. Or describe to me the system that you think will be better. Or give me a few examples of changes YOU think will make things work better.

          • georgehants

            Morning Wathog, a better system is one that improves on the faults, corruption etc. of the present system, you have agreed that it is so, now it may be good if you stopped being so aggressive and put up a reply fairly agreeing with my suggestions or giving better alternatives to remove said corruption etc.
            One suggestion, start to openly find, punish and remove any proven corruption in government, industry, finance science etc.
            What is your view on that idea?

          • Warthog

            LOL. The latter statement (on removing corruption) is the FIRST hard statement that I have ever seen from you. And of course ANY honest person will agree that the removal of corruption is “a good thing”. The question then becomes “how”. Since you are the one who wants “change”, it is up to you to lay out what you think needs to be done. Constantly repeating “capitalism is bad” is not going to cut it.

          • georgehants

            Warthog, either you also agree that you would like to see “change” and give examples of how you would do that or we can get no further in our discussion.
            I have stated I believe until capitalism in it’s present form is removed there is no hope for improvement as unscrupulous people will always corrupt.
            That is my “opinion” based on Fact you have made it clear you disagree, that is fine and I respect that, please now only reply with your opinion of how you would improve things to achieve our common goal of the removal of corruption for a fair system, what ever that may be.

          • Warthog

            “I have stated I believe until capitalism in it’s present form is removed
            there is no hope for improvement as unscrupulous people will always

            And I have asked, repeatedly, what you plan to replace it with that will work as well or better, and why. You never answer.

            The tendency toward corruption is, unfortunately, part of the human condition. The historical record shows that corruption is worse in all varieties of socialism promulgated to date. Even the crony capitalism that we have now is better than the demonstrated corruption of socialism shown to date.

            The Bolsheviks have already tried your approach (throw out capitalism) as thoroughly as it is possible to do. Didn’t work. The apologists for socialism said it was because it was done in a “backward/poor” country. The current effort in Venezuela is turning out to be just as bad, and that effort had as positive a basis (oil wealth) as is available today.

            The bottom line is that whatever approach (thus far unknown) you plan to implement, it must work with the same “human capital” that exists now. Unless you have made a major scientific discovery and identified the “unscrupulosity gene”, you are stuck with it.

          • georgehants

            Thank your for making your position completely clear, there is no purpose then in ever trying to improve things like slavery, colour prejudiced etc as they are just part of the human condition.
            Please forgive me for disagreeing with your “opinion” as Evidence shows that not to be the case.

          • Warthog

            “…slavery, colour prejudiced etc. as they are just part of the corrupt human condition”

            Actually, none of those are “part of the human condition”. The tendency to be honest or dishonest IS such a part, though….part of “original sin”, if you will.

            And once again you duck the issue. “IF” you succeed in eliminating capitalism (and just how to you plan to do THAT?, shoot all the bankers?? The Bolsheviks already tried that…..didn’t work), what, even in general, will you put in its place??

            Marx already tried that type of argument…..just get rid of capitalism and the “dictatorship of the proletariat” will magically appear. Didn’t work for him…..won’t work for you either.

        • Anthony Richards

          Ah, Mary Yugo – how strange that we haven’t heard from her lately……

          • kdk

            I think he’s been banned from e-catworld.

  • The World Bank needs to be thrown out the window, as well as socialism and it’s doomsday religion of Climate Change. If we carbon based lifeforms stop using carbon, we die. There is nothing wrong with the average global temperature the world is experiencing right now, and that has not changed in over 18 years. Even if we all killed ourselves and let the Earth revert to a humanless ecology, as some extremists suggest, the average temperature could still rise due to increased solar output or it could fall due to decreased solar output. The amount of CO2 in the atmosphere has little to nothing to do with Earth temperature because it is a greenhouse gas that is so weak that we have had had major ice ages when CO2 levels were 10 time higher than they are today. Ask yourself how we got out of those ice ages when the Earth was a frozen ice ball with 10 times more CO2? Did CO2 mysteriously increase to 11 times and that caused the big thaw? Obviously, the Sun is in charge, not CO2. The Sun produces heat, not CO2.

    • Oystein Lande

      CO2 levels higher during ice ages??? Any sources on this claim? What I read is the opposite. CO2 was lower during ice ages and was liberared after ice ages and therefore added positive feedback heating during the Milankovitch-driven interglacial periods.

      Burning 91 million barrels of oil on a daily basis for decades is likely to have some effects, like Acidification of the seas and global warming.

      And If the human race dies from this, it just means we where one of the less intelligent races in the universe not ment to reach the stars 😉

      • Which source do we believe? There are proclaimed experts on the Internet that make cases for CO2 and against CO2 being a powerful greenhouse gas. bWe have greatly increased CO2 levels during the last 18 years, in part because of the insanity of the biofuel scam, and the Earth has not warmed. That fact makes the alarmist “experts” less credible. The ice core records show that when the Earth gets warmer, the oceans warm up and release more CO2 into the atmosphere because cold water absorbs more CO2 than warm water. That increase lags the warming of the Earth by centuries. If you compress the graph of Earth temperatures vs. atmospheric CO2 levels, it looks like the Earth warms up in response to atmospheric CO2 levels. In fact it does not. Stretch out the graph and it shows that atmospheric CO2 levels increase after the Earth warms. Below are just a few of the many thousands of links on the subject. Unfortunately, God does not have a website, so who we trust is a matter of personal judgment. Do we trust the people whose predictions have all been horribly wrong, and who wish to put skeptics in jail, and who ignore all scientific data that does not fit their model, and who get paid for creating alarmist data and theory, and who have political motive for promoting their theories?

        • Oystein Lande

          Well, I don’t agree on your arguments at all:

          – History of CO2 vs temperature: Read the link I provided above, and note what it says of “the litle ice age” around 1600. It explains what happened with some Logic in my view.

          – warm oceans release more CO2 than it soaks up? There are several factors to consider her:
          For eons, the world’s oceans have been sucking carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere and releasing it again in a steady inhale and exhale. The ocean takes up carbon dioxide through photosynthesis by plant-like organisms (phytoplankton), as well as by simple chemistry: carbon dioxide dissolves in water. It reacts with seawater, creating carbonic acid. Carbonic acid releases hydrogen ions, which combine with carbonate in seawater to form bicarbonate, a form of carbon that doesn’t escape the ocean easily.

          And note that by chemistry the are a balanse between amount of CO2 in atmosphere and amount dissolved in ocean. This is government by gas laws and partial pressure… More in atmosphere more in water.

          NASA site Below have some interesting observations from research here:

        • radvar

          Polemics are easy. Science is hard. You’re not presenting or citing science. You’re presenting and citing opinions of fellow skeptics.

          I can appreciate the doubts. I don’t understand the passion, except to say this:

          Emotion energy is associated to beliefs about what is real. When the beliefs are held strongly, and yet difficult to defend as being real, then the emotional energy starts to skyrocket. Thus we have religious and ideological fanatics; they believe it, but they can’t prove it, so they have to scream it.

          Climate scientists don’t put out that kind of emotional energy. They keep publishing papers that the vast majority of climate scientists agree with, again, without much emotional energy. So, what, the thousands of scientists are all part of some cool-headed conspiracy? How does that work, exactly?

          The emotional energy is coming from the AGP skeptics.

          • Albert D. Kallal

            How is quoting the main temperature datasets we have and
            stating we have no global warming for 18 years not science? YOU ARE the one appealing to higher authorities and ignoring the data and science of no global warming for 18 years.

            So now who is being emotional – at least some facts and
            numbers were stated here, but none by you!

            Physicist don’t put out that kind of emotional energy. They
            just keep grinding out papers that the vast majority of physicists agree with that cold fusion is WRONG and not possible! So, what, the thousands of scientists are all part of some cool-headed conspiracy? How does that work, exactly?

            Yes, do explain how the department of energy, the USA government
            and MIT and nearly EVERY MAJOR (a rather long list of institutions) from AROUND the world got it wrong on cold fusion?

            No one here is talking about conspiracy, but we are
            talking about self-interest. You don’t think that behaviors of the science community was disgusting in regards to P&F?

            Even Rossi stated he read nothing that suggests our CO2 output is a problem. So I guess Rossi is also wrong!

            Albert D. Kallal
            Edmonton, Alberta Canada

    • Timar

      I wholeheartedly disagree. I’m baffled by the irrational and agressive climate change denialism regularly vioced in this forum. No, it’s not a socialist conspiracy. It is science.

      • Science relies on the scientific method. The Church of Climate change has thrown the scientific method out the window. They automatically dismiss all theory and hard data that goes against their evil carbon theory. Some even want to put skeptics in jail. They falsify data on a regular basis, and their theories have been disproven by even recent Earth climate history. If they were right, we would be burning up right now. In reality, average Earth temperatures are the same as they were 18 years ago despite the massive increase in CO2 release caused, in part, by the same people promoting biofuels and windmills and solar projects that don’t work and cause far more harm than good. Gasoline is “green” compared to biofuels, and burning natural gas is “green” compared to windmills.

        We need a replacement for fossil because we need cheap energy to survive. LENR can provide us with that energy and it is carbon free. Even if we get all of our energy from LENR, atmospheric CO2 levels will continue to rise because farming releases huge amounts of CO2 and methane and nitrous oxide, all greenhouse gases. If you think carbon is evil and that water vapour and clouds are not the main greenhouse agents, and that only the trace gases mentioned previously matter, then we are doomed no matter what we do. If you really want to help, then you must commit suicide right away, because nothing else will help. If you are not willing to do that, then your climate change talk is empty of conviction.

        • Oystein Lande

          “The new U.S. study in the journal Science, based on a re-analysis of worldwide temperature data, found no pause in the warming blamed by most climate experts for producing heatwaves, downpours and higher sea levels.

          “There is no discernible … decrease in the rate of warming between the second half of the 20th century and the first 15 years of the 21st century,” experts led by the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) wrote.”

          What I Don’t understand is where this conspiracy theory came from that major research organisations like NASA, NOAA, and foreign research institutes etc. Have conspired to create some false global warming agenda.

          • Roland

            The tobacco industry developed the template on how to postpone the inevitable emergence of a reality that will hurt their business; buy the opinions you need from morally bankrupt ‘scientists’, they’re dirt cheap and effective, and set up phoney institutes with impressive names to disseminate their lies to the willfully credulous.

            The template worked for decades for big tobacco and has been deployed with considerable success by, among others, the carbon biz. Exxon just got outed as all their internal documents on this were hacked. The Koch brothers are experts at this stuff, as they are at subverting the political process and the judiciary in every jurisdiction they operate in, as they run the dirtiest O&G company in N. America and continually run afoul of existing regulations.

            What you struggle to understand, Oystein, is how easy it is to manipulate people now in light of the maturation of mass psychology and branding strategies.

          • radvar

            This is a useful analogy. It offers the choice between believing in:

            1) a conspiracy of thousands of scientists who operate with great transparency, are utterly naive about how to conspire at anything, have no credible motives to conspire as a group to affirm AWG, and have a great deal to lose from mis-representing their findings, or

            2) a conspiracy of weathoids who operate in great secrecy, are masters of of conspiracy, have literally billions of dollars of motivation to oppose the affirmation of AGW, and have very little to lose from spreading the most blantant mis-truths about anything that gets in their way.

            Hmm…which do I think is most likely to be real…hmm….

          • Albert D. Kallal

            Gee, sounds exactly how that community is treating LENR!

          • radvar

            Is you point that when things have some characteristics is common, they must be identical?

          • the scientific in great transparency were caught tricking the data, manipulating peer review, bullying dissenters, hiding data… transparently.

            the budget of AGW and green business it about trillion, and billions of research, spread on nearly any subject.

            Oil barons and industrialists can exploit green business and AGW to sell carbon capture, resell carbon quota, sell more expensive light bulbs or hoovers…
            their only competitors is nuke, and they do a good job to eliminate them.
            wind and solar consume mostly fossil fuel, and compete with nuke. it is very good for them.

            this is why they fund greenpeace, antinuke and antifracking group…

            money is on AGW side, never forget it.

          • radvar

            More dramatizing rhetoric that exaggerates exceptions and touts factoids with no supporting basis.

            We’re all beset with delusions. The trick is to sort out which ones are sucking the largest parts of our time and emotional energy and to give them a harder examination.

            AGW denial ought to be near the top of that list.

          • Agaricus

            ‘Burn the witch climate denier…’

          • Agaricus

            Re. your option 1) above, please see my post in reply to your request for links confirming my earlier statement concerning ‘Thousands of grant-seeking scientists…’ – in particular the testimony of Dr Sonja Boehmer-Christiansen given in front of a select committee of the House of Commons in the UK parliament, shortly after the ‘climategate’ emails came to light.

            I would have thought that the content of the leaked emails from the UK CRU to/from Michael Mann and others would have been sufficient to prove conspiracy and collusion to falsify data beyond any doubt, but it seems that the pseudo-religion of AGW is highly resistant to reality.


          • Albert D. Kallal

            This is a perfect point! What you are saying that we
            cannot trust a scientists based on the source of their paycheck.

            And quoting the government official:

            Ottmar Edenhofer, co-chair of Working group III IPCC

            “We redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by
            climate policy…Basically it’s a big mistake to discuss climate
            policy separately from the major themes of globalization…One
            has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy anymore.”

            So they flat out admit this is a socialist wealth grab. And
            since most those scientists are receiving that government funding, then as you say they cannot be trusted based on the source of their funding.

            So I can see no moral reason that and scientist promoting
            CO2 and supporting their governments CO2 tax grab is going to be any more or less honest then a scientist working for a tobacco company?

            You point that the scientists cannot be trusted based on
            the source of their funding is likely the only point here we agree upon!

            Since CO2 is a tax grab, then clearly the governs and these
            receiving that funding have a conflict of interest.

            This conflict of interest is point out here:


            Note the bias point out in the above (above video is a must watch).

            Albert D. Kallal
            Edmonton, Alberta Canada

          • problem is who is corrupted ?

            Milgram experiment shows that people can do more horrific things for the goodness of humanity, that what they can do for money.

            They also do worst to protect their position, than to earn money.

            Cold Fusion have shown how horrific can be academic lords when trying to avoid to admit they screwed up.

            There is also similar reports of scientific communities “circling the wagon” against dissenters, and shutting up evidences, dissenters, to save their existence.

            never forget to apply you good arguments to both sides of the equation.

            This is something I’ve learn reading the anti-LENR groups. they have very good arguments, that they just don’t apply to their own position.

          • Agaricus

            What you describe seems to fit the activities of the anti-carbon lobby very closely. Thousands of grant-seeking scientists have realised that their careers may depend on releasing a constant stream of pro-AGW papers, and the ‘International Panel on Climate Change’ exactly matches the description, “phoney institutes with impressive names to disseminate their lies to the willfully credulous”.

            ‘Willfully’ because many interests including environmental organisations seeking power, governments seeking increased taxation and individuals seeking financial gain, see the public acceptance of a ‘need’ to control fossil fuel usage as highly desirable. A ‘conspiracy’ doesn’t necessarily involve a single group of power brokers gathered in a smoke-filled room – it may equally comprise a group of individuals or organisations that, even knowing a proposition to be false, will support and promote it, if it is in their interests to do so.

          • radvar

            “Thousands of grant-seeking scientists have realised that their careers may depend”…

            I’d like to see the causation of that parsed.

            Otherwise the rest of your position collapses.

          • Agaricus

            Fair enough:

            “It is important, however, for you check my observation, that most climate change since the late 1980s has been government- and grant- funded with the clearly stated objective that it must support a decarbonisation agenda for the energy sector.”

            “I observed and documented this phenomenon as the UK Government, European Commission, and World Bank increasingly needed the climate threat to justify their anti-carbon (and pro-nuclear) policies. In return climate science was generously funded and required to support rather than to question these policy objectives.

            Dr Sonja Boehmer-Christiansen; Proceedings before the UK Commons Select Committee



            “Too many (the majority) of climate research scientists are quite willing to prostitute their science by giving these politicians what they want”

            Dr. Terry Hughes, in an interview with The College Fix



            “Here is an example of how cascading amplification of funding bias might work.

            1. An agency receives biased funding for research from Congress.
            2. They issue multiple biased Requests for Proposals (RFPs), and
            3. Multiple biased projects are selected for each RFP.
            4. Many projects produce multiple biased articles, press releases, etc,
            5. Many of these articles and releases generate multiple biased news stories, and
            6. The resulting amplified bias is communicated to the public on a large scale.

            In the climate change debate there have been allegations of bias at each of the stages described above. Taken together this suggests the possibility that just such a large scale amplifying cascade has occurred or is occurring.

            Is federal funding biasing climate research? by Judith Curry


          • radvar

            1) If you have a plague of rats, you fund research on rats. If people are concerned about global warming caused by carbonization, they fund research on global warming caused by carbonization. So, it’s a potential $100T problem: they should ignore it, not fund research on it?

            2) Terry Hughes’ quote is just personally biased rhetoric. “The majority”…good lord. There’s a huge stretch between a bias in funding and a bias in finding (ok, well, so it’s an “i” versus a “u”, 11 letters). To make this angle work, essentially ALL climate scientists would have to be on the take. I got my degree from an institution that was 40% science majors. I can’t imagine any one of them rolling over for a political view; quite the opposite. And, ALL climate scientists going to are take the chance of the cover being blown, and ALL of them being disgraced?

            3) I like the example of how it might work! That’s very well thought out! The problem is the “multiple biased” at too many steps. How is that going to hold up when everything is available for public scrutiny? Again,essentially ALL climate scientists and ALL politicians have to be in on the fix. But we see plenty of opposition in the US congress and from people like the Koch brothers, who have plenty of means (and do) fund opposing research. Where are the explosive revelations? Where is the report listing the names of hundreds of scientists who have falsified their findings? You think the media wouldn’t blow such a conspiracy up just for the page hits?

            It’s a thin cobweb. Believing that it holds a giant spider is a personal choice.

          • Agaricus

            1) If you have a plague of rats… Your reply presupposes that we have a problem (rats or AGW) – an a priori position that attempts to circumvent the fact that no such problem has been established.

            You have also avoided addressing the central issues raised by Dr Boehmer-Christansen’s testimony: “most climate change since the late 1980s has been government- and grant- funded with the clearly stated objective that it must support a decarbonisation agenda for the energy sector“, and “the UK Government, European Commission, and World Bank increasingly needed the climate threat to justify their anti-carbon (and pro-nuclear) policies. In return climate science was generously funded and required to support rather than to question these policy objectives.

            In her submission she also states (emboldening mine), “The CRU case is not unique. Recent exposures have taken the lid off similar issues in the USA, the Netherlands, Australia, and possibly in Germany and Canada. There may be a systemic problem here, and it would be neither fair nor helpful to make CRU and the UK Meteorological Office the sole fall-guys. It is at least arguable that the real culprit is the theme- and project-based research funding system put in place in the 1980s and subsequently strengthened and tightened in the name of “policy relevance”. This system, in making research funding conditional on demonstrating such relevance, has encouraged close ties with central Government bureaucracy. Some university research units have almost become wholly-owned subsidiaries of Government Departments. Their survival, and the livelihoods of their employees, depends on delivering what policy makers think they want. It becomes hazardous to speak truth to power. In the area of energy policy, there are particular problems since the familiar lobbies of the privatised energy industries have been joined by new pressure groups. As the justification for policies comes to rely increasingly on “environmental” arguments, a host of NGOs, often with electorally appealing single-issue concerns and deceptively simple solutions, begin to raise their voices. The politics have become very difficult, and it is not clear that the traditional structures can cope. The responsibility for excessive pressure on “science” to deliver the desired answers must also lie with the relevant research councils, NGOs, and Parliament itself. Have politicians kept a close eye on the science debate? Have they understood what kind of a body the IPCC really is?

            2) To make this angle work, essentially ALL climate scientists would have to be on th e take. No, it would be enough to simply fail to include all contrary opinions in any IPCC summary – which is exactly what happens. Added to this is a sorry tale of career assassination and personal attacks on dissenters, aka ‘deniers’, as noted in Dr Boehmer-Christansen’s testimony. The very term reeks of ad hominem attack, with its deliberate association with so-called ‘holocaust deniers’.

            From, referring to leaked ‘climategate’ emails:

            These scientists publicly diminished opposing arguments for lack of being published in peer-reviewed scientific journals. In the background they discussed black-balling journals that did publish opposing views, and preventing opposing views from being published in journals they controlled. They even mention changing the rules midstream in arenas they control to ensure opposing views would not see the light of day. They discuss amongst themselves which scientists can be trusted and who should be excluded from having data because they may not be “predictable””.



            3) More selective blindness. The salient quote is

            Taken together this suggests the possibility that just such a large scale amplifying cascade has occurred or is occurring.” ‘large scale amplifying cascade’ meaning a massive funding bias in favour of ‘research’ supporting AGW alarmism.

          • radvar

            I appreciate your comments about the negative connotations of “deniers”. A better term would be appreciated; let’s try “opposers”. Or something else.

            Then, to proceed…

            1) If you have a plague of rats….

            I addressed that point specifically.

            The point is that government has the obligation to research apparent problems. The AGW opposition position (AGW-O, vs AGW-A = alarmism, nice!) pre-supposes (apriori) that the risk is made up, therefore the funding distribution is invalid. So, then, is there a problem or not? The decision on whether the problem exists depends on data picking. If we were to put the data (i.e scientific papers) on a scale, the scale would tilt toward the idea that there is a risk. The AGW-O position makes the a-priori assumption that that those papers are invalid.

            So keep backing up. It’s easy to make your case when you choose the assumptions you want. AGW-O has to assert that there is NO reason for concern, and that ALL reason for concern is invalid, in order to say, the funding distribution is completely invalid. Just more circular arguments, based on conjecture, subjective opinions of a few outspoken people and obvious shilling of the carbon industry.

            2) With respect to Dr Boehmer-Christansen’s testimony, pardon me, that’s one person’s view. “Some university research units have almost become wholly-owned subsidiaries of Government Departments. Their survival, and the livelihoods of their employees, depends on delivering what policy makers think they want. It becomes hazardous to speak truth to power.”

            Sure, that’s no doubt the case some degree. But is it an absolute truth? 100%? Or is it maybe 99% Or 30%? Or are the good doctor’s comments just inciteful rhetoric designed to invalidate the mass of scientific findings in general? Which is the REAL crux of the

            Let’s go find some august testimony from the opposite view; oh, but that would be corrupted, because its would be part of the conspiracy, so it wouldn’t count, right?

            What’s the selective blindness? I addressed that specifically too. “Taken together this suggests the possibility that just such a large scale amplifying cascade has occurred or is occurring.” ‘large scale amplifying cascade’ meaning a massive funding bias in favour of ‘research’ supporting AGW alarmism.”

            The key words here are “suggests” and “possibility”. Do the math. For the cascade to work, the probability of each step has to be high, or the cascade peters out; no landslide, no explosion.

            But many of the steps have the term “multiple biased”. Meaning that in order to obtain the “multiple biased” event have to slip unnoticed through a highly open system of review, with many opposing parties looking for just this sort of bias. What is the probability of that? A high probability would depend on a massive amount of “selective blindness” Again, it only works if again virtually ALL the climate scientists are in on the fix. What’s the probability of that?

            So it always gets down to “the scientists are corrupt, stupid, or frightened, therefore the science is bad, therefore AGW-A is invalid, and AGW-O should be taken seriously.”

            Just put the papers pro and con on the scale. The papers pro AGW obviously outweigh the papers con. So the papers are invalid, right? Because the scientists are all trembling in their labs, right?

            That’s not selective blindness. That’s selective imagination.

          • Agaricus

            I would also have been happy to drop the argument at this point, but unfortunately your reply above contains statements that cannot be allowed to pass unchallenged.

            It’s pretty clear that these statements betray underlying assumptions on your part (invalid IMHO, of course), that result in a fundamentally different interpretation of the facts from my own. As individuals we therefore seem to personify the two fairly irreconcilable mindsets that make this issue so divisive.

            For example, you flatly state (in other words) that the balance of research results favour AGW, whereas I would argue (and have done) that while this is undoubtedly so, it is clearly as a direct result of funding decisions and political pressure. You also blandly state without a shred of evidence that objection to climate alarmism results from ‘a few outspoken people and obvious shilling of the carbon industry’ – a completely baseless conjecture of the kind you accuse me of using, in exactly the same sentence.

            Your entire rebuttal contains nothing of a factual nature at all and seems to hinge on the claim that any opinion that does not support global warming is ‘just one person’s view’, regardless of the position and experience of the holder of the opinion. But the fact is that the scientific ‘97% climate concensus’ claim on which much of your position depends was entirely falsified, and far from being an overwhelming majority, pro-AGW scientists may in fact number only about 76:


            The paper used as the basis of the ‘97%’ claim:


            In our survey, the most specialized and knowledgeable respondents (with regard to climate change) are those who listed climate science as their area of expertise and who

            also have published more than 50% of their recent peer-reviewed papers on the subject of climate change (79 individuals in total). Of these specialists, 96.2% (76 of 79) answered “risen” to question 1 and 97.4% (75 of 77) answered yes to question 2.

            Other comment:



            Your claim that AGW is supported by a large majority of scientists appears to fall, along with your assertion that the number of dissenters is small and in any case may be shills for the fossil fuel industry.

            As you say, the interpretation of this issue largely depends on whether one believes that the science utilised by AGW supporters is genuine, or the result of funding bias and career pressure, together with cherry-picked or falsified data and dubious statistical manipulation of such data at a high level (IPCC). So long as there is disagreement over the actual basis of argument then obviously no agreement is possible. Just to assuage your curiosity, I am also a scientist (retired microbiologist with both academic and commercial experience) and so have some familiarity with the world of science research, and how it can be – and is – shaped by external pressures).

            That said, I am also happy to leave this argument here.

          • radvar

            Thanks for your response.

            Not to belabor this, however, I wanted to let you know that you have influenced me!

            First, I would like to apologize if I overstepped the bounds of civil discourse in any of this discussion. You’ve been very patient and civil and I appreciate it.

            I agree that my statement about opposition to AGW being “lightweight” was unfounded. I appreciate the information you provided in that respect. In future I hope to give more respect to the depth and sincerity of the view of AGW questioners, while still being alert to their possible excesses.

            I feel that my personal measure of the overall integrity of the scientific community’s “process” has been altered a bit. It’s obviously multi-dimensional.

            I agree that there probably IS a core of pro-AGW promulgation that does have personal ambition and greed as motives, and that does seek to manipulate, intimidate and propagandize in favor of the pro-AGW view. Why wouldn’t there be? It’s an obvious lunch wagon. Most of them probably drink their own kool-aid.

            I also agree that the AGW view has taken on the characteristics of a religious truth for many individuals, which has caused the AGW view to gather unwarranted weight.

            I only offer the following because you state ” I am unable to understand this mindset.” Also, I believe that your position could be strengthened if you gave greater consideration to the point of view of AGW-followers, regardless of your concerns about a core of promulgators.

            This is an obvious tactic: 1) demonstrate respect for their right to their views (or you immediately engender resistance), 2) demonstrate understanding of the reasoning and assumptions behind those views (not that hard to enumerate), 3) agree that that reasoning and those assumptions are not completely baseless (resisting counter urges), 4) raise questions, which create doubts (carefully, to not frighten them back into clinging to their assumptions), 5) offer a range of alternative explanations which might address those doubts (that are at least somewhat plausible, to open up their minds on the subject) and finally, 6) provide one specific “possible” explanation that ties it all together (your primary thesis, but not pushed too hard, just leave it hanging their in their minds).

            Frontal assault isn’t going to work; you’re way outgunned. You might find someone to fund the above approach, though: sapping the ardor of the troops, and arming others in the resistance.

            What do I believe? I believe the argument on both sides could be improved, so that the debate would more clearly resolved, one way or the other, so we can get on with either fixing it or forgetting it.

            Finally, I attribute any “religious belief” in AGW to human nature as much as propaganda. The human mind deeply desires and seeks to “know what is real”. It literally goes into a panic state when it has no mental model of what is going on (that unexplainable noise outside the window at night). So anyone who becomes aware of the possibility of negative effects from global warming and at the same time has some concern about the future well-being of the planet will want to arrive at some position that they think is real. They are not going to just sit there and quiver.

            If they have any other reason to dislike the carbon economy (heath, geo-politics, anti-corporatism), then it won’t take much of a push to tilt them into seizing on the “reality” of AGW, and into the arms of the AGW alarmists, where they become zombie troops for the AGW alarmist agenda. The above approach is designed to lead them away from seizing on such partly informed beliefs.

            It’s important to note though that whether they become more or less convinced about AGW could be a roll of the dice.

            Again, thanks for your patience and perseverance in this conversation. It has been enlightening.

          • Agaricus

            Thank you for your gracious reply, and I can only agree with most of what you say. It has been stimulating discussion which has clarified certain issues in my own mind.

            Thanks also to Frank for allowing this lengthy discursion from the topic of the thread!

          • ecatworld

            Since people are being so civilized on the topic, I see no reason interrupt.

          • let us get out of this specific debate.

            To analyse the situation there is tools, especially from skeptic societies fighting against sects.

            There is many tricks today that match this article:

            this one explains the mechanism, once to admit that AGW is good for dunding and publication, and skepticism is bad for funding and publication


            This goes against the idea that oil barons pay research, but there is no evidence today for anti-AGW funded seriously…
            the few scandal found when analysed looks like conspiracy theory, taking mainstream funding of banal research as evidence of a conspiracy, and publication by a maverick author in a university having few % grant by oil baron as a conflict of interest justifying to loose his job… (and factually it shows that publishing against AGW make you loose your job).

            I seem many bad arguments in the AGW and anti-AGW sides, but what is sure is that
            – money is on AGW side
            – anti-AGW are persecuted, not funded
            – there is big manipulation of peer review, of data corections, of results hiding, that are documented but not considered on the AGW side.

            AGW theory is maybe right, but sure it is bad science. this is clear from evidences.

          • Albert D. Kallal

            So for 18 years we had no warming?

            And now some new study pops up that says this is not so?
            Do you know how they cooked up that study and WHAT they ignored?

            They tossed out the satellite data (the BEST and MOST reliable
            temperature record we have), and replaced it with ships and buoy data – the LEAST reliable means and the LEAST coverage.

            Talk about cherry picking data! If you take the SAME data
            sets that the SAME climate community you been asking us to trust, and take THEIR data THEY HAVE been USING for the LAST 18 years, you don’t see any warming.

            So now they cook up this piece of garbage study?

            Based on this, then why should we have trusted the past
            18 years of data supplied by the climate community? And why does that study toss out and ignore the most reliable temperature data?

            That study is a cherry pick – the standard temperature
            datasets that EVERYONE been using don’t show that warming.

            I think what you REALLY need to do is start reading the
            climate gate emails – you see the EXACT same behavior that occur when the science community tossed out P&F and LENR.

            Albert D. Kallal
            Edmonton, Alberta Canada

          • kdk

            NASA’s got bigger things to hide.

          • “re-analysis”? Sure! Obama and the Climate Change establishment tells them that they need more global warming “proof” and the books are cooked as ordered. The only valid Earth temperature data comes from satellites, and the satellite data says there has been no global warming for over 18 years. Perhaps you are unaware of the many scandals and proven cases of fudged numbers and fraudulent computer programing involved in the global warming scare. Climate Change has become a trillion dollar industry with no ethics and no use of the scientific method. Threatening to prosecute critics, dismissing out-of-hand all contradictory data, fudging numbers, and making outlandish, unprovable statements about complex and poorly understood scientific issues is not following the proper scientific protocol. It is the kind of junk science you get when you mix politics, religion, the bandwagon effect, and the profit motive all together.

      • kdk

        I don’t understand how people think that churning out that much more than normal CO2 isn’t going to effect the climate and/or weather…

        That’s ignoring the millions who die yearly due to air pollution. The carbon based energy and emissions are bad for our health.

        • Agaricus

          You appear to be conflating two issues, production of CO2, and pollution.

          As has been said here and elsewhere on numerous occasions and is demonstrably the case, CO2 is not a pollutant, it is a natural part of the carbon cycle that supports life on our planet. Pollutants are ‘particulates’ (mostly carbon nano-particles) and other carcinogens, and harmful gases such as nitric oxide and sulphur dioxide that are emitted during combustion of fuels such as coal, oil and biomass.

          AFAIK, no-one here is advocating the use of fossil fuels – most followers of the cold fusion story do so in the hope that it will enable fossil fuel use to be progressively abandoned. What seems to be at issue is whether or not the anti-CO2 movement is motivated by genuine and informed environmental concerns, or is a construct supported by false data and intended to enrich those behind it and to promote other agendas.

          • kdk

            So, I guess my biggest complaint is with fossil fuels and particulates. Beyond that I know enough to know that I don’t know enough to have an informed discussion about it.

            I think that the extent of the grand conspiracy ends at space aliens, bless their hearts.

      • Carl Wilson

        I can understand your bafflement over the rampant “climate change denialism” on this forum. Recently I’ve been paying attntiion to the denialsim on the “Next Big Future” website. Interestingly, in addition to LENR denialsim, one find a good bit of “climate change denialism” there. One suspects that a good deal of these denials are based on tribal loyalty rather than adherence to facts. Saying of climate change that it is “It is science” only goes part way to settling issues when you have the situation that different tribes have different sets of “facts”.
        It is often claimed that science as well as religion is based on faith. Be that as it may, I think it should be obvious that science is based on trust: the trust of one scientist on the data claimed by others. The emergence of LENR is (in my opinion) liable to bring to the fore a crisis in trust. If the establishment denied cold fusion for so long how can we trust the establishment on climate science, on psychic phenomena, etc.?

        • kdk

          Climate science is in its infancy, but correlating green house gases with increased temperatures isn’t a stretch at all.

          The scientific establishment has more surprises in store for it than cold fusion… we’re just starting to fumble around exploring some of the things that make old impossibilities not so impossible. These things happen when you deny huge stacks of empirical evidence in favor of theories, and again, hardly the first time it’s happened on Earth or elsewhere.

          Things like telepathy can be explained without invoking esoterica. They already have “thinking caps” that stimulate one person’s brain as another’s is stimulated, remotely. That and they have used nanoparticles in the brain’s of mice to stimulate activity.

          • Albert D. Kallal

            Well, actually, you don’t have nor can find a basic math correlation between our output of CO2 and temperature. So no, the basic math correlation you ask us to accept does not even exist!

            Albert D. Kallal
            Edmonton, Alberta Canada

          • kdk

            Well, I remember seeing the correlations in school, since it’s a simple matter of mapping the two not-too-difficult to measure/surmise quantities. I could probably find one pretty quickly on the internet also.

            The “global warming pause” and all the other arguments I’ve seen don’t cut it in my mind. In fact, it’s more along the lines of denying P&F because not all results perfectly matched up. There are plethora variables that effect our climate and weather which we don’t understand, but it makes sense that tweaking one of the variables in a huge way is going to make significant changes.

            I don’t understand the climate models that well, or the statistics that go into them. One bit of reasoning seems clear and that’s that as you add more greenhouse gasses, ie gasses that trap infrared — of which CO2 is one, and directly leads to the formation of worse greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere — you’re going to have a natural stressor towards higher temperatures.

            I don’t think it’s going to be as bad as they predict because of things like cold fusion, although our weather is already bad enough AND the oceans are appreciably more acidic probably due to CO2 trapping from more CO2 being around them. That is where lots of people get their food, and that supply is already being poisoned elsewise.


            Publish Or Perish Culture Encourages Scientists To Cut Corners Sadly, the intense pressure of academic research drives some scientists to breach ethical codes. What can be done about it?

            The system of rewards within science is possibly even more perplexing. Academia is a highly competitive profession. The basic training in science is a PhD, with more than 6,000 awarded each year in Australia alone, which is many more than can ever end up as career researchers, even at the lowest level. The situation gets worse the more senior a researcher gets. According to a 2013 discussion document less than five percent of those who were originally awarded PhDs find permanent academic positions. Even these senior researchers rarely have permanent positions, but are instead expected to compete for funding every few years. And the primary way academics compete is in the number of papers they publish in peer reviewed journals, especially the handful of what are considered to be top journals, such as Science, Natureand The Lancet.

            Researchers stated that there was strong pressure on them to publish in a limited number of top journals, “resulting in important research not being published, disincentives for multidisciplinary research, authorship issues, and a lack of recognition for non-article research outputs”. Even worse was that the need to get into these top journals led to “scientists feeling tempted or under pressure to compromise on research integrity and standards”.

          • Albert D. Kallal

            If you have a link that shows the math and a correlation to our output of CO2, I all ears! It does NOT exist! But then again, you have to ignore that we had no global warming for 18 years, but output record amounts of CO2.

        • Timar

          There is a tremendous(!) categorial difference between the ignorance of the scientific establishment regarding LENR and the absurd conspiracy theory, that the theory of global worming would be a forgery. In one case, it is simply a matter of groupthink and ignorance – expermental results that doesn’t easily fit into the established theoretical framework are downplayed or ignored. But those facts don’t challenge the framework itself, which, although incomplete, remains the valid results of the ingenious work not only of a few genius like Einstein but of many thousands of physicists over hundreds of years. Noone in his right mind would question its validity – only its completeness. Similarly, the suggestion that the theory of global warming would be a forgery is a feeble-minded conspiracy theory, as it basically postulates that thousands of scientists from hundreds of countries with different backgrounds of expertise – physics, chemics, informatics, geology, meterology, oceanology etc. – to conspire over decades in order to make up a fraudulent theory. Ignoring evidence that doesn’t fit into the prevaling paradigm (as in the case of LENR) is one thing – it can be entirely explained by human weaknesses and has many examples in history. Positively creating a fraudulent theory is a entirely different thing and requires a wilful conspiracy. Historic examples of such conspiracies exist, but they always have been short-lived and small-scaled. If the theory of global warming would be a conspiracy, it would be the most epic conspiracy of all times. If you believe in such a conspiracy, you may as well believe that the world is rules by Illuminati or aliens from Aldebaran. It would be a similarly reasonable assumption.

          • Albert D. Kallal

            Who said it is a conspiracy?

            It is a sell out!

            We have MILLIONS of government employees around the
            world. So how come you cannot find me ONE government employee that walks down the halls of government and tells people that we need less government and less government jobs?

            Yet talk to any NON government employee, and it easy to
            find a different opinion then that of a government worker.

            Find the above person in France, Germaine USA or any country?

            Guess what, you cannot! And you would call the above a conspiracy?

            Who said this is a conspiracy? It called selling out!

            So why do you expect anything different of the above then
            say compared to the science community?

            The numbers for global warming don’t lie:

            There is ZERO math correlation between our output of CO2
            and temperature trends (so you accept CO2 as being a problem based on your faith – a faith that you have for other peoples witness and testimony on this matter).

            So how come you cannot find that government employee walking
            around stating that we need less government and less government employees?
            And in the last 18 years with China and India, we output RECORD
            amounts of CO2 but no global warming has occurred for the last 18 years, why is this? (and the output of our CO2 in the SAME last 18 years represents about 70% of ALL industrial CO2 we EVER output).

            Still no global warming at all for 18 years 8 months

            The simple matter is that the effect of our CO2 is
            overblown and it not a problem.

            And explain WHY temperatures during the medieval warming
            period were WARMER then today, and this occurred without our industry CO2 (and the world proposed with increased wealth and food growing during that time). Temperatures were HIGHER than today!

            Albert D. Kallal
            Edmonton, Alberta Canada

          • Frechette

            All these so called scientists have kids in school, mortgage and taxes to pay. They don’t want to jeopardize their careers.

          • Albert D. Kallal

            If the science community is ignorant of LENR, then clearly
            they are not worth of my trust. What is next, trust a community that cannot

            Albert D. Kallal
            Edmonton, Alberta Canada

          • kdk

            If they can speak and understand, I guess they might not be so bad.

          • on the opposite it looks alike.

            it starts first with very reasonable, just a little motivated, reasoning.

            Often is starts with theory first, like many scientific mistakes…

            It works well, and people feel confident in their position.

            then evidence change …

            And they hide dissents, fire dissenters, hide informations, … facing dissenting evidences the community which is dependent on their initial position for their budget, their ego, their pride, if falling day after days in groupthink.

            they pile conspiracy theories… the accuse oil barons, deluded scientists, incompetence…

            they add imagined corrections to their data (like MIT lab results on LENR), the invent unproven artifacts (like Lewis, hansen, …).

            they block publication for dissenters…

            Judith Curry explains how she did that, until she read the climategate mails and realised she did the same as them… she realized it was manufactured consensus, based on selfcensorship at least, and worst.

            for climate, I don’t really care since it is solved.

            however I notice :

            – corrections is increased every few years, and only toward the consensus

            – excuse for the hiatus change like conspiracy theories, until it is solved in only one of the 3 data set by increasing corections assuming an unobserved change in ocean.

            – I heard increase of tornadoes, but startistics say the opposite. I heard pole melting, but i see the opposite. I heard temperature record, but i see only correction increased. I see “double cognitions”…

            Oil barons pay climate research, prepares for energy transition, fund Greenpeace and WWF to save their soul…

            Skeptics are benevolent funded by k$ while climate labs are funded by G$…

            if you just observe from far it stinks.

            They may be right, but they are not honest.

            The errors is however to imagine that crooks, and consensus manufacturers are necessarily wrong…

            anyway, who cares, real or not it is solved.

      • Albert D. Kallal

        Right so trust the science community on LENR that accused
        P&F of outright fraud. They lost their jobs, their tenure and in fact lost
        EVERYTHING. So trust the same science community that refusing to accept LENR, but they get a go past jail card when it comes to co2?

        NASA receives 25% or more of its budgets for CO2 and climate research. And other areas of military funding for fusion is ALSO VERY lucrative. Hansen of NASA is a rabid global warming advocate and co2 control freak.

        And then there is the USA military – if LENR is promoted, then the Middle East and their oil becomes a NON ISSUE! The largest reason and funding
        issue for the USA military as the big policeman in the Middle East will
        DISAPPEAR! (we hardly need any military as a result of LENR and not needing to keep Middle East oil flowing).

        Millions of children will stave because the science community
        you are asking us to accept SOLD EVERYONE out on LENR.

        So if the science community is selling us out for LENR
        then why would they not sell us out on CO2?

        And to help you with the socialist issue? Lets quote RIGHT
        FROM the horse’s mouth of the government panel on climate change:

        Ottmar Edenhofer, co-chair of Working group III IPCC

        — “We redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by
        climate policy…Basically it’s a big mistake to discuss climate
        policy separately from the major themes of globalization…One
        has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy anymore.”
        End quote:

        The REASON why so many on this site question CO2 is the EXACTLY
        the same reason why we lost faith in the SAME community that is selling everyone out on LENR.

        I mean why trust a science community selling us out on
        LENR on the issue of CO2 then?

        But hey, why not trust the above quote RIGHT FROM the IPCC then?

        Albert D. Kallal
        Edmonton, Alberta Canada

        • Timar

          Flawed thinking. See what I wrote below in response to Carl Wilson.

          • Albert D. Kallal

            Not not flawed thinking. You stating that the science
            community is miss-informed on cold fusion, but not on global warming.

            After P&F the USA Government put together a big panel
            of esteemed scientists and along with the department of energy concluded that cold fusion is false!

            The community that is miss-informed on cold fusion is the
            same community that is miss-informed on CAGW. As I stated, you cannot even show a basic math correlation between our output of CO2 and temperature trends.

            The science community is NOT saying we don’t know about
            cold fusion, they are saying it junk science and it is wrong.

            It is YOUR claim they are not informed (and I agree!).

            So yes, I a MUCH agree they are miss-informed, but they are
            also miss-informed on the effects of our CO2 output.

            Albert D. Kallal
            Edmonton, Alberta Canada

          • Warthog

            “USA Government put together a big panel
            of esteemed scientists and along with the department of energy concluded that cold fusion is false!”

            Actually not. Both panels (there were two…one shortly after P&F and
            the other not long ago) reached the conclusion that there was insufficient evidence to decide, and recommended that the DOE SHOULD FUND research in LENR until such evidence was gathered. The hot physics types in the DOE actually prevented any such funding from promulgated. So the situation actually is WORSE than you thought.

      • Frechette

        You mean the same science that has tried to debunk LENR since 1989? Mainstream science has been corrupted by big money in case you haven’t noticed. The hot fusioneers are a good example. Better than 50 years of a tax payer funded gravy train and nothing to show for it. It’s those few individuals working on a shoe string quietly in small labs that are the true scientists. They are in a minority.

        • GreenWin

          It would be interesting for us to hear again from former Elforsk Research Director and World Bank consultant Sten Bergman. Bergman wrote the Elforsk Report on Low Energy Nuclear Reactions:

          Bergman also served as World Bank Senior Energy Specialist from 1999-2002. It remains a mystery why the World Bank has yet to support any element of LENR research. Considering Ms/Mr Kyte’s great concern for climate, why does the World Bank continue to shun alternative solutions to their dilemma? Are they really interested in containing climate – or keeping their third world development loans earning interest?

          • georgehants

            Morning GreenWin, read so many comments as yours above, what I find so depressing is that in all cases, excluding the unusual FIFA saga, nothing seems to induce change, it is like watching the same B movie over and over again.
            What do you think needs to happen for this World to start putting right these crimes.
            Would you agree that until financial gain for corruption is somehow removed then the Cold Fusion story will just repeat Ad infinitum.

          • GreenWin

            Afternoon George (GMT-8 today.) Loops, circular, cyclical, repetitive iterations in conscious experience all support the expanding theory we live in a “programmed reality.” I find the work of Cornell’s Jim Elvidge provocative and accurate.

            Elvidge, Nick Bostrom, Tom Campbell and others agree the ritual organization of our “universe” is too pat. That is, it manifests and responds in unmistakable programmatic patterns. Good minds quickly resolve this, and then play along. But the most amusing and egregious of these patterns is willful denial by our sim’s programmers.

            It is like a child, face smeared with chocolate shouting, “NO I didn’t eat those cookies!” Such guilt-ridden denial forces the sim into redundancy, and the pattern starts all over again. Is there a solution? A Call Exit function? Yes, I think so.

            It begins by practicing what we preach – e.g. rigorous honesty. Once we get past our hypocrisy we can expect growth again. When we finally admit who we are and what our intentions are – we can return to organic consciousness. A teacher, master or guru is effective only in their willingness to be fully transparent. Anything less occludes the good and results in redundancy.

            Our sim is destined to fail until its programmers accept their own edicts. The prime directive of which is, prior to acting with human beings, one must obtain full and informed consent. Lacking such consent, the program remains mired in itself; cyclic redundancy like a B movie in an infinite loop. Have a wonderful day George!

            “The path to education and enlightenment runs in two directions.” E.T. Sumguy

          • georgehants

            Wonderful, that is the problem, as we look at the “reasons” beyond the everyday simplistic it quickly becomes a very enjoyable discussion crossing many artificial boundaries.
            We could discuss that at great length, but to be fair to being off topic I try to stay as much as possible in this reality, if that be a programmed Sim with all it;s shortcomings or in my case the reincarnational Sim that contains much solid Evidence but the same seeming incongruities.
            I will just add that Seth’s first words where “you signed the contract to return to this reality so do not blame anyone else”
            How about that for a get out.
            In the meanwhile I think we must just discuss the down to Earth problems of why we do not all allow ourselves to, as Kryton (Red Dwarf) did and break our programs, allowing us to see the simple stupidity of chasing our tails for more sweeties than the other guy.
            Thanks for link will read.

          • GreenWin

            George, I fail to comprehend your Seth reference. Our edition of “Seth Speaks” begins: “Now: I bid you, Joseph, a good evening.” My issue of consent is with higher powers who, at heart, know better.

            However, I am greatly amused by the work of Rob Grant and Doug Naylor and their “Kryton” premise. I have yet to view the show (I am in search of The Beeb’s DVDs) Kryton’s interpretation of Descartes: “I serve therefor I am…” is not lost on this soul. Indeed, to give has far greater reward than to receive. Yet diversity, the brilliance of the Creation suggests while we are ultimately ONE family, we all need not act unilaterally. It is after all the wicked, poor and outcast who bring about the greatest of change.

            But we must respect the diversity of divine creations – even in their infancy. We humans are clearly infant. And while we cannot expect an infant to work the food bank – we encourage children to know the rewards of altruism. It is never an immediate or satisfactory process.

            Here on this board and its conscious extensions are those compassionate enough to log in, make comments and envision the inevitable good of LENR and the E-Cat. That of itself is “of service.” And by collective consciousness our service will manifest in a new and more equitable world. Stay true my friend. We’ve only (just KC) begun this marvelous journey! 🙂

          • georgehants

            GreenWin, I was using “license” when I said Seth’s first words, it is probably in the first chapter, sorry for the confusion.
            O yes, you must watch Red Dwarf a true classic, best to start from episode one as it outlines the situation.
            Comes from the days before the unending mind destroying tripe that today is known as entertainment, that alone shows the sinking mentality of our populations, that is if one gets a chance to see anything squeezed in between constant inane advertising.

            Agreed, whichever Sim we prefer we are children learning, my gripe is that without the programmers sending down more wise and advanced souls to lead then the present chaos is inevitable.
            We get the odd Gandhi, Martin Luther etc. who are inevitably assassinated.
            The sad thing is, I know that ordinary people when given the chance to be “altruistic” always respond with enthusiasm and joy, they are kept “down” by constant worries of having work, paying bills, etc. that leaves them unable to have the time to show their true selves.
            There is then no worthy leadership, the ship is adrift with the blind leading the blind, profit has become the only GOD destroying this World and it’s people.
            When I go to a better place, believe me it will be me doing the judging not St. Peter, Ha.
            They will probably have very good answers that I will find I agree with.

            In the meanwhile as you say and Seth says (constantly) it is ourselves that we are here to put right.

    • Agaricus

      Completely agreed. Any arguments predicated on the assumption that CO2 emissions must be reduced to near zero are entirely moot as they have no scientific basis, and are simply tools designed to provide camouflage for the introduction of centralised control and/or ‘agenda 21’ objectives, such as ‘carbon credits’ and further direct taxation of hydrocarbon fuels.

      As for the assumption that certain largely self-appointed groups such as the ‘World Bank’ (a privately owned conglomerate that feeds off 3rd world debt) have some divine right to manage (read, ‘dictate’) planetary energy policies.

      In mercatu veritas – the market will decide when, where and how new energy sources are introduced, not some bunch of un-elected banking functionaries with a sack of axes to grind…

    • Albert D. Kallal

      It is clear that the CO2 is simply a tax grab.

      Even the co founder of Greenpeace has come out and stated
      that this is all a bunch of nonsense.

      The truth about CO2.

      Albert D. Kallal
      Edmonton, Alberta Canada

  • Alan DeAngelis
  • Alan DeAngelis

    This post needs some background music.

  • Alan DeAngelis

    We can see what’s coming.

    Global warming > climate change > ice age

    Oh, no! We need CO2. Tax the E-Cat.

    • Roland

      Here’s the average temperature data year by year since 1881 displayed in an interesting graphic format:

      You can, of course, conclude that Bloomberg and 98% of climate scientists are part of a vast conspiracy to delude us into abandoning carbon as a fuel source for no good reason; and I can reach my own conclusions about your cognitive and data processing abilities.

      • AdrianAshfield

        Note well that the total correction is huge. The range is almost the entire warming reported in the form of an anomaly from 1850 to the present.
        (And 66% of the data is estimated.)

        Now the satellite temperature records don’t show this.

        I make up my own mind.

        • Carl Wilson

          It looks like you are denying ground temperature warming by data from a considerably higher up. Why stop there? I’m sure you’ll find the temperatures even higher are even more stable. Try outer space.

          • Roland

            At the edge of the atmosphere, the thermosphere, on the sun side the temperatures reach 1,500C, it’s also a little thin and hard to breath; fortunately we don’t live there excepting a few astronauts.

            Ground level and ocean temperatures are the only meaningful data points in this debate unless you want to include inferential data from ice cores from Antartica, in which case there is even greater cause for alarm as that data presents a whopping anomaly over the last 200 years against the 400,000 years for which we now have solid data.

            Of course the folks that get their views from intrepid FOX ‘journalists’ like Glenn Beck et al don’t get much exposure to stuff like contemporary research, much less actual data.

            Nor does it strike AGW deniers that they lose intellectual credibility, on forums like this one, on everything else they may say with each ill conceived post.

          • Albert D. Kallal

            The reason WHY this is important is you supposed to see the
            warming signature appear WHERE that CO2 is trapping heat!

            CO2 is not on the ground!

            Global warming theory states that our GAS in the air is
            where the temperature increase signature should occur. We are not seeing this, in fact we are seeing the opposite! What we see is the urban heat effect (it is warmer in the city then in the country). So yes, this issue is near the WHOLE ball of wax on this issue.

            Global warming does not occur on the ground first, but in
            the atmosphere (in fact the signature that is missing should be found in the troposphere).

            Scientists have been unable to find this warming signature
            that should appear in the troposphere – things are currently quite much working backwards and this challenges the whole basis of the CAGW theory.

            Albert D. Kallal
            Edmonton, Alberta Canada

      • Frechette

        No its not a vast conspiracy. It’s much simpler than that the World Bank is afraid that their outstanding loans to countries whose economies depend primarily on fossil fuels are about to go belly up. Just follow the money.

      • Alan DeAngelis

        Wow, since 1881. Big sample.

      • Alan DeAngelis

        What was the effect of Krakatoa eruption (1883) on the world temperature? Did the particle reflect sunlight and cool things down? Did the CO2 heat things up?

        • Roland

          Look at the link and see for yourself, that’s what it’s for.

          • Alan DeAngelis

            That’s the first thing I did and it looked like Krakatoa may have cooled the planet down a bit. That’s why I brought it up.

          • Alan DeAngelis

            So, I was just wondering if that warming trend may be the plant recovering from the Krakatoa cooling.

  • radvar

    For the popping of the carbon bubble, what I want to know is, where are the good seats?

  • Frechette

    What the lunatics at the World Bank are afraid of is that should a cheap zero carbon energy source become available such as LENR the push for a global carbon tax which they have recently proposed will go up in smoke. No pun intended. Renewable sources such as wind and solar will never be sufficient to meet global energy demand. These technologies are also unsuited to satisfy base load requirements because of the variability of wind and solar. Slapping a tax on energy consumers is a typical politician’s and banker’s solution to the problem.

    What is really happening is that the World Bank has made large loans to countries whose economies heavily depend on fossil fuels. Should there suddenly be replacement for fossil fuels such as LENR their loans are exposed to default. As the saying goes just follow the money. By taxing the consumers the bankers hope to divert part of that income stream into their coffers. Crony capitalism at its finest.

    • hhiram

      Lots of problems with this post.

      First, you’re treading perilously close to climate change conspiracy stuff here. Carbon taxes have only one purpose: to capture the environmental externalities associated with carbon emissions. That’s it. The fact that some people will find a way to benefit from such a system does not make it a conspiracy. At all. Accountants all over the world make money by doing people’s taxes – in fact, FAR more than anyone will ever make from carbon taxes or even carbon trading – but no sane person thinks taxes are a conspiracy to make accountants rich.

      Second, renewables can certainly provide all of the world’s energy. They already provide almost 20% of it. ALL of the world’s energy could be supplied by a solar farm the size of Ohio. The only thing necessary to solve the baseload problem is batteries or gravity storage of pumped water, and batteries are improving at about 10% per year. In 20 years nobody will even remember today’s nonsense objections to renewables. It is certainly true that LENR will trounce renewables if it can be commercialized, but we don’t need to spread misinformation about renewables in the meantime.

      Third, the World Bank has *not* made huge loans to countries whose economies depend on fossil fuels. I have no clue where you got this idea, when the reality is nearly the opposite. The countries whose economies depend on fossil fuel production, like the Arab gulf countries, Nigeria, Brunei, Venezuela, etc., are typically the only less-developed countries that do not need World Bank or IMF loans.

      • Roland

        On top of which a decade old SRI study of the instantaneous harvestable wind power planet wide at the 180m. level concluded that a continuous 60 terawatts of wind driven electrical power is achievable vs. a current total global demand of 12 terawatts of power from all sources.

        Furthermore engineering studies concluded that if wind turbines are built with assembly line techniques instead of being built as one offs the achievable capital cost per watt could be as low as $.01 per kWh over the life of the turbine.

        As it stands both solar and wind powered installations are now cheaper to build than ones based on burning carbon and the ‘fuel’ is free.

        The days of the carbon biz are numbered even without LENR.

  • Gerrit

    Freeman Dyson interviewed by

    *Finally, what are your views on [hot] fusion? Do you see any real progress being made?

    I think they made a terrible mistake 50 years ago when they stopped doing science and went to big engineering projects. These big engineering projects are not going to solve the problem, and they’ve become just a welfare programme for the engineers. You have these big projects, both national and international, that are really a dead end as far as I can see. Even if they’re successful, they won’t provide energy that’s useful and cheap.

    But it’s not clear when you do science, whether you’ll discover anything or not. But that’s the only answer.

    *So with fusion, we should go back to the drawing board?

    Yes, and it’s not going to solve any problems for the near future.

    But I don’t think there is a problem in the near future anyway [laughs].

    • bkrharold

      “But I don’t think there is a problem in the near future anyway [laughs]”
      Yes he can afford to laugh, he is old and probably will not be around to endure the full effects of climate change, so why should he worry?

    • GreenWin

      Prof. Freeman Dyson FRS, JASON, a brilliant scientist and recipient of the Fermi, Planck, Lorentz, Oppenheimer and Templeton Prizes, swims against the consensus current. He correctly notes science made a “terrible mistake 50 years ago…” by following the big engineering tokamak myth. That myth was founded at Princeton’s PPPL, home of fanatical hot fusionists.

      Dysan is one of the few willing to critique the hot fusion smokescreen. Likewise he takes a dim view of climate “science” – especially that of failed computer models. His work at the Inst. of Energy Analysis on climate studies with ORNL’s Alvin Weinberg molded his thinking, and Dyson suggests today’s alarmism is largely unwarranted.

      Consensus science has vilified cold fusion, Pons & Fleischmann, and challenges to standard model physics these past 25+ years. They have done so using ad hominem attack, character assassination, and ridicule. How then are we to believe consensus or the World Bank on climate? The track record speaks for itself. The climate gang continues to shun LENR – even when it is plausibly the best solution to their issues.

      Bottom line is consensus science has failed us on hot fusion; 65 years, $250B tax dollars and not ONE Watt useful energy. And yet they insist we believe their socioeconomic climate tale. The adage is, “Fool us once…” Many here won’t get fooled again.

  • Ophelia Rump

    The Earth is a slightly higher priority bubble than Corporate profits, corporations can die off and be replaced by others, it is the nature of their ecosystem.

    The Earth has no readily available replacement. Human beings also have needs, those needs suffer from resource contention issues.

    • bkrharold

      I completely agree. These discussions about financial impacts seem irrelevant compared to the danger we are facing. All the money in the world will not be enough to set things right, if we continue to destroy our ecosystem. If we all cooperate, use all our resources financial scientific etc and work on this problem as a global challenge, I believe it is not too late.

  • georgehants

    To a simple soul like myself it would seem from all the good comments showing the faults with the present capitalist system, in all areas, it would point towards changing that system to a better one that solves the problems outlined, mainly corruption for profit.
    If ones house is dirty most people realise instinctively, logically and obviously that the only solution is to clean it up.
    Buy a bottle of strong bleach and a vacuum cleaner and do the work.
    Strangely it seems some people like to continue to live in dirty houses.

    • Charles

      So, to a simple soul like yourself, what do you have in mind to replace capitalism: Socialism? Communism?. It has been shown repeatedly and again and again that neither works. Name whatever it is you have in mind george.

      • georgehants

        Charles, my point is the present system is “dirty” first one either agrees that it is or one does not.
        further discussion cannot progress without that being made clear.

    • William D. Fleming

      Cleaning house is a great activity and should be an ongoing activity, best accomplished by the residents.

      But if you are thinking of burning down the house and building a different one, then a lot of people would object.

      • georgehants

        William, agreed, only if it becomes impossible to repair the house economically or one wishes to improve on it would one build an extension, or as a last resort pull it down and start again from scratch with all the newest ideas etc.

        • William D. Fleming

          Well, I hope that you at least are going to save the foundation, which is the free market. The free market is nothing more than people trading unfettered in good faith. Trading is basic human behaviour and every form of socialism which ignored that foundation has fallen flat.

          For groceries I often go to a Piggly Wiggly store which is owned 100% by its employees. For insurance and investment management I use USAA which is totally owned by its members and pays an annual dividend. For banking needs, I use a credit union, again member owned. My electricity is provided by a member owned cooperative which makes no profit. Those organizations account for the majority of what I spend.

          Also I spend a good bit at Walmart which is one of the largest and most successful corporations in the world. Owned by shareholders and traded on stock markets, it is a prime example of what is negatively referring to as “capitalism”. I haven’t checked my portfolio, but I think I am a part owner of Walmart.

          All of the above mentioned organizations represent what is possible in a free-market economy. They are at heart all the same: people joining together to create true wealth for everyone, with wealth being goods and services rather than money. The free market is true community cooperation in its primal sense.

          By uniting efforts we obtain synergy or economy of scale. Where there is poverty, the solution is for people to join together to create wealth. Don’t try to just create money or jobs–in the ledger book of humanity as a whole, labor is a liability, not an asset.

          • georgehants

            William, good comment but as with Cold Fusion and the Placebo Effect and any subject one must start at the beginning, is there a problem that needs to investigated and the best solution found.
            If it is agreed there are faults then the debate begins.
            As seen with Cold Fusion if those in control decide to deny the Evidence then very little happens for many years.
            There are as with Cold Fusion a million theories, nothing can or will happen until Cold Fusion has a few willing to face the Truth against the opponents.

  • Alan DeAngelis
  • Jarea

    Who control the controllers if the controllers are allowed to kill, hide and press in the hidden shadow?. To avoid corruption that has been evident and has harmed all these years the base of the piramid i don’t say we don’t need a government, what we need is a good controlled and transparent government. The human rights start in the individual rights and it is not true the rights of many overpass the right of one individual. That logic yields to corruption and to the dark side. XD

    The base argument to rule us is that we are stupid and the chaos and bias will create more damage than a world government, we will kill us in racial wars or between patriotic wars. I see the point, since the goverment and the hidden threads behind them use exactly these weak points of the mass to move the opinions. Saddan had nuclear weapons, climate change, islamic therad, US ships were attacked in vietnam and in Cuba, (many are historic facts flase flags etc. These Technics do work again and again. Everybody think, they can’t do that is crazy!! but you see the history and it really has been done a lot. Today they do, and you think is impossible that the media and the scientists are so lame and weak to succumb to commands from top and don’t say the true. You have to see yourself with kids and risk your career. They say that conspirators are crazy and they do the easy joke of the aluminium foil in the head. The true is that the mass don’t want to think and they are naive. The “follow the money” rule is a must to know the true in these cases.

    I would like to tell them because i think they want in his view the good for all the humanity, that they need to implement some mechanism to control themselves or they will end so corrupt that we will find a replacement for them. They haven’t done well. It can be done much better and i think the answer is not to control the base as they want but to control the top providing feedback from the base.

  • Albert D. Kallal

    So how come the temperature data we have does not so a correlation with our output of CO2 then?

  • Alan DeAngelis

    Yes, and it was much warmer in the Bronze Age. There seems
    to be more of a correlation between the sun’s activity and the temperature. CO2 increase lags behind the heat increase.

  • Alan DeAngelis
  • GreenWin

    There will be an interesting talk at the Airbus Group sponsored ISCMNS conference in Toulouse FR, on Friday October 16th. Metallurgy expert, Jacques Ruer, Deputy Director of Technology with oil and gas giant Saipem SA, will discuss, “Craters and hot spots explained by Erzions or exotic particles? | Analysis of the potential behavior of the [Rossi] energy catalyzer in the patent US 9115913 B.”

    Another oil and gas scientist analyzing the E-Cat nanoparticle fuel and ways it achieves LENR.

  • Warthog

    “he prospect there is for a radical schism between those who will embrace LENR and those who will not.”

    That schism already exists….one group is against ANY form of energy that originates from use of “nuclear”, whether that be LENR, advanced fission, or hot fusion. The other side believes that the use of nuclear techniques are necessary to alleviate human suffering AND save the environment.

    The operative thought is (paraphrased, as I am too lazy to hunt up the exact quote) “….developing a compact, high energy output nuclear power paradigm is the equivalent of giving a Thompson machine gun to a monkey”.