LENR and the Climate Debate

Since climate change is front and center in the news, after President Trump announced that the United States’ withdrawl from the Paris Climate Accord, I thought it might be appropriate to broach the topic here. Andrea Rossi has made a lengthy comment on the Journal of Nuclear Physics on the topic that I thought would make a good starting point. could

I don’t consider Rossi an expert on climate science, but I do consider him an expert in developing an energy technology which I believe could have a profound impact on the debate around energy and the environment.

I realize this is a topic that can often lead to heated debate, I hope that commenters here will be respectful of one another, even if they might disagree with another’s position, and remember the commenting guidelines of ECW.

Here is Rossi’s comment on the JONP today:

Andrea Rossi
June 2, 2017 at 6:49 AM
There is a lot of hypocrisy and superficiality on this issue.
I am sure of the fact that the more we research in new environmentally friendly and renewable energies, the better, but:
1- the solar energy is not economically profitable and is funded exclusively and by the taxpayer
2- the wind energy ( that indirectly is solar ) is not profitable as well as the solar and it too is economically sustainable only if funded by the taxpayer
3- both of them are profitable only in restricted areas, where sun and wind are particularly strong all the year around, not relevant in the global energy market: when you read that “30% of the energy is made by solar” it is a lie that takes advantage of the fact that laymen do not know the difference between power and energy: the solar represents 30% of the installed power, but for the 90% the solar plants and the wind towers produce no energy, therefore the energy actually produced is barely the 10% of the power installed
4- all the jobs created by the alternative energies are funded by the taxpayer, otherwise could not be paid for
5- the phrase ” all the scientific community is sure that the global warming is generated by human activities” is a lie: no serious statistic has been made on this issue and the phrase ” all the more vociferous guys in the scientific community are sure that the global warming is induced by human activities” would be more proper
6- the Earth has had dramatic climate changes along its eons, totally independent from humans: the Sahara desert was a gigantic forest, as big as the Amazonic area and the oil is the product of the decomposition of enormous amounts of organic residue degenerated underground during the “global warming” of a precedent era: in this case, not only it has not been oil to cause the global warming, but, on the contrary, it has been the global warming that has generated the oil…
7- nevertheless, I sustain that R&D in the alternative energies must be done, but without hypocrital opportunism and with serious scientific and economic approach and without the distruction of the patrimony of plants and jobs created by the traditional energies.
When I read that China and India are lecturing the USA about pollution, I take it seriously, but only as an epiphany of hypocrisy and opportunism.
Warm Regards,

  • Chapman

    Why Frank… Whatever do you mean?

    “I realize this is a topic that can often lead to heated debate, I hope that commenters here will be respectful of one another, even if they might disagree with another’s position, and remember the commenting guidelines of ECW.”

    • LilyLover

      Political understanding, debates, and refinement are more important than political abstinence.

      • radvar

        Wholeheartedly concur. Politics is competition for the distribution of power. People don’t like to talk about power, because (short version) either they have it and they don’t want it analyzed (because that weakens it) or they don’t have it and they are afraid of criticising it and being targeted by it. “The Power Paradox” by Dacher Keltner cracks that all open completely.

        Engineers in particular seem to like to avoid talking about interpersonal power because they like to back up into their “logical / actionable ” view of the world….in which they have a lot of power.

        If you analyze conversations here on climate change, you can easily see the ways in which the different posters attempt to use power to promote their views.
        > Making logical arguments
        > Citing references
        > Appealing to humanitarian interests
        > Attacking others arguments
        > Saying that certain subjects and approaches should be off-topic.

        All spelled out in Keltner’s book.

        It’s funny, because we can’t do much about LENR, however, anyone can change their perspective on power, at any time.

        But people don’t like to talk about it.

  • Billy Jackson

    (In the USA)
    Serious discussion of Global Warming is almost dead. that’s not a declaration of is it real or not. I am claiming that both sides have intentionally muddied the water in an effort to score political points, that its no longer possible for most people to look at the data without information that has been tainted by those on the political left and right.

    In the end it wont cause an end of the world event.. just social upheaval as people who are unprepared for a shifting climate, die from lack of resources. (millions to billions more than likely) Some would argue that such a calamity is a a good thing as only in a crisis do we seem to progress as a people and a species. One thing we know from our past the only constant is change. Thinking that we control everything to the point that how things are now is how they will be tomorrow.. is a lesson we should have learned a long time ago..

    • Leonard Weinstein

      Billy, you have not studied the facts. The increase in CO2 has increases crop and other biomass productivity a tremendous amount, and much of the third world would be starving with out the increased productivity. The main remaining starvation at present is due to wars and government flaws. There are isolated droughts and floods, but actually less than historically. The small sea level increases are not significantly different than over the last 10,000 years. The little ice age (~1300-1800) causes a reversal in sea level growth, but this was a temporary event out of place over 10,000 years. The typical level rise is 1.5-3 mm/y (6″ to 12″ /century), and a fact of the interglacial, not human caused global warming. Plate tilt (which lowers land, not raise the sea) is a larger problem (especially for parts of the US east coast), but this is isostatic rebound from the previous glacial period, and not human related. The real problem will occur at the end of the present interglacial, which may be soon, or may still be several thousands of years off. Then we will have ice eventually covering New York to thousands of feet (as it has in previous glacial periods).

    • radvar
  • The cause and effect relationship between atmospheric pollutants and temperature rise is straightforward. That humans are responsible for the sharp rise in such pollutants is unquestionable. That temperatures have been rising globally at an alarming rate is unquestionable. That scientists from all nations have concluded that climate change is happening and is costly and dangerous… and anthropogenic is a fact.

    Amidst all of this scientific consensus is push-back from industries that stand to lose a lot of money from the development of alternative energy sources. In America the political right, funded significantly by and in many ways controlled by the fossil fuel industry, has adopted the position that climate change is either a hoax or insignificant. This is a great example of the corrupting power of money to the point where “alternative facts” are offered and championed via industry-funded studies and real science is ignored or even vilified.

    Climate change is poised to impact many lives in a very negative way… likely even end many. We face an emergency and our leaders make exactly the wrong decisions when they find a way to ignore the scientists and listen instead to the little green devil on the other shoulder.

    • Chapman

      LENR G…

      You are one of my favorites my friend. And as such, I am exiting this discussion entirely.

      The object was to discuss the positive effects of LENR on the environmental issues we face, and was presented with a stated desire to avoid the pitfalls of politicizing the issue, or demonizing those of opposing opinion.

      I see that lofty goal is unachievable, and likely a smidge naive from the outset.

      I enjoy the camaraderie here, on the LENR topic, far to much to be drawn into divisive arguments about BAD science.

      God bless you, and Keep you. I will see you in other threads, and we shall converse happily, without any bad blood between us over arguments we should never have had.

      This topic is going to prove to be pure poison…

      • LENR would be a silver bullet for climate change (and much more). Not much to debate there.

        Where are these guidelines you mention? I didn’t violate intentionally.

        • Chapman

          I speak of the pleading tone Frank used when posting the thread, encouraging the avoidance of the political aspects, and a concentration on the direct social, environmental, and scientific impact.

          You violated NO rules or guidelines. You merely demonstrated the reality of the situation, in human terms.

          This is simply NOT a topic that even the BEST of us, such as yourself, can debate dispassionately.

          No hard feeling on my end. I simply value your goodwill more than a few hours of debate fun.

          • He just said be respectful. I think I have been. My observations may be unpleasant to some but they are not very controversial.

          • Frank Acland

            Agreed, if people stay respectful towards posters with different opinions, I don’t see a problem. The climate debate is relevant to E-Cat/LENR topics .

      • Billy Jackson

        Its just one of those topics Chapman. People are very passionate about their beliefs on this subject. So i agree that the potential for divisive opinions is high. All of us must learn that civility and manners will trump hostility and emotional platitudes when we base our arguments on data that honestly is cherry picked and distorted with disinformation. (again not a declaration for or against climate change)

        • Zephir

          Here I collected some arguments for general unsustainability of classical “renewables” (solar, wind plants and biofuels), and that they’re ineffective as permanent energy production solution.



          • Chapman

            As always, your “Science Kung-Fu” is STRONG, my friend!

            You pretty much sum up the problem. I tend to talk a lot, but you bring home the facts, the numbers, and the cold hard reality of how the numbers play out.

            You never fail to impress the heck out of me, and leave me wishing I had your ability to cut to the point.

            You handle science and statistics with the deft skill of a Benihana Sushi Chef!

          • Chapman

            Just a reminder that today is the 73rd anniversary of D-Day.

            It is worth remembering the Heroes who gave their lives, 73 years ago, to help free Europe from the Tyranny and Oppression of a bloodthirsty, murderous, and lunatic Germany-led Socialist Empire.

            I can only pray that our British brothers have once again come to see the folly of Chamberlain’s “go along to get along” attempts at appeasement, and that a new CHURCHILL will rise up from the ashes in London, to lead Great Britain, and the World, to an eventual victory over the Socialist Huns that are currently laying waste to Europe.

            If Europe is to BE freed, Britain, first and foremost, must STAY free! I pray the British people will reject the socialist fifth column that has infiltrated their borders, and restore Britain to all Her Glory.

            Let the world Rediscover the BRITISH Culture, Worldview, and Backbone that gave rise to western culture itself.

            ! GOD SAVE THE QUEEN !

          • Chapman

            (There were several factions within the German socialist community, just as there was in Russia at the time of the Bolshevik revolution. The fact that ONE faction exterminates the others does not mean that the surviving faction was any less a socialist group than their conquered brethren.

            The NAZI’s were not JUST socialists, they were the archetypal MODEL of socialism itself. Socialism is, as socialism does.)

          • radvar

            For a self-professed non-believer in science, that sounds about right.

          • radvar

            You dishonor those who served.

          • Chapman

            Boy, I am really living rent free right smack dab in the middle of your frontal cortex, aint I… 🙂

            You know the first thing they teach in Forest Ranger School?
            Don’t feed the Bears, dude…

            It is time to move on. Get over it. Few people believe the AGW hype, but so what? The sun will still come up tomorrow, and If you take a deep breath, and meditate on all that is GOOD in your life, you will probably enjoy the day.

            You have your opinion, but others have a different one. It is JUST an opinion, my friend. You might as well be getting nasty with folks because they think Queen was better than The Beatles. It is irrational… FUNNY, mind you, but irrational none the less.

            Life is too short to waste on being so angry. You will pop a blood vessel if you keep it up. Walk away. Enjoy life.

          • Jas

            Quite a statement. Possibly the most right wing thing I have ever read on this forum. There is a large difference between Socialism and National Solcialism. Many of the British soldiers who fought against Fascism were Communists, Socialsts and Anarchists.

          • Stanny Demesmaker

            Please keep your fact free posts(aka propaganda) for breitbart. And yes AGW is real, there is till this day no credible criticism against it.

    • US_Citizen71

      Regardless of cause, personally I believe that we have already reached a tipping point in the arctic and tundra regions of the northern hemisphere where the melting of the permafrost is releasing methane at a rate fast enough to sustain warming even if all us humans died tomorrow. Planning for ocean rise should be ongoing.

      • I fear you may be right. However, in a future where LENR energy is abundant and almost free, one can imagine aggressive efforts to extract greenhouse gases from the atmosphere and other carbon sequestration projects to restore balance.

  • Giuliano Bettini

    A very balanced comment in my opinion.
    Just an observation.
    “5- the phrase ” all the scientific community is sure that the global warming is generated by human activities” is a lie”.
    Even the phrase “all the scientific community is sure that the global warming is not generated by human activities” would be a lie.

    • Multiple studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals1 show that 97 percent or more of actively publishing climate scientists agree: Climate-warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities.


      • “All” is a red herring. How about “almost all,” “vast majority,” or “solid consensus.”

        • Leonard Weinstein

          It is not even a consensus for scientists. It does appear the news media and most governments have jumped on the band wagon, but surveys of actual scientists with proper skill sets to be objective are only slightly tilted toward the “consensus”, and most of those are funded to continue to look at the issue. This position will turn out to be the biggest scientific error in modern times, and result in loss of acceptance of scientific opinions as the trend of warming continues to stall then drop.

      • Leonard Weinstein

        The 97% statistic is the result of a published paper by a non climate scientist using chosen search terms for published papers. The result of the search was about 2500 papers. However, most did not directly say the cause, only that there was warming, and it has some effects (which skeptics also agreed to). The search was narrowed to cases where only papers that specifically stated that they were either convinced, or not convinced, that it was extremely likely due to human activity” and only about 90 had this strong position. About 87 of these were convinced and 3 not, and this was the basis for the 97% number. In fact, based on the initial search, 87 out of 2500 of the initial papers, or 3% agree. There have now been THOUSANDS of papers disputing the main effect as being due to human activity! Most of the supporters of the human cause are those whose funding comes for more studies, or those supporting globalism, and using the issue to fund it! The skeptics include mostly unfunded top professionals that actually did due an honest study, and who have nothing to gain or lose.

        • Jimr

          Leonard, I watched a TV program several years ago where a panel was discussing this. As I recall they said a questionnaire was sent to over 2000 and of that 2000 they received only 89 replies of which 87 said warming caused by man . It has been long ago and my memory may not be exact, however that was the origin of the 97%. Interesting that that figure is still used today.

        • If you would just click through and read the sources NASA references you would see that you are mistaken.


          The consensus that humans are causing recent global warming is shared by 90%–100% of publishing climate scientists according to six independent studies by co-authors of this paper. Those results are consistent with the 97% consensus reported by Cook et al (Environ. Res. Lett. 8 024024) based on 11 944 abstracts of research papers, of which 4014 took a position on the cause of recent global warming. A survey of authors of those papers (N = 2412 papers) also supported a 97% consensus. Tol (2016 Environ. Res. Lett. 11 048001) comes to a different conclusion using results from surveys of non-experts such as economic geologists and a self-selected group of those who reject the consensus. We demonstrate that this outcome is not unexpected because the level of consensus correlates with expertise in climate science. At one point, Tol also reduces the apparent consensus by assuming that abstracts that do not explicitly state the cause of global warming (‘no position’) represent non-endorsement, an approach that if applied elsewhere would reject consensus on well-established theories such as plate tectonics. We examine the available studies and conclude that the finding of 97% consensus in published climate research is robust and consistent with other surveys of climate scientists and peer-reviewed studies.

        • radvar

          But unfortunately, there are no citations to support any of those assertions.

        • radvar
  • Here are four quotes relevant to climate change enthusiasts.

    1) “Because the idea of climate change is so plastic, it can be deployed across many of our human projects and can serve many of our psychological, ethical, and spiritual needs.” — Famous English socialist climate change advocate, Mike Hulme

    2) “No matter if the science of global warming is all phony…climate change provides the greatest opportunity to bring about justice and equality in the world.” — Former Canadian Minister of the Environment, Christine Stewart

    3) “The challenge I think we have is for some reason climate change has become a religion — a politically induced religion instead of science fact that now we have to embrace and move forward on.” — Former EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy

    4) “If you repeat a lie often enough it becomes accepted as truth.” — Joseph Goebbels

  • A completely ignorant and wrong set of statements by Rossi imo.

    • Leonard Weinstein

      Rossi is exactly correct. Your comment is totally in error. Please show how any part of your statement is meaningful.

      • radvar

        “exactly correct”. “totally in error”. All I needed to know.

  • Thomas Baccei

    Rossi needs this idiotic POV to justify his totally anti-social behavior over the past many years. If he actually has (exceedingly unlikely) a working device and has kept it from the world from creative and financial greed, and accepted the reality of human induced climate collapse he’d be the most evil SOB to have ever walked the face of this earth. If, as is highly likely, he has no such device, the con artist keeps exhibiting the true scope of his insanity. I’ve so had it with Rossi he should be condemned to have EVERYONE totally ignore him as a token punishment for his despicable character.

    • LilyLover

      How about this – Rossi is trying to save his baby from those who are the most evil and would like to see it die, but he is not magnanimous enough to let it out for free. Let’s say he knows that on the grand scale of things a few years of delay is not going to boil the Earth, especially when the E-Cats are gonna lick the Earth clean of any pollutants including Nuclear waste. What if he is trying to profit while also having made arrangements for Universal dispensing of the knowledge in the event of his death. In such a scenario, the global elites profit from keeping him alive and profitable and delayed.

  • Skip

    I repeat myself, again.

    Yes, there is obvious global climate change causing serious problems in most places. Yes, to some un-agreed to amount, we stupid humans have contributed to its advancement. How much? We may never know the actual percentage. I don’t care and don’t choose to be sidelined by this emotional discussion.

    The points are:
    1) The world is ruled by greed. Lying, cheating and control via governments are the tools.
    2) The solutions are at hand and attainable if said governments would/could shake off their shackles, invest and encourage those with fresh ideas instead of bowing to their “owners”.
    3) We know about some of these solutions but we don’t have a voice.

    Old retired me will continue tinkering, essentially on my own, to provide an affordable, clean method of personal energy production for myself, family and anyone who wishes it (in the event I’m successful.)

    Plus, MFMP knows they can call on me at anytime to help if they can use my limited skills.

    Outside of that, there’s not much one person can do except be politically aware and talk to people who will listen.

  • LilyLover

    Another view:
    Climate change is mother Nature’s endurance testing of humans.
    Mother Nature:
    Do they keep engaged in virtual-activities related to zero sum game of made-up financial interactions? Or, Do they evolve beyond and shade off the inefficiencies from their lives to come together and solve real issues? Will they do the right thing with a far-sighted approach with a slow but steady pace, or, will they try to patch things up when it’s too late?
    By their actions they’ll decide their pace of extinction.
    Are my children worth living?
    Are my children worthy of me?

  • Observer

    Will the sun rise tomorrow?

    Will the 11 year sun-spot cycle continue?

    Are we heading towards a Maunder-like minimum?

    There is a 20 year decline in solar magnetic fields and solar wind micro-turbulence levels:


    Looks like science to me!

    • US_Citizen71

      Winter is coming! ; )

  • Having read Mr Rossi reply to the question of Global climate change.
    I found it to be lucid and to the point.
    The answer he gave, was, I think based on his ability to see through the fog
    that obscures, the truth about one thousand of one present increase in Co2
    in the atmosphere.
    Should this natural food for plants be restricted? I having noticed a greening and
    healthier plants in around my garden, think not.
    I applauded Mr Rossi for his ability to parse the Hypocrisy.

    • Omega Z

      The fringes of deserts are also greening. Plants require much less water when CO2 is more plentiful.

  • Leonard Weinstein

    This is one of the worse speeches I have ever heard. It was delivered poorly, and totally without factual content on the issue and solution. The fact that Carbon based fuels will eventually run out is true. However, improvements in technology such as shown by Rossi,

    • radvar

      Big claims, no citations…

    • Omega Z

      Without global warming, Elon Musk’s financial empire will crumble. Nearly everything he is currently involved in requires Government contracts or Government subsidies to survive.

  • Gerard McEk

    I agree with AR about: “Yes the Climate changes” and “Insufficient proof that humans are the cause, but they may enhance it a bit”.
    That solar and wind are not ‘economical’ is relative to fossile fuel. If that becomes more expensive (getting exhausted), then solar and wind will become economical. Besides that, by enhancing the market (like many European countries do) wind and solar cost were dramatically lowered and are now near to the point where they become economical. That does not mean that I think that they might ever will be our main power source. They are too unreliable and do not fit to our existing usage pattern. It would need a dramatic change in our normal life to fit.
    Clearly, when LENR breakes through, then the energy world will change. Solar, wind, fossile and fission power sources will diminish. AR has often denied that and believes they will coexist, but that will only happen when the governments make LENR more expensive, although I have no idea how they can do that.

    • US_Citizen71

      “..that will only happen when the governments make LENR more expensive, although I have no idea how they can do that.”

      Licensing and taxes. $1000 per year reactor license, 25% tax on fuel refills, etc.,etc….

      • Gerard McEk

        Yes, but that only works if fuel/reactor materials cannot easily be bought. I believe that a LENR reactor can be made at home, once you know how it works. Normal commercial materials like nickel (for the fuel) and e.g. tungsten? or boron nitride? tubes (reactor wall) are now available. How can you tax materials that have another use as well?

        • US_Citizen71

          That may work for simple heaters, but power generation will be more difficult. Plus there is always exorbitant fines and jail time for be caught running an unlicensed reactor. You don’t have to look any further than cannabis to see how a government can take something that is cheap and easy to produce and make it expensive. Sunlight, water, soil and sunlight are very cheap and easy to come by, but until gold went crazy, high quality cannabis was selling at near the same price at least here in the States.

          • radvar


          • US_Citizen71

            Colorado as well now, about $125/oz. including taxes from advertisements I’ve seen recently. But, about 2005 when the economy was going well, before the bubble collapse, both gold and high end cannabis were about $400/oz.

    • Omega Z

      ->”AR has often denied that and believes they will coexist,”

      Rossi’s posts in context. All energies will be intergrated. He is correct. It will take decades to integrate LENR into the economy. One of Rossi’s posts indicated this as Initially. As in eventually LENR would replace most current energy sources. Rossi is also smart enough not to unduly antagonize the wrong people…

  • gdaigle

    The E-Cat would face two main challenges in contributing to Intended Nationally Determined Contributions (INDCs) under the Paris Climate Accords:

    1) Providing safe, economical and serviceable solutions to the most significant anthropocentric producers of global greenhouse gas emissions.

    2010 global greenhouse gas emissions:
    25% are from the burning of coal, natural gas, and oil for electricity and heat.
    21% are from industry primarily involve fossil fuels burned on site at facilities for energy.
    6% are from heating and cooking in homes.

    The rest comes from agriculture and other land usage, transportation and other uses. So the E-Cat could contribute to reducing 52% of all global greenhouse gas emissions within its first few product generations. That is highly significant, but shows the limits of its impact (at least until transportation applications are addressed).

    2) Convincing industries and governments that have committed to solar and wind energy to shift their commitment to E-Cat technology.

    This requires that the E-Cat technology have a proven track record of producing superior outcomes over solar and wind technologies for 10 years or more before industry might be tempted to supplant solar and wind with E-Cat tech. This greatly reduces its impact for any timeframe less than 15 years (such as the Paris Climate Accords milestone of 2030) for electricity, heat and industrial applications. CEOs who put their reputations on the line for solar and wind would first have to see demonstrable benefits before switching to the E-Cat and leaving those other costly green investments behind.

    • US_Citizen71

      If you can generate electricity via LENR transportation is not really a problem. Silicate/lead batteries are available now, are relatively cheap, have large operating temperatures, charge quickly and keep a charge without loss for nearly a year, all without being toxic. http://www.siliconebatteries.ca/dw.html

    • Gerard McEk

      Governmental decision makers are possibly not stupid and sometimes I think they deliberately misuse the climate issue to enforce the development of solar and wind and continue the ever ongoing hot fusion reactor development, all funded by the tax payer. They must kow these are not real alternatives to keep our world going when fossile runs to its end. So why isn’t LENR be chosen as THE SOLUTION for our future energy problem?
      An issue with LENR might be that under certain circumstances dangerous radiation might be released (ME356 hints in that direction).
      If that is the case then LENR has a long way to go and will be ignored and maybe fiercely opposed by governments. Probably they will use untruthful arguments, just to discourage further developments and that know-how lands in the wrong hands. The same will happen when LENR can be used for military applications.

  • Leonard Weinstein

    Musk has a big stake in solar energy, and battery storage (taxpayer supported to some degree), so takes the position he has. I respect much of what he does, but on this issue he is totally wrong and out of his depths.

    Fukushima is a red herring. There are safe fission designs and locations where no problems would occur. The problem with fission is that it is not able to be made for individual homes and businesses, and vehicles, so LENR and brilliant light have a long term advantage if problems are solved.

    • radvar

      Can we store the waste in your county?

  • Jas

    Some people have decided that Climate Change is real and are not waiting for governments to take action. This company are building plants that suck the CO2 out of the air.

    • US_Citizen71

      You have to get the CO2 for the microturbines Axil raves about somewhere.

  • David Albert

    Although I completely agree with Rossi based on about 10 years of
    studying this global warming subject I have always supported LENR. I think its importance goes far beyond this discussion. LENR is about freedom and energy independence for the poor of this world. If Brilliant Light Power develops as they intend and Rossi gets into the act none of the currant forms of energy production will be competitive in 20 years. CO2 will have no effect on the climate in that time as it hasn’t had any measurable effect yet. LENR won’t save the world by changing the climate it will save the world by giving freedom a foundation that is universal and take the power of power control out of the equation.

  • Alan DeAngelis

    “Enron’s Global Warming Scam Survived It’s Bankruptcy” http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/bloggers/2987038/posts

    • doug marker

      A very interesting read.



  • doug marker

    I don’t plan on making any big case one way or the other as we are all very likely to have our own strong views already, but, I do want to point out what to me has been an interesting semester this past 6 months. The particular course taken is called Big History. The Professor who created the lectures is the person giving them at our university. Prof David Christian. Bill Gates has committed to funding the introduction of Big History courses across schools in the US.
    Here is Prof Christian giving a TEDx overview (18 mins) of his Big History series.

    Here is a link to a full threshold by threshold explanation of Big History.

    In a nutshell the Anthropocene is a new epoch that is defined by the effect mankind has and is having on the planet and how this is an accelerating phenomenon. There is no doubt in *my* mind that this term (Anthropocene) is intended to underpin the notion of man-made climate change. The material they present in the later lectures (what they call Big History thresholds 6 to 8), is clearly positioned to lead up to the belief that man is now in the driving seat in regard to controlling most resources on the planet be they plants, animals or the environment. The current last threshold in the Big History course is about the industrial revolution and how it is the trigger for the new epoch called the Anthropocene.

    What the Big History course leads to is to introduce students to the notion of the ‘Anthropocene Epoch’ – here is an explanation of it –

    This link covers a debate about the value of such an epoch

    Here is a link to Bill Gates endorsing the Big History series (2.36 mins 0- Gates speaks near the end) …

    The ‘take-away’ message being spelled out here is that our schools and universities are now beginning to teach and promote these views. For myself, it has been a very interesting course and will probably take more advanced classes. The real point is no matter what we here may choose to believe this is what our education systems are teaching our young people and students at schools.

    Speaking for myself I have in the past been reserved on the notion of man-made climate change but never in doubt about man-made pollution (and it is this pollution that will have its greatest negative impact on man rather than the planet – the planet may hiccup but man is capable of destroying man far easier than the planet – Big History argues that man may destroy man and the planet).

    Hope this snapshot of education today helps add another perspective. Again, we all have to work this issue out for ourselves.

    Doug Marker
    Sydney Australia
    (Macquarie University)

    • Omega Z

      They have been indoctrinating students in the U.S. for quite sometime now. Ones grades can depend on their outward views at the end of the class. i.e. if you disagree then maybe you didn’t learn what we were trying to instill in you…

      • doug marker

        Funny you should say that. I had concluded the same thing based on some issues that arose in the tutorial classes.

        At one point early in the class the tutor asked us all if we were scared about what was happening regarding resources and fossil fuels.

        I had figured out that I was messing up the tutors message by saying all will be good as man is capable of coming up with smart new solutions to such problems and maybe some new solutions to energy issues were coming closer.

        Now I join in with the alarmist theme just to be sure I will get better marks lol!

        • Omega Z

          Hey Doug.

          I new a gal taking this class who wrote this essay. I told her I disagreed with her conclusions. She responded that she didn’t agree with it either, but she needed to pass the class.

  • radvar

    The link is excellent. Now, if people will agree to agree with the law of cause and effect….

  • radvar

    At one level it doesn’t matter if AGW is real, or whether there is or isn’t a consensus among scientists about it, because it seems that there is not sufficient social (and thus political) consensus to take truly effective action about it.

    The use of carbon fuels have many other negatives and should be reduced on that basis. Arnie makes the case nicely:


    And let’s not even get into war and stuff.

    So, we need the tech in any case. I’m past questioning whether the LENR phenomena is “real”. There’s something going on down in those little metallic pits. So, what’s the remaining question? COP? Is that not a function of the gadgets that control the phenomena?

    I personally have enormous faith in the human ability to create and refine gadgets (using one right now!)

    So, what are the chances that LENR is real, but people cannot make gadgets to effectively harvest it, at least to produce more energy than solar?

    • US_Citizen71

      I would say very small. If LENR is real and I believe it is then eventually through trial and error someone will come up with a configuration that works. If it can work continually then it automatically has a leg up on solar. In order to fulfill the power needs of a western citizen solar will need batteries or some other form of storage which increases its physical footprint. LENR should have an advantage there as well even with turbines.

  • Chapman

    OK… FINE! I hear you all saying, “But what does CHAPMAN think?”.

    Far be it from me to be the cause of any collective anxiety round these parts so, with great reservation, and ONLY in response to the overwhelming bombardment of psychic energy I feel you all beaming at me, demanding my input, I will share one observation, and outline my personal “action plan” to save the polar bears.

    First, The Observation:
    Have any of you ever caught one of those TV or Radio spots where the guy is hawking a book about how to get rich on the stock market? He is always selling that book at a HUGE discount, because he, he will say, has already made his millions, and just wants to help out the little guy!

    Hmmmm…. You have to think this through… Now, he is working his ass off, travelling around, doing book signings, giving promo lectures at shady hotel venues, and trying to get on every radio station he can, just to have the chance to plug his book, and all his efforts are probably getting him less than six figures a year. But, you see, he is doing it because he wants to help…

    Now, You or I would ask, “Why not just work the market for six months, earn enough to cover the printing of a million copies of your book and a reserve 100 grand just for beer and pizza, then spend you time just HANDING OUT THE BOOK FOR FREE?”

    You see, the situation does not add up. The ACTIONS do not support the CLAIMS. And by this, we can identify a scam.

    So…. Consider, now, the so-called “Green Energy” technologies available today, and all the hype and Utopian promises that comes with them. Lets pick ONE and examine the facts. Spin the “Wheel of Misfortune” and lets select our random topic. AH! Look at that. “Solar Energy”. A fine choice…

    Question 1: Who is the worlds NUMBER 1 manufacturer of solar panels ans solar energy hardware?

    Question 2: Who laughs at the folly of solar energy, and instead has built their entire energy economy on, wait for it, COAL?

    Question 3: Who has every intention of CONTINUING to depend primarily on coal burning power plants, even though their citizens CHOKE on brown air, and suffer every form of pollution related disease, and their lands are BLIGHTED in the most amazing display of environment disregard?

    Answer: Come on, you already knew, didn’t you? China.

    So ask yourself, If CHINA manufactures the solar hardware, and would have the GREATEST economic advantage on it’s widespread domestic application, then… Why don’t they do it?

    Because SOLAR is a marketing scam. It may SOON be a viable energy source, but at present there simply is NO truly cost effective Solar Solution. Solar is GREAT if you want to get off grid, but so is Propane. Big deal. It is not a question of FUNCTION, but one of COST per energy unit, with all the secondary expenses calculated, and amortized over the expected lifespan of the hardware. In the end, it is simply cheaper, and more dependable, to burn Coal, Oil, or even Buffalo chips (if you have a steady supply), than “going solar”.

    The same is true of all other alternative energy sources. Hopefully LENR will help change that equation, but for now, the facts are what they are.

    I will also give you THIS fact, as a free parting gift: The majority of the energy produced in ANY industrial nation, is wasted. Forget screwing around with curly light bulbs, somewhere around 75% of all electricity used is just pissed away. In homes, in commercial and industrial buildings, in city infrastructure, all over the place.

    If you want to reduce the emissions from fossil fuel powered Electrical Power plants, you could shut three out of four off entirely if this waste was addressed. But instead we want to push for Solar Power, whose hardware requires manufacturing processes that have a LARGER carbon footprint than the equivalent energy production from a coal fired Chinese plant. Go figure…

    Second, My Environmental/AGW Action Plan:

    The best thing I, as an individual, can do to reduce the atmospheric carbon dioxide surplus is to directly TRIGGER the most massive carbon sequestration mechanism subject to my manipulations. I am going to drive down to the nearest OLD GROWTH forrest I can find on google maps, and take a few of those monsters down, so I can drag them back to my cave, and make some really nice, and valuable, furniture. I will be sure to plant a few seedlings in their place. And I will sleep well, on my new Solid Redwood Sleigh Bed, knowing I might have just saved a polar bear! I wonder if I will get an award from the Sierra Club, for my environmental consciousness. Certainly I deserve AT LEAST a “good citizenship” award of some sort! I mean, I’m saving the planet here!!!

    Because Trees do most of their atmospheric scrubbing in their first few years, as they go through their initial growth spurt. Once they reach a mature height, their metabolisms slow down to nothing. They just hang out. But, if that tree burns in a forest fire, all the sequestered carbon is re-released into the atmosphere! BETTER that I should go and chop it down, and make some nice heirloom furniture out of it, and keep the carbon out of the equation, while the new replacement tree does IT’S work sucking MORE carbon out of the air!

    If I build NICE stuff, it could be around for generations. Lovingly handed down to my children, and their children after them. Now, If you consider that most of that plastic, metal, and glass furniture made today is CRAP, and only has a lifespan of a few years, and if you consider the carbon footprint of MANUFACTURING that crap, then shipping it all the way from Taiwan to your local Walmart, well, you can imagine the overall carbon effect my little woodworking exercise has yielded. I have chopped down some tired old tree before it could succumb to a tragic demise via lightening strike, and thus preserved the sequestered carbon within, AND I have replaced it with a NEW tree that will now go through a phase of EXTREME co2 scrubbing. In addition, I have prevented, single-handedly, the carbon crimes involved in the manufacture of HUNDREDS of modern “junk” furniture items.

    But I am just one man. Are YOU willing to do YOUR part?
    Go buy an axe, and save the world!!!

    • US_Citizen71

      I feel the same way about hemp. Hemp would allow you to pass sequestered carbon on down to your grandchildren in the form of concert or world cup t-shirts. That is just for starters. Cutting waste be it energy or material wise would go a very long way in solving many of our problems. The world needs long lasting goods again, our plastic disposable society will be the death of us if we do not pay attention.

      • Chapman

        I think this is the one thing that worries me most, actually. Our energy problem is not one of supply and demand, but of waste, and THAT done with utter and complete disregard.

        It does not matter what new sources are found, because our HUNGER will just increase proportionally. We will forever be chasing another source of energy, because we will never have enough.

        If we want to save the world, we need to consider rethinking our lifestyles. Get rid of the big screens, the useless gadgets, the wall warts. Grow local, Buy local, vacation local. And for GOD’s sake, do not watch broadcast television!

    • LilyLover

      “…COST per energy unit, with all the secondary expenses calculated, and amortized over…”
      That’s only true based on fraudulent financial system of value attribution. If we were to alter the habits for the sake of living planet, solar or Hydrogen cycle based economies are viable. We can develop multitudes of other cycles that are equally feasible. Therefore, absolute chemistries and not the financial aspects matter in the long run. Food for thought – after all the oil & gas is used up, should we cease to exist? Or switch over to other energy cycles?

      • Andreas Moraitis

        I do not see the connection that you try to construct. A competition-based market economy is a good thing, since it enables growth and technological progress. However, a completely “free” market would be like a society without laws. Giving the market some rules in order to protect people and the environment has nothing to do with a command economy. Of course, this should be done in a reasonable way, without establishing excessive bureaucracy.

  • Chapman

    Please consider the following:

    1937 – Frederick Osborn writes “Development of a Eugenic Philosophy”.
    This little masterpiece perverted Darwin’ work, and outlined SCIENTIFICALLY the fact that the Human Species is corrupted by unfortunate mutations, and as such, what humanity REQUIRES is an active campaign to clean up the bloodline, and stomp out imperfections and undesirables. A few years later, the German Socialist party fell in LOVE with the idea, and spared no effort in putting the theory into action. Sieg Heil, huh? Hooray for Science!

    1968 – Paul Ehrlich publishes “The Population Bomb”.
    This little gem predicted a world that would face catastrophic overpopulation by the 70’s. While it inspired my favorite author to write a short story called “Make Room, Make Room”, which was adapted to the screen to create “Soylent Green”, and put Mr. Heston into Sci-Fi history, it also contributed to the adoption of various forced birth-control and mandatory abortion laws around the globe. Of course, the Population Bomb never went off, but it is still used to justify the slaughter of unborn children in every corner of the world today, and has proven to be a useful tool for those working to regulate the birthrate of what they deem to be the “undesirable races”.

    1962 – Rachel Carson publishes “Silent Spring”.
    This “scientific paper” outlined a supposed connection between DDT and the softening of Eagle egg shells, and led to the banning of the chemical worldwide. Funny thing, it was false. DDT turns out to be great. But what was it used for anyway? Why was it needed? Well, it is a pesticide, and it alone turned the tide in the worldwide fight against malaria carrying mosquitoes. During the years of its use, malaria was pretty much eradicated, and millions of lives were saved. But thanks to THIS little piece of bad science, DDT was turned into “some kind of Super Killer just waiting to wipe out humanity and sterilize the planet!” And so it was banned, and millions have died due to its absence.

    1970 – Marion Hubbert comes up with his theory of Peak oil.
    He went so far as to show, SCIENTIFICALLY, that the world would run out of oil by the mid 70’s. This led to the Energy Crisis, thanks to one Mr. Jimmy Carter, and directly led to a long string of WARS over oil fields world wide, as nations fought over what they believed was the last of the Earths oil reserves. But we know now that he was wrong. We know of MORE untapped oil NOW then we could point to at the time. And we are coming to realize that oil is a naturally replenished resource. We may exceed that rate with pumping, but the oil slowly returns. We used to think it took millions of years to convert organics to oil, but we now know the process, and can convert turkey guts into Texas light sweet crude in about the time it takes for a pizza delivery guy to find your house. I know, you say, “Yeah, but he meant well. He just did not have all the facts!” Uh-huh. Tell that to millions who have died because HE just did not have all the facts.

    1998 – Andrew Wakefield writes his little medical paper on the SCIENTIFICALLY PROVEN link between Autism and Vaccination.
    Oh, this was a doosey. A totally BS paper, fed to the public with all the Hype and Hysteria that could be mustered. Folks start refusing to let their kids get vaccinated for diseases we had not seen in decades SOLELY because we vaccinate. But folks are worked up into a lather, having nightmares about their kids being mentally disabled due to the chicken pox vaccine, so they refuse the shots… And kids start dying from measles and mumps and scarlet fever and you name it. Now, Britain, to their credit, caught on real fast and revoked his medical license and TRIED to put out the fire, but it did not matter. Stupid people just fall in LOVE with stupid ideas, and once you put an idea out there, there are morons who will just blindly lead their own damn children to an early grave.

    So what’s my point?

    In fact, bad science has killed more people than all the bombs, bullets, and poisons that mankind has ever unleashed.

    I RAIL against bad science, not because it offends my sensibilities, but because it is a threat to the SPECIES!!!


    • Omega Z

      I’m a strong believer in Science as long as they see it my way.

      Seriously, Blind faith in science is no different then blind faith in any religion. I question it even when it agrees with me. There’s a good reason for that. Scientists are just people like the rest of us. They can be just as corrupt and fraudulent as any one even like politician. They are in a sense, politicians.

      Told by a Doctor and even seen on a television show. Choose your Doctor and choose your illness. OR, go to a heart specialist and they’ll find heart issues.

      Provide Government funding for human caused global warming and they will find human caused global warming. In either case, You get what you paid for.

      • Chapman


        (Well said, by the way!)

  • Chapman

    WOW! Here I thought I was purely an “Average Joe”, but now I see I am a member of an exclusive, or can we say “elite” even, 20 percentile group! I’m movin’ on up!

    FanTastic! Thanks! You are GREAT for my EGO. 🙂 xoxoxo, and all that.

  • Omega Z

    OK, So the U.S. will manufacture all it’s own solar and wind structures, set them up and connect them to the grid. ZERO foriegn investment in these structures will be allowed. U.S. investors only.

    The U.S. will NOT distribute 100 Billion$ a year to be increased by 10 Billion a year for 10 years to third world and developing countries.(U.S. agreement through the U.N.) You will quickly understand how they got so many countries to sign on. It’s always about the money.

    Note several Countries are already raising a fuss about the money not flowing yet.

  • Omega Z

    Are you aware that lead acid batteries are overall cheaper per KW storage then the power wall lithium batteries. There less suitable for vehicles because of weight, but for residential, they’re better and cheaper in multiple respects including eventual recycling.

    • No, I wasn’t aware of that, and I’m also not aware of the significance of it. Does that mean that I should try to get a different battery from a different company if I was setting up a solar installation. I think that company called Adgex that tried to put that flashlight on the market, a while back, is also offering a home battery storage solution. Maybe I should look into that. I’m no expert in this sort of thing.

      • Omega Z

        I’m not expert either, but this came from Elon musk himself which is why they did away with the 10KW backup battery system for the power wall. No one was buying it, Even the 7KW which is a different composition works out to about 18 cents per KW over the life cycle.(Energy produced to charge it not included) That’s just storage cost.

  • malkom700

    We just need to understand a simple matter to decide on the topic. We do not have to prove that GW is realistic, but that it is not realistic. Because it is a very high risk.

    • Mike Rion

      What’s risky is living on a planet that is going to chew us up and spit us out someday without warning, and don’t even get me started on variations in the sun.

      • malkom700

        It may be fair in the short term, but all of us like Stephen Hawking are thinking about the long-term and of course that humanity has to move away from outer space as soon as possible.

  • akupaku

    In general I agree with Rossi. And about Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW). There is nothing special going on about Earth’s temperature during the last century or so. Take a look at the following reconstruction of global temperatures during the Holocene which is the warm period of around 10-12 thousands years since the last ice age ended. All the news of “unprecedented warming” or “warmest year in the record” are just plain propaganda. Most of the Holocene has been warmer than today and as can be seen temperatures have been varying due to natural causes much more than during the last hundred years.


    As to what can be accomplished by the Paris climate agreement, the other graph shows what the effect is going to be even if we assumed that AGW is correct and CO2 emissions are the main cause. Nothing we can do will change the outcome. By 2100 the net effect will be 0.05 degrees C, an effect so small that we cannot even measure it.

    The only reasonable way to encounter climate change is to adapt to the changes as well as we can. That is what mankind has always done during its whole history from the stone age to these modern days.


    • invient

      What study is this from? Given a random selection of climate research will return a pro AGW 97% of the time, I’m interested in seeing the source of one of the 3%.

    • gdaigle

      This (http://climateanalytics.org/files/cat_global_temperature_update_october_2015.pdf) source suggest that the impact of the Paris Climate Accord will be greater than your second graph indicates, but also that it will be insufficient for the most vulnerable countries. Here is its summary:

      • If fully implemented, the submitted INDCs for 2025 and 2030 are projected to lead to a warming of around 2.7°C by 2100 reflecting a 0.4°C improvement on the situation in December 2014, where only announcements for 2030 and pledges for 2020 were available.

      • Compared to the 3.6°C by 2100 warming that is projected to result from current policies the INDCs submitted lower warming by about 0.9°C

      • There is still a large emissions gap in 2025 and, to stay below 2°C, the gap is 11-13 GtCO2e. For 1.5°C the 2025 gap is 14-16 GtCO2e and would therefore require significant improvement in the level of mitigation ambition. 

      • With current INDCs, the emissions gap is set to grow rapidly towards 2030. 

      • There is a major risk that if current INDCs are locked in for 2030 and not reviewed and strengthened every five years, starting in 2020, that achievement of the 1.5°C goal called for by all the most vulnerable countries may be locked out, and achievement of the 2°C goal fundamentally threatened. 

      • Of the 19 INDCs rated by the CAT, covering about 71% of global emissions, 17 have not been rated as “sufficient.” Instead, we rated eight, which cover 56% of global emissions, “medium,” and eight, which cover 14% of global emissions as “inadequate.” Two are sufficient but cover only 0.4% of global emissions, and one is not rated due to insufficient information. 

      • Based on the climate action promised under the INDCs it is now clear that governments at the Paris climate conference need to consider a formal acknowledgement that there is an insufficient level of mitigation ambition for 2025 and 2030 to limit warming below 2ºC. A rapid review of the INDCs at the latest by 2020 for the post-2025 period, backed by continuous efforts before the entry into force of the Agreement is needed to catalyse action and ensure the Agreement has a running start.

  • Chapman

    Good Catch, Bob! 🙂

    Boy, that IS one of those songs that sticks with you all day, isn’t it? Love the song, and did not mean to insult her.

    I guess I COULD edit my post and cover my tracks, but I am not so vain that I can not admit the goof, so I will leave it in place as a testament to my own fallibility…

    • Skip

      Please note that Canadian born Alanis is also God as you almost stated. Not that Crow lady.

      See “Dogma”; a truly great movie

      • Chapman

        One of Kevin’s BEST!!!

        And yeah, Alanis rocks. As I said, I meant no insult. I LOVE Alanis. I really liked that song she did about Santa Monica Blvd! 🙂

        • Omega Z

          Win the Lottery and die the next day.
          Story of my life.

          Sold a brass lamp one time for $5. Found out latter it was worth a lot more being depression era. On the other hand, I paid $15 for an old singer sewing machine at a yard sale. Sold it an hour later for $150 to a sewing machine shop. It were an antique. I’m a break even kind of guy…

  • Chapman

    You do not need to be a member of the Church of Scientology to appreciate the core validity of the psychological mechanisms outlined in Dianetics. Understanding how the human mind can be programmed to accept ideas, and adopt instinctive response systems, that are contradictory to their fundamental nature and intellect, gives one insight into the manner by which massive frauds are perpetrated upon the public.

    First, a basic idea pops up somewhere that seems to be unfortunately contrary to logic and reason, and yet is DESIRABLE to some group for reasons ranging from POWER, to simple financial gain.

    They then falsify a vast amount of seemingly scientific data to support the premise, and put it out for mass consumption. Half the population will buy it, because it LOOKS like it must be true because the science says so. But the OTHER half starts looking at the facts and quickly realizes the lies. Now, you might expect that the second half could just go out and clear up the mess, but that is not the way things play out. Because you have already SEEDED an idea, and that sets up a confirmation bias in the public mind, and new facts will keep being “found” that support the theory faster than the falsehoods are exposed. It does not matter that the new facts are cherry-picked and distorted. Because at heart people do not LIKE to be made to look like fools, and once there is momentum behind the idea folks will fight tooth and nail to avoid having to admit they were fooled. The ego can not handle facing the reality that they were so easily duped.

    Three guys can roll a boulder off a hilltop and send it rolling down the slope towards the beach, and the oblivious beachgoers below, that FIFTY burly guys responding to the threat can not stop. Because the boulder picks up momentum faster than responders can intercede. It is even worse to see those responders blocked on the beach by those oblivious sunbathers objecting to them stepping on their little sandcastles as they dash to stop the disaster that is on it’s way.

    But at some point, you have to be man enough, and strong enough, and HONEST enough, to swallow your pride and confront the fact that you were fooled. And then get ANGRY at the fact that it was done with deliberate intent.

    The question you SHOULD be asking is, “WHY was the AGW fraud created?”

    • radvar

      What a pretty story! I think you proved your point about the power of persuasion.

      However, I would carefully compare your second paragraph to your second to the last paragraph, particularly the word, “logic”, “reason” and “honest”, and ask yourself…what is your motive for writing such an outstanding piece of misdirecting rhetoric?

      • Chapman

        You want citations? I have TONS of citations!!! In fact, I collected so many, they took my license away. So now I ride the bus. Have you ridden a bus lately? It sucks. But you do what you gotta do, right? I mean, I could call for an uber, but I don’t think I trust those guys. I think they all work for the Russians, but I am not sure. I hear uber is in financial troubles. So is Connecticut. But I don’t live in Connecticut, so I would not know what THEIR buses are like. Probably about the same as the ones in Maine. You ever been to Maine? I hear they have great crabs. I like crabs. Do you? I knew a girl once who said I could come over, but that she had crabs. I misunderstood. I did not get seafood. I got something else though. Not good. But she was not from Maine. She was from Montreal. Have you ever been to Montreal? I think they have nice buses.

        • Chapman

          Well, THAT did not work!

          In an effort towards solidarity, and with an honest desire to try and see the AGW issue from the viewpoint of a true believer, I tried huffing some fingernail polish remover I found in an old drawer in the bathroom, thinking that temporarily disabling about three-quarters of my brain cells might help me see some fundamental truth I was previously missing.

          But even in this artificial “Gumpian State” I was unable to overcome the knowledge of the long history of data falsification and conspiracy to defraud, which is the historical record of the AGW campaign, and just blindly accept that the current data being presented is any more trustworthy than all the previous reports, graphs, and studies that have proven to be false.

          The experiment has left me no better informed, or enlightened, but HAS resulted in a severe headache, and an unexpected desire to utilize public transportation…

          • Mike Rion

            And that works even better!

          • Chapman


        • Mike Rion

          I think it works perfectly.

    • Mike Rion

      What he said, and it couldn’t be said better in my opinion. Ask Al Gore who basically became a billionaire supporting the GW fraud.

  • Alan DeAngelis

    If there is a decentralized energy source that can produce enormous amounts of energy without creating CO2 the powers that be can’t collect a carbon tax. So, I don’t think they give a damn about LENR.

    • Omega Z

      Au contraire, They have additional plans even should someone create a Giant CO2 vacuum that worked over night.

      Plan 2: Methane AGW connection
      Plan 3: Aerosols- Even water vapor from those power plant turbines.

      If all else fails. Human farts.

      It’s really about world wealth redistribution a portion of (At least 25%) which finds it’s way into the pockets of certain people and Corporations.

  • gdaigle

    There is so much conflicting data on the internet about climate change that it can be daunting to review. I was recently asked by a colleague with a background in analyzing climate data to play “devil’s advocate” to counter his assertions that the basis of climate change is largely not created by human activity. Here are some URLs to references refuting his main contentions. My commentaries have been stripped out.

    These were presented to provide a counter-argument to the non-AGW (non-anthropogenic global warming) position, so though one might question the sources of some of the references (as one might also do for the opposite side of the argument) they represent viewpoints from others and are not exclusively my own.

    Here are the points (Re: ) to various non-AGW positions, and the refuting URLs.

    Re: we are cooler than the Holocene maximum:

    Re: all climate scientists in the 1970s predicted a cooling trend indicating a new ice age:

    Re: an 18 year pause in global warming was indicated by the Remote Sensing Systems (RSS) dataset:

    Re: satellites have found no warming since 1998

    Re: the inaccuracy of the “hockey stick” curve published by Prof Mann:

    Re: the falsification of the hockey stick curve data by Prof. Mann:

    Re: evidence of the Climategate conspiracy hiding the decline (of the global temperature despite record CO2 levels):

    Re: there has been data manipulation by NOAA:

    Re: no increases in sea levels are forecast:

    Re: the sun is one of the main contributing factors to global warming:

    Re: cosmic rays pay a significant role in contributing to global warming:

    Re: there is no publicly available guide to judge the veracity of climate change:

    • radvar

      Great reference list.

      Still the questions remains: Who are you going to believe? Trained scientists using cause and effect logic, or job creators the people’s representatives?

      Hurts to even say it that way…

      • Mike Rion

        Trained scientists paid mostly through grants from government who know that if they create evidence of GW that they will probably have their grants renewed.

        • Omega Z

          And if they create counter evidence of GW, they will quickly be out the door. If you ignore the argument completely and look deeper into whats really going on, you find this has a lot to do with World wealth redistribution. That and Rich people getting Richer. Elon just picked up a 3/4’s of a Billion$ for his efforts. Not even possible without all the Government subsidies.

  • AdrianAshfield

    Here I try to sum up the main drivers of climate change
    as shortly as I can. There are reams of “he said, you said” words with little hard data to back up either side.

    The climate is changing. It has been increasing in temperature quite steadily since the Little Ice Age in the 1880’s. The temperature rises and falls on either side of this steady rate due to the multi-decadal oscillations. See Prof. Akasofu’s paper here, Fig. 2b, page 7: http://people.iarc.uaf.edu/~sakasofu/pdf/two_natural_components_recent_climate_change.pdf

    The main driver for major temperature changes is the
    variation of the Earth’s orbit, as described by Milutin Milanković (Milankovitch).

    Prof. Svensmark’s theory about clouds is well worth a
    look too. See https://youtu.be/ANMTPF1blpQ

    Looking at the satellite and balloon data, http://www.drroyspencer.com/latest-global-temperatures/
    the temperature has been rising far slower than predicted by the IPCC’s models, to the point that most of them have been falsified.

    There is no evidence that CO2 has the major effect claimed by the AGW believers and I challenge anyone to show real evidence (data) about the actual percentage of heat from CO2 compared to other natural causes. not just saying that the “expert” IPCC claims otherwise.

  • Regarding global warming, all other evidence and arguments apart, I find this simple graph on average temperature vs time—linear plot—fairly convincing. The sudden change in derivative is hard to ignore if you have any background in maths or physics:

    • Skip

      Thanx Mats
      Cute, fun, but unconvincing. Perhaps my skepticism gene is growing…

    • AdrianAshfield

      I don’t buy that graph. I doesn’t accurately represent the known measurements leaving out the Little Ice Age and Medieval Warming for example.

      Did you look at Fig 2b page 7 that I linked in my post?

      • Yes, might be related to the first and second point in my answer to US_citizen71 above.

        • BTW Adrian, the Akasofu paper you refer to is interesting. It seems to be based on data until 2008 (why is there rarely a release date at the top of scientific papers???), e.g. as in Fig 2b, with the red dot indicating T in 2008. Do you know how measured data fits the expected curve in the last 9 years?

          • AdrianAshfield

            From memory you will see a red arrow pointing

          • It says: “The observed temperature in 2008 is shown by a red dot with a green arrow.” So I would be curious to see temperatures after 2008 in the diagram.

          • AdrianAshfield

            Look at http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/UAH_LT_1979_thru_May_2017_v6-1.jpg
            and you see the tempserature has gone up very little since then

          • Repeat: Diminishing solar activity may bring new Ice Age by 2030

          • AdrianAshfield

            My first post with links seems to have disappeared. Suggest you look at Svensmark’s cloud theory here

            It is very interesting and shows the mechanism for the sun’s effect on temperatures.

          • Andrea Di Luccio

            This is the evolution of italian electric energy by source:
            Legend (from top to bottom):
            Import from other nations

          • AdrianAshfield

            Suggest you look at Svensmark’s cloud theory here. It is very intertersting and explains the mechanism.


          • Chapman

            Hello Mr. Lewan,

            Not to interrupt, but I was reading back over the days posts, and realized it took reading several of YOUR posts to even figure out where you stand on the AGW issue in general.

            This is NOT a criticism. Exactly the opposite. It is wonderful to see facts being presented and discussed simply on the merits of the content, without salesmanship or manipulation towards agreement to some thesis. Just simple facts, discussed in a friendly and inviting manner.

            I dare say, If anyone COULD convince me of AGW, it would be you, or someone with your approach and skill.

          • Thanks Chapman. I’m afraid I cannot convince you since I haven’t studied it enough myself to have a firm opinion. I was always a bit sceptical for the simple reason that I’m always suspicious when people agree massively on something which is a bit unclear. And I think some pieces have been presented here that reflect the significant range for interpretation of data. Therefore I tend to be careful and mostly I argue that it’s important to phase out fossils for decreasing pollution, which is important enough. That’s also what drives India and China to push a shift to electric vehicles (see link above), and also a good reason for the same countries to be interested in LENR.

          • Chapman

            All true. And it is undeniable that every action taken towards improving our air and water supplies is well worth taking, on their own merits.

            I do not begrudge ANY proposals that improve our way of life, and move us closer to being responsible adults who leave our children a green and beautiful world to live in. But I personally do not like hype and hyperbole being used by groups attempting to manipulate me.

            Anyway, I really just wanted to take the moment to acknowledge that I had recognized that you were actually engaging in conversations, rather than challenging folks to sophomoric debates. Regardless of your opinion, your STYLE promotes communication, and THAT is how issues are clarified and resolved. It is not about wining an argument, it’s about coming together and solving problems.

    • US_Citizen71

      While that graph is interesting it doesn’t even show a complete glaciation cycle. Scientifically you usually want to see at least 3-5 cycles of something to be able to determine what the norm of something is. Without having other cycles to compare against it is difficult to say that what we are experiencing is abnormal with 100% certainty. The Earth’s period of orbital eccentricity is roughly 100,000 years the graph doesn’t even cover one quarter of that. The Earth’s period of orbital axial obliquity is roughly 40,000 years that graph barely covers half of that. So to show with the same scientific certainty expected in other hypotheses the graph should show at least the last 300,000 years but it doesn’t. As for the increase in CO2 it is possible that the increase is do to break down of methane in the atmosphere. The methane could be from thawing permafrost in the arctic and tundra. We know the permafrost is melting, we are not certain about the rates at this time, we also are not certain as to when it began exactly. Much of the tundra involved is in Siberia, which doesn’t get much first hand study. What I just wrote is part of the 10% uncertainty of the AGW theory. The moral and ethical dilemma is do we act knowing that the drastic actions required will cause massive economic problems. Massive economic problems tend to causes deaths for the poor. So do we act knowing that what we plan to do will likely kill people even though we are not 100% sure we need to act?

      • If the graph is correct you don’t really need glaciation cycles. The interesting aspect is not the amount of warming but the speed (derivative). However, I agree there are a few uncertainties. First, I don’t even know if the graph is drawn in a correct way. Second, we only have detailed yearly data for the last piece of the curve. There could have been quick movements before that are evened out due to lack of frequent measurements. Third, you might be right about glaciation cycles—the temperature might move more quickly going in and out of glaciation. Here’s one aspect of that: ‘Diminishing solar activity may bring new Ice Age by 2030’ https://astronomynow.com/2015/07/17/diminishing-solar-activity-may-bring-new-ice-age-by-2030/
        I admit I have not studied this in detail, so I don’t make firm claims. I also agree there could be a risk of acting in a wrong way, causing more trouble than necessary. Regarding fossils, however, the pollution aspect is so severe that there are good reasons to end fossils only for that reason, as soon as possible.

        • US_Citizen71

          I agree 100% about the pollution aspect we need to be cleaner, even with the great strides we have seen over the last 40 or so years to reduce pollution. I did not mean to put you on the spot, but that graph is a bit too much of a correlation to me. I just want people to understand and question the data they view objectively as the consequences can be severe if we act incorrectly. I am sure you have seen the amount of pirate ships on the ocean graphed against global warming, if you haven’t they have an inverse correlation. That doesn’t mean more pirate ships will solve global warming, correlation does not equal causation.

          • As I wrote above, I haven’t studied this in detail, and the curve might not be correct. However, if the derivative is anywhere close to the high value observed at the end of the plot, and if it can be shown that it has never been that high before (= no such quick change before), then it seems difficult to exclude modern civilisation as the reason (doesn’t necessarily have to be CO2). Lots of IFs…

        • AdrianAshfield

          We do have accurate information from the ice cores that go down to a year’s resolution.

          The steady rise in sea level is probably a better indicator than inaccurate global temperatures from land stations. It is not accelerating.

          We are already killing 400,000 – 2 million (depending on who you believe) due to poor Africans dying from open fire cooking, because the World Bank has been persuaded not to lend money for fossil fuel power stations to give them electricity.

          This subject is far too complicated for replying on ever shorter lines.

      • Mike Rion

        Not only that. Man’s hubris in thinking he can do anything at all to change things astounds me. Glaciers may be melting and permafrost thawing, but it will happen no matter what we do. We should spend the resource on figuring out how to adapt to constantly changing planet.

    • akupaku

      Hmm, that graph looks pretty much like the infamous Hocky Stick which has been shown to be incorrect. I have more confidence in the graph I am showing in my previous post below which is based several proxy sources.

      Besides no sane person denies the existence of climate change, only the implication of mankind and CO2 are in doubt.

      • Mike Rion

        Exactly on point. Even with all our technology and fossil fuels mans contribution to carbon in atmosphere is nearly insignificant to all other natural contributors.

      • gdaigle

        The Hocky Stick is only one indicator and it has had its issues and detractors, but more recent publications confirm the validity of the hockey stick data, summarized here: https://thinkprogress.org/most-comprehensive-paleoclimate-reconstruction-confirms-hockey-stick-e7ce8c3a2384

        You could argue that the new study was published in a cut-rate journal, except that the journal was Nature. Or that the PAGES 2k consortium that published the study only represents the views of the government funding the study at that time, except that this was published by 78 researchers from 24 countries (including Pakistan, U.S., Ethiopia, India, Italy, Switzerland, France, Norway, Chile, Australia, China, Nepal, Spain, Belgium, etc.) and all the authors declare no competing financial interests.

        Doubt should always remain in the minds of researchers. There should never be any results characterized as “undeniable” on either side side of the debate since undeniability suggests no possibility of falsifiability, and falsifiability is at the heart of science. It appears that at this time, the current evident favors the hockey stick.

  • Anon2012_2014

    This was the most rational and balanced Rossi posting in a long time. There are some errors, but those are reasonable errors.

    I believe that Mr. Rossi is not correct with regard to solar with new and cheap 18% efficient modules being produced with 20 year useful life. It has just come to the point of being profitable on a ROI basis using something like the Tesla battery for storage. It gets 20% cheaper every year. In five years, without any tax subsidy, you would be pound foolish not to make the investment in a solar array + battery for your home.

    And finally, there is a transfer price where the utility would rationally purchase excess power. To the extent that this allows the shutdown of dispatchable generation, it has value in terms of the variable cost of generation, i.e. the natural gas or coal that is not consumed (which is not free). This might be at, for example, 20% of the retail price of electricity. This puts a cap on the use of the battery if it is too expensive relative to the cost of the utility purchasing back excess solar energy.

    Solar + wind + battery remains the backup plan to technologies like LENR.

    • AdrianAshfield

      I much doubt solar energy and storage will get 20% cheaper for each of the next five years. So far none have been economically competitive with natural gas.
      I think several new designs of nuclear power plants are a much better bet.

      • Anon2012_2014

        “Economically competitive with natural gas”. I think PV solar is economically competitive now at utility scale even without storage, particularly in states with relatively clear skies.

        So on average 1 kilowatt (peak) cost $1000. How much will the clear skies New Mexico, Arizona, or California plant produce per year using fixed angle panels? NREL says about 6.5 kWh/m^2/day. Considering that a plate perpendicular to the sun receives 1 kW (when the sun is shining), average collection is around 6.5/24 = 27% of peak. 365 days a year, So the 1 kW of panels produces 0.27 kW*24*365=2.36 MWh/year. Levelized cost of gas in a combined cycle plan is around $70/MWh. So it seems to me that the annual ROI on this Arizona solar plant is around 2.36*$70/1000 = 16% (assuming the excess solar power can directly replaced the combined cycle natural gas). A 10% ROI would have a breakeven at $42/MWh for the replaced technology.

        Cost have been declining at least 10% per year as seen in the linked article and I think we have been doing better than that 2017.

        In summary, this technology has just become competitive now and is getting more competitive. If batteries were much cheaper, it would dominate all other forms of generate. Batteries are not cheaper yet, so I would think that solar cannot get beyond 40% of generation without a battery cost breakthrough. It is still a lot of displaced natural gas.

        • AdrianAshfield

          Promise, promises. I have yet to see an independent report that shows solar plants have performed nearly as well as was promised.
          How about references?

        • Omega Z

          Here’s how you make them competitive. Add a tax to the fossil fuels. That’s exactly why my electricity went from 5 cents a kilowatt to 10.5 cents per kilowatt in 1 year..
          Don’t listen to what they say. Watch what they do. California charges as much as 80 cents a kilowatt at peek periods. Obviously, Solar will be cheaper.

      • Omega Z

        3 of the 4 largest Solar manufacturing facilities in the World are partially owned State operated Chinese facilities. At the equivalent of a 1.50 per hour wages, they have ALL filed bankruptcy in the last couple years.

        However, The Chinese Government has assured me that as soon as they can get ALL their employees to agree to work 12 hours a day 6 days a week for a CUP of rice, the prices will come down. 🙂

        Nothing says lovin like slave labor

  • radvar

    The whole AWG debate is kind of laughable. The AGW proponents repeatedly cite a network of highly correlated scientifically gathered facts. The AGW opponents repeatedly cite opinions of interpretations of disconnected studies.

    It’s like Rossi opponents looking for the “fatal flaw” that will unveil the “Rossi conspiracy”.

    The motives of the AGW-opponents are completely obvious.

    Yes, scientists get attached to their areas of study, theories and funding. However, people who don’t understand the power of scientific curiosity and integrity haven’t worked with enough scientists.

    • AdrianAshfield

      “The AGW opponents repeatedly cite opinions of interpretations of disconnected studies.”

      Have a look at my post below and follow the links.

      • radvar

        Those fit the pattern that I described. No comprehensive network of multiple correlated studies, just more one offs with media interpretation.

        • AdrianAshfield

          Ah.. You just dismiss all measurement data that doesn’t agree with your point of view.
          Just what was wrong with Fig 2b page 7 on Akasofu’s paper?

          • radvar

            You dismiss mountains of highly correlated data in favor of a few disconnected outliers. There is only one logical explanation for that.

          • AdrianAshfield

            I know you are a believer.
            Why not answer the questionmwhat was wrong with Fig 2b?

          • Ged

            McIntyre has done so much great work for us all, pulling back the mathematical manipulation curtain to expose the man behind. He is honestly a scientific hero.

          • Mike Rion

            No “Gotcha” necessary. All Global warming proponents are in thrall of a community of self-serving profiteers who are basically paid by the establishment to come of with AGW supported scientific studies mostly only the result of “flawed” computer models that have already failed to reveal the truth. Why else do you think proponents were forced to relabel from “Global warming” to the more neutral “climate change”?

          • Omega Z

            Because climate change is real without people involved. It’s a defensive nature to avoid their claims being attacked. Or so they think…

  • Regarding solar, which I believe have a great potential in many applications, there’s still the fundamental issue with storage. Here’s a recent Swedish report highlighting this issue with regard to electric vehicles, noting the strong environmental impact of battery production: 150-200 kg CO2/kWh battery capacity. Plus limited recycling.
    This means that it takes years for an EV to emit less CO2 than a diesel or gasoline car, because of the several tons of CO2 being emitted when producing the battery.
    (only important if CO2 leads to global warming of course).

    • Mike Rion


    • Omega Z

      It would also require an additional 200 to 300 Tesla Mega battery plants to meet current ICE car production fast approaching 100 million cars per year.

  • Frank Acland

    I’m not surprised that readers have diverse opinions, and I’m actually quite pleasantly surprised that people are able to discuss their views here on the climate without rancor, and I am happy to be able to host a civilized exchange of perspectives here.

  • Fossil fuels in vehicles are going away anyway:
    All fossil-fuel vehicles will vanish in 8 years in twin ‘death spiral’ for big oil and big autos, says study that’s shocking the industries
    India will sell only electric cars within the next 13 years
    The issue, as below, will be to get rid of batteries. And charging too, since it will be a challenge with massive amounts of EVs.
    LENR for providing electricity onboard will be a solution. Only a small battery will be needed.

    • Rene

      That’s why flow batteries are important. There is not long recharge cycle at the EV, just spent electrolyte removed and fresh/charged electrolyte added. So, even without LENR, a decent fuel cycle can be developed. Add LENR and the tanks can be reduced significantly.

      • Ged

        I really like that idea. Especially since one could use all the existing gas station infrastructure and not have to reinvent the wheel so to speak. Honestly a great approach that just needs solving for recharging or proper disposal of spent electrolyte, and designing electrodes that don’t get plated too quickly over time.

        • Omega Z

          Disposal of spent electrolyte is easy. Just dump it into the city reservoir.
          Isn’t that what they put into sports drinks. “Electrolytes”

          • US_Citizen71

            With lead silicate batteries the electrolyte can be disposed of on the nearest crop, it is essentially fertilizer.

        • Rene

          Spent electrolyte is filtered and recharged ready for reuse.

    • Mike Rion

      Plus the fact that energy to charge the batteries pretty much erases the advantage of electric vehicles without some kind of cheap on-board charging such as LENR.

      • US_Citizen71

        Plug-in electric hybrids should fill the gap for those that need to go more than 150 miles in a day. Most people on an average day do not drive a 150 miles, so charging at night will cover their need. The fuel for non-battery operation can come from many sources. Methane from garbage and sewage or biofuels from food production waste are but two examples. Silicate lead batteries are used today in EV applications and while heavier than Lithium ion batteries are safer and cheaper. The technology exists it is the desire by the automakers and consumers to put it to market that is lacking.

    • Omega Z

      Self driving cars are far away unless you put them all on rails. Tesla has had 2 mishaps 1 of which silently went away quietly. Seems the AI can’t tell the difference between a white skyline and the side of a tractor trailer.

      It appears the people pushing this concept do not understand the complexity of AI and those providing the computers and AI software are afraid to explain it to them because of fear of losing their R&D funding.

      Any mishaps that fly in the face of their goals of self driving cars gets suppressed. Google has been the Only source I’m aware of that has acknowledged in anyway the complexity and even they play it down. It feels like an ITER complex. No one wants to fess up how hard it really is.

      • There’s obviously still some way to go. But, every year 1.3 million people are killed on public roads, mostly by human error. That’s more than 3,000 a day or 2 people every minute. Few diseases kill more people. Self-driving cars will be better. They never get upset, distracted, tired or drunk. But the funny thing is—even if all cars were self driving today, and only maybe 1,000 people were killed a day, we would still not be happy since we tend to forgive humans but not machines, even though we saved 2,000 lives a day. So there are many aspects to this.

        • Omega Z

          I agree Mats, But the technology is a long way from being ready for market. I see the big problem is AI doesn’t even exist. It is merely simulated and poorly at that. Until they realize the difference between AI and SI, the situation wont improve much. Google has suggested implanting RFI strips every so many feet in all the roads to make them really feasible, but that would take forever and never be fully adequate. Also, it would only take 1 idiot with an RFI scrambler to cause a lot of havoc in a heavy traffic situation. No longer necessary to drive into people.

          • US_Citizen71

            RFI strips are not needed see my post above on Nvidia. Their system doesn’t need them.

      • greggoble

        Self driving drones, neighborhood friendly all electric air transport; the computer technology of self driving cars is transferable to this future transportation modality. LENR energy will enable this, cars and roadways will eventually become obsolete. Google is surely aware of this… follow the NASA/Google CAFE Green Flight Challenge. Elon Musk is most likely aware of this also.

        The 2011 Green Flight Challenge Sponsored by Google

        Astounding Final Results from the Green Flight Challenge Sponsored by Google … The CAFE Foundation wishes to thank all of their sponsors, partners and volunteers for making this historic competition happen. … The Google Green Flight Challenge Exposition hosted by NASA … Copyright © 2017 CAFE Foundation.

        CAFE Foundation

        CAFE is currently engaged as the host of NASA’s PAV Centennial Challenge, a 5 year, US … CAFE Foundation invites you to the 2017 Electric Aircraft Symposium … the development of low-emission flight by fostering and promoting early entry …

        Urban Air Mobility: Emerging Technologies and Early Market Opportunities

        CAFE Foundation invites you to the 2017 Electric Aircraft Symposium
        University of Wisconsin Oshkosh
        Alumni Welcome and Conference Center
        Saturday and Sunday July 22 and 23, 2017

        • Omega Z

          “neighborhood friendly all electric air transport”

          I hate to put a damper on it, but flying vehicles will have pretty much the same regs as airplanes. Likely more. You want to fly, you”ll have to be outside city limits. And of course they’ll be beyond most peoples financial means. I even see delivery drones hitting a wall in many respects. If not from regs, the liabilty costs.

          Yeah, this says it better- LOL

          • greggoble

            What I have presented is the works of others, much more knowledgable than you or me. The points you bring up are under consideration by them. I have attended two of their symposiums, if you get the chance, I highly recommend attending this year. Or, become a member… follow the leaders.

            Asphalt is a rectal disorder, the gassing off of newly laid roadways is like a thousand tar sand mining operations ‘gassing off’ every year.

            The safety margin on two dimensional transport ribbons (roadways) is slim. MUCH much greater ‘degrees of separation’ is achievable in three dimensional airways.

            Anyways… what I state is correct. LENR energy will enable these fledging industries and roadway will eventually become obsolete, environmental and economic costs and safety concerns will be the ‘driving’ factors.

            CAFE Foundation Blog
            Surefly – A Pickup and a Pick-Me-Up
            by DEAN SIGLER on 06/02/2017

            We’re experiencing a myriad of multi-rotors lately, mostly in the vertical lift on demand, sky-taxi category. Workhorse, a company specializing in electric vehicles, has introduced the Surefly, an eight-rotor, hybrid-powered two-seater with actual pilots in mind. Workhorse will reveal the aircraft at the Paris Airshow on July 19, possibly filling in the blanks for the internal-combustion engine and electric motors on the machine.

          • Omega Z

            Why would LENR suddenly make this possible. We’ve been flying helicopters for around 80 years. The power train has always been available. You are after all just trying to reinvent helicopters.

            There’s been experts studying such flying car systems since the 60’s. None of the obsticles have changed. The safety record of flight is due to flying at very high altitudes where one can recover from wind shear that shifts your position by a 1000 feet or down drafts that can drop you 10,000 feet in a few seconds. At low altitudes you can easily find yourself in someones living room. DOA

            Anything that flies faces a very rigorous continuous maintanence program, because If you need road side service, you likely need a body bag. Constant vigilance must be practiced looking for meral stress cracks and fatigue

            Flight is brutal to materials. While they may remain in service for years if well maintained$, the actual life cycle is measured in hours. That $80M F-18 in use for 30/40 years actually has a flight life of about 8000 hours and is ready for the bone yard.Your flying vehicles wont fare any better.

            There’s a reason only the rich can afford helicopter transport in the big cities. This form of transportation will not be cheap. And they are highly regulated. They have specific flight paths(like streets in the air) just as you and your car. I also doubt people will want a sky full of weedeaters with them being the potential weeds.

            While I think the concept itself is COOL, it is to problematic and to many obsticles that can’t be overcome. It is far more likely you will see a hyperloop system replace a large portion of transport. There is no obsticles to traveling from New York to Los Angeles at 3000 miles an hour but the will to build it. It is far cheaper then highways.

      • US_Citizen71

        Google is not the only game in town Nvidia is putting major effort into developing the AI and the computer system that runs it. It won’t be next week but I don’t think it will be more than a decade before it is common to have a self driving vehicle. Here are a few links you may not have seen explaining Nvidia’s efforts.




        • Omega Z

          No offense. I find myself in agreement with many of your posts, but in reality computers are really dumber then a Box of Rocks. They are aware of and know nothing. They do not actually think. They are merely a system that follows a list of instruction like insert tab A into slot B. The reason we have Blue Screens of Death are that they encounter unexpected situations or input that the programmer provided no instruction to deal with it. Like a pointer to where slot B can be found.

          The computer identifies things by comparing data lists. Just like on CSI programs ID finger prints. I hope they don’t really flash everything on screen as they do on TV. That merely slows everything down and is totally unnecessary. Anyway, it doesn’t know anything. It just matches data sets according to instructions and turning switches off or on accordingly. All could be done with a sophisticated mechanical gear box although that would be really expensive.

          While computers can work at near the speed of light many times faster then the human brain, We can identify things much faster. I’m inclined to believe the human brain may work in a quantum entanglement fashion. While we instantly recognize a butterfly, the computer has to compare a data list of everything of a comparable size. Leaf, birds, rocks etc. And if it doesn’t find it, may result in a BSD. What Nvidia and others are doing is just tweaking the system at hand using massive computer power on the cloud. What will that ultimately cost the consumer.
          You and I see a kid at the curb of an intersection. We watch that they don’t step out in front of us. For us this in done instantly and mostly unconsciously. Computers have trouble dealing with this. Especially if the kid pranks it by stepping out then back, out then back. The computer is stumped and just shuts down.

          You or I on the other hand know exactly what to do. We’ll get out of the car and smack him upside the head.

          • US_Citizen71

            No offense taken, no AI system out today has passed the Turing test and the old adage of garbage in garbage out still applies. Nvidia’s cloud piece is more to trade experiences for lack of a better word, instead for processing itself, once one car figures out the curb dance you describe they all would shortly know about it as well according to their model. They do throw a large amount of processing power at the problem their car brain boxes rival their desktop super computer solutions. The massive parallel processing their boxes do are getting close to what our brains do but they’re not quite there yet. Once they are building true neural networks things may change.

  • Alan DeAngelis

    The people who can’t see the reality of AGW can be helped. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m6Ybkd_beUU

    • Chapman

      I have no doubt the UN and Obama and Merkel are working on such “treatment centers” while we speak…

    • Chapman
      • Ciaranjay
        • Chapman

          The visual are lovely. The Music is GREAT. But the LYRICS? Oh my good, if you actually LISTEN to the words it will make you want to put an ice pick through your eardrums!

          It’s worse than one of those Alanis Morissette “save the puppies” commercial spots on TV.


  • cashmemorz

    Alanis Morissette sang that. Cheryl Crow web site shows no responce to that song

    • Chapman

      shhh…. i know…. that’s what makes it so funny!!!!

      btw, HI CASH! Long time no speakee! How you been up there?

      • cashmemorz

        I’m trying very hard to understand Mill`s thesis. It seems to be the new physics. Its starting to be accepted by universities. It might explain what ever LENR is in a much simpler way than the Standard Model is able to. Its taking an awful long time to get through all of the theories that are based on the SM. In Mills`GUTCP everything is based on particles starting off as light quanta being spherical waves. It answers so many questions, in a much simpler way, that are dogging the quantum physics in the SM. Double slit and everything else. No breaking up into two places at once, no interference of waves, just normal conservation of momentum to give what appears to be an interference pattern. Elegant and easier to understand. The math is a bit hard to slog through. The fact that Mills actually has conquered antigravity with a working device is enough to get me going to his side.

        I am writing this directly as input at the ECW instead of pasting from word pad. Almost always if I write via direct input at ECW it stops being effective after a few keystrokes. But I happen to be answering an email, so it must bypass the glitch that locks up my input.

        • Chapman

          I am very interested.

          If I may be so bold, would you mind hollering out when you have worked through it and feel you have a good enough grasp on it to answer a few questions? Not as an expert (I would not put you on the spot or expect you to have PHD mastery of the topic), but I was thinking about diving in to it myself, and I always like to line up trusted contacts from whom I can seek advice and clarification when I dig into something new.

          So, you let me know when you feel confident on the topic, and I will badger you with newbie questions. Tutoring is the best way to discover what you did not realize you did not know on a topic, so it is often as beneficial to the TUTOR as it is to the TUTORED. So maybe I can help deepen your understanding by asking stupid questions you had not thought of. Lets face it – nobody is better at stupid questions than ME!!! They were my Major at University!

          • Chapman

            So… Are we ready to look back on what we have learned here?

            When this thread was opened, I foresaw it getting nasty. And so I decided to take the high-road and bow out of the discussion. Because I REALLY like you guys. ALL of you. And, even though I am just a night-shift ticket clerk at the Greyhound Bus Depot, I do know human nature, and how certain people respond to being contradicted.

            It is not just a maturity thing. It has to do with ones sense of self-worth, and a basic insecurity over their position in what they perceive as the social hierarchy. In Anthropological terms, it relates to the NEED to be secure within one’s tribe as a survival strategy. It is the reason we see such open “virtue signaling” among these groups. Each member must try to demonstrate to all the rest of their “tribe” that they are “a valuable part of the community” and should not be driven out, to die alone on the open savanna.

            And it goes without saying that the same “type” of person who is susceptible to this type of aberrant mentation is, as a result of the fixation with the overall “group dynamic”, ALSO prone to latch onto political, social and scientific dogmas that emphasis the group over the individual, and “consensus” over fact, because their subconscious struggle for “survival” drives them to seek approval over all other considerations. It is basically a “Lemming Syndrome”.

            And if you disagree with such a person, they “trigger” and respond with disproportionate aggression because, for them, it is a survival instinct. There IS no way to reason with them on a topic that they have subconsciously pinned their sense of validation upon. You are not just disagreeing with an opinion, you are attacking them, their tribe, and their deity.

            And THAT is why I saw the trap, and recognized that the topic was going to bring out the worst of some of our most beloved members. After all, this is a LENR forum, and the very TOPIC requires that the reader be at least a LITTLE eccentric. But, while the scientific nature of the content requires a certain minimum IQ to follow, there is no mental health filter invoked. So one must always keep in mind that the group here is not homogeneous in terms of individual psychological stability.

            But HEY, That’s what makes it entertaining, right?

            So….. After keeping away from the thread for the day, I returned to see if my predictions were playing out. Sure enough, you can go back and examine the evolution of the thread chronologically, and see right from the outset that there were a few who needed to dive right in and make it clear that anyone who had issues with the AGW thesis were “DENIERS!” and stupid, and probably being paid by the bastards at big oil.

            And when a few timid commentators posted very thoughtful and honest statements about the trustworthiness of some of the data presented, and possible alternative sources of conflicting data, they were attacked with vitriol and scorn. Or challenged in some adolescent “show me that in the Dungeon Master’s Guide” display of schoolyard bickering.

            So I submitted a few little essays, just as an experiment. I admit to a bit of “trolling” and “chumming the waters”, but the results were as expected.

            I then cranked up the rhetoric, in proportion to that which was received, and the curve followed it’s own geometry as surely as a ballistic missile follows it’s predetermined course.

            I demonstrated, by example, the exact nature of the problem underlying the AGW chaos.

            And I propose to all, that if I had taken the pro-AGW position, and posted comments with the exact same level of criticism, snarkyness, and contempt, but focused the other way around, those who question AGW, if they even bothered to reply at all, would have responded with something like a simple, “That is all well and good, but you should re-examine the history behind the Hockey-stick graph, as that might have you rethinking your convictions”, or some other equally polite rebuttal.

            Now, I am not saying that Anti-AGW people are more sane than AGW believers. Not at all!

            They only ACT that way.

            Who knows, Omega Z may be faking it. He COULD be sitting in front of his computer wearing a pink tutu and a tin foil hat, but he certainly comes across differently than Radvar.

            I am not mocking either one, or ANYONE! I am just stating the obvious.

            I like Radvar. Always have, always will. No harm, No foul.

            And as far as I am concerned, what Omega wears in the comfort of his own home is nobodies business but his own!

          • Ciaranjay

            This discussion, while interesting, is mostly pointless, nobody is going to have their mind change here. And getting too emotional leads to the discussion becoming toxic.
            At least we are all agreed on our optimism for LENR, which will hopefully make the whole topic of AGM redundant.
            As someone based in the UK I think we need to remember mutual respect and focus on what unites us rather than what divides us.

          • Chapman

            Yes Sir.

            There are three objectives when trying to achieve a goal while working with a diverse group of individuals with conflicting opinions and interests.

            1. Identify the common ground that all parties agree on, and that requires no convincing or motivation. Use that as a basis for “bonding” the group together so that they see THEMSELVES as a unit, and each other as partners.

            2. Focus on the GOAL. It is the objective that matters.

            3. Maintain an open and civil dialog. Communication is as vital to a working group as blood is to a living organism. That which poisons the conversation, poisons the body.

            Can you imagine how many converts a religious group would have if they used the methods and tactics displayed here by the AGW proponents? They would cease to exist in short order, or be forced to coercive recruitment, like ISIS.

            In the end, there are those who trust the AGW data set, and those who do not. OK. No big deal. So lets talk about football instead.

            You see, those who do not trust the data have no agenda, and are not TRYING to convince anyone else. They have no “goal” to fight over. It is the AGW proponents who have the need to build a popular consensus, and the onus is entirely on them to accept the existence, and validity, of those doubts, identify their cause, address the issues, and overcome the obstacle. But instead we see only childish name calling and abuse.

            In crisis intervention, it starts with the term, “I hear you saying…”. That means acknowledging what the other person is thinking, feeling, and saying, and seeking to address those feelings logically, and with compassion.

          • cashmemorz

            It will take months to read through the GUTCP in a coherent way, to make sure I not only understand what Mills writes but where each point comes from how it is developed, if it is developed logically, historically accurate, and potentially true to nature as it is observed regarding each point. The universities giving lectures I assume have done just that before putting their logo on the line for an otherwise potential fraud. There are frauds out there that are built up by large business organizations to make their actions look legitimate. For instance malware that attacks computers via their BIOS. I have put on order a computer that has every chip scrutinized for potential flaws that can be utilized by such large hacker organizations. Purism is the builder and supplier of the computers. Very costly but I value my privacy. You get what you pay for. I am using a $400 laptop that has twenty different antimarware

          • Chapman

            I also rely on disposable HP Laptops. At just under $400 you get a pretty well equipped work platform. I am not looking for a high end gaming platform, but this is perfectly fine for streaming video from Netflix and the like.

            I used to be one of those guys with the latest and greatest. I was one of the Athlon Overclocking crowd. But once you get bored with HALO, what’s the point?

            I found long ago that MY best defense against hacking and malware is to use a local partition for a Norton Ghost image. Load the perfect base application set, then ghost it. With a click of the mouse the system will rewrite everything to that known clean state. It also helps when you have a habit of trying out a lot of utility apps, looking for the perfect one for a given task. After loading, and trying, half a dozen and finding the one keeper, it is easier to ghost back to clean than to try to track down all the orphaned files and registry entries each of those apps made.

            The one upgrade I have considered to my low end laptop habit is swapping out the factory HD with a solid state drive. The better access time makes for a big performance boost.

            Anyway, keep us informed on your GUTCP studies. I know I am not the only one that would welcome your insights.

  • Chapman


    I worked all day, then came home and played…

    I just scanned the news. I am speechless.

    My heart goes out to Britain…

    I have no commentary. No quips. No thoughtful observations.

    God Save The Queen, my friend…

    • Andreas Moraitis

      A comprehensive collection of pro and contra arguments:


      Maybe some readers would like to comment on one or another point.

      • Ged

        Becareful with skepticalscience. They are not “skeptical” of anything, and are known to use fake data and intentionally mathmatically invalid analysis to try to drive their agenda (they do not stand for science either).

        • Andreas Moraitis


    • Frank Acland

      Thanks, Chapman. Words fail (again), and I can only hope and pray for all those affected and that there will be better days ahead for Britain and the whole world. We all have to play our part in bringing that about.

    • Ged

      It is simply horrific, and gruesome. We can only be there for the victims through their pain, as the battle goes on…

  • Mike Rion

    I now have even more respect for our Italian inventor. A very sensible and moderate approach to a controversial subject.

  • Mike Rion

    Not a chance. These figures are totally misleading and this figure of 33% is an outright lie.

    • Omega Z

      During a major storm some years ago, Spain proclaimed a 69% efficiency for a short time. Of course, many of the wind turbines were destroyed or severely damaged. Otherwise, they average about 25%. Sooo, to have 1MW of capacity requires 4 MW of capacity to obtain 1MW of energy. Those 4MW being spread to various locations of course. Solar requires even more capacity to get 1MW plus many batteries.
      But don’t sweat the details. Right? LOL

      • radvar

        We know how this will end.

        The tobacco industry fought science for years with their campaign donations, lobbying, paid research and sock-puppet “experts”.

        After 100’s of millions dead and still dying they are still making fortunes.

        • Ged

          People have personal liberty to choose to smoke if they wish, and observational data showed how bad it was to health; no amount of actions by the Tobacco lobby could change reality and the observations. So, that is a false analogy to this situation where observational data stands contrary to the billions and billions of dollars in lobbying and grants to pay off scientists done by NGOs and green organizations to make the world act based on computer simulations.

          • radvar

            People have personal liberty to horrible things. Heck, who needs a social conscience anyway?

            Let’s tell people opoids aren’t addictive. They ought to be able to figure that out for themselves…one way or the other.

            Saying that all AGW research is due to “pay off” grossly impugns science in general. Just like the tobacco companies did.

          • Ged

            Observations have already shown opioids are addictive, so you would be maliciously lying to them.

            And it was you who brought up paid science, insinuating lobbying and sources of big money were synonymous with paying off scientists for paid research. If you believe that, then you must equally call out the billions spent on AGW research as paid research and paying off of scientists. Or, you can ignore that ridiculous tangent altogether and stick with the observations instead of trying to build nefarious conspiracies and compare them to this situation–for doing the latter will mean I will reflect it all back.

          • radvar

            Watch the video, and observe your own thought patterns:


            Challenge: the video says that people who are overly attached to left-brain thinking are unable to consider their own thought patterns.

          • Ciaranjay

            Obviously no amount of actions by the Tobacco lobby could change reality.
            But spending a ton of money on lobbying can change perception of reality, it can muddy the waters and where possible drown out the science. So no, it is not a false analogy.

            Are you familiar with Clair Cameron Patterson, a scientist who was persecuted by the oil industry? The man was a hero.

            Show me the money. Where are all the big yachts belonging to the climate scientists?
            It is obvious where the money is. That is why Russia is strengthening their presence in the arctic.

          • Ged

            Yes, the money… Where has the 1 billion dollars the US has already sent to the UN Green Fund gone? All the millions spent on lobbying in 2009 and 2010 alone? http://dailycaller.com/2011/04/01/environmental-groups-have-spent-major-green-since-2009-on-advertising-lobbying-and-political-causes/

            Where did the 27 million go spent in 2008 by Pacific Gas and Electric, the greenist utility in the US which openly supported Cap and Trade? How much money has Al Gore made on his Climate activities (this one I’ll let you look up as it is quite an eye opener)?

            But your own argument should be instructive to you. Despite all the attempts to mess with the perception of reality, the tobacco instustry lost out to observations all the same. No amount of trying to mess with perceptions means anything in the end, and that is an important lesson for you to take away from your statement.

            And who is being persecuted here? http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2016/06/29/persecuting-climate-skeptics-cover-up-continues.html and http://physicstoday.scitation.org/do/10.1063/PT.5.8139/full/ and https://www.wsj.com/articles/punishing-climate-change-skeptics-1458772173 and http://m.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/apr/20/has-von-spakovsky-prosecuting-climate-change-denie/ for a wide spread of coverage of recent events. I haven’t seen any persecution except of the “skeptics”.

            Meanwhile, in 100 years the world has warmed only 1 C according to four major surface temperature datasets, which the satellite sets that started in the 1970s (UAH and RSS) showing even less warming of the atmosphere–and this is in line with warming from CO2 doubling with no feedbacks. http://images.gawker.com/mxkrafzn5p2jzxg3xawi/c_scale,fl_progressive,q_80,w_800.png Nothing remotely like AGW requires or claims. With the last 20 years before last year’s El Nino being flat in global temp change.

        • Buck


          There is a fundamental tragic quality to this path. Your comments below about those who argue with disjointed points against the premise of man’s responsibility for his impact on climate points to a pathology.

          The following TedTalk by Iain McGilchrist argues convincingly on the dangers of be caught by the powers of one’s rational mind when it is cut-off from one’s holistic, integrated mind. McGilchrist brings science into an age old challenge of the human condition. It is much easier to watch the 12 min video before tackling the +500 page small print book.

          LINK>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dFs9WO2B8uI

          • radvar

            Thanks. I’d say that’s the bottom line on all this.

          • radvar

            And I did listen to it in detail and it is excellent and indeed provides a framework that explains the compulsive rationalizing of the AGW opponents about outlier details and their refusal to consider the context.

            And I notice that no-one else has taken the time.

            The video has a reference to “hall of mirrors”, which pretty much sums it up.

          • Buck

            I am glad you enjoyed the TedTalk.

            I have found it to be fundamentally profound when one takes the challenge of actively understanding the implications . . . for example the difference between Objective and Subjective Truth and how this evolutionary aspect of Mind arguably is the foundation of Existential philosophy . . . or the false choice between Science or Spirituality as a guide to a mindfully balanced life.

            Note: sorry for the delayed response . . . I have only just seen your reply.

        • Jimr

          We all know tobacco is not good but could you give me a reference that shows hundreds of millions ( thats at least 200 million) have died from its use.

  • georgehants

    A whole page of comments on GW going nowhere.
    It is claimed for seven years that the answer is sitting in a container, feeding one man’s ego and desire for obscene riches.
    How about a few people wake-up and demand that a device that could solve man-made GW, if it exists, plus much else is released now.
    But no lets just keep talking

    • Mike Rion

      There is no man-made GW to solve. But I would still welcome the arrival of LENR for many other reasons.

      • georgehants

        Mike, according to Rossi Cold Fusion is already here but crazy capitalists are happy for it to be hidden forever, just for insane profit rather than fair reward.
        Or is the situation not enough to prove the system is Crazy

        • greggoble

          I reflect on the Lugano test… By disclosing the composition of the fuel before/after the testing of his device; Rossi has opened the door to successful replication… quote “LENR/Cold Fusion is already here.”

          A more detailed disclosure, for example excitation method and control method, would have been a boon. Yet for one skilled in the art, these issues are sure to be, or have been, resolved.

          I believe that successful replication has been achieved by both corporate and military, technologically advanced and well funded, laboratories. Only time will tell whether this speculation bears relevant truth.

          Profit is a strong motivator, both positive as well as negative attributes may be considered, not entirely dismissed as unworthy. In fact the profit motive may be one of the strongest things going here, ensuring that LENR energy and technological development is now gaining a fast track, by multiple entities, many unseen, in the race to market.

          The Lugano test has set into motion events that force Rossi’s next steps… or Rossi initiated the test and decided on fuel disclosure in order to force/enable the next steps in the “race to market” LENR energy technologies.

          I lean towards the latter scenario… either way it’s in motion.

          • georgehants

            Fair and sensible monetary reward is still enough to motivate most I think.
            And capitalism hides the genuine natural altruistic nature in most people.

          • greggoble

            …then there is also senseless greed and hoarding fueled by unreasonable fears…

        • Mike Rion

          This system is crazy. Any idea how to make it saner? Even if LENR is ready to be released and developed to its fullest it will not have the effect on society that most here seem to thing it will.

          • Omega Z

            It’s not a little black box.
            It’s a genie in a lamp. Right?

  • Omega Z

    I want to call UNFAIR.

    Japan has rigged the game. By doing practically nothing at all, Japan will reduce their carbon foot print by about 40% by 2060. Their population of around 128M will decline to about 80M. By 2100, it may drop to about 40M. That includes the Government providing financial incentives to have “MORE” children. Several other countries are also providing financial incentives to kick start population replacement numbers to avert deep a population decline. If not for immigration both legal and illegal, the U.S. would also be in population decline or about to be..

    • Mike Rion

      And that would be a bad thing?

      • Omega Z

        “population decline”

        That would be a good thing. I’d like to see it at about half where we are today. Technologically, I think that number would be sustainable with a near if not total elimination of poverty in the world.

        Most of the world is fast approaching the peak and then decline point. Africa is the major outlier that the world needs to focus on and help completing the turn around. If not cause and effect, there’s a definate correlation with uncontrolled population growth and poverty. Improved standards of living equal lower birthrates.

        Some selfishness appears to be involved and,(contradictions)

        When discussing how many kids one has, it goes something like this. I can enjoy taking my 2 kids to Disneyland. If I have more then that, I need a vacation from my vacation. Thus, most couples eliminate the possibility of having more kids immediately after and sometimes during the 2nd delivery. Affordability also plays a roll(also a selfishness factor). To many kids restrict what things the can enjoy in life.

        In China, Affordability always makes the list. (Also a contradiction) We can’t afford more kids. They couldn’t afford them before their standards of living improved, but then they didn’t have anything else to look forward to either.

        • Ged

          Technology induces population decline. It is happening to all tech advanced countries, including the indigenous US population. Immigration from non-tech advanced countries is the only source of new population. Even China is heading into decline as they grow more advanced, causing them to abandon the One Child policy. And meanwhile Russia’s decline has pushed their government to try to pay people to have kids, and it isn’t working.

          If you look at the broader, ubiquitous trends, it should lead you down a very different, and unsettling road. The Earth isn’t remotely near full, as we could reasonably stuff the entire population of the planet in Oklahoma at the US’s standard of living; and it is now getting less full across the board except by low tech countries whose populations are starting to suplant the high tech countries.

          By the way, the US by itself produces so much excess food that we could end World Hunger. But we don’t–we waste it and trash it instead. Hunger, poverty, these things have always existed even when the human population was in the millions, and always will exist no matter our population, for they have nothing to do with population and everything to do with economic structure and classism.

          • cashmemorz

            Then everyone who is feeling out of sorts, for unrelated reasons, would say, as many did in communist countries, “Everything is grey(the same)so we should allow freedom to do what we(the criticizers) want.” But if everyones needs are filled, what more would one want? This is what the criticizers want: to be better than the other guy, is all. So round and round we go, one up manship and keeping up with the Joneses. That seems to be what its all about. To show that I am better than you. School yard kids attitude. And that is what characterizes the whole psychi of us peoples.

          • Ged

            It all depends then on what metric the culture views as marking someone as “better”. In gaming culture, as an example, they couldn’t care less about house or car, but about how well they can beat each other in their favored games. Culture has the dominant role in this once base needs are met. And of course, winners must have some sort of spoils to differentiate their success over those who lost.

  • Steve Savage
  • Steve Savage

    10,000,000 Years Carbon in the atmosphere remained stable …In past 100 years it has risen by ??%


  • Steve Bannister


    Hello Frank. Leaving Rossi’s thoughts on anthropogenic climate change aside for the moment,
    here is what I know as it is one of my research areas. The graph is the MOST optimistic forecast of CO2 emissions through the end of the century from my models.

    My models are different than those commonly used in the Integrated Assessment Models in that it uses a structural approach, essentially focusing on forecasting the (somewhat independent) trends of the major drivers of carbon emissions: population, living standards, energy intensity, and carbon intensity. These encompass essentially everything in the system, do so in a fundamental way, and therefore all trends are in the data and exploited by the model. The IAMs usually model the economic side of the model using micro (individual agent) based models, which in my strong opinion as an economist have no chance of modeling correctly in long time frames.

    When driving the model with the UN low population forecast, the most optimistic (and I believe on other evidence, the closest to reality) forecast, this graph shows the output. The news is
    mixed: CO2 emissions will peak around mid-century and that is very good news. However, the climate change that my atmospheric science colleagues believe will happen even on this
    optimistic level of emissions means we will all fry.

    This research is the fundamental reason I am so interested in Rossi’s technology, and the other
    technologies you are aware of. A rapid transition to zero carbon energy sources eliminates that
    factor from the model, and we will be able to “spend” as much energy as we choose and
    still live, in fact increasingly well.

    • Ged

      We will not all fry. All the temperature datasets, every single one from UAH to GISS, show we are ranging somewhere between 1.2 to 1.6 C per century depending on year ranges. Anyone can go check the trend themselves, and this is how it has been for over 20 years.

      There are several important details to think about:

      1. The Earth has been MUCH hotter than today, and in those eras life flourished in amount, diversity, and organism size across the globe far more than today as the biosphere was far more productive in those conditions. Even the recent Holocene Optimum was considerably warmer than today. The planet is constantly changing temp and life is constantly adjusting. Plenty of Viking settlements are still buried in Greenland glaciers, and you can’t farm there today like you could in their era.

      2. A 2 C per century temp growth was originally viewed as the important metric for Global Warming to pass to be any danger at all. Since we are far below that, the mainstream has dropped talking about that inconvenient truth. This is also why they changed from using “Global Warming” to “Climate Change” as we are observed to be well below any catastrophic or even dangerous rate. Life has no problems with the current pace.

      3. The rate of temperature increase from DOUBLING CO2 concentrations is 1.1 C, if there are no feedbacks of any sort. Catastrophic global warming requires there be very strong Positive feedbacks that jump the rate to 4 C. But those have not manifested over decades of CO2 growth. And last eat evidence from Top of the Atmosphere energy balance monitoring has shown clouds produce a negative feedback.

      Again note, the 1.1 C is for a doubling of CO2. Going from 200 ppm to 400 ppm should increase the world by 1.1 C without feebacks, and oddly enough this is about what we have seen. But to increase another 1.1 C requires CO2 to go from 400 ppm to 800 ppm. And another 1.1 C will require 800 ppm going to 1600 ppm. CO2’s effect is logorithmic, not exponential.

      4. Building on 3, most climate models are designed with our Human assumptions that there are enormous yet to be identified positive feedbacks. The models are just computer programs we design with our biases and assumption shortcuts baked in, since we know very little about how planetary climate works over the long run. They are in no way telling the future, but just testing out assumptions in mathematical models. Nothing says they are remotely close to reality–and in fact their failure to predict the pause in global warming displays both how little we know and how unreliable they are because of that lack in knowledge.

      5. Using those same climate models, the Paris Accord would at most reduce the expected (by model) warming by only 0.17 C by 2100 if the NON-BINDING accord was perfectly implemented by everyone for an additional 70 years compared to its 2030 expiration http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1758-5899.12295/full In short, it was meaningless beyond the fact the US would be giving away 100 Billion tax player dollars a year for it to accomplish… nothing.

      • radvar

        Paris was a start. Heads in the sand will be the first to be innundated.

        • Ged

          It wasn’t a start. It did nothing but lull people into a false virtue signaling idea they were doing something and this absolved, even when they -weren’t- actually doing anything meaningful (except strip wealth out of the US). It did more harm than good, and was non binding so no one had to follow it anyways. Just a way to trick the US to jump off a cliff by using the strength of Americans as a weakness against them: their altruism.

          • radvar

            “It did nothing but”

            Who has dumped the most CO2 into the atmosphere to date?
            But, since we don’t care about the future, why care about the past?

            Mind closed = case closed.

          • Ged

            0.05 C difference by 2100 for the treaty as written as predicted by some of the highest sensitivity climate models (which greatly over estimate compared to actual observations) is nothing. It is not a practical difference in any way shape or form. Do you think it is? But it makes people pretend and feel good about themselves so they don’t actually do anything–just look at Russia, China and India.

            That is the science. If you wish to not listen to the data, then that is a closed mind.

          • radvar

            You’re conflating your critique of the treaty with your critique of the science. Nice work. You have already established your position that you believe science is corrupt, so any interpretation you offer is suspect.

            There are many posts in this topic that offer refutations of the anti-AGW position. Please go dismantle them point by point, without impugning the scientists behind them, and then you’ll have restored some credibility.

          • Ged

            You are the one who tried to insinuate science was corrupt using the tobacco industry above. Take a look if you forgot 😉 http://www.e-catworld.com/2017/06/02/lenr-and-the-climate-debate/#comment-3340726500 Seems you need to have some words with yourself! I reflected your own insinuations back against you, so don’t complain when you face your own arguments, you are just seeing your true self in the mirror–and it sounds like you don’t like what you see.

            You continue to ignore all the data and the point by point I already gave above. You also dodged away from my refutation of your comment above about how the Paris Accord did nothing practical in any way for climate, but hurt the US for no gain. You also radically and completely edited your post http://www.e-catworld.com/2017/06/02/lenr-and-the-climate-debate/#comment-3340743939 several times so my reply no longer has its original context, which is not very honest unfortunately.

            And to answer your current edit of your post about who has put the most CO2 in the air, the answer is China http://johnley.us/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/China-emissions-in-climate-change-vs-US-Europe.gif and longer view https://libraryeuroparl.files.wordpress.com/2015/11/screen-shot-2015-11-27-at-12-12-17.png?w=750

            And how much has China given to the UN Green Fund to which the US has given 1 billion dollars already? 0 dollars. But then, where does that money even go?

      • Andreas Moraitis

        Certainly, there has been abundant life on earth at very different CO2 levels and temperatures. The problem is that if climate changes quickly we will not have much time to adapt. Even if we could cope with the higher temperatures, the rising sea levels would affect large parts of the worldwide population.

        Your value of 1.1C for the last hundred years may be correct, but I doubt that you could simply extrapolate from it. The number of variables is too high, and the relationships between them are complex. I agree that computer models are problematic – but what alternative method would you propose, given that we cannot capture data from the future?

    • AdrianAshfield

      I don’t doubt your models say what you quote, but there are a few things you have left out.

      1. The climate sensitivity is < half what the IPCC claims.
      2. The sun is going to sleep and more are starting for forecast it will get cooler starting in the 2020s.
      3. If not LENR some other nuclear power systems will be used. 20 nuclear power plants have gone on line in the last two years

  • radvar

    What is the cost of AGW opponents attacking science in general as a way of making their case against AGW?

    All’s fair in power games, right?

    Who cares about grandchildren thinking science is bunk?

    I’m sure the job creators and elected representatives of the people can do a better job of telling people what is real and what is fake news.

    • Ged

      Except that isn’t the case. Most AGW is bad science or not science at all. Computer programs can’t tell you anything except how your assumptions play out in the equations you invent. Real world data directly contradicts most of AGW, yet some proponants are so anti-science they refuse to evaluate observational data and would rather change observations to match their computer programs. They refuse to acknowlwdge the entire field of geology which has shown us nothing is special about the temps of today or tomorrow as the world has been fine with far far more CO2. They use inaccurate mathematical tricks to try to bolster alarmism, corrupting the process of science with dishonesty.

      As far as I see, AWG has done more harm to the field of science than most anything else in modern times, by depriving science of its method and politicising computer games instead.

      • radvar

        “Most AGW is bad science or not science at all.”
        Obviously your conclusions follow from that assumption.
        But your assumption is based on impugning science in the most broad and general way.
        It’s called tautology.

        • Ged

          Really? How are the observational temperature trends which do not match the A part of GW an asumption? They are the science, all must be derived from them. The models are assumptions, assuming massive positive feedbacks which have not occurred at all; not in our observational time since the 1800s, nor in geological time.

          • radvar

            Really? Your point of view is based on the assumption that very large numbers of scientists and scientific organization are wrong, and you have used the word “payoff”, so your motive for your point of view is exposed. Lots of objectivity at work there.

          • Ged

            That was to toss your own example’s insinuations right back to you, a mirror of your argument :). If you think spending lots of money is nefarious, then are you not being hypocritical when you fail to call out the grants and lobbying done by the green NGOs specifically to further their cause?

            Observations are what they are. Anyone, no matter who they are or how many they are, who try to build hypothesis and policies contrary to observations are wrong, by definition. Do you see a 2 C per century rise as is needed for the bare minimum to support their models, let alone a 4 C per century rise as needed to justify alarmism? According to NOAA, the warming rate since 1880 when measurements began is 1.1 C per century, which is exactly the rate doubling CO2 is supposed to give, without any feedbacks.

          • radvar

            This has actually been a big help to me. Because all the arguments of anti-AGW boil down to impugning the scientists. Which you again did with your comment about the NGOs (to which I can only say, well, they were not getting the money from the job creators and elected representatives of the people.)

            I actually happen to believe in science, the practice of science, the community of scientists, and the scientific establishment. Yes, there are frauds and bozos and conservatives and reactionaries and political maneuvers and desperate people seeking funding and reputation. So what? It’s many times better than almost every other social grouping on the planet. And guess what? They are actually trying to find out what is real! Amazing! That’s actually something that’s kind of helpful!

            Plus, we’re stuck with it. Science has made it possible to overpopulate the planet instead of having massive die-offs from the Four Horseman, so now science is the only way to deal with all these extra people and whatever they happen to spew into the environment in the course of exercising their personal liberties.

            The question of climate change is big enough to have attracted a lot of attention from “science” and science says AGW is real. And because I believe in science, and I’ve looked at the overall claims and graphs and arguments and counter-arguments, I believe what science says in this case. That’s the point about science. When it says something is real, it has had to convince a very large number of very smart people, and has worked very hard against very strong opposition by very smart people to get to that position.

            I would prefer to rely on them than what I read here.

            Now you can say there are so many holes in my reasoning, however, you have not been able to say it in a way that doesn’t rest on the proposition that with respect to AGW, science is corrupt or stupid or delusional. And if you say that, then because climate science is so large a topic, you’re saying that a large part of science is corrupt or stupid or delusional.

            I just don’t believe that’s possible. Science is too big, too serious and too interconnected. It just doesn’t compute. The probabilistic modeling of a network of causation that would allow that to be true produces a null set of instances. That’s how I see it.

            Apparently you don’t.

            That’s where it ends for me.

            As I said, this has been helpful, because I got the bottom of it. Most anti-AGW positions rest on anti-science positions.

            I chosen which side I’m on.

            Apparently you have too.

          • Ged

            NGOs are not scientists. The acronym is Non-Governmental Organisation. They lobby for a variety of things and provide grants for what research they want. But for a grant to be given one has to make a proposal in line with their States objectives. We scientists do not get to study whatever we want, and grant funding agencies can choose to not fund anyone if they don’t think the results are in line with their objectives. This is the normal state of things in all fields.

            And how were they not getting funds from the government? We are awash with grant funds for climate change research from the US federal government. 18 agencies spent an estimated 77 billion dollars on these issues from 2008 to 2013 https://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2017-03-15/cutting-climate-spending-made-harder-by-obama-s-budget-tactics . With 100 billion being the estimate for how much money is being given to scientists and organisiations for climate change.

            So no, don’t try to pretend the subject is under funded as that is patently false.

            Also, you keep speaking that you are “on the side of science”, yet you present no science and no defense against the actual observations. You simply try to say you are morally superior and by claiming moral superiority you must be right. Well, take a look at the four main surface temperature observations datasets http://images.gawker.com/mxkrafzn5p2jzxg3xawi/c_scale,fl_progressive,q_80,w_800.png

            Notice something? In 100 years of near doubling CO2, temps have increased by merely 1 C. The rate through today is about 1.1 C per century. This is far below the 2 C minimum for AGW, and is in line with the physics of the 1.1 C increase a doubling of CO2 concentration should cause in in the absence of any major feedbacks (major positive feedbacks seen required for AGW alarmism). So, the observations both modern and geological strongly stand against AGW. Geological: http://i48.tinypic.com/2hoi4p2.jpg and a bit nicer and more expanded to show recent geological time though missing the scales of the former https://media.licdn.com/mpr/mpr/shrinknp_800_800/p/1/005/086/30a/30e0716.jpg and the recent era ice cores for the ice age-interglacial cycles we have been in https://www.tececo.com/images/graphics/climate%20change/GlobalTemperatureCO2CorrelationHansen.gif

            Do you know what you’re trying to stand for, or are you on a band wagon simply because people claim is appeals to your “virtue” or “morals”? The actual scientists are working with the actual data and observations; the polticising folks take computer sims, ignore all actual data, and run with it.

            I stand with the observations and actual data, with whom do you truly stand?

          • Alan DeAngelis

            Holy smokes, look at this! H2O absorbs infrared radiation too. Maybe we should get rid of water as well.


          • radvar

            I’ve made my point quite clearly. I believe in science.
            You ignore the scientific consensus and cherry pick the data that fits your belief.
            Then you say there is no scientific consensus, or that science is corrupt, stupid or delusional.
            I disagree.
            You say prove it, and if I don’t you win.

            Why are you bothering to argue with me? Who are you trying to convince? Why is it so aggravating that one stranger on the internet could cause you to be so energized about this?

            I believe your behavior is explained by this video:
            I believe you are trapped in that behavior.
            I believe you would be happier if you could escape that behavior.
            I recommend that you watch the video.

          • Steve Savage

            Thank you for this strong rebuttal, Very well reasoned and well said !

          • Chapman

            “And if you say that, then because climate science is so large a topic, you’re saying that a large part of science is corrupt or stupid or delusional.”

            Radvar, READ MY LIPS:
            YES!!! A large part of science is corrupt or stupid or delusional.

            I think we MIGHT be making progress here…

          • radvar

            Your read it here first, folks.

          • Chapman

            They have read MUCH here lately…

  • sam

    LENR & Cold Fusion News

  • Chapman

    Not only is mine funnier, but if you look real close you will see what really
    matters… That’s right, mine IS bigger than yours…

    Just sayin’.

    • Omega Z

      Hey, Keep it clean. 🙂

      • Chapman

        oops… My Bad.

        (but you know as well as I that the low hanging fruit is the tastiest, and most satisfying)

  • malkom700

    The Daily Mail (U.K.) published an article with a title that read in part, “Nikki Haley claims Trump DOES believe in climate change.”
    In this case, the only effective action is to support LENR technology and remove potential legal obstacles.

  • Mike Rion

    Never heard anything so ridiculous!

    • orsobubu

      Marx used to say that the explanation of reality is often paradoxical, just as paradoxical is the fact that water is composed of two extremely flammable substances

      • Omega Z

        Marx was a lazy laggard who leeched off others. His theory was his attempt of justifying his lazy way of life living off others labors. Was was just a lazy bum.

  • Satyavan

    Don’t know what went wrong with the you tube channel but go to YT and type adapt 2030 that is the channel I meant.

    • cashmemorz

      That works fo me.

  • cashmemorz

    Where are my last two comments I had with Chapman over the last two days? Also Chapman’s comments to me? I answered Chapman’s comments from my email but when I log in directly to this site without linking via email it the comments are not displayed. Are they in adjudication by Frank et al?

  • radvar

    The “just SHOW ME” is equivalent “you didn’t do all the work to disprove me, so I’m right”.

    Very logical.

    All I ask is that your consider watch the video from Buck, below.

  • Chapman

    The link is dead.

    Here is an active link:

    • Andreas Moraitis

      Nobody says that the CO2 by itself is harmful, and nobody doubts its benefit for plants. Therefore, this part of your comment is pointless. Regarding the rest, the data you mention show exactly the opposite of what you claim. Besides, the effect of atmospheric CO2 is explainable by physical laws. It is not only an assumption based on the correlation of data sets.

  • Chapman

    I have seen many presentations regarding the AGW hoax. But I had MISSED this one.

    I do not spend my days searching out AGW-busting data, because I determined it was fake long ago, and it really does not concern me what other people think, unless they are trying to rope me into PAYING for their insanity, at which time I do get just a little pissey…

    Anyway, this is a GREAT video!!! I knew all these facts individually. There is no new DATA here. All the facts stated ARE either indisputable facts, or part of the historical record, which only the truly bent would attempt to deny. But this video is such a well paced presentation OF those facts, and ties all the diverse aspects together so clearly, that I do believe it is the BEST of its genre that I have seen.

    Thank you VERY much for bringing it up. You really did us ALL a big favor by doing so.

  • Chapman

    Now I understand.

    Having watched the entire video, and then reading the attached notes, I see that this video is a compilation drawn from multiple video sources.

    The Artistry in this video is due to the way the editor spliced the segments together, into a smooth flow of concepts and facts. It is an improvement over any of the individual ORIGINALS, in that takes the best and lines it all up as it should have been.

    Well done.

    And I am looking around your channel. You have made me curious about your other topics of concern.

    Thank you, Mr. Calder.

  • Andreas Moraitis

    Of course, „It’s the sun“! Greenhouse gases do not generate heat. But they influence the IR reflectance of the atmosphere, and thus prevent the heat from escaping into space.

    In the early 1970’s, there was apparently indeed a phase where ocean temperatures decreased, while surface temperatures remained more or less stable. I do not know how this phenomenon has been explained. Anyway, our global climate system is complex, and its components influence each other in a nontrivial way. Therefore, one should not expect to see a perfectly synchronous course of the CO2 level (or other relevant factors) and temperatures. There might be delays for one or another reason.

    “Global temperature” is a somewhat ambiguous term. Depending on the method of calculation you will get different results from the same data. Maybe that’s why your statistics shows, in contrast to others, no temperature increase for the last two decades.

  • cashmemorz

    It will take months to read through the GUTCP in a coherent way, to make sure I not only understand what Mills writes but where each point comes from how it is developed, if it is developed logically, historically accurate, and potentially true to nature as it is observed regarding each point. The universities giving lectures I assume have done just that before putting their logo on the line for an otherwise potential fraud. There are frauds out there that are built up by large business organizations to make their actions look legitimate. For instance malware that attacks computers via their BIOS. I have put on order a computer that has every chip scrutinized for potential flaws that can be utilized by such large hacker organizations. Purism is the builder and supplier of the computers. Very costly but I value my privacy. You get what you pay for. Until I get that I am using a $400 laptop that has twenty different antimarware apps to protect it. The chief among them is malware bytes, comodo, registry first aid, free windows registrey repair, iobit malware fighter, advanced systemcare, firmware updates from chip manufacturers and I still get hacked. Backups help a lot.

    For now here are a few sites showing university lectures re Mills’ GUTCP:



    • Chapman

      I have flagged the Mills video for my evenings viewing. Thank you for the link.

      In regards to Infinite Energy, I must confess that it is a site that I avoid. Much of the content is quality stuff, but I can not get over my own childish grudge against Jeb for his nonsense. I Know it is a matter of cutting off my nose to spite my face, but the man just irks the daylights out of me.

      BUT, as it is a resource you recommend for following the topic, and in so far as I could not hope to have logical discussions with you on the topic if I were to refuse to review the very information that you point out AT MY OWN REQUEST, than I guess I must be a man, swallow my pride, hold my nose, and follow your lead.

      Thank you for taking the time to lay out the path for me. 🙂
      Much appreciated.

      (I just hope Jeb has not spiked his site with Anti-Chapman Malware landmines!!!)

      • cashmemorz

        Just do as those who are nervous when giving a speech for the first time before a large audience of strangers. Pretend they are all naked. This gives you a one up over them. Same with the website. They don’t really know you from Adam. Those guys may be so below you in quality it doesn’t really matter. The web is anonymous. Until you give someone a postal or email address. In other words keep your own council and don’t be sensitive to unknown strangers who likewise do not really know you.

        • Chapman

          HA!!! Good advice.
          Will do.

          • malkom700

            Today’s policy takes place between two equal poles in the world, between the socialist and the conservative. Hitler and Stalin were the same extremes, otherwise Hitler was the most dangerous for race theory. One of the leading parties in today’s Germany is the Social Democratic Party. A distinction should also be made between North American and European plitic systems.

      • To go beyond the eternal debate on climate, I propose you read that artucle about predicting hurican energy in the atlantic


        Conclusion by Judith Curry, a seasoned (joke) climatologist having worked (and frauded, she admit) for the IPCC for many years is interesting :

        “Apart from the intrinsic interest in the Atlantic seasonal hurricane forecast, CFAN’s forecast is an interesting example of the sociology of private sector research and how it differs from academic research.

        If you are paying close attention, you will see that I do not provide sufficient information for this forecast to be reproduced. While reproducibility is the mantra (if not the norm) in academic research, in the private sector there are big counter incentives to giving away your ‘trade secrets’.

        Underlying this forecast model is some very significant research into climate dynamics. Will it slow down academic research progress not to make the details of this research public? Maybe, but I’m not too worried about it since academic research is focused on other things.

        Developing this forecast cost CFAN about $40K in salaries and overhead. CFAN has one client that is partially supporting this research and forecast product. In general, CFAN’s research is funded by the occasional government grant, client contracts, and overhead. More funding is needed for our hurricane climate dynamics research to continue and for regular seasonal hurricane forecasts to be sustainable. Sponsoring subscribers to the hurricane forecasts will receive full technical reports. We shall see how this funding model works.

        So this is a very different model for climate research. With President Trump’s funding priorities and cuts, not to mention the endemic group think in academic climate research, this may turn out to be a good path to follow. Time will tell.”

        Solution is in the free market, provided :
        – they are not subsidized
        – they don’t have any fashionista/state as client
        – their clients pay for the errors

  • Omega Z

    “that supplies barely 5% of U.S. transportation”

    If you replace that 5% with oil, you would see $110 oil as demand would outstrip supply. The Saudi’s would love that..

    • If we ban biofuels, the cost of fertilizer, farmland, and food will go down all over the world, which will increase our standard of living . The cost of fossil fuels will not rise because we use so much oil and natural gas to farm, process, and transport biofuel crops they are highly energy inefficient. The biofuel scam is corporate welfare driven by farm belt greed. 99% of the human race is hurt by biofuel production and 1 % makes money on biofuels. You pay for biofuels at the pump and again at the supermarket; you increase water pollution, deforestation, and engine repair bills, and future generations may starve right here in the USA when all our topsoil is gone. Over half of our prime Midwest topsoil is already lost to erosion, and worldwide topsoil is being lost 10 times faster than it is being replaced by nature. Making cars and trucks our competitors for food caused the world food crisis during the Bush and Obama administrations, which has already killed millions worldwide through malnutrition, and is still ongoing. Malnutrition is the #1 cause of avoidable premature death and the #1 cause of mental retardation in children. Watch *The Global Biofuel Disaster* at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ha7lUWlZaOY

  • Chapman

    Prey tell, what do you think “Fascist” means?

    I do not ask that with any sarcasm, but the left tends to play Orwellian Double-Speak games and tries to redefine what WORDS actually mean (and YES, words DO actually MEAN things), and as a result even learned men are often subject to confusion regarding the actual definition of some terms.

  • Andreas Moraitis

    A friendly advice: By posting insults instead of arguments you will reach the opposite of what you might intend.

    I remember that cold winter, too, but I do not think that it was relevant on a longer scale. There will always be lows and highs, sometimes even extremes. What counts is the overall balance. Do you recall MFMP’s last experiment? Some readers here and elsewhere have been excited about the “instant COP”, or even its short term running average, although it was totally irrelevant (except maybe for system diagnostics). My impression is that many critics of GW are making the same mistake. This applies as well to a number of GW proponents. But I doubt that you would find any serious scientist amongst these groups.

This site uses cookies. By continuing to browse the site you are agreeing to our use of cookies.