The peril is that countries such as the USA will throttle their economies by making energy too expensive. The end result is that millions will find their standard of living much reduced for a cause that is beyond mankind's control. The wealthy people of the world will not suffer too severely, but the poor are going to take a beating as is generally the case.
Also, it will be a bad day if and when the world's energy supplies become regulated by one central authority. The opportunity for abuse is astounding! If LENR ever proves itself to be the new energy source we are hoping for, then the problem will be solved without any corrupt intervention. I have great hopes for Rossi, but until we have proof I remain a bit skeptical. My thermal models suggest that what he says is true provided his fuel actually delivers the required watts per kilogram for an extended time period. Dave -----Original Message----- From: Ransom Wuller <rwul...@freeark.com> To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com> Sent: Wed, Dec 2, 2015 4:11 pm Subject: RE: [Vo]:Story on climate crisis would need some comments David: You said: “No one should assume that the guys making the global climate computer models are great experts, which is what is happening at the world's peril.” What PERIL? Ransom From: David Roberson [mailto:dlrober...@aol.com] Sent: Wednesday, December 02, 2015 2:58 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:Story on climate crisis would need some comments The YouTube reference is dead on! Jed, you can research the global warming discussion and become more informed. No one should assume that the guys making the global climate computer models are great experts, which is what is happening at the world's peril. If you take the time to look into the subject, you will see that those models have all missed the real world tests by a rather large margin and need to be modified every couple of years. Why do you suppose this is true? A person can argue that only the high priests of climate have the answers, much like you are saying, but when they fail to make correct predictions it is time to question them. Every one of their models predicts that the earth should be hotter than it actually is measured to be after a modest period of time elapses. Of course, a new correction factor is then established which keeps them functioning a bit longer, but only for a short time into the future. Anyone familiar with curve fitting can readily see what they are achieving by this technique. It is tragic that anyone accepts that they are experts in anything but guessing the future climate! Dave -----Original Message----- From: Jed Rothwell <jedrothw...@gmail.com> To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com> Sent: Wed, Dec 2, 2015 3:18 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Story on climate crisis would need some comments Lennart Thornros <lenn...@thornros.com> wrote: Let us leave the dispute about organizations. I actually started to address the topic in the headline by saying: The debate about global warming is far from conclusive. I do not know the answer. You do not know the answer, but experts in climatology say they do know it. They are probably right. Non-experts from outside a field -- such as the plasma fusion scientists who attacked cold fusion -- are usually wrong. You probably know next to nothing about climatology, because it is a complex subject. Therefore you have no basis to judge whether these experts are right or wrong. I know nothing about climatology so I have no basis to judge either. But as I said, as a general rule mainstream experts in hard science who have devoted years to research are usually right, so I defer to them. I am sure that the comments by anti-global warming journalists are preposterous. I know enough about the subject to judge that. For example, they often say that we cannot even predict the weather 5 days ahead so how could anyone predict climate change decades from now. This is like saying that we cannot predict whether you will be alive tomorrow so how can anyone draw up actuarial tables for groups of people? It is presumptuous for anyone to assume they understand climatology better than climatologists, or cold fusion better than Fleischmann, Bockris or McKubre. Even in 1989 I found it infuriating when people such as George Chapline (Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory) and Morrison claimed that Fleischmann did not realize that highly loaded palladium hydrides release hydrogen when recombines at the surface, making the metal hot. It was used as a cigarette lighter in the 19th century. By the way, what I am saying NOT -- repeat not -- a Fallacious Appeal to Authority. That would only be the case if Fleischmann was not a leading expert on electrochemistry and calorimetry, and he unquestionably was. See: http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-authority.html Most people attacking cold fusion and climatology suffer from the Dunning-Kruger effect. Especially the idiots at Scientific American and Wikipedia. Here is an amusing short description of the Dunning-Kruger effect by John Cleese. (Cleese teaches at Cornell University which is how knows Prof. Dunning.) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kWX8pl9B1Hk - Jed
