date:20121204

What a piece of work you are.  Your mother must have really screwed you up 
raising you.  First, you initiate the insult and then call for a banning when 
those you insulted respond IN KIND.

I guess I'm fortunate you don't own this list.

Tell me exactly, what list rule have I violated deserving to be banned like you 
advocate; other than the fact that you do not like the truth of what I speak 
of.  Are you still dwelling on the "moon god worshippers" comment I made.  So, 
you want me banned for telling the truth that allah is a moon god of some arab 
tribe of muhammed?  Are you also going to ban me for saying muhammed had dozens 
of wives?  Hey, instead of just banning me, why don't you just issue a fatwah 
against me to have me killed, since I "insulted" both allah and muhammed?  Yes, 
I've insulted both of them by telling the truth about each of them.

Jojo


  - Original Message - 
  From: Daniel Rocha 
  To: John Milstone 
  Sent: Wednesday, December 05, 2012 10:02 AM
  Subject: Re: [Vo]:How bad is this news? Jed Rothwell


  I think it is more practical to just ban Jojo.



  2012/12/5 Daniel Rocha 

I'm sorry. This is rather annoying anyway since I'd have to keep a list of 
the enmities. 



2012/12/4 Abd ul-Rahman Lomax 

  At 11:48 AM 12/4/2012, Daniel Rocha wrote:

Oh, damn! I talk about a possible correlation between bible fanatics 
and AGW denial and guess who appears 1 minute later! HA!



  Daniel, did you really need to quote him? I've got the fellow in a kill 
file (i.e, filter) so I don't read his mail normally. I still see it sometimes 
on my iPhone if I check the mail there before running the filter in my desktop 
mail program. But here you reposted his entire post. I'd rather not filter 
*your* mail!




2012/12/4 Jojo Jaro <jth...@hotmail.com>

  [deleted] 






-- 
Daniel Rocha - RJ
danieldi...@gmail.com







  -- 
  Daniel Rocha - RJ
  danieldi...@gmail.com

Re: [Vo]:Bribing 2,000 climatologists

WOW... what an elaborate web of conspiracy you weave. Classic faulty
fallacious logic. First, you set up your conditions and then you proceed to
break it down and tell everyone - "See, this does not make sense." Hmmm... I
believe that's called a "Strawman Argument" and you are not very good at it.

First, you don't need to Bribe all of them. Just tell them you know where
their kids go to school and everyone will fall in line. I know I would. I
wouldn't risk the safety of my children for my work.

Second, how do you know they have not been bribed. You make certain
assumptions that they are not and then proceed to discredit your own
assumption. Classic faulty logic.

Third, you don't need to control all of them. Just control the people that
control the purse strings. Cut off their funding, grants and every threaten
their jobs. Most of them will fall in line. They do the same thing to
respected scientists who even mentions Intelligent Design. One respected
scientist was fired from the Smithsonian when he mentioned the name of a
prominent Intelligent Designer advocate. You don't think these kinds of
censorship and intimidation happen, ... think again. Boy, you are naive and
totally oblivious when it comes to your pet theories.

Jojo

- Original Message -
From: Jed Rothwell
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Wednesday, December 05, 2012 10:12 AM
Subject: [Vo]:Bribing 2,000 climatologists

Some people here think there may be a conspiracy of climatologists to
bamboozle the public. Alternatively, someone may have threatened these
researchers, bashing in their cars. People who take these hypotheses seriously
should give some thought to the practical ramifications. Such as --

How many people do you need to bribe? CNN polled 3,146 climate experts. 97%
agreed that global warming is real.

http://articles.cnn.com/2009-01-19/world/eco.globalwarmingsurvey_1_global-warming-climate-science-human-activity?_s=PM:WORLD

It would not do any good to bribe 10 of them, or 100. Scientists do not have
much influence on one another. The top 100 leaders in a field could not impose
fraudulent data on all of the others. Someone would spot it, and would use this
information to oust a top leader and take his place. They often fight for power.

So you need to bribe many. Perhaps not all. Let's say you bribe 2,000 and you
hope the others will go along because they don't want to be in the minority.
Scientists seldom worry about being in the minority, and they often pay no
attention to what other scientists say, so this is a risky proposition. You may
need to bribe 97% to pull this off, but let's say 2,000.

How much do you need to pay? These are middle class people who studied until
age 30 to enter the profession. They probably never did anything else, and they
are not qualified to do much else. If they are caught taking a bribe, they will
be fired and their lives will be ruined. They will spend the rest of their
lives working in fast food restaurants and living on food stamps. I suppose
they make an average middle class salary of $50,000. You can't bribe them for
$5,000 each. No one would risk ruin for that.

You can't give them $1 million each. Their colleagues and the IRS would
notice they live in huge houses and drive Ferraris to work. Also, that would
cost $2 billion. That is a heck of a lot of money to risk on scientists, who
are undependable at best, and who have little or no influence on society. Even
though these people have published hundreds of papers, Congress has done
nothing to address the problem. So the person spending $2 billion to bribe them
has so far earned nothing in return.

I suppose $200,000 would be a reasonable sum, paid over 10 years. That's $400
million. I wish someone would bribe the cold fusion researchers for that
amount! And me!!!

So you pay them. Many problems might arise --

You have to hope their bosses, their unbribed colleagues, new reporters,
bloggers and others never hear a word about this. No one notices these
researchers are suddenly flush, buying new cars and sending their kids to
private school. It means that every single person you approach agrees to be
bribed. Not one turns you in. Not one demands $400,000 instead of $200,000.
Some of these people may be independently wealthy, so this sum would not
impress them. Some may have high moral standards. You take a big risk that you
will get every last one of them to along. You can't say: "no payoff to anyone
unless you all agree."

It means they all stay bought. None of them reneges, or decides to turn you
in for the publicity, or to collect a huge reward from the people who think
climate change is a hoax.

RE: [Vo]:New Papp video

2012-12-04 Thread OrionWorks - Steven Vincent Johnson

Russ is entertaining. I wish him good luck.

Sounds like crowd funding has been helpful in his endeavors too.

Regards,
Steven Vincent Johnson
www.OrionWorks.com
www.zazzle.com/orionworks

Re: [Vo]:How bad is this news? Jed Rothwell

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-20543483

Ice melt has finally been properly measured.

The results show that the largest ice sheet - that of East Antarctica - has
gained mass over the study period of 1992-2011 as increased snowfall added
to its volume.

However, Greenland, West Antarctica and the Antarctic Peninsula were all
found to be losing mass - and on a scale that more than compensates for
East Antarctica's gain.

The study's headline conclusion is that the polar ice sheets have overall
contributed 11.1mm to sea level rise but with a "give or take" uncertainty
of 3.8mm - meaning the contribution could be as little as 7.3mm or as much
as 14.9mm.

Another author, Dr Hamish Pritchard of the British Antarctic Survey, said:
"The next big challenge - now that we've got quite a good understanding of
what's happened over the last 20 years - is to predict what will happen
over the next century.

"And that is going to be a tough challenge with difficult processes going
on in inside the glaciers and ice sheets."

Cheers:Axil

On Tue, Dec 4, 2012 at 11:13 PM, Eric Walker  wrote:

> How did this thread get so long so quickly?  I'm impressed. :)
>
> After all of that, did anyone's views on the topic change?  :)
>
> Eric
>
>

Re: [Vo]:How bad is this news? Jed Rothwell

2012-12-04 Thread Eric Walker

How did this thread get so long so quickly?  I'm impressed. :)

After all of that, did anyone's views on the topic change?  :)

Eric

Re: [Vo]:Climate Threats

This is un-effing-believable. An anonymous post is trumped up to supposedly 
show this great danger. Give me a break.

Sent from my iPhone

On Dec 4, 2012, at 5:59 PM, "Zell, Chris"  wrote:

> A lack of threats? That depends what side offers safety and acceptance.
>  
> http://www.climatedepot.com/a/1096/Execute-Skeptics-Shock-Call-To-Action-At-what-point-do-we-jail-or-execute-global-warming-deniers--Shouldnt-we-start-punishing-them-now
>  
> Should they be executed? Or just sent to jail?  Is this the scientific method 
> at work? 
>  
> Outside of Lysenko and the Soviet Union, I have never observed such repellant 
> behavior in my life.

Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:[Defkalion GT] "Το ΒΗΜΑ-science" article of December 2nd, 2012 (in English)

That is the conclusion that I have drawn as well Axil.  DGT apparently has 
decided that their reaction depends upon ionized hydrogen which is obtained by 
the spark gap.  Why they then believe that the bare proton captures an electron 
to become a Rydberg atom that then reacts is difficult to understand.  Even if 
it did enter an elongated ellipsoid pattern it is not possible to assign the 
location of the electron to an exact place near the proton for any finite 
period of time.  Quantum theory does not suggest that the electron is actually 
in some time domain orbit, but exists in the position near the proton as a 
probability function.

It would be easier for me to believe that the bare proton is accelerated by the 
positive gap voltage until it collides with some nickel powder.  This behavior 
would resemble hot fusion if enough energy were to be imparted, but 30 thousand 
electron volts would appear inadequate.  A strange thought occurred to me.  
What if the high speed raw proton induced an electron on the surface of the 
nickel powder to align directly into its path?  The changing electric field 
arising from the proton would tend to focus tighter and tighter as it reaches 
the nickel surface.  I am not sure of how quantum mechanics would treat such an 
aligned proton-electron pair, but perhaps there is a period of time during 
which they become extremely close due to mutual attraction.  The momentum of 
the proton would ensure that the pair continued forward into the nickel matrix 
since the pair would act in the manner of a neutron.  I can envision that the 
pair might collide with a nickel nucleus and fuse.

>From an external point of view this would very much appear like an electron 
>capture event and the energy released by the fusion would be more than enough 
>to supply that required for the process.

If such a process were possible, it would be extremely easy to control since a 
source of high speed protons is required.  DGT is generating these with the 
high voltage spark and the number released can be accurately controlled.

Dave

-Original Message-
From: Axil Axil 
To: vortex-l 
Sent: Tue, Dec 4, 2012 9:13 pm
Subject: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:[Defkalion GT] "Το ΒΗΜΑ-science" 
article of December 2nd, 2012 (in English)

Regarding this statement in the PDF file foundon the DGT website as follows:
“The third way was the one we found: to “make the mountain disappear" for a 
very short time." We succeeded by disguising protons in neutrons via 
stimulation of nickel in Rydberg form. In this form the trajectory of the 
electron is elongated elliptically, so that at its "perihelion" the system 
appears as a neutron and not as “the mountain in-between". Thereafter, we cause 
fusion by applying magnetic fields and pressure". 

Defkalion Green Technologies states that their Hyperion LENR reactor cores 
contain ordinary H2 hydrogen gas, nickel powder, and proprietary materials and 
structures to aid in the reaction. Simple resistance heating elements are 
turned on to excite the hydrogen gas. The naturally occurring H2 atoms are 
further excited by bursts of electrical discharges via a spark plug-like device 
which breaks the H2 into H1 gas and transforms H1 atoms into Rydberg State 
Hydrogen(RSH) atoms, which have very large, often elliptical electron (cloud) 
orbits. The excited RSH hydrogen atoms are then squeezed into the nickel atom 
latticework. 
"For a brief period of around 10 -13th second, each RSH proton is very close to 
its electron. Then the RSH nuclei is a masqueraded neutron. As a result, 
Coulomb forces between such nuclei are almost zero during this short time 
window." 
The resulting reaction releases gamma rays and light which are absorbed inside 
the reactor to produce heat.

To the best of my understanding, the orbit of the lone electron in the excited 
Rydberg State Hydrogen(RSH) atom becomes circular as the angular momentum of 
that electron is increased by its increasing excitation.
This orbital behavior of this lone excited hydrogen electron speaks against the 
hydrogen atom as a neutron like quasiparticle which is DGT claims to be that 
root cause of nickel hydrogen fusion.
I believe that DGT does not yet understand in detail what is happening inside 
their reaction.

Cheers:Axil

On Tue, Dec 4, 2012 at 4:39 PM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:

Abd ul-Rahman Lomax  wrote:

What if NiH heat is not nuclear at all? What if it's hydrinos? (Chemical, just 
an unexpected form of chemistry, though hydrinos *also* might catalyze fusion . 
. .

Okay that's possible I suppose. We could test that hypothesis if Mills would 
tell us what the upper limits of energy release is per mole of hydrogen. Years 
ago I asked him and got some confusing responses.

- Jed

[Vo]:133,000 sites and some of the site have 20,000 hits

2012-12-04 Thread fznidarsic

Kirvit said my work was irrelevant and would not even put me on his list.  Now 
let us see if he stopped me.


I have 137,000 sites caring just my videos. Linked below.


http://www.bing.com/search?q=Anti-Gravity+Physics+Explained&FORM=QSRE1



The site below is typical, it had 19,000 hits.   You have to use exponents to 
figure this out.  Ten to the fifth power sites time conservatively ten to the 
third power hits/ site.  I have had ten to the ninth power viewers.


http://www.musicvideos.com/watch-anti-gravity-cold-fusion-explained-in-detail-a-new-era-in-physics-pt-7-of/e3honOZwIbQ.html




I wonder if I will sell any books?


Frank Znidarsic

Re: [Vo]:Defkalion can measure these reactions?

The 2012 Nobel prize physics was awarded to the two workers who have
invented inovative measurement techniques for subatomic particles. This
type of quantum measurement research is the most difficult stuff one can do
in science and the most important.





See





2012 Nobel prize physics





http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/10/the-nobel-prize-physics-explained-simply_n_1955306.html





This quantum behavior of subatomic particles makes LENR a most difficult
subject to get our arms around both in terms of understanding and
engineering.





Cheers:axil

On Tue, Dec 4, 2012 at 9:42 PM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:

> The original thread title for this topic has gone bonkers.
>
> Axil Axil  quotes DGT:
>
>> "For a brief period of around 10 -13th second, each RSH proton is very
>> close to its electron. Then the RSH nuclei is a masqueraded neutron. As a
>> result, Coulomb forces between such nuclei are almost zero during this
>> short time window."
>>
> They have equipment that can detect these events?!? Their calorimeter
> seems crude. I do not see any nuclear physics equipment nearby that can
> measure reactions. I have seen various gadgets such as scintillation
> detectors at Hokkaido U., Osaka U. and elsewhere. I do not see any in the
> photos. Anyway, I do not think an ordinary detector works for
> reactions lasting 10E-13 seconds. Honestly, I have never seen such
> equipment and I do not know what it would look like. Something like this,
> perhaps?
>
> https://newsline.llnl.gov/articles/2008/mar/03.14.08_detector.php
>
> This is a serious question. Is there some indication DGT measured these
> reactions? How would you do that? I wouldn't know.
>
> If DGT has not actually measured these reactions, and confirmed them
> several times, I think it is unwise to talk about them. It is mere
> speculation, which serves no purpose. It makes them look bad.
>
> Cold fusion is based on experimental results at present. Until the
> experimental results, including fast nuclear reaction data, clearly point
> to a physics theory, I think experimentalists should avoid citing one
> theory or another. This is especially true of people who are trying to
> develop cold fusion into a business. It is okay for an academic scientist
> to speculate about theory with no actual experimental proof. Silly, but
> okay. But in business I think this would be considered unethical.
>
> Theorists such as Hagelstein or Widom and Larsen have nothing else to talk
> about but theory. So it is fine for them to speculate and build what may
> turn out to be castles in the air. That's their job.
>
> - Jed
>
>

RE: [Vo]:Defkalion can measure these reactions?

2012-12-04 Thread OrionWorks - Steven Vincent Johnson

What I'd like to know is how much actual substance is there to this DGT
report. At first glance none. Somebody... please correct me on this!

This article strikes me more as if it was a Discover Magazine gossip piece.
While fun to read, it doesn't seem to have proved anything.

Regards,
Steven Vincent Johnson
www.OrionWorks.com
www.zazzle.com/orionworks

Re: [Vo]:How bad is this news? Jed Rothwell


At 02:36 PM 12/4/2012, Jed Rothwell wrote:

Of course, what is required to be an expert is often a matter of 
great debate. . . ."


That last point is true, but not so much for hard science. There is 
a world of difference between someone who has done the work it takes 
to get a PhD versus an amateur. I have met some very stupid PhD 
scientists such as Nate Hoffman and David Lindley. They make 
elementary logical errors. However, their technical knowledge is 
miles above mine. I would never challenge their judgement regarding 
their expertise (mass spectroscopy in Hoffman's case). In my review 
of Hoffman's book, I criticized him because he thought Ontario Hydro 
sells used moderator water in bottles. I suspected this was wrong, 
and quickly confirmed this water is 100 million times too 
radioactive to sell. I criticized him because he lacked common sense 
and over the two years he was writing the book, he did not bother to 
do what any newspaper reporter would do in the first half-hour: call 
Ontario Hydro on the phone. That's stupid, but it has nothing to do 
with spectroscopy. It is not technical stupidity. It is ordinary, 
garden variety stupidity.


An expert outside his field is likely to be as prone to making 
errors is anyone else is.


Jed, your general argument is very true, but with Hoffman, you are 
stuck in an old error of yours. You did not understand what Hoffman 
was doing in that book, so you concluded error. In fact, he agreed 
with your position on the used moderator water.


The guy died some years back. I seriously recommend you simply give 
it up, or even better, recognize the error you fell into.


This is about chapter 3 in his book, Radon and Natural Radioactivity 
Artifacts. He is exploring, using his device of a dialogue between an 
Old Metallurgist (who may generally be assumed to represent Hoffman's 
views) and a Young Scientist, who is very firm in his views that cold 
fusion is impossible. The OM is dismantling this, but he does so with 
the reserve and caution of a scientist, giving full expression to 
"prosaic hypotheses" before ... skewering them.


There are many brilliant exchanges in the book. For example, on page 
32, we have:


YS: I can see that this field is no place for electrochemists to 
play amateur physicist.


OM: Later on, I'll explain why this field of research is no place 
for physicists to play amateur electrochemist


Anyway, OM is covering possibilities for radioactive contamination of 
cold fusion experiments. This entire debate is a red herring, in 
hindsight, because cold fusion produces *little* in the way of 
radiation, at least the kinds being considered. But the issue was 
very much alive when Hoffman was writing his book. Anyway, he writes this:


OM: ... There are strong indications that commercially sold heavy 
water may contain variable contents of used moderator water from 
either CANDU-type nuclear reactors or Savannah River-type weapons 
production reactors.


This is his offensive sentence, right, Jed?. It does not show that he 
"thinks" that "Ontario Hydro sells used moderator water in bottles." 
He explains why one might suspect some mixing in some commercial 
sources, but he does not propose -- at all -- that straight moderator 
water would be sold, by anyone, and for the very obvious reason.


He does have a reason for the suspicion, he gives it, but it really 
doesn't matter now. (It's what he reports as "enormous" variation in 
the tritium/deuterium ratio in "different batches of heavy water." 
Because he doesn't really believe that heavy water contamination is 
an issue, he doesn't even justify this statement.)


In fact, he's not seriously proposing that *any* such moderator water 
is *actually* being sold, even diluted as he does describe as a 
possibility. He is considering such contaminated heavy water as a 
theoretically possible source of artifact, as only a "slight 
possibility," and he certainly doesn't point a finger at Ontario Hydro.


He is, in a sense, raising a straw man argument. In the end, this is 
what he says:


YS: Don't all these possible sources of artifact neutrons convince 
you that the measurements are due to artifacts and not to any 
anomalous nuclear effect?


OM: No, because the neutrons come on with changes in experimental 
conditions. And these changes are conditions that vary with the 
chemical environment or electronic state, not the environment within 
the nucleus of the deuterium atom.


YS: But how can you be sure that the change in chemical or electronic 
state isn't just altering how the radioactive impurities create 
artifact neutrons?


OM: Now you have gotten to the heart of the matter. The scientists in 
this field must do clever experiments to eliminate that possibility. 
They go underground. They do many blanks where all is kept constant 
except the variable of interest. They analyze chemically all the 
solutions or gases used for chemical content in the parts-per-billion 
range and al

Re: [Vo]:Bribing 2,000 climatologists

Oh no, Rothwell has uncovered our plot!  I wonder how much it will take to buy 
his silence?  Anyone have a spare million to contribute to the cause?

-Original Message-
From: Jed Rothwell 
To: vortex-l 
Sent: Tue, Dec 4, 2012 9:13 pm
Subject: [Vo]:Bribing 2,000 climatologists

Some people here think there may be a conspiracy of climatologists to bamboozle 
the public. Alternatively, someone may have threatened these researchers, 
bashing in their cars. People who take these hypotheses seriously should give 
some thought to the practical ramifications. Such as --

How many people do you need to bribe? CNN polled 3,146 climate experts. 97% 
agreed that global warming is real.

http://articles.cnn.com/2009-01-19/world/eco.globalwarmingsurvey_1_global-warming-climate-science-human-activity?_s=PM:WORLD

It would not do any good to bribe 10 of them, or 100. Scientists do not have 
much influence on one another. The top 100 leaders in a field could not impose 
fraudulent data on all of the others. Someone would spot it, and would use this 
information to oust a top leader and take his place. They often fight for power.

So you need to bribe many. Perhaps not all. Let's say you bribe 2,000 and you 
hope the others will go along because they don't want to be in the minority. 
Scientists seldom worry about being in the minority, and they often pay no 
attention to what other scientists say, so this is a risky proposition. You may 
need to bribe 97% to pull this off, but let's say 2,000.

How much do you need to pay? These are middle class people who studied until 
age 30 to enter the profession. They probably never did anything else, and they 
are not qualified to do much else. If they are caught taking a bribe, they will 
be fired and their lives will be ruined. They will spend the rest of their 
lives working in fast food restaurants and living on food stamps. I suppose 
they make an average middle class salary of $50,000. You can't bribe them for 
$5,000 each. No one would risk ruin for that.

You can't give them $1 million each. Their colleagues and the IRS would notice 
they live in huge houses and drive Ferraris to work. Also, that would cost $2 
billion. That is a heck of a lot of money to risk on scientists, who are 
undependable at best, and who have little or no influence on society. Even 
though these people have published hundreds of papers, Congress has done 
nothing to address the problem. So the person spending $2 billion to bribe them 
has so far earned nothing in return.

I suppose $200,000 would be a reasonable sum, paid over 10 years. That's $400 
million. I wish someone would bribe the cold fusion researchers for that 
amount! And me!!!

So you pay them. Many problems might arise --

You have to hope their bosses, their unbribed colleagues, new reporters, 
bloggers and others never hear a word about this. No one notices these 
researchers are suddenly flush, buying new cars and sending their kids to 
private school. It means that every single person you approach agrees to be 
bribed. Not one turns you in. Not one demands $400,000 instead of $200,000. 
Some of these people may be independently wealthy, so this sum would not 
impress them. Some may have high moral standards. You take a big risk that you 
will get every last one of them to along. You can't say: "no payoff to anyone 
unless you all agree."

It means they all stay bought. None of them reneges, or decides to turn you in 
for the publicity, or to collect a huge reward from the people who think 
climate change is a hoax.

It is said that two people can keep a secret if one of them is dead. It is 
difficult for me to imagine 2,000 scientists, and their spouses and relatives 
would all keep this secret. Frankly, I think it is impossible. Someone would 
get drunk and start boasting. The anti-global warming people would root around 
and uncover the plot, offering counter-bribes, pretending to be climatologists, 
and so on.

You can't do this once and leave well enough along. There is a steady flow of 
new grad students entering the field as older people retire. Every time someone 
is hired you would have to show up at her apartment with a briefcase full of 
cash, and hope she is not a trust-fund baby, or the one climatologist who has 
moral objections to accepting $200,000, or a secret agent of the anti-global 
warming people, with cameras in her apartment.

You would have to have agents in all other first world countries, suborning 
their scientists.

The actual facts of the matter would be abundantly clear to your 2,000 
co-conspirators. They are experts. They could see at a glance that the data 
shows no global warming. The signs of global warming are not ambiguous. The s/n 
ratio is large. It is like the excess heat in the top tier of cold fusion 
experiments: you can't miss it. So your scientists would have to work hard, 
devoting many hours to producing fake data, covering up, and trying to make the 
fake d

[Vo]:Defkalion can measure these reactions?

The original thread title for this topic has gone bonkers.

Axil Axil  quotes DGT:

> "For a brief period of around 10 -13th second, each RSH proton is very
> close to its electron. Then the RSH nuclei is a masqueraded neutron. As a
> result, Coulomb forces between such nuclei are almost zero during this
> short time window."
>
They have equipment that can detect these events?!? Their calorimeter seems
crude. I do not see any nuclear physics equipment nearby that can measure
reactions. I have seen various gadgets such as scintillation detectors
at Hokkaido U., Osaka U. and elsewhere. I do not see any in the photos.
Anyway, I do not think an ordinary detector works for reactions lasting
10E-13 seconds. Honestly, I have never seen such equipment and I do not
know what it would look like. Something like this, perhaps?

https://newsline.llnl.gov/articles/2008/mar/03.14.08_detector.php

This is a serious question. Is there some indication DGT measured these
reactions? How would you do that? I wouldn't know.

If DGT has not actually measured these reactions, and confirmed them
several times, I think it is unwise to talk about them. It is mere
speculation, which serves no purpose. It makes them look bad.

Cold fusion is based on experimental results at present. Until the
experimental results, including fast nuclear reaction data, clearly point
to a physics theory, I think experimentalists should avoid citing one
theory or another. This is especially true of people who are trying to
develop cold fusion into a business. It is okay for an academic scientist
to speculate about theory with no actual experimental proof. Silly, but
okay. But in business I think this would be considered unethical.

Theorists such as Hagelstein or Widom and Larsen have nothing else to talk
about but theory. So it is fine for them to speculate and build what may
turn out to be castles in the air. That's their job.

- Jed

[Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:[Defkalion GT] "Το ΒΗΜΑ-science" article of December 2nd, 2012 (in English)

Regarding this statement in the PDF file foundon the DGT website as follows:

“The third way was the one we found: to “make the mountain disappear" for a
very short time." We succeeded by disguising protons in neutrons via
stimulation of nickel in Rydberg form. In this form the trajectory of the
electron is elongated elliptically, so that at its "perihelion" the system
appears as a neutron and not as “the mountain in-between". Thereafter, we
cause fusion by applying magnetic fields and pressure".

Defkalion Green Technologies states that their Hyperion LENR reactor cores
contain ordinary H2 hydrogen gas, nickel powder, and proprietary materials
and structures to aid in the reaction. Simple resistance heating elements
are turned on to excite the hydrogen gas. The naturally occurring H2 atoms
are further excited by bursts of electrical discharges via a spark
plug-like device which breaks the H2 into H1 gas and transforms H1 atoms
into Rydberg State Hydrogen(RSH) atoms, which have very large, often
elliptical electron (cloud) orbits. The excited RSH hydrogen atoms are then
squeezed into the nickel atom latticework.

"For a brief period of around 10 -13th second, each RSH proton is very
close to its electron. Then the RSH nuclei is a masqueraded neutron. As a
result, Coulomb forces between such nuclei are almost zero during this
short time window."

The resulting reaction releases gamma rays and light which are absorbed
inside the reactor to produce heat.

To the best of my understanding, the orbit of the lone electron in the
excited Rydberg State Hydrogen(RSH) atom becomes circular as the angular
momentum of that electron is increased by its increasing excitation.

This orbital behavior of this lone excited hydrogen electron speaks against
the hydrogen atom as a neutron like quasiparticle which is DGT claims to be
that root cause of nickel hydrogen fusion.

I believe that DGT does not yet understand in detail what is happening
inside their reaction.

Cheers:Axil

On Tue, Dec 4, 2012 at 4:39 PM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:

> Abd ul-Rahman Lomax  wrote:
>
>
>> What if NiH heat is not nuclear at all? What if it's hydrinos? (Chemical,
>> just an unexpected form of chemistry, though hydrinos *also* might catalyze
>> fusion . . .
>
>
> Okay that's possible I suppose. We could test that hypothesis if Mills
> would tell us what the upper limits of energy release is per mole of
> hydrogen. Years ago I asked him and got some confusing responses.
>
> - Jed
>
>

[Vo]:Bribing 2,000 climatologists

Some people here think there may be a conspiracy of climatologists to
bamboozle the public. Alternatively, someone may have threatened these
researchers, bashing in their cars. People who take these hypotheses
seriously should give some thought to the practical ramifications. Such as
--

How many people do you need to bribe? CNN polled 3,146 climate experts. 97%
agreed that global warming is real.

http://articles.cnn.com/2009-01-19/world/eco.globalwarmingsurvey_1_global-warming-climate-science-human-activity?_s=PM:WORLD

It would not do any good to bribe 10 of them, or 100. Scientists do not
have much influence on one another. The top 100 leaders in a field could
not impose fraudulent data on all of the others. Someone would spot it, and
would use this information to oust a top leader and take his place. They
often fight for power.

So you need to bribe many. Perhaps not all. Let's say you bribe 2,000 and
you hope the others will go along because they don't want to be in the
minority. Scientists seldom worry about being in the minority, and they
often pay no attention to what other scientists say, so this is a risky
proposition. You may need to bribe 97% to pull this off, but let's say
2,000.

How much do you need to pay? These are middle class people who studied
until age 30 to enter the profession. They probably never did anything
else, and they are not qualified to do much else. If they are caught taking
a bribe, they will be fired and their lives will be ruined. They will spend
the rest of their lives working in fast food restaurants and living on food
stamps. I suppose they make an average middle class salary of $50,000. You
can't bribe them for $5,000 each. No one would risk ruin for that.

You can't give them $1 million each. Their colleagues and the IRS would
notice they live in huge houses and drive Ferraris to work. Also, that
would cost $2 billion. That is a heck of a lot of money to risk on
scientists, who are undependable at best, and who have little or no
influence on society. Even though these people have published hundreds of
papers, Congress has done nothing to address the problem. So the person
spending $2 billion to bribe them has so far earned nothing in return.

I suppose $200,000 would be a reasonable sum, paid over 10 years. That's
$400 million. I wish someone would bribe the cold fusion researchers for
that amount! And me!!!

So you pay them. Many problems might arise --

You have to hope their bosses, their unbribed colleagues, new reporters,
bloggers and others never hear a word about this. No one notices these
researchers are suddenly flush, buying new cars and sending their kids to
private school. It means that every single person you approach agrees to be
bribed. Not one turns you in. Not one demands $400,000 instead of $200,000.
Some of these people may be independently wealthy, so this sum would not
impress them. Some may have high moral standards. You take a big risk that
you will get every last one of them to along. You can't say: "no payoff to
anyone unless you all agree."

It means they all stay bought. None of them reneges, or decides to turn you
in for the publicity, or to collect a huge reward from the people who think
climate change is a hoax.

It is said that two people can keep a secret if one of them is dead. It is
difficult for me to imagine 2,000 scientists, and their spouses and
relatives would all keep this secret. Frankly, I think it is impossible.
Someone would get drunk and start boasting. The anti-global warming people
would root around and uncover the plot, offering counter-bribes, pretending
to be climatologists, and so on.

You can't do this once and leave well enough along. There is a steady flow
of new grad students entering the field as older people retire. Every time
someone is hired you would have to show up at her apartment with a
briefcase full of cash, and hope she is not a trust-fund baby, or the one
climatologist who has moral objections to accepting $200,000, or a secret
agent of the anti-global warming people, with cameras in her apartment.

You would have to have agents in all other first world countries, suborning
their scientists.

The actual facts of the matter would be abundantly clear to your 2,000
co-conspirators. They are experts. They could see at a glance that the data
shows no global warming. The signs of global warming are not ambiguous. The
s/n ratio is large. It is like the excess heat in the top tier of cold
fusion experiments: you can't miss it. So your scientists would have to
work hard, devoting many hours to producing fake data, covering up, and
trying to make the fake data so convincing that the other 1,146 experts
fall for it. From time to time, outside experts become interested in this
and they review the data independently. All 2,000 of you would have to
generate airtight, superb frauds to fool the rest of the world. Generating
fraudulent data can be as hard -- or harder -- than collecting real data.
Experts at NASA wo

Re: [Vo]:How bad is this news? Jed Rothwell

I think it is more practical to just ban Jojo.


2012/12/5 Daniel Rocha 

> I'm sorry. This is rather annoying anyway since I'd have to keep a list of
> the enmities.
>
>
> 2012/12/4 Abd ul-Rahman Lomax 
>
>> At 11:48 AM 12/4/2012, Daniel Rocha wrote:
>>
>>> Oh, damn! I talk about a possible correlation between bible fanatics and
>>> AGW denial and guess who appears 1 minute later! HA!
>>>
>>
>> Daniel, did you really need to quote him? I've got the fellow in a kill
>> file (i.e, filter) so I don't read his mail normally. I still see it
>> sometimes on my iPhone if I check the mail there before running the filter
>> in my desktop mail program. But here you reposted his entire post. I'd
>> rather not filter *your* mail!
>>
>>
>>
>>  2012/12/4 Jojo Jaro 
>> <jt**h...@hotmail.com
>>> >
>>>
>> [deleted]
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Daniel Rocha - RJ
> danieldi...@gmail.com
>
>


-- 
Daniel Rocha - RJ
danieldi...@gmail.com

Re: [Vo]:How bad is this news? Jed Rothwell

I'm sorry. This is rather annoying anyway since I'd have to keep a list of
the enmities.


2012/12/4 Abd ul-Rahman Lomax 

> At 11:48 AM 12/4/2012, Daniel Rocha wrote:
>
>> Oh, damn! I talk about a possible correlation between bible fanatics and
>> AGW denial and guess who appears 1 minute later! HA!
>>
>
> Daniel, did you really need to quote him? I've got the fellow in a kill
> file (i.e, filter) so I don't read his mail normally. I still see it
> sometimes on my iPhone if I check the mail there before running the filter
> in my desktop mail program. But here you reposted his entire post. I'd
> rather not filter *your* mail!
>
>
>
>  2012/12/4 Jojo Jaro 
> <jt**h...@hotmail.com
>> >
>>
> [deleted]
>



-- 
Daniel Rocha - RJ
danieldi...@gmail.com

Re: [Vo]:How bad is this news? Jed Rothwell


At 11:48 AM 12/4/2012, Daniel Rocha wrote:
Oh, damn! I talk about a possible correlation between bible fanatics 
and AGW denial and guess who appears 1 minute later! HA!


Daniel, did you really need to quote him? I've got the fellow in a 
kill file (i.e, filter) so I don't read his mail normally. I still 
see it sometimes on my iPhone if I check the mail there before 
running the filter in my desktop mail program. But here you reposted 
his entire post. I'd rather not filter *your* mail!





2012/12/4 Jojo Jaro <jth...@hotmail.com>
[deleted]

Re: [Vo]:How bad is this news? Jed Rothwell

Every single climate scientist is wrong.  Every single cold fusion scientist is 
wrong.  These statements are based upon the concept that new knowledge will 
become available that modifies their understanding in the future.  Many of them 
are right as far as we know at the moment, but it would be extremely unusual if 
the understanding of physics is not changed in a major way in the future.  This 
is the very nature of discovery.


If you made the same statement 100 years ago, it would have been as true then 
as it is now Jed.  They were all wrong then and they are all wrong now.  
Everyone thought these experts knew everything at the time just as you think 
now.  Actually it is a good thing that scientific knowledge is advancing at the 
current rate, otherwise we would be stuck in the present.



Dave 



-Original Message-
From: Jed Rothwell 
To: vortex-l 
Sent: Tue, Dec 4, 2012 6:16 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:How bad is this news? Jed Rothwell


Jouni Valkonen  wrote:




It should be obvious that there is politics involved in climate science. There 
is just too much money and urgency involved. This means also corruption, 
because science is not clear and it is very difficult and everyone wants to see 
what the wish most.




Absolutely true!


It is a political minefield. No doubt people on both sides of the dispute 
sometimes distort and play politics. I did not mean to suggest the researchers 
are all pure-heart scientists, and opponents all ignorant people or oil company 
shills.


I expect there are smart & honest people on both sides.


I can only judge by looking at externalities, particularly the fact that the 
majority of working scientists within the field agree. Since I know so little 
about it, I must depend upon their professional expertise. This is weak 
argument compared to a direct technical argument, but I am not capable of 
making such a argument.


But let us be realistic. We depend upon experts for 99.99% of our knowledge of 
the world. We assume they are right about nearly everything. We bet our lives 
on experts every time we fly in an airplane or undergo surgery. Or take a ferry 
boat in the Inland Sea. We can do this with confidence because most of the time 
they are right.


Regarding that ferry boat, I meant to say it is not surprising that once in a 
while one captain makes a mistake. On the other hand, if next Tuesday every 
single ferry boat captain in the Inland Sea runs aground, that would be very 
surprising. The likelihood of that is effectively zero. The likelihood that 
ever single climate scientist is wrong, and every single cold fusion researcher 
is wrong, is also so close to zero I wouldn't worry about it.


Here is an article about the ferry mishap, which involved a bunch of high 
school students. They were freaked out, according to my friends in Oshima (or 
Suo-oshima as it is listed here):


http://www.chugoku-np.co.jp/News/Tn201211150043.html


- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Climate Threats

That is disgusting behavior and I can only assume that it is some one's idea of 
a joke.  Perhaps if they are serious, then they should subject themselves to 
the same harsh punishment if the climate does not prove to be warming as a 
result of man's carbon emissions.


Let's get serious.


Dave



-Original Message-
From: Zell, Chris 
To: 'vortex-l@eskimo.com' 
Sent: Tue, Dec 4, 2012 6:00 pm
Subject: [Vo]:Climate Threats


A lack of threats? That depends what side offers safety and acceptance.
 
http://www.climatedepot.com/a/1096/Execute-Skeptics-Shock-Call-To-Action-At-what-point-do-we-jail-or-execute-global-warming-deniers--Shouldnt-we-start-punishing-them-now
 
Should they be executed? Or just sent to jail?  Is this the scientific method 
at work?  
 
Outside of Lysenko and the Soviet Union, I have never observed such repellant 
behavior in my life.

Re: [Vo]:How bad is this news? Jed Rothwell

Jed


I think it is safe to assume in most cases that the climatologists are 
intelligent, hard working individuals.  They are dedicated to doing the best 
job they can with the tools and knowledge at their disposal and it would be 
difficult to find a better group.  I personally do not want anyone to think 
that I consider these guys to be low caliber.


My problem is with the political-science mixture that is like water and oil.  
They should remain separate and that is what the collective we should insist 
upon.  They do their best work when their hands are not tied by forces that 
attempt to use them as pawns.  The current environment appears to have exactly 
that effect upon them where any serious climate change skepticism is met with 
career termination.  This situation does not seem to be confined to climate 
science alone and we are all too aware of at least one other example.


>From what I understand the competing climate models are of different 
>construct.  They are each attempting to model the future climate, but all fall 
>short.  This should be a red flag to anyone who has modeled complicated 
>systems since it implies that the model is known to be imperfect.  There is no 
>rule that implies that imperfection of model versus real life is necessary and 
>I can point out one just for example.  Suppose that Y is a function of X with 
>the relationship of Y=k1*X*X + k2*X + K3.  If you give me three exact pairs of 
>points that fit the equation I can determine the values of k's.   With this 
>information I will be able to calculate the exact Y values associated with any 
>and all X's.  This includes the set of values of X that extend far outside of 
>the original X values used to derive the k's.  There is no need for additional 
>equations since this one is perfectly accurate and in fact any other 
>combination of k's would generate the wrong Y's.


If a climate model were an accurate representation of the Earth's climate, only 
one would be needed and in fact, only one would work over a very wide range.  
It is simply a fact that the current models are not capable of performing in 
this manner.  The interactions are too complex and the exterior forces are 
unknown.  I think the butterfly effect does a fairly good job of describing the 
situation.  I do not blame the climatologists for this problem but instead 
blame the Earth, Sun, Cosmic Rays and a great multitude of strange 
interactions.  Even the best efforts fall far short of achieving the goal these 
poor guys have been given.


You speak of experts as the ones with all the answers.  That is pretty naive 
when you consider that even the most knowledgeable expert was not aware of the 
recent discoveries that have taken place in their line of knowledge until they 
were uncovered.  How could these supermen know the relationships that exist 
ahead of time?  This is a common issue that mars the concept of expert.  If I 
recall, the first guys that conceived of continental drift were considered 
ignorant by the expert geologists.  Of course, most of the experts were sure 
that the Wright brothers were lying about powered heavier than air flight.  
Remember the Japanese guy that figured out how to make cells that behave like 
stem cells out of skin cells?  All of the experts told him it was totally 
impossible until he did it.  It was not long ago when the experts stated that 
we only used, if I recall, about 5% of our brains.  Why was the entire concept 
of relativity not understood and accepted by the experts of long ago since it 
is now well established?  This list could go on just about forever but I think 
you should get the point by now.


All of the experts of the past are just learning the new concepts of today.  
None of them have all of the answers and if you want to win many bets, just bet 
that they are wrong about the accepted theories of the present.  I am quite 
confident that the same is true for the climatologists.  Tomorrow they will 
modify their models just like they will do so indefinitely into the future as 
they adjust the variables so that the latest measurements match their 
predictions.  This is as it should be.  Hopefully we can trust the current 
model results to be accurate for the next 10 years, but all bets are off if you 
want to know about how the climate will be in 100 years.  It is too bad we will 
not be around at the end of this century to laugh at the enormous difference 
between the currently predicted and actual environment.


I am not an expert in climatology and do not claim to have the answers.  It is 
the current experts that you admire that are lacking in future knowledge.  Ask 
them about how confident that they are in their predictions and then insist 
that they use one of their models from 20 years ago to compare against the 
present conditions.  How honest is it to allow them to use one that was 
corrected this year for proof of their model's accuracy? 


Dave

[Vo]:133,000 web pages linked to my work and starting to pick up on my book

2012-12-04 Thread Frank Znidarsic

http://www.bing.com/search?q=Anti-Gravity+Physics+Explained&FORM=QSR

[Vo]:Re: Defkalion pdf...

Thanks to Andy and Akira.  The document is also available here:

https://docs.google.com/open?id=0B8mt4mJOTGvBRnh4Y1h2aDJ6Q00

On Tue, Dec 4, 2012 at 5:44 PM, Andy Findlay  wrote:
> Her you go Terry. See attached.

[Vo]:Fwd: 113,000 web sites carry my stuff and they are picking up on book

2012-12-04 Thread Frank Znidarsic



 Original Message 
Subject: 113,000 web sites carry my stuff and they are picking up on book
From: Frank Znidarsic 
To: 
charles.re...@power.alstom.com,jeanurgoli...@hotmail.com,rvargo1...@yahoo.com,ladylei1...@yahoo.com
CC: 

http://www.bing.com/search?q=Anti-Gravity+Physics+Explained&FORM=QSRE1

[Vo]:RE: [Vo]:[Defkalion GT] "Το ΒΗΜΑ-science" article of December 2nd, 2012 (in English)

2012-12-04 Thread MarkI-ZeroPoint

I saved the PDF as well...
-mark

-Original Message-
From: Akira Shirakawa [mailto:shirakawa.ak...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, December 04, 2012 3:34 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:[Defkalion GT] "Το ΒΗΜΑ-science" article of December 2nd, 
2012 (in English)

On 2012-12-04 23:34, Terry Blanton wrote:

> Well, well.  When I go to their site I see a page announcing a new web 
> site coming "soon".
>
> Did you save the .pdf?  If you could send to me I can post on google 
> docs.  Or you could if you do that sort of thing.

I expected that something like this would happen sooner or later, so I saved a 
copy as soon as I displayed the pdf in my web browser:

https://www.dropbox.com/s/ebiqjspd3qkiywo/20121102_Cold%20fusion%20-ENG.pdf?m

Cheers,
S.A.

Re: [Vo]:[Defkalion GT] "Το ΒΗΜΑ-science" article of December 2nd, 2012 (in English)

2012-12-04 Thread Akira Shirakawa


On 2012-12-04 23:34, Terry Blanton wrote:


Well, well.  When I go to their site I see a page announcing a new web
site coming "soon".

Did you save the .pdf?  If you could send to me I can post on google
docs.  Or you could if you do that sort of thing.


I expected that something like this would happen sooner or later, so I 
saved a copy as soon as I displayed the pdf in my web browser:


https://www.dropbox.com/s/ebiqjspd3qkiywo/20121102_Cold%20fusion%20-ENG.pdf?m

Cheers,
S.A.

Re: [Vo]:Climate Threats

Zell, Chris  wrote:

**
> A lack of threats? That depends what side offers safety and acceptance.
>
>
> http://www.climatedepot.com/a/1096/Execute-Skeptics-Shock-Call-To-Action-At-what-point-do-we-jail-or-execute-global-warming-deniers--Shouldnt-we-start-punishing-them-now
>
> Should they be executed? Or just sent to jail?  Is this the scientific
> method at work?
>

This does not appear to be the work of mainstream people on either side of
the debate. You can always find extremists in a political conflict, such as
people who want to impeach Obama because they think his birth certificate
is fake.

I mentioned there has been a great deal of harassment in cold fusion. Most
of this is low level stuff such as denying promotion, cutting funding, and
threatening to fire people. I do recall that in 1989 profs at MIT called
for the arrest of F&P for fraud. That is the closest thing I can think of
to this article.

> Outside of Lysenko and the Soviet Union, I have never observed such
> repellant behavior in my life.
>

Oh come now. I can point to hundreds of examples of similar behavior, in
academic science and other fields. There are always extremists. They have
no influence and they are no threat in this case. Don't worry about them.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:How bad is this news? Jed Rothwell

Jouni Valkonen  wrote:

It should be obvious that there is politics involved in climate science.
> There is just too much money and urgency involved. This means also
> corruption, because science is not clear and it is very difficult and
> everyone wants to see what the wish most.
>

Absolutely true!

It is a political minefield. No doubt people on both sides of the dispute
sometimes distort and play politics. I did not mean to suggest the
researchers are all pure-heart scientists, and opponents all ignorant
people or oil company shills.

I expect there are smart & honest people on both sides.

I can only judge by looking at externalities, particularly the fact that
the majority of working scientists within the field agree. Since I know so
little about it, I must depend upon their professional expertise. This is
weak argument compared to a direct technical argument, but I am not capable
of making such a argument.

But let us be realistic. We depend upon experts for 99.99% of our knowledge
of the world. We assume they are right about nearly everything. We bet our
lives on experts every time we fly in an airplane or undergo surgery. Or
take a ferry boat in the Inland Sea. We can do this with confidence because
most of the time they are right.

Regarding that ferry boat, I meant to say it is *not* surprising that once
in a while one captain makes a mistake. On the other hand, if next Tuesday
every single ferry boat captain in the Inland Sea runs aground, that would
be very surprising. The likelihood of that is effectively zero. The
likelihood that ever single climate scientist is wrong, and every single
cold fusion researcher is wrong, is also so close to zero I wouldn't worry
about it.

Here is an article about the ferry mishap, which involved a bunch of high
school students. They were freaked out, according to my friends in Oshima
(or Suo-oshima as it is listed here):

http://www.chugoku-np.co.jp/News/Tn201211150043.html

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:How bad is this news? Jed Rothwell

Jed, you're too much.  Enough balonium already.

First, you make two assumptions:

1.  That Climatologists are NOT being threatened or harassed
2.  That they are NOT being bribed, that they are driving 20 year old Toyotas 
and that they have not been photographed with money in their mouths.

My question to you is:  How do you know any of these?  When you haven't met any 
one of them.  OH OK I get it, you have not heard of this happenning to any 
of them so it must not be happenning.  OK, I have some land in Florida that I 
would like to sell to you.  Perfect vacation spot.   LOL 


Then, after you've made your fallacious assumptions above, you then proceed to 
assume that they are true and argue that because these are not happenning, then 
they must be telling the truth.  OK Whatever.


Is anybody, other than our resident expert who studied under Feynman, buying 
this logic?


Jojo


  - Original Message - 
  From: Jed Rothwell 
  To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
  Sent: Wednesday, December 05, 2012 6:51 AM
  Subject: Re: [Vo]:How bad is this news? Jed Rothwell


  Zell, Chris  wrote:


In regard to the power of the international banks and their scofflaw 
privileges, the extreme nature of the situation is kept out of the mainstream 
press. . . .

Take the case of Andrew McGuire - who made the mistake of trying to expose 
silver trading manipulation by JP Morgan. Not only was his evidence ignored, 
but shortly thereafter his car was violently plowed into by another vehicle. . 
. .

Is this enough? I have more. Global warming is a legitimate concern but 
the hype comes from powerful people with vested interests.


  It is not enough. You would have to show that hundreds of professional 
climatologists are being threatened or harassed by these vested interests the 
way McGuire was. Is that happening?


  Or, I suppose, you would have to show they are being bribed. I have not met 
them, but my guess is that they drive 20-year-old Toyotas. They probable have 
not been photographed with money in their mouths:


  
http://duanegraham.files.wordpress.com/2012/01/romney-bain-capital-money-shot.jpg


  So if there is no harassment and no money shots . . . these researchers are 
doing nothing unusual. No ominous undertones or conspiracies. They are 
publishing papers because they believe in their data and their models. They are 
doing what any scientists do. It happens their conclusion have grave 
implications for the planet and the economy. They can't help that.

  Have the climatologists complained about being harassed or threatened? I have 
not heard that. They complained forcefully about the accusations that they were 
fudging the data in the UK. They are not reticent to complain about their 
critics. I guess they would not hesitate to report harassment or people 
crashing into their cars. Cold fusion researchers complain about harassment all 
the time. Just about every one of them has experienced this and they are never 
reticent to tell me about it. 


  - Jed

[Vo]:Climate Threats

A lack of threats? That depends what side offers safety and acceptance.

http://www.climatedepot.com/a/1096/Execute-Skeptics-Shock-Call-To-Action-At-what-point-do-we-jail-or-execute-global-warming-deniers--Shouldnt-we-start-punishing-them-now

Should they be executed? Or just sent to jail?  Is this the scientific method 
at work?

Outside of Lysenko and the Soviet Union, I have never observed such repellant 
behavior in my life.

Re: [Vo]:How bad is this news? Jed Rothwell

Zell, Chris  wrote:

**
> In regard to the power of the international banks and their scofflaw
> privileges, the extreme nature of the situation is kept out of the
> mainstream press. . . .
>

> Take the case of Andrew McGuire - who made the mistake of trying to expose
> silver trading manipulation by JP Morgan. Not only was his evidence
> ignored, but shortly thereafter his car was violently plowed into by
> another vehicle. . . .
>

> Is this enough? I have more. Global warming is a legitimate concern
> but the hype comes from powerful people with vested interests.
>

It is not enough. You would have to show that hundreds of professional
climatologists are being threatened or harassed by these vested interests
the way McGuire was. Is that happening?

Or, I suppose, you would have to show they are being bribed. I have not met
them, but my guess is that they drive 20-year-old Toyotas. They probable
have not been photographed with money in their mouths:

http://duanegraham.files.wordpress.com/2012/01/romney-bain-capital-money-shot.jpg

So if there is no harassment and no money shots . . . these researchers are
doing nothing unusual. No ominous undertones or conspiracies. They are
publishing papers because they believe in their data and their models. They
are doing what any scientists do. It happens their conclusion have grave
implications for the planet and the economy. They can't help that.

Have the climatologists complained about being harassed or threatened? I
have not heard that. They complained forcefully about the accusations that
they were fudging the data in the UK. They are not reticent to complain
about their critics. I guess they would not hesitate to report harassment
or people crashing into their cars. Cold fusion researchers complain about
harassment all the time. Just about every one of them has experienced this
and they are never reticent to tell me about it.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:How bad is this news? Jed Rothwell

Or the illegal forceful election and reelection of an illegitimate and 
unqualified person as president.  

These people have threatened everyone who dares question their illegitimate 
puppet.

But, like I said, the election and reelection of this donkey is part of God's 
judgement on America as he destroys every American institution until we are all 
slaves to commies and godless moon god worshippers.

Jojo


  - Original Message - 
  From: Zell, Chris 
  To: 'vortex-l@eskimo.com' 
  Sent: Wednesday, December 05, 2012 5:53 AM
  Subject: RE: [Vo]:How bad is this news? Jed Rothwell


  In regard to the power of the international banks and their scofflaw 
privileges, the extreme nature of the situation is kept out of the mainstream 
press. It would be too frightening for most people to know just how sociopathic 
and immune to the law they are.

  Take the case of Andrew McGuire - who made the mistake of trying to expose 
silver trading manipulation by JP Morgan. Not only was his evidence ignored, 
but shortly thereafter his car was violently plowed into by another vehicle. 
Though reportedly caught later, the authorities did nothing. (Google his name) 

  Or the case of the father and son who ran a website that attempted to expose 
who owns and controls the Federal Reserve. Their bodies were found amid the 
ashes of their home. They both had been shot thru the head, execution-style ( 
reported on the Divine Cosmos site).

  Or the blatant scofflaw activity of major banks, who transferred countless 
homes in the subprime scandal, completely ignoring any and all local and state 
laws across the US in regard to registering and legally transmitting mortgages. 
If you have ever bought a home in the US, you might wonder how large banks 
could simply ignore a long tradition of legal precedent that You had to go 
thru. The mainstream media doesn't even acknowledge the issue.

  Is this enough? I have more. Global warming is a legitimate concern but 
the hype comes from powerful people with vested interests.

[Vo]:Re: [Vo]:[Defkalion GT] "Το ΒΗΜΑ-science" article of December 2nd, 2012 (in English)

On Tue, Dec 4, 2012 at 2:27 PM, Akira Shirakawa
 wrote:

> PDF version (containing a few photos) now available in the link above.
> Direct link:
>
> http://www.defkalion-energy.com/forum/download/file.php?id=33

Well, well.  When I go to their site I see a page announcing a new web
site coming "soon".

Did you save the .pdf?  If you could send to me I can post on google
docs.  Or you could if you do that sort of thing.

Thanks!

Re: [Vo]:How bad is this news? Jed Rothwell

David Roberson  wrote:

> You seem to be a guy that likes to think through issues that are of
> importance as well. Perhaps you might want to consider the complexity of
> the global warming models for a moment.  Do you honestly believe that the
> software guys have included all of the variables that influence the future
> climate in their models?

With such a complex system, I doubt it is possible to include all the
variables, even in principle. You cannot be sure you have discovered them
all. You can only model the recent past and see if your computer correctly
predicts things such as the weather yesterday, or climate change over the
last 30 years. It can only be an approximation. That is how natural science
works.

> All you need to do is to realize that there are several different models
> that are consulted as these scientists predict the future.  Why several?
>  If each one is suspect, then one would expect that the average prediction
> is also suspect.
>

I would not say that. I do not know the details in this case. In biology,
medicine and other natural sciences there are often different levels at
which you can model something. You can look at evolution from the point of
view of natural selection, which is a meta-phenomenon. Or you can go down
several levels and look at it from the point of view of the gene.

Different models are fruitful for different purposes.

I do not know anything about this particular situation, but I doubt that
the fact that there are four models is a problem for experts in the field.
If it was a problem they would probably have winnowed out the three least
accurate ones. If experts in the field are arguing about this issue, and
trying to push three models out, then I guess there is a problem. Do they
say this is an issue?

Even mistaken and oversimplified models are sometimes used because they are
convenient.

 And if you takes a peek at the Earth's past climate, it is apparent that
> forces are at work that are far more influential and complex than the
> relatively simple carbon dioxide driver.
>

I expect this would take a great deal more than a "peak" to establish.
Certainly I myself am not qualified to make this determination.

> You tend to disregard the 16 year heating pause, dismissing it offhand
> because it is not possible according to your beliefs.
>

No, I dismiss it for the reasons explained by the UK MET office, and for
the reasons Mel Miles was pissed off when then the NHE pulled that same
stunt on him. See the the book "How to Lie with Statistics" for details.

> May I ask you one simple question if you are planning to respond to this
> post.  Do you honestly believe that the current climate models accurately
> take into account all of the important variables and their interactions
> that predict future climate?
>

I'm sure I made it clear that I am not qualified to judge this issue.
However I am sure that current climate models are fantastically better than
they were 30 years ago, because they predict the weather so well. As I
said, being able to predict the weather is quite different from predicting
long-term climate change, but both are grounded in deep knowledge of the
atmosphere and physics. It seems unlikely to me that you can make superb
short-term predictions about a system if your overall model and knowledge
of the system is as defective as the climate change skeptics assert. Okay,
that is just a guess, but it beats speculating about four models you don't
know in detail, and you don't work with on a day-to-day basis.

I think it is likely that the climatologists have good reasons for keeping
four models around, and you do not know enough about the subject to judge
their reasons.

Programmers keep many different programming languages around, and many
different methods of doing systems analysis. Carpenters show up for work
with six different kinds of saws and some strange looking hammers and
mallets. We have our reasons. Amateurs should not assume they know why
experts do what they do, and what all those tools in the toolbox are for.

- Jed

RE: [Vo]:How bad is this news? Jed Rothwell

In regard to the power of the international banks and their scofflaw 
privileges, the extreme nature of the situation is kept out of the mainstream 
press. It would be too frightening for most people to know just how sociopathic 
and immune to the law they are.

Take the case of Andrew McGuire - who made the mistake of trying to expose 
silver trading manipulation by JP Morgan. Not only was his evidence ignored, 
but shortly thereafter his car was violently plowed into by another vehicle. 
Though reportedly caught later, the authorities did nothing. (Google his name)

Or the case of the father and son who ran a website that attempted to expose 
who owns and controls the Federal Reserve. Their bodies were found amid the 
ashes of their home. They both had been shot thru the head, execution-style ( 
reported on the Divine Cosmos site).

Or the blatant scofflaw activity of major banks, who transferred countless 
homes in the subprime scandal, completely ignoring any and all local and state 
laws across the US in regard to registering and legally transmitting mortgages. 
If you have ever bought a home in the US, you might wonder how large banks 
could simply ignore a long tradition of legal precedent that You had to go 
thru. The mainstream media doesn't even acknowledge the issue.

Is this enough? I have more. Global warming is a legitimate concern but the 
hype comes from powerful people with vested interests.

[Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:[Defkalion GT] "Το ΒΗΜΑ-science" article of December 2nd, 2012 (in English)

Abd ul-Rahman Lomax  wrote:

> What if NiH heat is not nuclear at all? What if it's hydrinos? (Chemical,
> just an unexpected form of chemistry, though hydrinos *also* might catalyze
> fusion . . .

Okay that's possible I suppose. We could test that hypothesis if Mills
would tell us what the upper limits of energy release is per mole of
hydrogen. Years ago I asked him and got some confusing responses.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:[Defkalion GT] "Το ΒΗΜΑ-science" article of December 2nd, 2012 (in English)


At 09:50 AM 12/4/2012, Jed Rothwell wrote:

This article at DGT says:

"we are not talking about nuclear energy but chemical energy derived 
from transmutation."


Yeah. Maybe it's a language problem.


That does not make a damn bit of sense. It is contradictory. 
"Transmutation" means changing from element to another. That is to 
say, changing the nucleus of the atom. When you change the nucleus 
you change the level of nuclear energy. You can't not do that. Any 
energy release is nuclear energy by definition.


It reminds me of a ditty:

"Mother, mother, may I go for a swim?

Yes, my darling daughter. Hang your clothes by the hickory bush, but 
don't go near the water!"


Chemical energy is what you get from changing electron bonds, It 
cannot affect the nucleus, which means it cannot directly trigger a 
transmutation. In cold fusion, chemical processes promote or trigger 
nuclear changes. That is analogous to the chemical explosives used 
to implode a plutonium core in a fission bomb. The chemical reaction 
produces a mechanical transformation which in turn triggers the 
nuclear reaction. I assume something similar is happening on a 
microscopic scale in cold fusion.


Bottom line, we do not know what transformation is behind NiH heat. 
With PdD, we have solid evidence that deuterium is being transmuted 
to helium, and practically nothing else.


What if NiH heat is not nuclear at all? What if it's hydrinos? 
(Chemical, just an unexpected form of chemistry, though hydrinos 
*also* might catalyze fusion, but it would probably be hot fusion in 
character, i.e., watch out for the neutrons.) What if it's simply 
some combination of prosaic artifact or fraud?


(Some reports are certainly not fraud, but  others are shakier, 
especially the high-heat claims, yet fraud has also not been proven 
with any of these claimants.)


If it is judged that there is enough evidence for NiH anomalous heat, 
that could be a subject for replication efforts to be publicly 
funded. Right now, what experiments would be replicated? What 
experiments show enough evidence to warrant what might be expensive 
replication? The Rossi/DGT claims are secret, proprietary. Brillouin, 
though, is current engaged in a study at SRI, where SRI calorimetry 
will be used to measure what they are getting. This should be interesting!


Ed Storms once told me that he was the only person to have made money 
from cold fusion. Given how much he has invested, I'm skeptical about 
that, overall, but he did make money from his book, and that was why 
he said it. (And he's been subsidized by private donors.)


However, McKubre has been paid, if I'm correct, for *all* of his 
work. SRI was a paid consulting firm, working on cold fusion, 
originally for the Electric Power Research Institute, and later for 
other customers. That, indeed, may be part of why the SRI work has 
been so carefully and thoroughly done. (And also, as well, why it did 
not always continue to investigate what was found. Contracts ran 
out.) It had to be good work, McKubre's livelihood depended on it. 
McKubre, as a consultant, was paid to render  results and opinions 
based on research, and the payments, I'm sure, did not depend on his 
being "positive" or "negative." When you pay for advice, you want 
unbiased advice.

Re: [Vo]:How bad is this news? Jed Rothwell

Abd ul-Rahman Lomax  wrote:

> I'm fully aware that "majority scientific opinion" can be defective --
> cold fusion demonstrates that, as did the fat/cholesterol hypothesis. If,
> however, one looks closely at these issues, one can find what Jed proposed.
> Those who actually were doing the research, and whose opinions were based
> on that research, who were following the scientific method, were generally
> correct, and those who didn't follow the scientific method were fooling
> themselves.

Bingo. My point exactly. The scientific method works quite well. It does
catch errors. It weeds out mistakes. You should not bet against it without
a compelling reason. As Damon Runyon said (quoting the Bible):

"The race is not always to the swift, nor the battle to the strong, but
that's the way to bet."

Science is an institution done by fallible human beings, so there is always
a chance of a mistake. However, the bigger the mistake and the more people
involved, the less likely it is to occur. This is true of most
institutions, especially hard-science and engineering based ones. Take
navigation on the Inland Sea in Japan:

Minor shipwrecks and accidents occur every day. The other day ferryboat ran
aground in my home away from home in Oshima, Yamaguchi Japan. The captain
went on the wrong side of a channel marker. He was on temporary assignment
and had not sailed this route. That happened even though ferryboats have
been passing that spot four times a day for 100 years. Okay, mistakes
happen. While it is too surprising that a captain made a small mistake, it
would be astounding if he whacked into a rock and sank the ship, like the
captain of the Costa Concordia did in the Mediterranean. That is a
once-in-500-years event, given today's navigation technology.

There are other large institutions in which unanticipated or catastrophic
outcomes occur frequently. Examples include Wall Street and war. In these
cases this happens because some people profit from catastrophe. In war, for
example, the best way to win is to find a new strategy that causes your
enemy to make a catastrophic mistake. Both sides strive to do that, by
deception and various other methods.

It has been pointed out that a deliberate catastrophic miscalculation in
climate science might be inserted into journals because some people would
profit from it, by trading CO2 futures or what-have-you. They would
profit if we mistakenly spend billions of dollars trying to reduce
CO2. That may be the case, but it is a dicey way to steal money. It is not
likely to work; the Congress probably will not act, and the illicit profit
will never come. You could spend years trying to pull that off, getting
nowhere. If I were dishonest and in a position to pull strings, I would
find an easier way to swindle the public, such as Medicare fraud. I would
not try to do it with a bogus climate change scenario.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:How bad is this news? Jed Rothwell


At 09:36 AM 12/4/2012, Jed Rothwell wrote:
People in a given field are sometimes biased against new ideas 
proposed by outsiders. That is not because they are mistaken about 
their own ideas. Their own ideas are valid, but the outsider's ideas 
are an improvement. They oppose the ideas because -- again as I said 
-- they know nothing about them.


Yes. That happens.

The cascade on cold fusion was facilitated by the claim that the 
Fleischmann-Pons Heat Effect was quickly associated with "fusion." I 
still read material, recently written, that appears to assume that 
Pons and Fleischmann claimed fusion, i.e., claimed the "impossible." 
And then, of course, their claims "were not reproduced."


Yes, Jed, I know this drives you batty. After all, 153 Frenchmen 
can't be wrong. Or something like that. However, Pons and Fleischmann 
originally claimed substantial neutron radiation. They knew that this 
radiation was far below what their heat would indicate, had the 
reaction been d-d fusion. But even that low level was artifact. In 
reality, in hindsight, the FPHE generates somewhere between little to 
no neutron radiation. If there is anything, it's probably a secondary 
effect. (And that's exactly what SPAWAR claims.)


*That* was never replicated, the opposite.

And the heat was not a "nuclear effect," in itself. By the time that 
the nuclear ash was identified, the cascade had fully formed and 
physicists were not paying attention. And why, indeed, should they 
pay attention?


This was not a physics experiment. It was chemistry. The experts, 
with few exceptions, were chemists. One of the real tragedies of 
1989-1990 was that chemists failed to defend their own. "Nuclear" be 
damned! These cells were generating heat, and chemistry wasn't 
adequate to explain it, apparently, and contrary theories -- i.e., 
that there was some mistake -- were *never* confirmed. And once 
helium was known to be generated commensurate with the heat, 
scientifically it was all over. The correlation showed that the 
measurements were not artifact, and the value of the correlation 
established that, very likely, the reaction was indeed some kind of 
fusion, mechanism unknown.


So why didn't the chemists stand up for their colleagues? My view has 
become that it was not -- and is not -- the job of the chemists to 
explain the FPHE, other than through describing the chemical 
conditions. It was -- and remains -- the job of physicists, 
particularly experts in quantum field theory. And, it turns out, such 
people often had positive opinions about the possibility of cold 
fusion, going way back. They knew that the approximations of quantum 
mechanics used to rule out d-d fusion were just that, approximations, 
and they knew that we didn't know enough about the solid state to 
rule out "unknown nuclear reactions," which is what Pons and 
Fleischmann actually claimed.


Had the chemists stood up to be counted, well, the American Chemical 
Society is the largest scientific society in the world. The American 
Physical Society, because of the large big-science projects, had the 
political connections, and strong economic motives, but it was the 
silence of the chemists that allowed the physicists to be so 
effective in suppressing funding.


The historians of science have begun to examine the history of cold 
fusion, and I expect to see much more in the future. This really was, 
as Huizenga called it, the Scientific Fiasco of the Century, and he 
didn't know the half of it.


I think the scientific method ensures that when a large group of 
people study physical phenomena for a long time, most of their data 
will be good, and their conclusions correct. If that were not true, 
the scientific method would fail. Our textbooks and technology would 
be far less reliable than they actually are.


A large group of scientists, some recruited by the DoE for the ERAB 
panel report, and some funded by the DoE, did study the phenomenon of 
cold fusion, but with utterly inadequate preparation and under time 
constraints that made their negative results inevitable. The DoE 
wasted a lot of money in this way, and they got nothing conclusive 
out of it. The research itself was useful. It established part of the 
parameter space for cold fusion. Basically, if you do what they did, 
you don't see the effect. That's important to know!


The problem, though, was in the conclusions drawn from that research. 
Somehow, because these were "reputable research groups," their 
negative results were presumed to negate positive results from 
others, which is preposterous. A failed replication is simply a 
failed replication; only if conditions could be *exactly controlled* 
could one even begin to assume that a failed replication is contrary 
evidence to positive reports. Once the basic FPHE had been confirmed 
by one or two groups, the search for cause or artifact should have 
become intense. Instead, the scientific community largely turned away.


[...]


Frankly

Re: [Vo]:How bad is this news? Jed Rothwell

Jed, I do not pretend to be an expert on global warming.  I do have quite a bit 
of experience in solving difficult problems and in modeling unusual behaviors.  
You seem to be a guy that likes to think through issues that are of importance 
as well.  Perhaps you might want to consider the complexity of the global 
warming models for a moment.  Do you honestly believe that the software guys 
have included all of the variables that influence the future climate in their 
models?  If you answer yes, then you are going to be in for a major surprise in 
the near future.


All you need to do is to realize that there are several different models that 
are consulted as these scientists predict the future.  Why several?  If each 
one is suspect, then one would expect that the average prediction is also 
suspect.  And if you takes a peek at the Earth's past climate, it is apparent 
that forces are at work that are far more influential and complex than the 
relatively simple carbon dioxide driver.


Now I have read, but not confirmed that the current models do a poor job of 
predicting backwards.  This does not surprise me at all since I can generate a 
relatively simple multivariable curve fit from existing data that does a 
marvelous job of matching the source data during the source period.  You tend 
to disregard the 16 year heating pause, dismissing it offhand because it is not 
possible according to your beliefs.   What of the cooling period between 1940 
and upwards until just before the recent critical rise that is so discussed?   
Do you recall talk of a new Ice Age that was thought to be beginning during the 
60's?


May I ask you one simple question if you are planning to respond to this post.  
Do you honestly believe that the current climate models accurately take into 
account all of the important variables and their interactions that predict 
future climate?  You answer to this one question might open your eyes to the 
possibilities which you have thus far avoided.


Dave



-Original Message-
From: Jed Rothwell 
To: vortex-l 
Sent: Tue, Dec 4, 2012 2:57 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:How bad is this news? Jed Rothwell


David Roberson  wrote:



It does not take a bible fanatic to question the global warming train wreck.  
Some of us have worked with complex systems before and realize just how 
difficult it is to separate out the various important parameters.


Unless you have worked with this particular complex system, day in and day out, 
for many years, you are not qualified to render a valid professional opinion of 
it. Not even slightly qualified.


I worked with extremely complex computer programs for 20 years. I know a lot 
about software.  In some ways, I know more than programmers trained nowadays, 
since I had to deal with hardware limitations, assembly language and so on. I 
also have a degree in language and linguistics, so I know a lot about 
translation, text processing and so on. I read Chomsky, and I studied with 
professors who thought Chomsky is a fool. I have translated papers and books.


I can read and understand some of the complicated papers published by Google 
about their machine translation. I can probably understand those papers better 
than 99% of the reading public. HOWEVER, I would not -- in a million years -- 
show up at a conference and claim that I know better than the experts at 
Google. I am a knowledgeable amateur in that field.


Since you have worked with complex systems, you are entitled to an opinion. No 
doubt you are better at evaluating climatology claims than 99% of the reading 
public. But that still does not mean you are anything more than a gifted 
amateur. You really have no business claiming you know better the experts, or 
asserting that the research is a "train wreck." At best, you can say you have 
some doubts. Why not? After all, many aspects of the research are doubtful. 
There are many open questions. You are probably well qualified to discuss them.


Many aspects of machine translation are doubtful or unresolved. If you want to 
know how and why they are doubtful you could do worse than to ask me. I 
probably know better than most science journalists. But that does not begin to 
make me an expert!


- Jed

Re: [Vo]:How bad is this news? Jed Rothwell

Axil, this "thermal Inertia" argument is untenable and does not fit the facts.

In order for your thermal Inertia argument to be correct, you need to show 
steady temperatures over the years as the extra heat is supposedly being 
"absorbed" by the ocean waters.  Fact is, global temperatures were increasing 
for serveral years starting in the 70s up to approx 2000, then temps remained 
steady.  Thermal Inertia can not explain why this is happenning.

But, instead of acknowledging that there may be something seriously and fatally 
wrong with their models, these supposed experts continue with the charade and 
claim the "settled science" argument and continue pushing the lie of AGW.  And 
we have lackeys in this forum arguing that these experts must be right because 
they spend their days and nights studying this subject and they undertstand it 
more fully and more correctly even though their explanation does not fit the 
observed facts.  And it has never occured to this lackey that these supposed 
experts might be LYING.

What sort of logical fallacy argument is this?  "Yea ... our experimental data 
do not fit our models but we are still right because we have PhDs and we've 
been studying this problem for decades."  This is the argument Jed wants you to 
swallow.  Does this sound like the scientific method to anyone in this forum?


Jojo



  - Original Message - 
  From: Axil Axil 
  To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
  Sent: Wednesday, December 05, 2012 3:17 AM
  Subject: Re: [Vo]:How bad is this news? Jed Rothwell


  The primary reasons why the climate is not heating up faster than it has been 
include oceanic thermal inertia and industrial negative aerosol forcing. 

  There is a lot of water in the ocean and there still is loads of ice spread 
around the world that can cool that water.

  In the case of oceanic thermal inertia, the good news is that because the 
oceans are so large, and take so much time to absorb the thermal energy, we are 
warming more slowly than would otherwise occur.
   
  The bad news is that the oceans not only take up heat slowly, the also 
dissipate heat slowly. So even if we are able to reduce the greenhouse gases in 
the earth atmosphere to reasonable levels (closer to 300ppm CO2) the thermal 
inertia of the oceans will still take quite some time to respond and cooling 
down the earth will take considerable time.

  On the bright side, We still have some time to get LENR and zero point 
energy(ZPE) extraction developed and deployed to replace fossil fuel burning 
before all the ice is gone. 


  Cheers:Axil



  On Mon, Dec 3, 2012 at 9:07 PM, a.ashfield  wrote:

Jed,
I have been following the subject fairly closely.  I'm not about to start 
yet another discussion on AGW.  I've written hundreds of posts on that already. 
 That the IPCC forecast has been falsified for the average of the models and 
most of the individual models you can read about on Lucia's blog at 
http://rankexploits.com/musings/
I'm not at all sure that global temperature is even a very meaningful 
number when you think about it.

I lean towards what Prof. Syun-Ichi Akasofu writes here: 
http://people.iarc.uaf.edu/~sakasofu/pdf/two_natural_components_recent_climate_change.pdf
At least his forecast is a lot closer than IPCC's.

RE: [Vo]:How bad is this news? Jed Rothwell

It is sad indeed to realize that politics and entrenched financial interests 
dominate science - or what passes for it- but the notion that global warming 
denial is just triggered by oil companies and the like is naïve.  There are 
powerful interests on the other side - and, in addition, because of regulatory 
perversions, even oil companies can come to embrace global warming as a 
deceptive means to beat down competitors or draw benefits from the public 
trough.

Don't laugh. Tobacco companies have done a very good job of this sort of 
shenanigans.

Re: [Vo]:How bad is this news? Jed Rothwell


At 07:25 AM 12/4/2012, Robert McKay wrote:

On Mon, 3 Dec 2012 22:02:33 -0500, Jed Rothwell wrote:

I will grant that in some cases, experts are blinded by their own
professional knowledge and by the bias of the field as a whole. That
is why many physicists do not believe in cold fusion. But the key


That's pretty much exactly the problem with climatologists- they 
only believe in global warming (sorry "climate change") because 
that's what they do.. as you say the field as a whole is biased.


This might be true for some, but it's an error as applied to the 
whole field. Someone who studies climate may be involved in that 
regardless of any prior opinion about global warming. Climates do 
change, and the issue is how and why.


IMO you don't need to know anything about climate science to 
understand global warming - it's all about politics and banking 
(imagine a global economy underpinned by financial products where 
the only underlaying deliverable is itself an intangible book 
keeping entry). The powers that be have decided that co2 trading is 
the way forward and are determined to ram it down everyone's 
throats. It doesn't matter if it's a pack of lies or not, they're 
already too invested in the idea to do anything else at this point.


The explanation is making an assumption. It's "all about" politics. 
Certainly politics has become involved. But if human activity and 
increased CO2 release into the atmosphere is changing climate, that 
has nothing to do with politics, per se. It's a physical effect, if it's real.


It's plausible that it would cause change, and it's also plausible 
that these changes could cause substantial disruption. So, my view, 
it's important to find out the reality of this, and our attachment to 
one side or the other, based on "politics," simply confuses the 
issue. The climate doesn't care about our politics. It will not warm 
because every climatologist thinks it will, and it will not cool 
because every libertarian or contrarian thinks climate change is bogus.


It's correct that you don't need to know anything about climate 
science itself to understand some of the political forces, but we 
*do* need to understand climate science to understand how serious the 
problem is, and to understand if expensive measures should be taken.


Some economic forces will very understandably try to make a profit 
from environmental measures. That is totally irrelevant to the issue 
of whether these measures are necessary or advisable or not.


Generally, the interest of this list is science. At this point, the 
majority scientific opinion seems to be that AGW is real and 
dangerous. I'm fully aware that "majority scientific opinion" can be 
defective -- cold fusion demonstrates that, as did the 
fat/cholesterol hypothesis. If, however, one looks closely at these 
issues, one can find what Jed proposed. Those who actually were doing 
the research, and whose opinions were based on that research, who 
were following the scientific method, were generally correct, and 
those who didn't follow the scientific method were fooling 
themselves. Cargo cult science.


Keep your eyes open. Don't fool yourself.

Re: [Vo]:How bad is this news? Jed Rothwell


At 10:02 PM 12/3/2012, Jed Rothwell wrote:
I do not know enough about climatology to place any bets, but based 
on what I know about cold fusion and many other difficult areas of 
science and technology, if I have to bet, I'll stick with the people 
who do this for a living and who have been looking at the data every 
day for decades.


Basically, I'm with Jed on this. However, it's worth looking closer 
at this "expert" thing, and at what have been called "cascades." Here 
is an article about a cascade that continues to have major effects: 
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/09/science/09tier.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0


Remarkably, this is an example where Gary Taubes has *exposed* the 
cascade. Taubes was involved, in the 1990s, in solidifying the cold 
fusion cascade.


Because Taubes is actually interested in real science (besides his 
career), I see it as possible that he might take another look. It 
would be a great opportunity for him if he did 


Be that as it may, on Wikipedia, the cabal that was so oppressive wrt 
cold fusion first came into conflict with me on ... global warming. 
William M. Connolley, the administrator who first banned me from cold 
fusion, was actually a climate scientist. I had noticed this group of 
people sitting on the global warming article. One incident that I 
remember was when I attempted to insert, in the article, the 
definitions used by the IPCC in describing its *degree of certainty* 
as to anthropogenic global warming. Basically, the IPCC reports were 
very carefully crafted, and they were essentially conservative. But 
the terms they used were easily misunderstood by the lay reader, so I 
believed that the text should define terms like "probably," or 
"likely." The cabal absolutely didn't want to allow that. It would be 
"confusing," and "too much detail."


Right. They wanted to convey an impression, their own point of view, 
which was that global warming was a severe emergency.


I actually happened to agree with them, at least as to possibilities. 
It might be an emergency. But we need science and we need sober 
examination, and what happens with cascades is that a group 
"consensus" forms without a solid basis in science. They are social phenomena.


The article I cited above from John Tierney gives a good explanation 
of how cascades can form. It's important to understand that a cascade 
forming doesn't mean that the group is wrong. They might be right. It 
means, though, that the position taken isn't necessarily 
scientifically established.


Opposing cascades can form. That is there can be a pro-AGW cascade 
and a cascade that dismisses the whole thing as nonsense. Once people 
buy into a cascade, their opinions can be very difficult to dislodge 
with mere facts. After all, "we" already know the truth. And so every 
new fact is fitted into place in that picture, with whatever made-up 
explanations are necessary for this.


There is a review on cold fusion in a major mainstream 
multidisciplinary journal? There must be something wrong with this, 
since we already know that cold fusion is totally bogus, wasn't that 
shown conclusively twenty years ago? So we look, and, indeed, we find 
stuff to bring up:


1. Nothing new has been discovered in the last ten years. Or at least 
it looks like that, at first glance. (We can easily dismiss new stuff 
like Rossi, since his claims have not been verified.)


2. Naturwissenschaften is a biology journal. (Actually, it's 
multidisciplinary, but most articles involve the life sciences in some way.)


3. Edmund Storms, the review author, is on the editorial board of 
Naturwissenschaften. (Yes, he is, and the pseudoskeptics somehow 
never notice that this fact, in itself, indicates that cold fusion 
has turned the corner. He did not review and approve his own paper. 
It was solicited by the managing editor, and who else would write 
that paper? Some physicists who has no clue about the field?)


4. He mentions biological transmutation. Obviously, he's a wing nut. 
(If cold fusion is real, it would not be surprising if there are 
examples where proteins can set up the catalytic conditions. That 
work (Vysotskii) has not been confirmed, but replication *should* be 
attempted.)


5. The review hasn't been cited. (It's a review, and what it reveals 
is actually old news, the evidence was in place a decade ago. This 
review would likely only be cited in an attempt to contradict it, and 
it appears that, while it's likely attempts have been made, 
counter-reviews have not been accepted at any mainstream journal.)


That's how cascades persist. Through rationalizations. With the 
"dietary fat" cascade, for years, contrary research had great 
difficulty getting published, it was claimed that it would be 
"dangerous," people might draw premature conclusions from it and ... 
die! Then, as research showed that a low-carb, high fat diet (Atkins) 
actually produced lower cardiac risk factors than recommended low-fat 
diets, it was sai

Re: [Vo]:How bad is this news? Jed Rothwell

ONE CAN ONLY HOPE.


That is, one can only hope that money and profit is the only goal these AGW 
mongerers have.  But sadly, these people, run our government, control every 
aspect of our lives and they already have all the money they know what to do 
with.  Remember, these people control the Federal Reserve and they can print 
out "profits" anytime they want.  And they also control every other Central 
Bank in every country of the world.  One country tried to oppose their plans of 
Centralized monetary control, just for the African continent; and look at what 
happened to him.

No, one thing people must understand that this debate is more than just about 
AGW or climate change.  This is about promoting an occultic worship of the 
environment to help ease the coming about of an occultic worshipping world 
government.  These Illuminati satan worshippers want occultic beliefs to 
prevade every aspect of our lives so that we will be desentisized when their 
real identity and agenda is reveal.  The more occultic activities people are 
into, the easier their subjugation will be.

Why is donkeykong destroying our economy and replacing it with communism?  It 
is because they want to destroy every remnant of opposition by American 
Christians to their plans.  American Christians are the most educated and 
sensitive to their plans and they need this group of people brought to their 
knees with economic hardship.  Soften the enemy with large scale artillery 
bombardment - so to speak.

Yes, Jed, the debate about AGW is a debate about an occultic religion.  Man has 
to be blamed for "harming the environment" to create guilt to cause them to 
more readily accept this occultic paradigm of environmental worship.  Truth is, 
there is no significant global warming caused by man.


Jojo



  - Original Message - 
  From: Zell, Chris 
  To: 'vortex-l@eskimo.com' 
  Sent: Wednesday, December 05, 2012 3:53 AM
  Subject: RE: [Vo]:How bad is this news? Jed Rothwell


  I sincerely hope that our civilization is prepared for a possible Carrington 
event - that could dwarf any global warming effects. Another point, not often 
admitted is the possible influence of the TBTJ banks - which largely control 
governments. They want to profit from running carbon tax/permit exchanges.  JP 
Morgan already profits from running food stamp programs for the US government.

  It is reported that Lloyd Blankfein now has Secret Service protection against 
'aggressive' questioners/reporters. When the Occupy movement was in the 
headlines,  Big Banks gave "spontaneous" donations to NYC police causes to keep 
protesting riffraff away from their private mansions.

Re: [Vo]:How bad is this news? Jed Rothwell

2012-12-04 Thread fznidarsic

The experts say that a temp rise of more than two degrees will be really bad.

-Original Message-
From: Jed Rothwell 
To: vortex-l 
Sent: Tue, Dec 4, 2012 2:57 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:How bad is this news? Jed Rothwell

David Roberson  wrote:

It does not take a bible fanatic to question the global warming train wreck.  
Some of us have worked with complex systems before and realize just how 
difficult it is to separate out the various important parameters.

Unless you have worked with this particular complex system, day in and day out, 
for many years, you are not qualified to render a valid professional opinion of 
it. Not even slightly qualified.

I worked with extremely complex computer programs for 20 years. I know a lot 
about software.  In some ways, I know more than programmers trained nowadays, 
since I had to deal with hardware limitations, assembly language and so on. I 
also have a degree in language and linguistics, so I know a lot about 
translation, text processing and so on. I read Chomsky, and I studied with 
professors who thought Chomsky is a fool. I have translated papers and books.

I can read and understand some of the complicated papers published by Google 
about their machine translation. I can probably understand those papers better 
than 99% of the reading public. HOWEVER, I would not -- in a million years -- 
show up at a conference and claim that I know better than the experts at 
Google. I am a knowledgeable amateur in that field.

Since you have worked with complex systems, you are entitled to an opinion. No 
doubt you are better at evaluating climatology claims than 99% of the reading 
public. But that still does not mean you are anything more than a gifted 
amateur. You really have no business claiming you know better the experts, or 
asserting that the research is a "train wreck." At best, you can say you have 
some doubts. Why not? After all, many aspects of the research are doubtful. 
There are many open questions. You are probably well qualified to discuss them.

Many aspects of machine translation are doubtful or unresolved. If you want to 
know how and why they are doubtful you could do worse than to ask me. I 
probably know better than most science journalists. But that does not begin to 
make me an expert!

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:How bad is this news? Jed Rothwell

David Roberson  wrote:

It does not take a bible fanatic to question the global warming train
> wreck.  Some of us have worked with complex systems before and realize just
> how difficult it is to separate out the various important parameters.

Unless you have worked with this particular complex system, day in and day
out, for many years, you are not qualified to render a valid professional
opinion of it. Not even slightly qualified.

I worked with extremely complex computer programs for 20 years. I know a
lot about software.  In some ways, I know more than programmers trained
nowadays, since I had to deal with hardware limitations, assembly language
and so on. I also have a degree in language and linguistics, so I know a
lot about translation, text processing and so on. I read Chomsky, and I
studied with professors who thought Chomsky is a fool. I have translated
papers and books.

I can read and understand some of the complicated papers published by
Google about their machine translation. I can probably understand those
papers better than 99% of the reading public. HOWEVER, I would not -- in a
million years -- show up at a conference and claim that I know better than
the experts at Google. I am a knowledgeable amateur in that field.

Since you have worked with complex systems, you are entitled to an opinion.
No doubt you are better at evaluating climatology claims than 99% of
the reading public. But that still does not mean you are anything more than
a gifted amateur. You really have no business claiming you know better the
experts, or asserting that the research is a "train wreck." At best, you
can say you have some doubts. Why not? After all, many aspects of the
research are doubtful. There are many open questions. You are probably well
qualified to discuss them.

Many aspects of machine translation are doubtful or unresolved. If you want
to know how and why they are doubtful you could do worse than to ask me. I
probably know better than most science journalists. But that does not begin
to make me an expert!

- Jed

RE: [Vo]:How bad is this news? Jed Rothwell

I sincerely hope that our civilization is prepared for a possible Carrington 
event - that could dwarf any global warming effects. Another point, not often 
admitted is the possible influence of the TBTJ banks - which largely control 
governments. They want to profit from running carbon tax/permit exchanges.  JP 
Morgan already profits from running food stamp programs for the US government.

It is reported that Lloyd Blankfein now has Secret Service protection against 
'aggressive' questioners/reporters. When the Occupy movement was in the 
headlines,  Big Banks gave "spontaneous" donations to NYC police causes to keep 
protesting riffraff away from their private mansions.

Re: [Vo]:How bad is this news? Jed Rothwell

Robert Lynn  wrote:

Jed, the argument from authority approach with regard to climate change
> doesn't work because there are so many highly educated dissenting voices .
> . .

No, there are not many. Sorry, but that is not the case. I have read enough
about the controversy to ascertain this. There are many people outside the
field who mistakenly believe themselves to be experts, who claim they have
discovered mistakes. But they are wrong.

This is exactly the situation we have with cold fusion. Self-appointed
experts who know nothing about the research, and who have no relevant
qualifications or experience have attacked it again and again, for bogus
reasons. These are often scientists, but being a scientist does not give
you a magic ability to understand subjects you have not studied.

I am sensitive about this because of what I have seen in cold fusion.

Let me add a minor note about terminology. You have confused the issue
slightly by saying "argument from authority." Usually, "argument from
authority" is used to mean fallacious appeal to authority (Misuse of
Authority), which is what I described before:

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-authority.html

Like the word "inflammable" this means the opposite of what it sounds like
it means. If you can show that the authorities you are cite are actually
legitimate authorities in the proper area, then your argument is valid by
definition, albeit weak.

If I show that Dr. X is a valid authority and he says cold fusion is real,
and you show that Prof. Y is also a valid authority and she says cold
fusion is not real, then we must conclude that legitimate experts disagree.
We cannot depend on authority. You are saying that is the situation with
global warming. However, you are wrong. There are very few actual,
accredited experts in that field who disagree.

There will always be SOME experts who disagree.

Some people claim there are only a few accredited experts because the
majority of climatologists purge the ones who disagree with them. This is
unlikely. The fact that there are a few proves they are ignored, not
purged. That would be the pattern in other fields. The scientists I know
don't care what other scientists think. There are many individuals in cold
fusion who disagree with the majority. No one listens to them, but no one
tries to purge them either.

Even in biology there are few creationists. They are considered eccentric
but no one cares what they say.

Here is some text from the nizkor.org definition of "appeal to authority:"

"This fallacy is committed when the person in question is not a legitimate
authority on the subject. More formally, if person A is not qualified to
make reliable claims in subject S, then the argument will be fallacious.

This sort of reasoning is fallacious when the person in question is not an
expert. In such cases the reasoning is flawed because the fact that an
unqualified person makes a claim does not provide any justification for the
claim. The claim could be true, but the fact that an unqualified person
made the claim does not provide any rational reason to accept the claim as
true. . . .

Determining whether or not a person has the needed degree of expertise can
often be very difficult. In academic fields (such as philosophy,
engineering, history, etc.), the person's formal education, academic
performance, publications, membership in professional societies, papers
presented, awards won and so forth can all be reliable indicators of
expertise. . . .

. . . It should be noted that being an expert does not always require
having a university degree. Many people have high degrees of expertise in
sophisticated subjects without having ever attended a university. Further,
it should not be simply assumed that a person with a degree is an expert.

Of course, what is required to be an expert is often a matter of great
debate. . . ."

That last point is true, but not so much for hard science. There is a world
of difference between someone who has done the work it takes to get a PhD
versus an amateur. I have met some very stupid PhD scientists such as Nate
Hoffman and David Lindley. They make elementary logical errors. However,
their technical knowledge is miles above mine. I would never challenge
their judgement regarding their expertise (mass spectroscopy in Hoffman's
case). In my review of Hoffman's book, I criticized him because he thought
Ontario Hydro sells used moderator water in bottles. I suspected this was
wrong, and quickly confirmed this water is 100 million times too
radioactive to sell. I criticized him because he lacked common sense and
over the two years he was writing the book, he did not bother to do what
any newspaper reporter would do in the first half-hour: call Ontario Hydro
on the phone. That's stupid, but it has nothing to do with spectroscopy. It
is not technical stupidity. It is ordinary, garden variety stupidity.

An expert outside his field is likely to be as prone to making errors is
a

Re: [Vo]:How bad is this news? Jed Rothwell

2012-12-04 Thread ChemE Stewart

Warmth is better short term than ice ages and dead crops like during the
dark ages.  Let's focus on keeping the lights on in 2013

Stewart
darkmattersalot.com


On Tue, Dec 4, 2012 at 2:28 PM, David Roberson  wrote:

> It does not take a bible fanatic to question the global warming train
> wreck.  Some of us have worked with complex systems before and realize just
> how difficult it is to separate out the various important parameters.  The
> climate system of the Earth is most likely one of the most complex ones
> that anyone has ever attempted to model.
>
>  I have stood by and watched over the years as the modelers continue to
> improve their models as more variables are added and manipulated.  For a
> very long time ocean currents were not even considered.  The omission of
> many similar variables shout out that these guys are over their heads.  I
> would assume that the models will improve over time as the many current
> problems are uncovered and compensated for.  Should the people of the world
> destroy their futures by spending enormous sums on alternate energy sources
> if it ultimately is resolved that nature, not man is the driving force
> behind the climate?
>
>  Does anyone ever ask themselves why there is such a rush to tax carbon
> emission when it will be many years before the changes take effect?
>  Perhaps it is because there are many groups that will benefit quickly from
> the proposed system and they do not want to see too many years pass before
> their investments mature.  I know of a hot place where these guys should be
> interred if they are acting only in self interest.
>
>  So all I can say is:Calm down, relax, get the science right, take enough
> time to understand the problem, they find the best path forward.  This will
> take many years as it should.  Do not fall prey to those that want quick
> action as it is generally in their best interests to do so.  Under no
> circumstances allow the UN or any other power hungry association to obtain
> taxing powers over all of us as this will be the foot in the door that they
> always seek.  We are an intelligent species and will eventually make the
> correct choices.
>
>  Dave
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Daniel Rocha 
> To: John Milstone 
> Sent: Tue, Dec 4, 2012 11:48 am
> Subject: Re: [Vo]:How bad is this news? Jed Rothwell
>
>  Oh, damn! I talk about a possible correlation between bible fanatics and
> AGW denial and guess who appears 1 minute later! HA!
>

Re: [Vo]:How bad is this news? Jed Rothwell

It does not take a bible fanatic to question the global warming train wreck.  
Some of us have worked with complex systems before and realize just how 
difficult it is to separate out the various important parameters.  The climate 
system of the Earth is most likely one of the most complex ones that anyone has 
ever attempted to model.


I have stood by and watched over the years as the modelers continue to improve 
their models as more variables are added and manipulated.  For a very long time 
ocean currents were not even considered.  The omission of many similar 
variables shout out that these guys are over their heads.  I would assume that 
the models will improve over time as the many current problems are uncovered 
and compensated for.  Should the people of the world destroy their futures by 
spending enormous sums on alternate energy sources if it ultimately is resolved 
that nature, not man is the driving force behind the climate?


Does anyone ever ask themselves why there is such a rush to tax carbon emission 
when it will be many years before the changes take effect?  Perhaps it is 
because there are many groups that will benefit quickly from the proposed 
system and they do not want to see too many years pass before their investments 
mature.  I know of a hot place where these guys should be interred if they are 
acting only in self interest.


So all I can say is:Calm down, relax, get the science right, take enough time 
to understand the problem, they find the best path forward.  This will take 
many years as it should.  Do not fall prey to those that want quick action as 
it is generally in their best interests to do so.  Under no circumstances allow 
the UN or any other power hungry association to obtain taxing powers over all 
of us as this will be the foot in the door that they always seek.  We are an 
intelligent species and will eventually make the correct choices.


Dave



-Original Message-
From: Daniel Rocha 
To: John Milstone 
Sent: Tue, Dec 4, 2012 11:48 am
Subject: Re: [Vo]:How bad is this news? Jed Rothwell


Oh, damn! I talk about a possible correlation between bible fanatics and AGW 
denial and guess who appears 1 minute later! HA!

Re: [Vo]:[Defkalion GT] "Το ΒΗΜΑ-science" article of December 2nd, 2012 (in English)

2012-12-04 Thread Akira Shirakawa


On 2012-12-04 10:26, Akira Shirakawa wrote:

http://www.defkalion-energy.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=4367


PDF version (containing a few photos) now available in the link above. 
Direct link:


http://www.defkalion-energy.com/forum/download/file.php?id=33

(you might need to be logged to the DGT forum)

Cheers,
S.A.

Re: [Vo]:How bad is this news? Jed Rothwell

The primary reasons why the climate is not heating up faster than it has
been include oceanic thermal inertia and industrial negative aerosol
forcing.

There is a lot of water in the ocean and there still is loads of ice spread
around the world that can cool that water.

In the case of oceanic thermal inertia, the good news is that because the
oceans are so large, and take so much time to absorb the thermal energy, we
are warming more slowly than would otherwise occur.

The bad news is that the oceans not only take up heat slowly, the also
dissipate heat slowly. So even if we are able to reduce the greenhouse
gases in the earth atmosphere to reasonable levels (closer to 300ppm CO2)
the thermal inertia of the oceans will still take quite some time to
respond and cooling down the earth will take considerable time.
On the bright side, We still have some time to get LENR and zero point
energy(ZPE) extraction developed and deployed to replace fossil fuel
burning before all the ice is gone.

Cheers:Axil

On Mon, Dec 3, 2012 at 9:07 PM, a.ashfield  wrote:

> Jed,
> I have been following the subject fairly closely.  I'm not about to start
> yet another discussion on AGW.  I've written hundreds of posts on that
> already.  That the IPCC forecast has been falsified for the average of the
> models and most of the individual models you can read about on Lucia's blog
> at http://rankexploits.com/**musings/ 
> I'm not at all sure that global temperature is even a very meaningful
> number when you think about it.
>
> I lean towards what Prof. Syun-Ichi Akasofu writes here:
> http://people.iarc.uaf.edu/~**sakasofu/pdf/two_natural_**
> components_recent_climate_**change.pdf
> At least his forecast is a lot closer than IPCC's.
>
>

Re: [Vo]:How bad is this news? Jed Rothwell

2012-12-04 Thread ChemE Stewart

JoJo,

Always the charmer...


On Tue, Dec 4, 2012 at 12:25 PM, Jojo Jaro  wrote:

> **
> Ha Ha Ha, you give yourself too much credit as if the world revolves
> around you.  I respond to your posts like I respond to those cow
> decorations I find in my farm, as there is no difference between the two.
> LOL ...
>
> All that hot air is inflating your bubble head.  Tell you what, let make
> use of all that hot air from your mouth and patent a stirling engine to
> free us of arab oil, shall we?
>
> Jojo
>
>
>
> PS. thanks for the entertainment though.
>
>
>
>
> - Original Message -
> *From:* Daniel Rocha 
> *To:* John Milstone 
> *Sent:* Wednesday, December 05, 2012 12:48 AM
> *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:How bad is this news? Jed Rothwell
>
> Oh, damn! I talk about a possible correlation between bible fanatics and
> AGW denial and guess who appears 1 minute later! HA!
>
>
> 2012/12/4 Jojo Jaro 
>
>> NO no no ... please don't drop off from this discussion.  I'm thoroughly
>> enjoying this discussion.
>>
>> Robert L and Robert M, please continue this discussion and continue
>> putting out facts.  It's about time somebody knowledgeable took the time to
>> correct all these anthropic global warming crap that keeps on cropping up
>> out of nowhere.  It's like cockroaches, you can't seem to kill them all.
>> Like cockroaches, there're persistent, yucky and totally useless.
>>
>> Jed, is one of those people who complain loudly about the bias in the Hot
>> Fusion community against cold fusion, but he himself remains oblivious to
>> the fact that he suffers the same malady when it comes to his pet theories.
>> And he appeals to "majority authority" as vehemently as hot fusion
>> researchers appeal to their "majority" status.  One big difference though,
>> these Hot fusion scientists probably know that they are being biased but
>> continue in it for finanacial reasons (ie. Research grants), but Jed is
>> simply deluded, blind and biased for no reason at all.  No amount of facts,
>> statistics and/or sound experiments will convince a person like Jed,  It a
>> religion to these people.
>>
>> Jojo
>>
>>
>> - Original Message - From: "Robert McKay" 
>> To: 
>> Sent: Tuesday, December 04, 2012 11:53 PM
>> Subject: Re: [Vo]:How bad is this news? Jed Rothwell
>>
>>
>>
>> On Tue, 4 Dec 2012 10:43:59 -0500, Jed Rothwell wrote:
>>>
 Robert McKay  wrote:

 I dont doubt that.. the climatologists themselves arent going to
> benefit much either way (although Im sure many of them make a modest
> livings out of it - and thats not nothing these days). Theyre merely
> needed to produce those tedious reports.. they just need to keep
> churning out talking points to keep the issue alive.
>

 Look, that is ridiculous. People do not act that way! A person does
 not spend 5 or 10 years slaving away to get a PhD without being in
 love with the subject. You dont do that just to get some meaningless,
 dead-end job churning out fake data for corporations for 60 hours a
 week.

>>>
>>> I'm not saying they don't believe in what they're doing.. there must be
>>> lots of legitimate data showing climate change.. the climate does change
>>> after all. The point I was making that is that the climate science is
>>> simply irrelevant to understanding global warming / "the climate change
>>> issue" which is better understood as a political and financial phenomenon.
>>>
>>> I'm already regreting entering the discussion.. so I'll drop it, it
>>> doesn't seem like we'll be reaching any kind of concensus. :)
>>>
>>> Rob
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Daniel Rocha - RJ
> danieldi...@gmail.com
>
>

Re: [Vo]:How bad is this news? Jed Rothwell

Ha Ha Ha, you give yourself too much credit as if the world revolves around 
you.  I respond to your posts like I respond to those cow decorations I find in 
my farm, as there is no difference between the two.  LOL ...

All that hot air is inflating your bubble head.  Tell you what, let make use of 
all that hot air from your mouth and patent a stirling engine to free us of 
arab oil, shall we?

Jojo



PS. thanks for the entertainment though.  



  - Original Message - 
  From: Daniel Rocha 
  To: John Milstone 
  Sent: Wednesday, December 05, 2012 12:48 AM
  Subject: Re: [Vo]:How bad is this news? Jed Rothwell


  Oh, damn! I talk about a possible correlation between bible fanatics and AGW 
denial and guess who appears 1 minute later! HA!



  2012/12/4 Jojo Jaro 

NO no no ... please don't drop off from this discussion.  I'm thoroughly 
enjoying this discussion.

Robert L and Robert M, please continue this discussion and continue putting 
out facts.  It's about time somebody knowledgeable took the time to correct all 
these anthropic global warming crap that keeps on cropping up out of nowhere.  
It's like cockroaches, you can't seem to kill them all.   Like cockroaches, 
there're persistent, yucky and totally useless.

Jed, is one of those people who complain loudly about the bias in the Hot 
Fusion community against cold fusion, but he himself remains oblivious to the 
fact that he suffers the same malady when it comes to his pet theories. And he 
appeals to "majority authority" as vehemently as hot fusion researchers appeal 
to their "majority" status.  One big difference though, these Hot fusion 
scientists probably know that they are being biased but continue in it for 
finanacial reasons (ie. Research grants), but Jed is simply deluded, blind and 
biased for no reason at all.  No amount of facts, statistics and/or sound 
experiments will convince a person like Jed,  It a religion to these people.

Jojo


- Original Message - From: "Robert McKay" 
To: 
Sent: Tuesday, December 04, 2012 11:53 PM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:How bad is this news? Jed Rothwell




  On Tue, 4 Dec 2012 10:43:59 -0500, Jed Rothwell wrote:

Robert McKay  wrote:


  I dont doubt that.. the climatologists themselves arent going to
  benefit much either way (although Im sure many of them make a modest
  livings out of it - and thats not nothing these days). Theyre merely
  needed to produce those tedious reports.. they just need to keep
  churning out talking points to keep the issue alive.


Look, that is ridiculous. People do not act that way! A person does
not spend 5 or 10 years slaving away to get a PhD without being in
love with the subject. You dont do that just to get some meaningless,
dead-end job churning out fake data for corporations for 60 hours a
week.


  I'm not saying they don't believe in what they're doing.. there must be 
lots of legitimate data showing climate change.. the climate does change after 
all. The point I was making that is that the climate science is simply 
irrelevant to understanding global warming / "the climate change issue" which 
is better understood as a political and financial phenomenon.

  I'm already regreting entering the discussion.. so I'll drop it, it 
doesn't seem like we'll be reaching any kind of concensus. :)

  Rob










  -- 
  Daniel Rocha - RJ
  danieldi...@gmail.com

Re: [Vo]:How bad is this news? Jed Rothwell

Oh, damn! I talk about a possible correlation between bible fanatics and
AGW denial and guess who appears 1 minute later! HA!


2012/12/4 Jojo Jaro 

> NO no no ... please don't drop off from this discussion.  I'm thoroughly
> enjoying this discussion.
>
> Robert L and Robert M, please continue this discussion and continue
> putting out facts.  It's about time somebody knowledgeable took the time to
> correct all these anthropic global warming crap that keeps on cropping up
> out of nowhere.  It's like cockroaches, you can't seem to kill them all.
> Like cockroaches, there're persistent, yucky and totally useless.
>
> Jed, is one of those people who complain loudly about the bias in the Hot
> Fusion community against cold fusion, but he himself remains oblivious to
> the fact that he suffers the same malady when it comes to his pet theories.
> And he appeals to "majority authority" as vehemently as hot fusion
> researchers appeal to their "majority" status.  One big difference though,
> these Hot fusion scientists probably know that they are being biased but
> continue in it for finanacial reasons (ie. Research grants), but Jed is
> simply deluded, blind and biased for no reason at all.  No amount of facts,
> statistics and/or sound experiments will convince a person like Jed,  It a
> religion to these people.
>
> Jojo
>
>
> - Original Message - From: "Robert McKay" 
> To: 
> Sent: Tuesday, December 04, 2012 11:53 PM
> Subject: Re: [Vo]:How bad is this news? Jed Rothwell
>
>
>
>  On Tue, 4 Dec 2012 10:43:59 -0500, Jed Rothwell wrote:
>>
>>> Robert McKay  wrote:
>>>
>>>  I dont doubt that.. the climatologists themselves arent going to
 benefit much either way (although Im sure many of them make a modest
 livings out of it - and thats not nothing these days). Theyre merely
 needed to produce those tedious reports.. they just need to keep
 churning out talking points to keep the issue alive.

>>>
>>> Look, that is ridiculous. People do not act that way! A person does
>>> not spend 5 or 10 years slaving away to get a PhD without being in
>>> love with the subject. You dont do that just to get some meaningless,
>>> dead-end job churning out fake data for corporations for 60 hours a
>>> week.
>>>
>>
>> I'm not saying they don't believe in what they're doing.. there must be
>> lots of legitimate data showing climate change.. the climate does change
>> after all. The point I was making that is that the climate science is
>> simply irrelevant to understanding global warming / "the climate change
>> issue" which is better understood as a political and financial phenomenon.
>>
>> I'm already regreting entering the discussion.. so I'll drop it, it
>> doesn't seem like we'll be reaching any kind of concensus. :)
>>
>> Rob
>>
>>
>>
>


-- 
Daniel Rocha - RJ
danieldi...@gmail.com

Re: [Vo]:How bad is this news? Jed Rothwell

2012-12-04 Thread Jouni Valkonen

It should be obvious that there is politics involved in climate science.
There is just too much money and urgency involved. This means also
corruption, because science is not clear and it is very difficult and
everyone wants to see what the wish most.

However, Jed is very right that overall ideas behind climate change are
very solid. Of course there is lots of room for criticism as there are big
uncertainties, however basic are on very solid ground.

Best way to measure the climate change would be to measure the total heat
content of oceans. This gives reliable result, if there is net warming or
cooling or random fluctuations.

Too bad that there is very little data available from Ocean heat content.
However we have good data set from the last 10 years and thus we could see
the trend in climate with very good accuracy within the next 10 years.

As I have previously personally pointed out, that I prefer geoengineering
over cutting carbon emissions. This is because, if Europeans would buy
their food from Africa where there are the most fertile untouched farm
lands, the regrown temperate European forests would absorb all European
carbon emissions. Forests have very favorable effect on water cycle so
regrowing forests is the best way to geoengineer the planet.

Later in 2020's and early 30's vertical farming will bring food production
back to Europe. And when vertical farming is the major way to grow food,
there is no more environmental worries, because 98 % of all
environmental degradation is caused by traditional agriculture.

—Jouni

Re: [Vo]:How bad is this news? Jed Rothwell

NO no no ... please don't drop off from this discussion.  I'm thoroughly 
enjoying this discussion.


Robert L and Robert M, please continue this discussion and continue putting 
out facts.  It's about time somebody knowledgeable took the time to correct 
all these anthropic global warming crap that keeps on cropping up out of 
nowhere.  It's like cockroaches, you can't seem to kill them all.   Like 
cockroaches, there're persistent, yucky and totally useless.


Jed, is one of those people who complain loudly about the bias in the Hot 
Fusion community against cold fusion, but he himself remains oblivious to 
the fact that he suffers the same malady when it comes to his pet theories. 
And he appeals to "majority authority" as vehemently as hot fusion 
researchers appeal to their "majority" status.  One big difference though, 
these Hot fusion scientists probably know that they are being biased but 
continue in it for finanacial reasons (ie. Research grants), but Jed is 
simply deluded, blind and biased for no reason at all.  No amount of facts, 
statistics and/or sound experiments will convince a person like Jed,  It a 
religion to these people.


Jojo


- Original Message - 
From: "Robert McKay" 

To: 
Sent: Tuesday, December 04, 2012 11:53 PM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:How bad is this news? Jed Rothwell



On Tue, 4 Dec 2012 10:43:59 -0500, Jed Rothwell wrote:

Robert McKay  wrote:


I dont doubt that.. the climatologists themselves arent going to
benefit much either way (although Im sure many of them make a modest
livings out of it - and thats not nothing these days). Theyre merely
needed to produce those tedious reports.. they just need to keep
churning out talking points to keep the issue alive.


Look, that is ridiculous. People do not act that way! A person does
not spend 5 or 10 years slaving away to get a PhD without being in
love with the subject. You dont do that just to get some meaningless,
dead-end job churning out fake data for corporations for 60 hours a
week.


I'm not saying they don't believe in what they're doing.. there must be 
lots of legitimate data showing climate change.. the climate does change 
after all. The point I was making that is that the climate science is 
simply irrelevant to understanding global warming / "the climate change 
issue" which is better understood as a political and financial phenomenon.


I'm already regreting entering the discussion.. so I'll drop it, it 
doesn't seem like we'll be reaching any kind of concensus. :)


Rob

Re: [Vo]:How bad is this news? Jed Rothwell

It's interesting that AGW denial and Christian creationism are cultural
phenomena which is more intensely seen among USA citizens than elsewhere in
the world, with a reasonably educated population. I wonder if there is
correlation between those.

Re: [Vo]:How bad is this news? Jed Rothwell

2012-12-04 Thread Robert Lynn

Jed, the argument from authority approach with regard to climate change
doesn't work because there are so many highly educated dissenting voices,
so many examples of deficient analysis work in Climatology (check out
Climate Audit), and yet seemingly so little interest in improving woefully
bad scientific practices amongst climatologists.

No one (with a brain) disputes that we have experienced warming during the
20th century, and most agree that CO2 increases are causing some warming,
but there is way too much evidence that chalking it all up to increases in
CO2 is wrong.  Predictions of several degrees of future temperature rise
are based on extrapolations of a temperature increase from 1980-2000 that
has since halted, but that rise was similar in size and speed to the
1920-1940's - which was before CO2 took off.  The projections of
catastrophe are further founded on assumed large positive water vapour
feedbacks multiplying the impact of CO2 by 2-8 times that are looking less
and less tenable as more data is collected.  A rather nice summary of
uncertainty in that at:
http://judithcurry.com/2011/07/05/the-ipccs-alteration-of-forster-gregorys-model-independent-climate-sensitivity-results/

Amongst the many holes:
- CO2 started rising sharply in the mid 40's, yet the world then cooled for
30 years till the mid 70's.
- world has not warmed in the last 15 years (how much longer does that
trend need to continue before IPCC acknowledges their model predictions are
wrong?)
- missing tropospheric hot spot that is a central prediction of CAGW
climate modelling (in other branches of science failed predictions = failed
theory/model, but apparently not so in climatology)
- lack of acceleration in sea level rise during last few decades - the rate
is basically unchanged for >80 years (since before significant CO2 rise)
- temperatures that have varied by 3°C during the current interglacial
(holocene) for unknown reasons.
- temperatures getting colder as CO2 level rose during last 7000 years of
holocene (since holocene climate optimum that was a lot warmer than today) :
http://www.climate4you.com/images/GISP2%20TemperatureSince10700%20BP%20with%20CO2%20from%20EPICA%20DomeC.gif
- unexplained 1100 year periodicity in historical warming (Minoan Warm
period, Roman Warm period, Medieval warm period, next one in that series
would be ... now, but no, this time it's definitely all CO2.
- no explanation as to why 18th century little ice age (basically the
coldest period in last 8000 years) occurred.
- claims of worse storms, droughts, heat waves, floods etc
in disagreement with historical data.
- Global Climate Models do not account for very long period ocean and
thermo-haline circulation processes that appear to dominate climate as
evidenced by the well known 60 year PDO and AMO cycles.
- GCM's do not account for noted correlation between sun-spot cycle and
temperature.
- GCM's not even remotely capable of modelling cloud physics (and quite
probably never will be given difficulties of modelling cloud nucleation,
and associated convective circulation process on a grid that is fine enough
to be useful, turbulence modelling on a mind numbing scale).  You cannot
hope to get modelling right if you can't accurately model cloud formation,
as even a 1% change in cloud cover has more effect than CO2.
- GCM's tuned in post-hoc manner by fudge factors like aerosols when the
the historical concentration and distribution of aerosols is not known, and
even if they were known their actual influence on climate is not known
(being tied up with cloud nucleation physics and some really hairy
light propagation physics).  Exceptionally poor practice that is more
augury than science.

Most educated people, particularly anyone with a background in STEM find
that the more they look into catastrophic CAGW the less convinced they are.
 In fact you could say that it is a perfect example of a positive feedback
system in human terms when the proponents (Climatologists, Activists,
Politicians, Corporates involved in carbon trading) of CAGW get ever more
power and money for creating and promulgating bigger and badder scare
stories.  It's naive to think that the IPCC could ever let the message be a
balanced one of scientific uncertainty in the face of such powerful and
venal motivating factors.

On 4 December 2012 12:25, Robert McKay  wrote:

> On Mon, 3 Dec 2012 22:02:33 -0500, Jed Rothwell wrote:
>
>> I will grant that in some cases, experts are blinded by their own
>> professional knowledge and by the bias of the field as a whole. That
>> is why many physicists do not believe in cold fusion. But the key
>>
>
> That's pretty much exactly the problem with climatologists- they only
> believe in global warming (sorry "climate change") because that's what they
> do.. as you say the field as a whole is biased.
>
> IMO you don't need to know anything about climate science to understand
> global warming - it's all about politics and banking (imagine a global
> eco

Re: [Vo]:How bad is this news? Jed Rothwell

2012-12-04 Thread ChemE Stewart

Weak anthropic principal at work. Nobody complained during last major ice
age because we were not around. We live at a privileged time.

Luckily, black holes suffer from indigestion which is why we are alive
today.

Stewart
Darkmattersalot.com

On Tuesday, December 4, 2012, Robert McKay wrote:

> On Tue, 4 Dec 2012 10:43:59 -0500, Jed Rothwell wrote:
>
>> Robert McKay  wrote:
>>
>>  I dont doubt that.. the climatologists themselves arent going to
>>> benefit much either way (although Im sure many of them make a modest
>>> livings out of it - and thats not nothing these days). Theyre merely
>>> needed to produce those tedious reports.. they just need to keep
>>> churning out talking points to keep the issue alive.
>>>
>>
>> Look, that is ridiculous. People do not act that way! A person does
>> not spend 5 or 10 years slaving away to get a PhD without being in
>> love with the subject. You dont do that just to get some meaningless,
>> dead-end job churning out fake data for corporations for 60 hours a
>> week.
>>
>
> I'm not saying they don't believe in what they're doing.. there must be
> lots of legitimate data showing climate change.. the climate does change
> after all. The point I was making that is that the climate science is
> simply irrelevant to understanding global warming / "the climate change
> issue" which is better understood as a political and financial phenomenon.
>
> I'm already regreting entering the discussion.. so I'll drop it, it
> doesn't seem like we'll be reaching any kind of concensus. :)
>
> Rob
>
>

Re: [Vo]:How bad is this news? Jed Rothwell

2012-12-04 Thread Robert McKay


On Tue, 4 Dec 2012 10:43:59 -0500, Jed Rothwell wrote:

Robert McKay  wrote:


I dont doubt that.. the climatologists themselves arent going to
benefit much either way (although Im sure many of them make a modest
livings out of it - and thats not nothing these days). Theyre merely
needed to produce those tedious reports.. they just need to keep
churning out talking points to keep the issue alive.


Look, that is ridiculous. People do not act that way! A person does
not spend 5 or 10 years slaving away to get a PhD without being in
love with the subject. You dont do that just to get some meaningless,
dead-end job churning out fake data for corporations for 60 hours a
week.


I'm not saying they don't believe in what they're doing.. there must be 
lots of legitimate data showing climate change.. the climate does change 
after all. The point I was making that is that the climate science is 
simply irrelevant to understanding global warming / "the climate change 
issue" which is better understood as a political and financial 
phenomenon.


I'm already regreting entering the discussion.. so I'll drop it, it 
doesn't seem like we'll be reaching any kind of concensus. :)


Rob

[Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:[Defkalion GT] "Το ΒΗΜΑ-science" article of December 2nd, 2012 (in English)

On Tue, Dec 4, 2012 at 9:50 AM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:
> This article at DGT says:
>
> "we are not talking about nuclear energy but chemical energy derived from
> transmutation."
>
> That does not make a damn bit of sense. It is contradictory.

I  understand their reticence to use the phrase "nuclear reaction".
Do you recall Peter's article:

http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com/2012/08/defkalion-says-heni-is-more-proper-name.html

I must agree that it is really not fusion and it is almost chemical.
For a brief period of time, the polarized H atom in a high energy
state looks like a neutron.  It is a new kind of reaction and HENI is
as good a name as any.  Or maybe CANR or CANI.  ;-)

Re: [Vo]:How bad is this news? Jed Rothwell

Robert McKay wrote:

I don't doubt that.. the climatologists themselves aren't going to benefit
> much either way (although I'm sure many of them make a modest livings out
> of it - and that's not nothing these days). They're merely needed to
> produce those tedious reports.. they just need to keep churning out talking
> points to keep the issue alive.

Look, that is ridiculous. People do not act that way! A person does not
spend 5 or 10 years slaving away to get a PhD without being in love with
the subject. You don't do that just to get some meaningless, dead-end job
churning out fake data for corporations for 60 hours a week.

Scientists are not paid well. They do not have high status jobs. They do
not have any prospect of sudden wealth, the way programmers sometimes do.
The only reason most of them do what they do is out of curiosity, and for
love of learning. They will NOT spend the 50 years of their
working career promoting what they know to be a lie. If they saw problems
with global warming data, they would say so. There is no unity among them,
in my experience. Cold fusion scientists love attacking one another as much
as the skeptics love doing that.

Furthermore, they are engaged in rigorous, evidence-based, hard
science. You cannot fake results in physics for long. If anyone bothers to
look at the results at all, someone will soon catch you. Unimportant
results may lie around untested and unreplicated, but global warming data
is important. There are a zillion well paid skeptical opponents itching to
prove it is wrong. If they could have, they would have by now.

There are also many well-paid skeptical opponents of cold fusion. If they
could have found an error in the data presented by McKubre, Miles or
Fleischmann, they would have, long LONG ago. Not a single paper has been
published showing a real error. By now we must assume the skeptics have
nothing. The same goes for the climate skeptics. They have published
nonsensical accusations that the data was fudged in the UK. I can read. I
can see that is not the case. With this "16 year claim" it is clear
they tried the same trick that the NHE project used to hide the excess heat
in Miles' data: picking an unusually high moment close to the start. Look
here; you can see at a glance that is what they did:

http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astronomy/2012/12/03/climate_change_deniers_write_another_fact_free_op_ed.html

They used the red portion, an absurdly biased sample.

That's a joke, is what that is. These are stupid, cheap tricks. No one
should fall for them. If they had a valid case, they would have made it by
now. The fact that they use stupid tricks like this shows they have nothing
real to present.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:How bad is this news? Jed Rothwell

2012-12-04 Thread a.ashfield

Jed, I don't have a PhD in LENR either, but I believe it exists even 
though the mainstream doesn't. Possibly my opinion is worth little.


The IPCC forecast has been falsified. It doesn't take a genius to 
understand that. The link I gave to Lucia's site "The Blackboard" has 
covered that in excruciating detail over the last couple of months. 
Lucia Liljegren classes herself as a lukewarmer and is highly regarded 
for her statistical ability amongst other things. Her opinion is worth 
more than mine on statistics.


You are of course welcome to your opinion on mainstream climate 
scientists. I find they are more near sighted than the community 
commenting negatively on LENR.


I recommend reading ""On certainty: Truth is the Daughter of Time" by 
Dr. Robert Brown here: 
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/12/03/on-certainty-truth-is-the-daughter-of-time/ 
The original quote by Francis Bacon circa 1600, was “Truth is the 
Daughter of Time, not of Authority”


I think Akasofu is worth reading too. The piece is long but mainly 
graphs, so a quick read. Note Fig. 2b.
http://people.iarc.uaf.edu/~sakasofu/pdf/two_natural_components_recent_climate_change.pdf

Re: [Vo]:How bad is this news? Jed Rothwell

2012-12-04 Thread Robert McKay


On Tue, 4 Dec 2012 09:36:50 -0500, Jed Rothwell wrote:

IMO you dont need to know anything about climate science to
understand global warming - its all about politics and banking
(imagine a global economy underpinned by financial products where
the only underlaying deliverable . . .



Frankly, thats silly. That reminds me of assertions that oil
companies are suppressing cold fusion. Or the counter-assertions by
opponents that cold fusion researchers are only in it for the grant
money. Believe me, there is no grant money in cold fusion!


But there is for doing climate science.. maybe they're not getting rich 
off it, but it's better than doing cold fusion anyway ;)



I know enough climatologists to know they are not living high on the
hog. They do not rake in the dollars. They work long hours on 
tedious,

demanding, boring science.


I don't doubt that.. the climatologists themselves aren't going to 
benefit much either way (although I'm sure many of them make a modest 
livings out of it - and that's not nothing these days). They're merely 
needed to produce those tedious reports.. they just need to keep 
churning out talking points to keep the issue alive. The profits and 
power will be made by the international carbon financiers. Anticipation 
of these profits is what drives the global warming agenda, the climate 
science just a necessary part of the set.



Life is not a conspiracy or a potboiler made-for-TV movie.


No, it's even stranger.

Rob

[Vo]:Re: [Vo]:[Defkalion GT] "Το ΒΗΜΑ-science" article of December 2nd, 2012 (in English)

This article at DGT says:

"we are not talking about nuclear energy but chemical energy derived from
transmutation."

That does not make a damn bit of sense. It is contradictory.
"Transmutation" means changing from element to another. That is to say,
changing the nucleus of the atom. When you change the nucleus you change
the level of nuclear energy. You can't *not* do that. Any energy release is
nuclear energy by definition.

It reminds me of a ditty:

"Mother, mother, may I go for a swim?

Yes, my darling daughter. Hang your clothes by the hickory bush, but don't
go near the water!"

Chemical energy is what you get from changing electron bonds, It cannot
affect the nucleus, which means it cannot directly trigger a transmutation.
In cold fusion, chemical processes promote or trigger nuclear changes. That
is analogous to the chemical explosives used to implode a plutonium core in
a fission bomb. The chemical reaction produces a mechanical transformation
which in turn triggers the nuclear reaction. I assume something similar is
happening on a microscopic scale in cold fusion.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:How bad is this news? Jed Rothwell

Robert McKay  wrote:

>
>  I will grant that in some cases, experts are blinded by their own
>> professional knowledge and by the bias of the field as a whole. That
>> is why many physicists do not believe in cold fusion. But the key
>>
>
> That's pretty much exactly the problem with climatologists- they only
> believe in global warming (sorry "climate change") because that's what they
> do.. as you say the field as a whole is biased.
>

I have never heard of an entire field of physical science being biased with
regard to the topic of that field itself. Plasma fusion scientists are
biased against cold fusion because they know nothing about it. Many top
physicists were biased against the maser and laser, and they tried to stop
Townes from developing it, but again, that was because they had not studied
the problem and they knew nothing about it.

People in a given field are sometimes biased against new ideas proposed by
outsiders. That is not because they are mistaken about their own ideas.
Their own ideas are valid, but the outsider's ideas are an improvement.
They oppose the ideas because -- again as I said -- they know nothing about
them.

I think the scientific method ensures that when a large group of people
study physical phenomena for a long time, most of their data will be good,
and their conclusions correct. If that were not true, the scientific method
would fail. Our textbooks and technology would be far less reliable than
they actually are.

I am sure that climatologists and weather forecasters are good at what they
do because weather forecasts are remarkably accurate these days. I realize
that short term weather forecasting is different from long term climate
studies, but they are both based on deep knowledge of the atmosphere. This
knowledge is manifestly correct in many ways. It is not perfect or
complete. Nothing in science ever is.

I am talking about physics, chemistry and other hard science. It may be
that historians or psychologists stick to nonsensical notions. Before the
discovery of DNA, there were a small number of biologists trying to explain
cellular reproduction with theories that turned out to be nonsense. Again
they thought they were experts, but spinning a theory does not make you an
expert unless you have experimental proof, and these people had none.

> IMO you don't need to know anything about climate science to understand
> global warming - it's all about politics and banking (imagine a global
> economy underpinned by financial products where the only underlaying
> deliverable . . .

Frankly, that's silly. That reminds me of assertions that oil companies are
suppressing cold fusion. Or the counter-assertions by opponents that cold
fusion researchers are only in it for the grant money. Believe me, there is
no grant money in cold fusion!

I know enough climatologists to know they are not living high on the hog.
They do not rake in the dollars. They work long hours on tedious,
demanding, boring science.

Life is not a conspiracy or a potboiler made-for-TV movie.

- Jed

[Vo]:Re: [Vo]:[Defkalion GT] "Το ΒΗΜΑ-science" article of December 2nd, 2012 (in English)