polarizing yes as was saying an economic cronicle journalist on a frenc TV (BFM, N doze), there are some suject for which it is hard to make your opinion if you have both vision and no prejudice. the vision of Judith Corry, ex-IPCC contibutor, traitor, is that uncertaineties have been ignored to save an agenda. her vision is a gödel-like agosticism... we have no way to know the reality. me I will add that we cannot have a knowledge because the information have been manipulated so highly, not to have any trust in.
at most today some basic facts seems accepted on both moderate side, MWP true, UHI some, solar some, soot some, greenhouse some, ocean oscillation some, sensibility moderate, warming temporary stall, extreme event none seen, human risk linked to poverty... but for LENR, this science sociology experiment, is another proof of manipulation of data, process, peer review, by a scientific community defending a comfortable. the theory of rational denial, the violence of fight against traitor, the inability to accept the clear facts, even if it is then to have a mild position. last thurstday I was discussin on a french science forum, with visibly physicist moderator, that is unable to answer with an open mind, about CERN conference, the peer reveiw papers... like Opera neutrino, you don't have to believe in something surprizing, just to express that it should be checked and is interesting. 2012/3/31 Robert Lynn <[email protected]> > Global warming has become an extremely polarising issue. There are > strong science based arguments on both sides but whichever side you > believe is to some extent a 'faith based' judgement as you can find > contradictory journal papers and analyses on almost every issue (other > than the actual general warming trend over the last century). I think > that there is little benefit to arguing about it in a forum such as > this as most people will already have strong beliefs one way or the > other and we are unlikely to change peoples beliefs with discussion - > it will only come from people being interested enough to do their own > research. > > On 31 March 2012 06:27, Jarold McWilliams <[email protected]> wrote: > > Fukishima disaster? How many people died in this disaster? 3 so far, 0 > > from radiation. How much was the damage to property? How many people > > died when a renewable energy dam broke? About 1,000 and probably about > the > > same economic damage with the homes washed away. There were also fires > at > > oil refineries that killed more people than the nuclear plants. Also, > the > > nuclear plants were built in the 1960's. We have much safer nuclear > plants > > we can build now, and the antinukes are actually promoting the use of > unsafe > > nuclear reactors compared to newer ones. > > > > On Mar 30, 2012, at 10:43 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: > > > > I wrote: > > > >> > >> If you were to change the laws in the US, and you offered a $10 bounty > for > >> the heads of women and children, I am certain you would find hundreds of > >> thousands of people who would gleefully go around chasing down, > shooting and > >> decapitating innocent people and bayoneting small children. . . . > > > > > >> > >> Believe me, we could end doing that in 10 years. If you doubt that you > >> have learned nothing from the 20th century. > > > > > > Or the 19th century. You may think that sounds like a dystopian fantasy > that > > could never happen in the U.S. In fact, 40 years before the Japanese army > > went on a rampage and killed 23 million Chinese people, the U.S. army and > > many ranchers still had a policy of killing off native Americans for a > > bounty, including women and children. They did not decapitate them; they > > scalped them. As Col. Chivington put it: "Kill and scalp all, big and > > little; nits make lice." > > > > See also the Atlanta race riots in 1906 and the book "The Warmth of Other > > Suns." > > > > It is a huge mistake to think that we can never go backwards, and we can > > never revert to the barbaric standards of the past. The Germans, Russians > > and Japanese did in the 20th century. Okay, it is not likely that the > U.S. a > > generation now will be in some lurid science fiction scenario, like the > > movie "The Hunger Games" or a world in which it is again okay to kill off > > Native Americans or black people. > > > > On the other hand, we have just seen the most important scientific > discovery > > in history ruthlessly suppressed for 23 years because of petty academic > > politics and greed. Did anyone think that could happen here? What else > might > > have been going on? Did anyone imagine how much money Wall Street was > > stealing and squandering before the 2008 crash? Read about the problems > BP > > oil installations had, culminating in the Gulf accident. Look at the > > Fukushima disaster. Many terrible things have happened, and many more > could > > happen, because of greed, stupidity, hate and barbarism. > > > > My point is not that we should fear what might happen, or give up hope. > > Never! The point is, don't be sanguine. Never assume you have nothing to > > worry about. Be prepared! > > > > I expect there will be an orchestrated barrage of opposition against cold > > fusion, far greater than anything we have witnessed in the last 23 years, > > backed by countless millions of dollars. So far we have been fighting off > > washed-up academic hacks such as Huizenga and nitwits such as The Amazing > > Randi. These people have little power and no money. They are > stupid. Soon we > > will be fighting every conservative politician in Washington and many > > liberals as well, because they are equal-opportunity shills for big oil. > > They will denounce cold fusion in return for campaign contributions. They > > will keep doing that until they sense the public is on our side. > > > > I anticipate the biggest political battle in the history of technology. > . . > > . Okay, maybe that will not come to pass. Perhaps I will be pleasantly > > surprised. But we should be prepared for the worst. We should think about > > how we will deal with it, and how we can win. > > > > - Jed > > > > > >
