Jarold McWilliams <[email protected]> wrote: I am not a republican, and I think global warming is a sham. >
I believe you are technically wrong about that. However, it is somewhat off topic. I think we can agree that cold fusion calorimetry is much easier to understand than climate science. The facts are less ambiguous. The opposition to cold fusion is more clearly motivated by politics and self-interest. By the way, I certainly did not mean that only Republicans disagree, or that all Republicans disagree. I know some staunch Republican chemists and physicists. I am saying that in general, disputes relating to science tend to break on party lines, with the Republicans against whatever the scientists or engineers propose. That was not true decades ago. Richard Nixon was one of the best Presidents for the environment in U.S. history. He started the EPA and made other agencies. I cannot imagine Republicans in the 1960s opposing something like CFL lightbulbs! I think this is a fad. As I said, the country went through a similar anti-intellectual phase in the 1950s, which ended abruptly with the Sputnik scare. > According to your theories, couldn't global warming just be a ploy to get > more money out of consumers? > No. It does not transfer money from many people a specific small group of people. Nor it would not bankrupt any group. Accepting the theory and acting on it, or rejecting it, would not bankrupt the oil companies or some other powerful interest. It would not cause something like the MIT plasma fusion lab to close down. Climate scientists are not all going to fired if it turns out global warming is not real. We need them for many other reasons. So I do not think the two are comparable in terms of society or academic politics. > The climate always changes. Even in a worst case scenario predicted by > some scientists, it will not end in the apocalypse like some idiots believe. > I would hesitate to call them idiots, if I were you. Unless you know a great deal about it you probably cannot judge with high confidence. That is not say you have no right to an opinion, but I recommend caution. There are some far-out theories about cold fusion, relating to things like magnetic monopoles. Most experts dismiss these theories. I cannot judge them, but I would be very careful not to say the authors are idiots. Over the last several thousand years, the climate and terrain in many countries has been drastically altered by human activity, usually for the worst. See J. Diamond's book "Collapse." It is foolish to assume people cannot cause worldwide havoc and terrible conditions. > The Earth probably is warming, but there has also been a cold period for > the past couple of decades or centuries so it could just as easily be > natural rather than manmade. > Not "just as easily." Possibly, but not according to most experts. The lesson of cold fusion is that experts are usually right and you should be very careful about second-guessing them. Besides, people only focus on the negatives of global warming when there > are positives. > I know enough about climate, farming, and natural science to say with confidence that there are no positives. It is all bad. > Warmer periods in history have usually led to great growth in human > society, as well as other forms of life. Big fancy windmills, along with > solar panels, etc. are never going to deliver a large portion of our energy > needs cheaply. > That, I know about. That is manifestly wrong. EPRI and others have shown that wind turbines and concentrated solar can replace 20% of generating capacity in many parts of the country, and they already have in Denmark and other parts of Europe. So there is no question it can be done. The cost is high but not unthinkable. There is no doubt the potential wind capacity is there, in many states. That's simple physics. You can't argue with it. Only the cost is at issue. Intermittency and other problems have been largely solved for an overall system with up to 20% wind power. 20% is a very significant fraction of generator capacity. It would reduce coal fired electricity by nearly half. 20% of our electricity now comes from nuclear power. If you were to suggest we can do without nuclear power I think most experts and electric power consumers would strongly disagree. - Jed
