Jed, there is so much scattered baloney in your post that needs to be 
corrected; but I refuse to drag Vortex-l down the pithole of irrelevant 
off-topic posts.

Please post your comment in a different forum so that I can answer it.

Jojo


PS.  I can't resist; so let me ask you this.  What exactly is so bad with a 
little global warming.  Seems to me that a few degrees rise in average global 
temperature should open up more land for year round planting increasing the 
food supply for the world.  Sure a bunch of retrograde European Cities will be 
submerged, but it's about time they abandon those locations anyways.  Those who 
cry "Global Warming is a disaster" are simply worshiping at the altar of 
Environmental Pantheism - that is; the worship of the Environment.  There is no 
Global Warming caused by mankind; and even it there is; what's so bad about it. 
 

I try to develop cold fusion because I refuse to give some more money to 
terrorist ragheads, rather than a concern for Global Warming.








  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Jed Rothwell 
  To: [email protected] 
  Sent: Monday, July 30, 2012 4:51 AM
  Subject: [Vo]:Koch founded climate skeptic changes sides


  See:


  
http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-pn-kochfunded-climate-change-skeptic-reverses-course-20120729,0,7372823.story


  It is nice to see a scientist persuaded by the weight of evidence. That does 
not often happen.


  It will not be "the beginning of the end" in the cold fusion battle until you 
start to see similar headlines about major scientists endorsing cold fusion, 
especially scientists funded by people whose interests will be hurt if cold 
fusion succeeds.


  I wonder if that will happen. I hope it does.


  Regarding global warming, I have no doubt it is real. To those who have 
doubts, rational or not, here is what I say: Every step that is proposed to 
deal with this problem is beneficial in its own right. Every step would be 
progress in technology, and would ultimately lower the cost of energy. So what 
difference does not make if global warming is not real, or if it isn't caused 
by human activity? It is in our best interests to act as if it is.


  Long before the germ theory emerged, people understood that keeping houses, 
dishes, and water supplies hygienic will reduce disease. The Greek goddess 
Hygieia was the goddess of health, cleanliness, and sanitation. Along the same 
lines, any sensible person should recognize that reducing energy, reducing 
pollution and increasing efficiency will improve our lives whether or not it 
actually helps reduce the extreme weather and increased temperatures we are 
experiencing. You don't have to know about germs to realize intuitively that 
clean water is better for you, and it tastes better too. Anyone familiar with 
the technical details knows that most technology is inefficient and could 
easily be improved, with large cost benefits. For example, the "best practices" 
at the data centers operated by Google make them far more efficient and cheaper 
per byte than competing data centers. See:


  http://www.google.com/about/datacenters/

  Details about the efficiency techniques are made freely available by Google, 
as a public service. Others should imitate them. It is economic lunacy not to 
imitate them!


  I am aware that some have argued that alternative energy is a bad idea 
because money would be better spent elsewhere. I know enough about energy that 
can dispute that with some authority, especially when I see the idiotic 
investments that we made in other categories, such dot-com fiascos and building 
far too many gigantic houses for people who cannot afford them. Naturally, 
investments in solar must lead to creative destruction such as Solyndra. That 
is regrettable but it is unavoidable. Let us be honest and admit frankly that 
if cold fusion succeeds, it will lead to creative destruction on a far larger 
scale. It will destroy the entire alternative energy sector -- solar and wind. 
Following that, it will destroy the conventional energy sector: oil, coal and 
nuclear. This will make trillions of dollars of infrastructure and investments 
useless, practically overnight. This will put millions of people out of work. 
That's what I am hoping for. That's the best outcome. That is the down-side to 
cold fusion. It is dreadful, but the up-side has more benefits than the 
down-side has problems. We have to be cold and calculating. We also have to 
take steps to alleviate the human misery this will cause, as best we can. It is 
like deciding to invade Normandy in 1944, knowing full well that thousands will 
die and it will cause heartbreak that never heals.


  - Jed

Reply via email to