The climate change consensus extends beyond climate scientists

[redpoint5]

I didn't specify the technology, I merely said I expect it to exist in my lifetime. The earth captures the tiniest fraction of the energy the sun emits, so the potential there is huge.

[oil pan 4]

During the winter I use around a Mwh worth of wood power for heating per month.

[freebeard]

Originally Posted by sendler

Fusion. The energy source of the future. And always will be.

All because of a misapprehension of how the sun works. To quote Nikola Tesla, the man who gave us (however inadvertently) Big AC:

Originally Posted by Tesla hisself

'If you want to find the secrets of the universe, think in terms of energy, frequency and vibration.'

[oil pan 4]

Aside from achieving nuclear fusion I don't think it will be solved until not only do we deal with the neutron problem but harnesses the neutrons. Such as then them into electricity.
To understand the Power of the fast neutrons look no further than ivy mike.

[freebeard]

Aside from achieving nuclear fusion I don't think it will be solved until ....

Eh?

Pursue that of course, but the way forward is nanotechnology. There's plenty of room at the bottom.

"There's Plenty of Room at the Bottom: An Invitation to Enter a New Field of Physics" was a lecture given by physicist Richard Feynman in 1959

As a thought experiment he proposed developing a set of one-quarter-scale manipulator hands slaved to the operator's hands to build one-quarter scale machine tools analogous to those found in any machine shop. This set of small tools would then be used by the small hands to build and operate ten sets of one-sixteenth-scale hands and tools, and so forth, culminating in perhaps a billion tiny factories to achieve massively parallel operations. He uses the analogy of a pantograph as a way of scaling down items. This idea was anticipated in part, down to the microscale, by science fiction author Robert A. Heinlein in his 1942 story Waldo

[NeilBlanchard]

Originally Posted by redneck

.

Follow the (Climate Change) Money

https://www.heritage.org/environment...e-change-money




>

Heritage Foundation is one of the prime sources of climate denial. Your link is proof of my point - the Koch's and Exxon, etc. have funded denial.

[redneck]

Originally Posted by NeilBlanchard

Heritage Foundation is one of the prime sources of climate denial.

Heritage Foundation mission statement.

Quote,

Building an America where freedom, opportunity, prosperity, and civil society flourish.

https://www.heritage.org/about-heritage/mission

Your link is proof of my point - the Koch's and Exxon, etc. have funded denial.

Here is the Heritage Foundations financial information page with all their tax records and donors . I didn’t see the Koch’s or Exxon listed.

https://www.heritage.org/article/the...al-information


From the original linked article.

This doesn’t mean that the planet isn’t warming. But the tidal wave of funding does reveal a powerful financial motive for scientists to conclude that the apocalypse is upon us. No one hires a fireman if there are no fires. No one hires a climate scientist (there are thousands of them now) if there is no catastrophic change in the weather. Why doesn’t anyone in the media ever mention this?

But when I lifted this hood, it incited more hate mail than from anything I’ve said on TV or written. Could it be that this rhetorical missile hit way too close to home?

How dare I impugn the integrity of scientists and left-wing think-tanks by suggesting that their research findings are perverted by hundreds of billions of dollars of taxpayer handouts. The irony of this indignation is that any academic whose research dares question the “settled science” of the climate change complex is instantly accused of being a shill for the oil and gas industry or the Koch brothers.

Apparently, if you take money from the private sector to fund research, your work is inherently biased, but if you get multimillion-dollar grants from Uncle Sam, you are as pure as the freshly fallen snow.

.

[freebeard]

What's changed in Climate Change since this thread started?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vu8pgBscpmo

[redpoint5]

Just listened to Scott Adams E697. He mentioned that 26% of adult males had no sexual encounter with another person in the last 1 year, which is up from whatever the previous statistic was. He further claimed to have predicted this years ago by reasoning that pornography is a suitable replacement, and perhaps a preferred outlet for sexual desire for many men.

We must think very similarly since that's what I've been saying here; that our temporary overpopulation problem will quickly (next 5 decades) shift to a crisis of too few childbirths. Having children is extremely resource intensive, and pornography is essentially free and accessible.

[oil pan 4]

Originally Posted by freebeard

What's changed in Climate Change since this thread started?

Nothin. It's settled science dontch know.
(That works if you have never read any part of 2 ipcc reports that were made more than a few years apart)

The climate cultists should view that so they can have 3 years to figure out a way to spin or repackag dooms day global warming into something people might buy into.

Looks like more fallout from the "quantification in oceann heat up take from changes in atmospheric O2 and CO2 composition" paper being canned.
Now Harvard scientists are saying that large portions of ocean temperature studies are junk science.

And none of the "we'll just battery power everything believers" want to touch the haul truck problem?