So in other words, Global Warming means ... nothing

[EA Gold]

You don't know this but the U.S. Government already uses compressed natural gas cars for their own government vehicles. My coworker was trying to buy a 2002 government car a few months ago which had a natural gas component. To my surprise their are plenty of operating natural gas stations all over the east coast.

If I can roll with this before 2015, then I can feel like im in back to the future 2.

http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=20747

Now, all i need it to do is make it FLY!!!!!!!!

 

[BBbardot]

This is because the average temperature of the earth over the past 1,000,000 years is much cooler than it is today.

We are on the brink (within 1,000 - 5,000 years) of another LONG 'ice age'. One that lasts tens of thousands of years.

Vostok Ice Core Data from Antarctica

Assuming anthropogenic climate change is real and unadaptable at current rates:

We would have to cut our use of fossil fuels by over 90% in order to appease the climate change alarmists. http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/oct/21/europe-carbon-emissions

Enjoy living in shanty town slums and riding donkeys between your hovel and your workplace, because that is the world they unknowingly want to take us back to at the moment.

Without a viable alternative, that is the route they want to take us. All trucks would stop running, all planes would stop flying, all ships would sto

there is plenty of viable alternatives, some are already ready, silly goose

 

[JustLurk]

there is plenty of viable alternatives, some are already ready, silly goose

Like what? Are you aware of how much more efficient a "viable alternative" would have to be to be able to supply the energy for the US and still leave room in the US for cities?

 

[synergy1]

there is plenty of viable alternatives, some are already ready, silly goose

List sources which could replace coal, oil, natural gas. Those account for a significant portion of the US grid. The logistical challenge of size makes things a bit more difficult for the USA. The USA is the highest per capita energy consumer in the world ahead of the UK and China, so finding alternatives to fit the roles would be difficult/ impossible. Geothermal, wind, solar, and biofuels won't cut it.

I'll give france that their energy policy is better than ours. your nuclear capacity is indication of this; 85% for France compared to the US at 25% or so.

 

[Speculator E]

Like what? Are you aware of how much more efficient a "viable alternative" would have to be to be able to supply the energy for the US and still leave room in the US for cities?

Cold Fusion looks promising. If you can convinced people that it's possible and destroy the politics and bureaucracy that is keeping scientists from working on it, I can see it becoming our main source of energy in the near future. But imo, for now that's wishful thinking.

Heavy Watergate: The War Against Cold Fusion pt 1 of 5
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vBTWa0sdMRs

[60 Minutes] Cold Fusion More than Junk Science 60minutes 9-4-19 1 of 2
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qb-9keOk-CQ

List sources which could replace coal, oil, natural gas. Those account for a significant portion of the US grid. The logistical challenge of size makes things a bit more difficult for the USA. The USA is the highest per capita energy consumer in the world ahead of the UK and China, so finding alternatives to fit the roles would be difficult/ impossible. Geothermal, wind, solar, and biofuels won't cut it.
.

You need to think outside the box. Think of possibilities.

 

[JustLurk]

Cold Fusion looks promising. If you can convinced people that it's possible and destroy the politics and bureaucracy that is keeping scientists from working on it, I can see it becoming our main source of energy in the near future. But imo, for now that's wishful thinking.

Heavy Watergate: The War Against Cold Fusion pt 1 of 5
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vBTWa0sdMRs

[60 Minutes] Cold Fusion More than Junk Science 60minutes 9-4-19 1 of 2
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qb-9keOk-CQ


You need to think outside the box. Think of possibilities.

I hope for cold fusion as much as anyone. It's always fun to see scientists that said things couldn't be done backtracking at the speed of light lol.
But, -but-, it has not happened yet. It is a possibility. As much as I hate to say it that's like saying don't worry about being broke because you brought a lottery ticket. We just don't know when we'll win so far. You have to remember we didn't even get a energy + from normal fusion.

 

[Alle_Gory]

there is plenty of viable alternatives, some are already ready, silly goose

I'm not aware of anything useful right now. Please inform us.

Right now, the only real options are what we used in the past. Hydroelectric, nuclear, and some kinds of fuels. Biofuels are nice provided we find a way to grow them without wasting fertile land.

There's always fusion for massive energy production, but it's still years away. Right now, the longest self-sustained fusion reaction lasts a couple of minutes. It's an incredible breakthrough but still needs much work.

 

[Speculator E]

I hope for cold fusion as much as anyone. It's always fun to see scientists that said things couldn't be done backtracking at the speed of light lol.
But, -but-, it has not happened yet. It is a possibility. As much as I hate to say it that's like saying don't worry about being broke because you brought a lottery ticket. We just don't know when we'll win so far. You have to remember we didn't even get a energy + from normal fusion.

You can't compare the two that easily. The chemistry and physics of cold vs hot fusion are very different.

 

[Rogue]

Speculator E:
Cold Fusion looks promising. If you can convinced people that it's possible and destroy the politics and bureaucracy that is keeping scientists from working on it, I can see it becoming our main source of energy in the near future. But imo, for now that's wishful thinking.

Cold fusion is wishful thinking until proven otherwise. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence and violating the first law of thermodynamics (law of conservation) is an extraordinary claim. Science is more than about "thinking about possibilities," it's about applying logic and reason from the body of currently available evidence. Evidence needs to be persuasive and compelling to sway the scientific community, to which cold fusion is underwhelmingly cold and that is why it's not taken seriously by the scientific community. Cold fusion scientists need to convincingly prove there has not been a mismeasurement of input energy, and they have not done so. Every science journal would jump and claw to get their hands on the scoop of the millennia if the results really were true. Fringe scientists, and there are always a few scientists on the fringe, always love to claim 'politics' holds their discoveries from virtue, but the fact is they are unpersuasive.

 

[Speculator E]

Cold fusion is wishful thinking until proven otherwise. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence and violating the first law of thermodynamics (law of conservation) is an extraordinary claim. Science is more than about "thinking about possibilities," it's about applying logic and reason from the body of currently available evidence. Evidence needs to be persuasive and compelling to sway the scientific community, to which cold fusion is underwhelmingly cold and that is why it's not taken seriously by the scientific community. Cold fusion scientists need to convincingly prove there has not been a mismeasurement of input energy, and they have not done so. Every science journal would jump and claw to get their hands on the scoop of the millennia if the results really were true. Fringe scientists, and there are always a few scientists on the fringe, always love to claim 'politics' holds their discoveries from virtue, but the fact is they are unpersuasive.

Ha, that's some naive thinking. It's more like scientists getting pissed off when you tell them the rules they believed in is wrong. It's like AFCs getting pissed off when you tell them that they should stop being nice guys as start acting more alphas if they want to get laid. So what do they do, they attack and ignore the DJ advice. It's very much the same thing in the science community. Scientists don't like to be told they are wrong.

Besides, there's already more than enough physical evidence that cold fusion works that I don't feel the need to explain it. A simple google search is all you'll need if you want to learn more about it.

 

[Quiksilver]

Ha, that's some naive thinking. It's more like scientists getting pissed off when you tell them the rules they believed in is wrong. It's like AFCs getting pissed off when you tell them that they should stop being nice guys as start acting more alphas if they want to get laid. So what do they do, they attack and ignore the DJ advice. It's very much the same thing in the science community. Scientists don't like to be told they are wrong.

Besides, there's already more than enough physical evidence that cold fusion works that I don't feel the need to explain it. A simple google search is all you'll need if you want to learn more about it.

A scientists job is to prove himself and his peers wrong.

If he cannot prove himself wrong, then he is right. If he cannot prove his peers wrong, then they are right.

As I understand it, an energy-positive cold fusion reaction is still a few years away (and has been for the past 50 years), and that experiments are hampered by the miniscule amount of Helium-3 found on Earth, which is needed for the experiments.

With more Helium-3, apparently abundant on the Moon, perhaps research could speed up. Who knows though, it does violate the law of thermodynamics, however most breakthroughs in the field of physics conveniently break former laws of physics.

 

[Speculator E]

A scientists job is to prove himself and his peers wrong.

If he cannot prove himself wrong, then he is right. If he cannot prove his peers wrong, then they are right.

As I understand it, an energy-positive cold fusion reaction is still a few years away (and has been for the past 50 years), and that experiments are hampered by the miniscule amount of Helium-3 found on Earth, which is needed for the experiments.

With more Helium-3, apparently abundant on the Moon, perhaps research could speed up. Who knows though, it does violate the law of thermodynamics, however most breakthroughs in the field of physics conveniently break former laws of physics.

What!? Where did you get this information from. Cold fusion uses the deuterium which is found in water to work which is already abundant on earth. Hot fusion is the one that uses Helium-3.

 

[synergy1]

Cold fusion is wishful thinking until proven otherwise. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence and violating the first law of thermodynamics (law of conservation) is an extraordinary claim. Science is more than about "thinking about possibilities," it's about applying logic and reason from the body of currently available evidence. Evidence needs to be persuasive and compelling to sway the scientific community, to which cold fusion is underwhelmingly cold and that is why it's not taken seriously by the scientific community. Cold fusion scientists need to convincingly prove there has not been a mismeasurement of input energy, and they have not done so. Every science journal would jump and claw to get their hands on the scoop of the millennia if the results really were true. Fringe scientists, and there are always a few scientists on the fringe, always love to claim 'politics' holds their discoveries from virtue, but the fact is they are unpersuasive.

You can't violate the first/ second laws of thermo, but you can get around them by considering that the entire control volume under consideration also includes the energy of formation of the reactants. In the case below on cold fusion, its the formation of the nickel and hydrogen compounds being used. This means you still have losses via entropy during the formation and the reaction of the products ; we only need concern ourselves with the reaction as this is where a net energy gain, 12,400 W for 400 W input. Oh yeah, the byproduct of the cold fusion studied in Italy was copper!

Linky :http://www.zerohedge.com/article/it...-hydrogen-cold-fusion-create-copper-byproduct

 

[Quiksilver]

What!? Where did you get this information from. Cold fusion uses the deuterium which is found in water to work which is already abundant on earth. Hot fusion is the one that uses Helium-3.

Thank you, yes I mistook cold fusion for nuclear fusion. Not too literate in this subject.

It's my understanding that nuclear fusion with He-3 is more of a possibility than cold fusion. While not nearly as potentially efficient, it's my understanding that using He-3 over Tritium would essentially create no radioactive waste(the one downside of nuclear power from uranium nitride/carbide).

 

[Rogue]

Ha, that's some naive thinking. It's more like scientists getting pissed off when you tell them the rules they believed in is wrong.

You are obviously hopelessly naive of the history and nature of science. Science is provisional. Science draws best available conclusions from the body of currently best available evidence and reconsiders conclusions when new evidence arrives—the beauty of science is the self-correcting mechanism to learn from its mistakes, the antithesis of dogma. (That's why scientists still do science. To improve the body of knowledge. Otherwise they'd be lounging in Cuba drinking mojitos.) It is a popularist misnomeric misunderstanding of science that scientists have ever claimed to 'know everything'—they only know what they know. As one scientist once said, the greatest phrase in science isn't "Eureka!" but "That's funny." For every one heretical scientist who proves a prevalent scientific assumption wrong, there are 10,000 heretics with failed pipe dreams. The burden of proof rests upon claimants making the claim. Most claims terminally fail.

 

[Speculator E]

You are obviously hopelessly naive of the history and nature of science. Science is provisional. Science draws best available conclusions from the body of currently best available evidence and reconsiders conclusions when new evidence arrives—the beauty of science is the self-correcting mechanism to learn from its mistakes, the antithesis of dogma. It is a popularist misnomeric misunderstanding of science that scientists have ever claimed to 'know everything'—they only know what they know. As one scientist once said, the greatest phrase in science isn't "Eureka!" but "That's funny." For every one heretical scientist who proves a prevalent scientific assumption wrong, there are 10,000 heretics with failed pipe dreams. The burden of proof rests upon claimants making the claim. Most claims terminally fail.

I really don't have time to argue with you. There are many historical cases of new scientific ideas and discoveries being attacked and ridiculed by the mainstream scientific community at the beginning.

Some examples from the top of my head are:
- The Wrights brothers flying machine were consider to be a hoax for five or so years despite pictures and eye witness testimonies.
- Louis Pasteur's theory on germ.
- The theory of continental drift.
- The idea of a heliocentric solar system.
- The atomic theory on matter. I think it was Aristotle (or Plato?) who first introduced it, but it wasn't accepted then.
- And now it's cold fusion.

Again, you sound naive. You sound like you're still in school.

 

[Rogue]

Heresy Does Not Equal Correctness

They laughed at Copernicus. They laughed at the Wright Brothers. Yes, well, they laughed at the Marx brothers. Being laughed at does not mean you are right. Wilhelm Reich compared himself to Peer Gynt, the unconventional genius out of step with society, and misunderstood and ridiculed as a heretic until proven right: “Whatever you have done to me or will do to me in the future, whether you glorify me as your savor or hang me in a mental institution, where you adore me as your savior or hang me as a spy, sooner or later necessity will force you to comprehend that I have discovered the laws of the living”. Reprinted in the January/February 1996 issue of the Journal of Historical Review, the organ of Holocaust denial, is a famous quote from the nineteenth-century German philosopher Arthur Schopenhauer, which is quoted often by those on the margins: “All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as self-evident.” But “all truth” does not pass through these stages. Lots of true ideas are accepted without ridicule or opposition, violent or otherwise. Einstein's theory of relativity was largely ignored until 1919, when experimental evidence proved him right. He was not ridiculed, and no one violently opposed his ideas. The Schopenhauer quote is just a rationalization, a fancy way for those who are ridiculed or violently opposed to say, “See, I must be right.” Not so.

History is replete with tales of the lone scientist working in spite of his peers and flying in the face of the doctrines of his or her own field of study. Most of them turned out to be wrong and we do not remember their names. For every Galileo shown the instruments of torture for advocating a scientific truth, there are a thousand (or ten thousand) unknowns whose “truths” never pass muster with other scientists. The scientific community cannot be expected to test every fantastic claim that comes along, especially when so many are logically inconsistent. If you want to do science, you have to learn to play the game of science. This involves getting to know the scientists in your field, exchanging data and ideas with colleagues informally, and formally presenting results in conference papers, peer-reviewed journals, books, and the like.

—excerpt from the book Why People Believe Weird Things by science historian Michael Shermer

Keep talking.

 

[Alle_Gory]

Cold fusion? We don't even have regular fusion that works yet.

 

[BBbardot]

I'm not aware of anything useful right now. Please inform us.

Right now, the only real options are what we used in the past. Hydroelectric, nuclear, and some kinds of fuels. Biofuels are nice provided we find a way to grow them without wasting fertile land.

i'm glad you asked!
read carefully
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Algae_fuel
they use lands that are not suitable for agriculture!

it's like you all don't WANT a solution, we need some though. You all act like poeple that were dissing the internet as a way of growth not so long ago. If everybody were like you, research wouldn't progress a bit; hell if everybody was like you there would be no innovation ever, and no bill gates, proably no internet, and no SUSUAVE forum. We need to have some vision to foresee, anticipate what's comming in order to make things happen. It's the key of success.
everybody here that are all like nothing can replace oil blabla: GEt your head out of you ass

 

[EA Gold]

We need to have some vision to foresee, anticipate what's comming in order to make things happen. It's the key of success.
everybody here that are all like nothing can replace oil blabla: GEt your head out of you ass

Abiotic Oil is made deep within the earth, not from fossils. Oil is constantly replenishing deep wells at 30,000 feet where no organic matter exists.

They just don't want you to know it.


Just think, if you were an environmental scientist making less then 40k a year. How many millions of dollars will it take for you to change a few numbers in your research to support the warming scam.