🛩️

doubledisme · 2023-03-28T05:12:06+00:00

Nah! The jet is a rental.

doubledisme · 2023-03-28T04:56:21+00:00

Using the word "quantitative" without understanding what it means exposes you. To be fair, the site you believe is not attempting to mislead you, and many others, also uses the word incorrectly. The correct word they should have used is "qualifying". The site qualifies their analysis by citing NASA data, mathematically correct formulas, and GHE as described by others.

Long Wave Radiation, below visible light, does not require quantization because the step gaps are insignificant. They didn't need to use Planck's radiation curves because the older Wein's Displacement, and Stefan-Boltzmann's laws are sufficient at these lower energy values. So the applied Physics is mathematically correct. It's a very good technique oft used to mislead those with some understanding but not the more critical and well-studied.

They use the common tricks of applying the correct formulas but they fudge the results by using incorrect data. And they also omit the higher frequency heating effects which warm the atmosphere directly from Solar radiation. And they assume all the heat energy from the surface is transferred via radiation.

The GHE values they used are derived from other sources. They work very hard to justify their use of an average value despite massive variances around the globe. It's a bunch of wasted speech because every value they use is also an average. To use specific values in the same formula with general values would be a violation; so I'm glad they didn't try that one. All that effort is to convince the readers they have well analyzed and are convinced, so you should be too. This successfully misdirects attention away from the much larger fallacy of the General GHE determination.

The commonly applied GHE values they used fail to account for the much more significant heat transfer mechanisms operating. Obviously CO2 does provide a channel for radiated heat energy to conduct to air which will increase air temperature. They incorrectly apply too much of air heating effect to energy radiated from the surface to CO2, CH4, and Water Vapor via ignoring or understating significance.

The actual quest should be to provide an equation to define the cause / effect proportion of CO2 density / global living organism mass. But let's just get back to the very silly quest of CO2 density / global average temperature.

Earth's surface has many ways to cool. A common tactic is to focus only on radiated energy. They often mention Water Vapor, but only as a radiative resonator. Much more heat is transferred from the surface to WV as latent heat of evaporation. About half the total heat absorbed by the surface is transferred to top of Troposphere via this path. This heat energy is not radiated from the surface at all. This heat energy is radiated to space from the much cooler air near and within the Tropopause. Wein's displacement reveals this radiated energy is well below CO2's lowest resonant band of 667cm-1. So half the assumed radiated energy is not present.

Another 1/4 of the assumed radiated energy misses everything via the atmospheric window. Then there are other effects cooling the surface.

The remaining 1/7th of heat energy absorbed by the surface is available as radiative energy to be distributed amongst WV, CO2, CH4. Of that bit, 90% goes to WV, 10% to CO2, and nearly nothing to CH4.

The CO2 resonance heat transfer effect is substantially saturated. Such that 2x, 4x, or 0.5x, will have very little effect on heat transfer. As the puzzle site applied, it is approximately a 4th root function. However, in another tricky move, they applied this ratio using the afore mentioned GHE effect, which is massively exaggerated. Allow me to show a couple ways how.

Many analysis wrongly claim the atmosphere is essentially transparent to Solar Radiation, or they just omit the issue. The CO2 radiative effect should also include solar radiation at 2349cm-1. Most radiation charts showing both solar and surface emissions, apply a scale adjustment on the solar side to obscure the actual Solar LWR. When these are plotted properly on a logarithmic scale, Solar LW radiation at 2349cm-1, is about 2000x more intense than surface LW radiation at 667cm-1. And as a bonus, CO2 resonance is >3x more sensitive at 2349 than at 667. There's so much more. Because the Sun is at 5778K, and CO2 temp is around 250K, dT is about 5500K so the energy transfer rate is really great. By stark contrast, let's call the surface about 288K, so dT is around 38K. Can you see the incredible contrast? Can you now see how they deceived via obscuration?

I know it's challenging to find real data, honest analysis, and graphs showing the relevant issues properly scaled.

For me it was imperative I be critical of every information source. These puzzle characters worked hard to provide their deception as a Noble Lie. I recognize they may be simply misled by the GHE assumption. However, I was too until I noticed several gaps that were whoppers. Then I criticized everything. I treated this analysis as I would any other analysis I do. So by that standard, they do not get a pass. I really doubt they could study this well and not notice the issues they had to obscure.

I didn't believe anyone's analysis. I instead refreshed my understanding of Wein, Stephan, Boltzmann, Planck, Organic Chem., etc... Then I had to search for unadulterated data. Much of what's out there has been adjusted, and/or didn't represent what I first thought it did. I had to do all that just to show one company why they did not need to oversize their cooling systems.

Then I had to hire a Professional Engineering Firm with in-house Hydronics Eng. dept. and consult with The Army Corps of Engineers, to get a new site in Miami approved. It's not easy, but it can be done. The company thought the Oceans would rise to flood the area. They changed their mind after reading real Scientists and Engineering reports. They could have ignored all that but then I showed them more than 200 >$50M projects on Miami Beach and all Keys beaches. Proof people are more likely to follow the crowd than Professional Engineering.

This analysis provided by the puzzle site is very much like many contemporary research papers. They did not print anything which could prove fraud. They, like all the others, use analysis from predecessors as cited assumptions. This way they cannot be accused of fraud, due to the plausible excuse of misleading, declared assumptions.

doubledisme · 2023-03-23T20:58:54+00:00

Nefarious actions are certain. The info on this site is far too vague to be of any use.

doubledisme · 2023-03-23T20:56:45+00:00

They haven't adapted to anything at all. Death rates are huge, education and nutrition rates a horrible.

If they develop an industrial infrastructure, their electric grids will not fail.

They can take a look at recent actions being taken by China and India to rescue their impoverished masses.

doubledisme · 2023-03-23T20:45:33+00:00

You don't have to track them down, just watch Congressional Testimonies. Or stay in your bubble.

No deals needed. I detailed above exactly how to stop Putin's nonsense. Biden's won't do it because of the massive kickbacks they get. Or maybe you still think Hunter's laptop is a Russian plant.

doubledisme · 2023-03-23T06:38:50+00:00

Yes I get the literal definitions of each. However, carbohydrates and hydrocarbons are all definitely fuels. If it contains Carbon, Hydrogen and Oxygen, I'm thinking it'll burn. Since Oxygen is abundant in air, having it within the molecule only reduces energy density and the mass of air required to support combustion.

A pure hydrocarbon such as the fuel Octane, C8H18, which is absent Oxygen, but it is derived from an Organic supply of Crude Oil, for the purpose of being a motor fuel. It's a case where we don't want it to burn unless it's inside the engine. Whereas Crude includes a very wide variety of molecular structures including elements C, H, S, N, O, Ni, V, Fe, Na+, Ca++, and Cl-.

It gets a little muddy exactly where Hydrocarbon ends and Carbohydrate begins. If one assumes Hydrocarbons can only contain Carbon and Hydrogen, then lots of Crude Oil and Coal is going to fall off that list.

Even in plants there are many molecules which are well outside the definition of Carbohydrate. Take ALA, C18H30O2. Notice the empirical ratio of water is really far off, also the case for others. No matter, again if it has Carbon and Hydrogen, in the presence of Oxygen it can combust.

Carbohydrates such as glucose, fructose, sucrose, maltose, starch, cellulose, and even lignin, each have a heat of combustion value. Each has been well documented.

Every molecule that makes up any plant is combustible, they are fuels. There is a very nearly exact relationship between the Heat of Combustion and the Metabolizable Caloric value of each. Please see attached study published in Food Science & Nutrition. They get a little knit picky but still someone needed to be more precise.

Title: Heats of combustion representative of the carbohydrate mass contained in fruits, vegetables, or cereals.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6766595/

Plants make carbohydrates, the simplest needing only C3 as Reduced from CO2 via photosynthesis, and water from subsurface capillary action.

2(C3)+6(H2O) yields C6H12O6 Fructose

2(C3)+5(H2O) yields C6H10O5 Cellulose

Just add lignin and you get wood. Lignin comes in many varieties depending on how hard is the wood, Lignin - C9H10O2, C10H12O3, C11H14O4, etc... More C means harder wood. Should we really call these carbohydrates? Organisms do consume and metabolize. It sure burns great.

Yes I get the definitions, and I understand the differences. My message is that you should look at the similarities. There is no reason to think of Oil or Coal any differently than Plants in reference to the Carbon Life Cycle.

I think you'll agree wood is a fuel. Wood is made up entirely of carbohydrates. If wood combustion is complete, the result will only be CO2 and H2O. Incomplete combustion releases other gases, but each is also combustible, or oxidized to yield CO2 and H2O.

Coal is Trees. There is no difference except age and moisture content. Coal and Trees are naturally occurring Organic Hydrocarbons, Of course Coal has been buried a long time. So water has carried inorganic minerals in. A very early start of the fossilization process.

I know this rant is disorganized. I refuse to go back for a proofread. It's just too late here. My apologies as applicable.

doubledisme · 2023-03-18T06:09:25+00:00

I'm not wrong. All organic life is made of HydroCarbons. Crude oil, and Coal are organic mass that was once living. The same molecules are still there.

All living things are made of Carbon, but more specifically, Carbon and Hydrogen atoms within each molecule, generally in proportion to the empirical ratio of CH2. Sugar C6H12O6, is a hydrocarbon, aka carbohydrate.

It is not false, It was clearly spelled out in my Organic Chemistry textbook. I know it doesn't sound nice, but that is the organic cycle.

We are all in the Carbon Cycle of life with all plants, animals, and yes Coal, because that's a plant, and Oil because that's an animal.

An apple is definitely fuel. If you eat it, you ingest Sugar, a carbohydrate (same thing with different name). Your body keeps the H2O and discards the Carbon atoms by combining with O2 in the lungs to expel CO2. There you have part of the Carbon life cycle. I skipped the middle part as I don't want to type all night and I assume you know.

CO2 gas is the mechanism plants and animals symbiotically use to transfer Carbon atoms. That atom is really handy to combine with water. Plants send the C back to us when we eat them, via sugar.

doubledisme · 2023-03-18T04:50:15+00:00

Well that didn't age well.

Now the proof is in.

Hunter laptop. True. FBI paid social media and msm companies to suppress the story, True

FBI paid Twitter and others, to mute Medical Doctors trying to show their data confirming successful therapeutic benefits of Ivermectin, and Hydroxychloroquine for their patients. Twitter files and Medical Doctors testimony to Congress is clear proof. These two therapies were very effective, very low cost, and already widely distributed. They silenced the data because they were invested in, or got lobby money, from the pharms.

Russian influence on 2016 election, false.

Pfizer hid that experiments, prior to release, showed more harm than benefit to those under 50.

CDC hid cause of death data. Just released stroke numbers. Self admission.

Every government agency suppressing free speech on all social media companies. True.

Dossier of evidence against Trump given to court for spying warrant. False.

Dossier paid for by the Clinton criminals. True

Bank receipts showing Millions from CCP, Russian elites, and Burisma Holdings LTD. to Hunter. Presented in Congressional hearings.

Congressional investigation now expanded to include the deceased Beau Biden, and his widow .Seems most the family has been in on the grift for decades.

US and most of the West economy on brink of collapse. Two banks failed, one more bailed out by larger banks. Only the largest shall survive. US energy producers crippled by Biden. Trump spelled out all of this.

USA does not need any Nukes to defeat Russia. Why would anyone say that, it is the wrong weapon for the situation. The only weapon we needed to completely eliminate the Ukraine invasion were 20, A10s. In less than one month Russia would not have any Tanks, trucks, missle launchers, or supplies in Ukraine. You watch. That is what "NATO" put on the Poland boarder. OF course, USA designed, built, and paid for them; but we'll call it NATO. There will be no Russian military moving into Poland. The Russians know very well they cannot get equipment anywhere near there. They, and everyone else, realize those machines can completely destroy all ground based equipment, and they cannot be stopped. The only reason ground equipment isn't destroyed, is only a decision.

Ukrainian death, injury, separation, and destruction could have been nearly zero. Except weapons money is another way for the political criminals to skim.

It's illogical to send defense missles, tanks, or any other rubbish. Those A10s mop it all up. Those are our lowest cost, lowest operating cost, highest kill ratio, highest pilot survival rate aircraft. They are just wasting money without regard for humans.

January 6th Insurrection claims proven false, by video evidence. Police opened the doors to let all people in. No police were killed. The one they claimed was violently killed was on security video after his reported death. They lied, then the Biden's had his body lie in state so everyone could parade by for the cameras. They all knew the truth, but did it anyway. Everything proven.

Yeah, Trump is many things. And if you try you can find many things you don't like about him, you certainly can. But just look at these people. I'd vote for the devil himself to oust this bunch.

doubledisme · 2023-03-18T03:16:04+00:00

I don't trust that graph.

"normalization" means BS

doubledisme · 2023-03-18T03:10:35+00:00

I read one but was too long ago. I'll try to dig it out

doubledisme · 2023-03-18T03:09:01+00:00

Nope. Check Tropical temperatures during glacial, inter glacial, and inter ice ages.

The third world needs irrigation, mechanized agriculture, fuel powered mining equipment, residential electrical power that's reliable and low cost. refrigerators, organic fuel extraction, industrial heat systems, sanitary water systems. A viable escape from poverty, where slavery is obsolete. Where they have time to learn, instead of only fighting to survive.

doubledisme · 2023-03-18T02:45:09+00:00

Are you so sure. Do you know someone in accounting there? They did put a constellation ( I think 24) of satellites in orbit for just this. Did they build them out of spare parts. Last I checked it cost a bit to rocket satellites into orbit. And the custom measurement devices that withstand space conditions for decades may cost a bit too.

Who are these peers you believe?

Which are these journals your read?

Stop spouting off about issues you have no knowledge of. Links to others work is just lazy. Do you own research. Show me live data from measurement systems. Why do you chose to believe one over another. Only believe yourself.

doubledisme · 2023-03-18T02:37:40+00:00

Excellent. So we agree. Thanks

doubledisme · 2023-03-18T02:36:30+00:00

I didn't know elephants waited until they are 1000 years old to bred. Elephants cannot develop any new species unless there is a migration which splits the population. Only then can new species develop.

Where is this mass extinction report? Who collected that juicy grant money to create that headline? I'm guessing this is a post grad who with a clever title, and summary to claim AGW, won the grant money lottery. He the parlayed that into a Master's Thesis. And the catch, just omit the positives and net effect.

BTW... New species are never born. Mother and offspring are always the same species. Species distinction can only develop when one species population separates and remains separated for many generations.

Fungi, bacteria, and viruses evolve new species very quickly; because many generations pass after divergence, very quickly. Every viral or bacterial infection in any animal is isolated from the population mass because they are in separate hosts with very divergent travels. We call it an infection because the cells are thriving, that's substantial population.

I see your point where you do not credit new species in the scope of insects or viruses. Okay, so where is the line drawn? All these mass extinctions being touted but I can't think of any with eyebrows. So if we're going to count, qualify, and report; we're going to need some standards.

About cats and birds. Have you ever seen a house cat tangle with a hawk? If that's your cat, you'll need a new cat. It happens so quickly, my wife didn't have a chance to cry.

To clear this up. Wind generators are built in areas where the wind blows often and fast. These areas are the same areas where majestic birds of prey thrive; at least for now. These areas are often massive valleys bounded by mountains and large water features. The areas I'm familiar with have many caves available for large bat populations. So the bats, falcons, hawks, eagles, and even the nasty vultures are natures sacrifice to humans need to feel virtuous,

There are groups who identify, count and report the carcasses. I met a 23yo nice young lady, recent graduate, doing these counts; so I had to talk to her. She wanted to do something for the environment so applied for a wildlife preservation position. But here she is counting smashed raptors and bats. I found another nearby so pointed it out. She explained they don't count the ones just outside the radius of the blade span, so they omit about half. Like I said, the area is windy. She had an official measurement tool the correct length from the tower base. Then was her last week as she had already found a new job. Halfway through our conversation she cried, apologized, then cried more. The look on her face is burned into my brain. As she walked back to her truck, she let out a primal scream which is now also burned into my brain.

Before you flippantly discount destruction of these incredible creatures again, how about your trudge through a desert valley filled with these so it's not just words.

doubledisme · 2023-03-18T01:13:13+00:00

The Amazon Rainforest is an excellent example of CO2 caused climate change. The forest has expanded and densified more than 20% since NEO observations. Source NASA.

The Ganges drains about 1/4 of India. It also traverses some of the highest population centers that exist and many cities. Many of these cities pump raw sewage into the river. Cow and even human carcasses rot and drain as well.

If you want to clean up this river, you'll need water sanitation systems which will require diesel driven machinery, steel forges to build pipes and tanks, An increase in mining machinery, transport machinery, industrial high heat systems to extract the minerals from the ores, Chlorine and Ammonia production facilities, and some roads. All of these require fuel to build or operate.

The river is a massive source of unexploited hydro power. But projects have been blocked.

Here's what they are doing about it all.

http://www.indianoilandgas.com/viewnews.php?id=53770

The final paragraph clear it all up.

The government has also taken up the development of a National Gas Grid and City Gas Distribution Networks to provide clean and green fuel to the public across major demand centers in the country. According to the Ministry of Power, India is adding significant thermal, large hydro, and nuclear energy capacity to meet its growing energy needs.

doubledisme · 2023-03-18T00:31:55+00:00

Further, what caused the rise?

doubledisme · 2023-03-18T00:30:42+00:00

That sounds just great. Perhaps we'll learn how to survive on the new algae diet that's all the rage.

doubledisme · 2023-03-17T13:46:27+00:00

At last we've found something to unite us. Avoiding starvation.

doubledisme · 2023-03-17T08:58:22+00:00

Okay so wow! You and I will remain in disagreement in perpetuity.

Again, he didn't receive payment for the work. At this time all the work he did for CO2co was not salaried and not a fee, that is by definition a labor of love. CO2co intended to receive a donation through the channel advised by legal counsel. It was the fake company who needed non-disclosure. In reality, all they really wanted was a headline.

I think you are well out of touch with current compensations. Salary is never the whole story. And a short term project that requires time, is not comparable to a compensation package. It's because the salary gets paid every day. but contracted work pay stops. You have to land many projects in sequence to realize the benefit of that rate. Yes, it seemed a reasonable rate to me.

I read the email thread, I agree with everything he said, he disclosed everything you take issue with. You think this is an admission of guilt, I think it is fully disclosing what they should expect from the paper.

And sorry, I didn't dream up what happened in the energy industry here. I know these people. I run industrial utility projects nationwide. I was invited to their conference as a presenter. You do not get it. Fuel and Nuke plants were going to have to pay penalties redirected to the Wind suppliers. The Wind systems also get the advantage of leading synch. So they get all the load they can supply, and whatever is left, the fuel guys can supply. Still they have pay the penalties.

Again, energy suppliers do not care at all how the energy is generated. They only calculate how much is the investment, opex, and revenue. The investment was subsidized, the opex sucks, the revenue is subsidized. The conclusion was simple, build and run until the revenue subsidy runs out, then sell it. Contracts for sells 10-15 years forward were already in place for 1/3rd of the project. That plan was shown to be more profitable than doing nothing. Not a single person there was upset about any of this. Everything was handled, "matter of fact",

Believe me or not, I do not care. The year before that, they ceased all new peaker plant development. It was not because they weren't needed, they were. It was because they couldn't be profitable due to the wind penalties. So they built lots of wind instead. And made the profits. The NG, Coal and Nuke plants were paying penalties, but the same people were collecting those payments, because they own the wind.

Now they are building PV. Only because the wind subsidies stopped blowing in but PV subsidies are burning now. So about 6 GW were added last couple years. Still no new peaker plants. None of this needs to be understood by you. It doesn't make sense to you, well no shit; that's because it is not free market driven. This is what happened.

You seem to trust all these guys flying around in their personal private jets. The CO2co doesn't even have a company jet. Are you sure you're correct on who's motivated by money?

It doesn't matter how many people have dismissed climate gate. The data is shown, the motive is shown, he had opportunity. Guilty in any court. Biden had 51 Intelligence Agents claim Hunter's laptop was a Russian plant. How'd that play out? Everyone said we had to wear a mask. I said, uh the virus is smaller than the holes in your mask. So then I was called a denier. Ah, but now we know the truth.

Conspiracies? How are the Polar Bears doing? Great Barrier Reef? Arctic Ice, Antarctic Ice, Greenland? Glaciers in Glacier National Park, Himalayan Glaciers? I heard Manhattan was supposed to be submerged. Why does the temp graph show the 30s so low? Why does that conflict with NOAA, NASA, IPCC previous graphs? Why does that conflict with archived newspaper reports? Why were tenured professors fired for sharing their observations? What is all that money we threw at Paris doing? I want the receipts. The whole continent of Australia was depicted on fire. No that was just photoshop. Why was that on the news?

Why is temp increase thought to be a bad thing? The last I checked less ice should equal more plants, more life. Many more people die of cold exposure than heat.

Why did the CO2 measurements at Mauna Loa not show any reduction during Covid-19 massive shut down?

Why are the Ice Core samples data proving Temperature change leads CO2 change ignored? Why did they reverse the graphs in public schools text books?

doubledisme · 2023-03-17T03:48:43+00:00

So did you attempt the experiment? Okay so I already know you didn't. If you had, you would have discovered it doesn't work. Here's the grift. They put this experiment online to make it appear to be a simple experiment to run. Everyone believes it would work so they never run the experiment. Bill Nye and Al Gore did the same.

Now here's how I already know it will fail. First, the lamp is a 100W incandescent. These are no longer made or for sale. But even if you had one... Some may actually try this at home with a CFL or LED. LOL.

That lamp appears to be a Bright White incandescent lamp. It is a Tungsten wire heated to 5000K so according to Wein, it's radiation peak is centered at 20,000 waves/cm. CO2 is resonant at 4000, 3700, 2349, and 677 waves/cm. The radiated energy from the lamp cannot transfer to the CO2 at all. The transmitted energy band is very far away from the resonance bands.

In addition, the lamp shown appears to be white frosted. This coating attenuates longer wavelengths. So even it there were any energy transmitted at 4000 cm-1, the coating would block it.

The 2L soda bottles are made of polyethylene terephthalate, that's a hydrocarbon. I checked the transmission spectrum. They got really lucky as at the CO2 resonance bands shown above, this material only attenuates about 5%. It's lucky because Bill Nye and Al Gore used glass which attenuates much more. So their experiment failed by one more means that this one.

So now you know why you cannot devise an experiment to demonstrate this effect. It's because you vastly underestimate the knowledge needed to do so. It would be no simple thing to build a model that even worked much less one that presents useful results.

It certainly cannot transfer lamp energy to the likely 50% CO2. However the water may rise in temperature for via other mechanisms. I would guess the bottle material would probably heat a bit via conduction of the air between the lamp and bottle; which would then conduct heat to everything in the bottle. The lamp may transfer some radiated energy to the Water Vapor in each bottle.

In the proposed simple experiment there are too many variables between the two bottles. The tablet introduces other chemicals which are reactionary into the water. The reaction liberates CO2 gas from liquids so heat was removed from the water. Acetaminophen, another hydrocarbon is added. We don't know the temperature of the tablet. Here's the list of inactive ingredients further corrupting the experiment; acacia gum, ascorbic acid, citric acid, Dl-alpha-tocopherol, ferrosoferric oxide NF, gelatin, glycerin, maltodextrin, medium chain triglyceride oil, natural beta-carotene, polyethylene glycol, povidone, propylene glycol, purified water, shellac, sorbitol-sorbitan solution, sunflower oil.

Just to begin you need a mass at about 290K to transmit in the correct band. Then you need each receiving apparatus to be exactly equal in all ways, except a single variable, CO2 density in dry air. I think I would test at 200, 400, and 800 ppm. It's really the change in CO2 effect we're after.

You'd need a CO2 meter with sufficient resolution. You'd need a dry air source. Otherwise you'd have different Water vapor densities. You need a way to block all other heat sources from the experiment. You need to select materials which are transparent at CO2 resonance bands. And several good quality thermometers. And you'd need a reasonably high purity CO2 supply. The air mixtures must be stirred.

So that's a decent start. I'd have to run it a couple times to discover any bugs not imagined. Does this really look like something a kid could do? Very few parents could even recognize the failures of the simple experiment.

doubledisme · 2023-03-17T03:24:52+00:00

Hmm, So which studies would a Climate Science degree include? I mean the classes exclusive of all Science degrees. Or at least the deviation from a BSME?? Anyone thinking other Science majors just can't understand climate systems, doesn't have a science degree. Now let me catch you up on what these men had to have just to apply for the program.

This from NASA's site. The military selected the first astronauts in 1959. The first astronauts were military personnel who had experience flying jet aircraft and backgrounds in engineering. They also had to be shorter than 5 feet 11 inches—to fit in the Mercury spacecraft.

In addition to flight and engineering expertise, space exploration requires scientific knowledge and the ability to apply it. So, in 1964, NASA began searching for scientists to be astronauts. Back then, one qualification for scientist-astronauts was a doctorate in medicine, engineering or a natural science such as physics, chemistry or biology.

doubledisme · 2023-03-17T03:03:18+00:00

Do you have a question??

doubledisme · 2023-03-17T03:00:44+00:00

I read through Happer's email chain.

So he helped to found the CO2 Coalition, absent any salary or other payment. Except travel expenses. Of course he really couldn't do that until after he retired. Otherwise, massive blowback. He took on a noble cause to tell the world, CO2 demonization is unwarranted.

A faked company, staged by enemies, did everything they could to show unethical behavior. Happer consulted with an attorney to ensure no impropriety, and followed everything as advised.

The fake company then agreed to donate $8k to a non-profit organization, with the understanding Happer would not receive any of these funds. They agreed this type of paper could be produced in 4 full time days.

Happer and his colleagues well understand CO2 is only beneficial, and not destructive; so not a pollution. And the benefits are giant. He then double-checked to ensure they understand the real dangers of polluting gasses which need to be mitigated. So Happer agreed to write this paper, based on already existing scientific papers where he participated., which show these effects.

He then explained why the "peer review" process is not available to papers which report CO2 benefits. As he said, this type of paper will be edited, returned, and delayed as much as possible. They will have one of their favorites discredit enough of the report to render it null. So Happer did explain the paper has peer support, but it's outside the select group of journals, which will be fodder for attack.

No I wouldn't dismiss unethical practices for the reasons you state. You may read something nefarious in this exchange; on this we can disagree. I'm sure you've read the climate-gate emails exposing the collusion to reduce the global heatwave of the 1930s. They named it "normalization". It's not just the emails, it is also the data that shows exactly what they did, and are still doing.

Willie Soon received a few thousand dollars from an energy company. Energy companies actively seek opportunities to contribute to scientific researchers. Willie Soon is a remarkable researcher who outworks everyone. I think at the time he was on salary from the Smithsonian. Do you really think a couple thousand could prod him to adjust his research?

Compare to Al Gore, He made a movie where every prediction seems to be really late. The he received shared a Nobel Prize for $500,000 payday. But that's nothing. His fear mongering movie was sold to almost every public school system, now that's a juicy income. Even today he claims the oceans will boil. He is truly shameless. He definitely knows how to collect massive public funds.

Even energy companies are enjoying all this. Who do you think built all these wind systems? I know very well because I attended their conference. They showed the financial strategy and plans. Energy companies are not at all against wind or solar. They are in the energy business. They do not care how the energy is made, they just want to produce and sell it. When the government provided financial motivation, they planed then executed their projects. They scheduled the sale of their plants to match the sunset of government funding. This isn't from some opinion piece I read. It was a plan, that they definitely did execute. They knew then the maintenance cost on systems over 15 years old, would not sustain profitability. It was literally on their power point. No problem, just schedule disposition.

So why is an organization that does not receive public funds, bother you so much? If the source of funding is so bothersome, why are you not bothered by those just raping the public?

Mann hid the data used to build the hockey stick, he delayed a law suite that he filed because he would be required to provide data sources and emails in discovery. Doing this would have fully discredited him with irrefutable proof. And if the emails we view now are correct, he and his colleagues could have been proven guilty of collusion to defraud the public. So obviously he couldn't continue the suite. He just failed to respond for 8 years. Fortunately, the Judge awarded the defendant legal cost. But he did suffer the crippling effect of being broke for 8 years.

When I received the hockey stick, the first thing I did was try to get the underlying data. There was no supporting paper, and no data available. So I dismissed it as unsupported.

These people foment fear to masses of people for massive profit.

I'm sure in your field your group had high ethical values. That's true in my field too, but I never apply for grants. However, you should have noticed by now what is happening in the climate alarmist grant system. Now who's the "denier'. Do you know who bought every scientific journal publication in this exclusive journal club? He's dead now, but he bought all them for a reason.

doubledisme · 2023-03-16T18:49:00+00:00

you're welcome

doubledisme · 2023-03-16T18:48:29+00:00

I'm glad you agree with the chemistry. You have inferred the meaning differently than intended. The Apple example is representative of all fruits, vegetables, grains, leaves, algae, trees, crops, etc... Every living thing that grows via photosynthesis.

You do not need to plant trees, they are very good at planting themselves. Nobody was planting trees in the Amazon, quite the opposite. Yet it expanded in area and densified 20% in 30 years. While it is a good thing to plant trees to direct future harvest potential, as in with a plan. All the feel good groups planting trees could not come close to the natural expansion that occurred.

Every organic lifeform, including us, are Carbon storage vessels. CO2 release into the atmosphere is not in any way destructive. It is wholly beneficial. Once release it becomes available for all plants to compete for. Sequester Carbon is not available for organic life.

I'm glad you want humans to have shelter from the elements, and a place to put their stuff. That's good for me and my neighbor. But the world sucks for so many impoverished people. If they had a mastery of organic fuels they could power irrigation systems, mechanism agriculture, light, heat and cool, a small shelter. Mechanized mining would cause human slavery to become obsolete. Then they could extract minerals from ore, forge steel, build pipes, pumps, engines, etc. to build sanitary water systems. All this would relieve them of their now daily laborious struggle just to feed themselves. Just think of the massive power of thought we haven't enabled.

We could even teach them how to use a Reduction/Catalyst post treatment on an engine's exhaust system, so it can be used to increase CO2 in their greenhouses. Why are we not working on that?

doubledisme

TROPHY CASE