At left is something 19th Century Scottish author George McDonald had to say on the subject of truth and why brave and honest people feel compelled to call their most cherished beliefs into doubt.
It speaks quite broadly, but most certainly includes the scientific method. Part of the beauty of science is that it is constantly trying to undermine itself. Sure, we believe X about climate science, Y about viral pandemics, and Z about the fundamental building blocks of the universe, but we’re also persistently trying to prove these beliefs incorrect, or at best incomplete, so they can be replaced by better understanding.
In preparation for my first book, Renewable Energy–Facts and Fantasies, I recall asking V. Ramanathan of the Scripps Institute, one of the world’s most visible climate scientists, if he was aware that some people claim that he and his peers are steadfast in their positions merely because it enables them to take in more government grant money.
He laughed. “Yes, believe it or not, I have heard that. What these people don’t seem to know is that, regardless of what they may think about my character, is that I could actually become rich if I could prove that the theory of anthropogenic global warming is fundamentally flawed.”
We have to conclude that scientists in all disciplines have to content themselves with a cruel fact: that what they may believe today is under constant attack by those who want to alert us to a better understanding of the world around us, and that this indeed is a positive feature.
As we’ve noted in the past, the idea of capturing CO2 from the atmosphere is completely unfeasible, since 99.96% of the air around is something other than CO2 (mostly nitrogen). However, there are environments that change this equation radically, cement plants being one of them, where the concentration of CO2 emissions is as high as 30% (versus .04%).
Now, this brings the subject of synthetic fuels into the realm of possibility. Sure, if you want to make gasoline, diesel, and jet fuel, you’ll need two other things: hydrogen (which can come from electrolyzing water), and a considerable amount of energy, as these processes are heavily endothermic, meaning that energy must be supplied from external sources.
The good news is that we have enormous amounts of off-peak wind and nuclear that are wasted every day. Please see: Doty WindFuels.
With each passing day, there are fewer and fewer American voters who believe the bullshit at left.
Is Trump working hard to stay out of prison? Enrich himself and his family? Of course.
Could be possibly care less about anything else? Obviously not.
What’s the thought process of people in the rest of the developed world when it comes to visiting the U.S.?
Conversely, would you or I want to visit some country with a deeply corrupt regime that is systematically committing atrocities all around the globe, and whose leader is lining his pockets?
I’m glad I don’t own a resort in New England that counts on a flow of visitors from Canada. If I were a Canadian, I’d be thinking I’d rather visit hell.
Hardline Conservative Wins Republican Primary for Texas Oil and Gas Regulator
Q&A: Can China turn hydrogen into its next clean-energy industry?
In Venezuela, Anxiety About Ramping Up Oil Production in the Heavily Polluted Lake Maracaibo Region
-
Climate Change10 months ago
Guest post: Why China is still building new coal – and when it might stop
-
Greenhouse Gases10 months ago
Guest post: Why China is still building new coal – and when it might stop
-
Greenhouse Gases2 years ago嘉宾来稿：满足中国增长的用电需求 光伏加储能“比新建煤电更实惠”
-
Climate Change2 years ago嘉宾来稿：满足中国增长的用电需求 光伏加储能“比新建煤电更实惠”
-
Climate Change2 years ago
Bill Discounting Climate Change in Florida’s Energy Policy Awaits DeSantis’ Approval
-
Renewable Energy7 months agoSending Progressive Philanthropist George Soros to Prison?
-
Carbon Footprint2 years agoUS SEC’s Climate Disclosure Rules Spur Renewed Interest in Carbon Credits
-
Greenhouse Gases11 months ago
嘉宾来稿：探究火山喷发如何影响气候预测