Bill Gates is heading a $1 billion venture fund to combat climate change

Point out news stories, on the net or in mainstream media, related to polywell fusion.

Moderators: tonybarry, MSimon


pbelter
Posts: 178
Joined: Thu Oct 09, 2008 2:52 am

Re: Bill Gates is heading a $1 billion venture fund to combat climate change

Postby pbelter » Tue Dec 13, 2016 6:33 pm

I have a feeling that not a cent of that will go to a fusion research.

The entire AGW is an idea designed to provide excuse for government growth and overreach and since warming is not a real problem nobody looks for real solutions like fusion.

I really hope I am wrong and substantial funds from that fund will go to fusion, but given the above it is extremely unlikely.

happyjack27
Posts: 1431
Joined: Wed Jul 14, 2010 5:27 pm

Re: Bill Gates is heading a $1 billion venture fund to combat climate change

Postby happyjack27 » Tue Dec 13, 2016 7:01 pm

pbelter you should write a paper on that and submit it to a scientific journal.

i'm sure it will get accepted. you're clearly smarter than every scientist in the world.

pbelter
Posts: 178
Joined: Thu Oct 09, 2008 2:52 am

Re: Bill Gates is heading a $1 billion venture fund to combat climate change

Postby pbelter » Tue Dec 13, 2016 8:26 pm

Are you referring to the scientific consensus where 97% of scientists agree with AGW?
I looked at how this was measured. Here is the best part:

Australian scientist John Cook — author of the 2011 book "Climate Change Denial: Heads in the Sand" and creator of the blog "Skeptical Science". In an analysis of 12,000 abstracts, he found 97% consensus among papers taking a position on the cause of global warming in the peer-reviewed literature that humans are responsible.” “Among papers taking a position” is a significant qualifier: Only 34 percent of the papers Cook examined expressed any opinion about anthropogenic climate change at all. Since 33 percent appeared to endorse anthropogenic climate change, he divided 33 by 34 and — 97 percent! When David Legates, a University of Delaware professor who formerly headed the university’s Center for Climatic Research, recreated Cook’s study, he found that “only 41 papers — 0.3 percent of all 11,944 abstracts or 1.0 percent of the 4,014 expressing an opinion, and not 97.1 percent,” endorsed what Cook claimed. Several scientists whose papers were included in Cook’s initial sample also protested that they had been misinterpreted.


There is more on how the "consensus view" was calculated in other studies :
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/4 ... ian-tuttle

And I thought you were complimenting me that I am "smarter than every scientist", but now that it turns out I am only smarter than 0.3% of scientists it sounds more like an insult. :lol:

The thing is that a lot of people talk about AGW and a lot people make money on it, but nobody really believes it.
If people did believe it the waterfront properties in Florida and some other low lying coastal states would be in a free dive.

The bottom line is this: it is very unlikely that there will be any fusion research money coming from the AGW crowd as made up problems do not require real solutions.

happyjack27
Posts: 1431
Joined: Wed Jul 14, 2010 5:27 pm

Re: Bill Gates is heading a $1 billion venture fund to combat climate change

Postby happyjack27 » Tue Dec 13, 2016 8:47 pm

The 97% figure is wrong.

Among other things it counted articles rather than authors.

Also, as you mention many of the authors in that study stated they were misrepresented - they actually do understand how climates work.

All in all it's really 99.99%.

http://motherboard.vice.com/blog/now-ju ... al-warming

http://www.csicop.org/si/show/the_conse ... al_warming

http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/sc ... FBhZVUrLRY

But i'm sure you can use your EXTREME confirmation bias to find something from the National Review Online that help maintain your delusions of granduer and your carbon-nano-tube anti-reality bubble.

But you, my friend, are smarter than these people. And clearly smarter than me.

Again, write your paper. Submit it. You will be doing the world a favor by proving that centuries of science are wrong. Thermodynamics is wrong. Statistical mechanics is wrong. The photoelectric effect is wrong. The classical model of the atom is wrong. The periodic table of elements is wrong. Chemistry is wrong. Electromagnetics is wrong. Astronomy is wrong. It will be a marvelous paradigm-shifting earth-shattering paper.

kurt9
Posts: 542
Joined: Mon Oct 15, 2007 4:14 pm
Location: Portland, Oregon, USA

Re: Bill Gates is heading a $1 billion venture fund to combat climate change

Postby kurt9 » Tue Dec 13, 2016 10:17 pm

pbelter wrote:I have a feeling that not a cent of that will go to a fusion research.

The entire AGW is an idea designed to provide excuse for government growth and overreach and since warming is not a real problem nobody looks for real solutions like fusion.

I really hope I am wrong and substantial funds from that fund will go to fusion, but given the above it is extremely unlikely.


Consider this a reality test of the global warming thesis. If this fund invest heavily in advanced fission concepts such as MSR, thorium power and the like as well as the various fusion concepts such as polywell and Helion Energy's FRC, then it is reasonable to say that these people believe that global warming is a real issue.

If all they invest in are piddle-power schemes (e.g. solar, wind) that happen to be subsidized by the government (in reality tax payers such as ourselves) then you can conclude that the fund is just a scam on the tax payers and that global warming is made up nonsense.

Anyone with a room temperature and above IQ knows that nuclear processes (fission, fusion, LENR if real) is the ONLY way to provide energy for an abundant, expansive future. Those that question the desirability of concentrated energy generation based on nuclear processes are clearly promulgating political agendas that are hostile to an unlimited expansive future of abundance and openness. Such people should be regarded as the mortal enemies of our future selves and treated appropriately.

pbelter
Posts: 178
Joined: Thu Oct 09, 2008 2:52 am

Re: Bill Gates is heading a $1 billion venture fund to combat climate change

Postby pbelter » Tue Dec 13, 2016 11:15 pm

Consider this a reality test of the global warming thesis. If this fund invest heavily in advanced fission concepts such as MSR, thorium power and the like as well as the various fusion concepts such as polywell and Helion Energy's FRC, then it is reasonable to say that these people believe that global warming is a real issue.

If all they invest in are piddle-power schemes (e.g. solar, wind) that happen to be subsidized by the government (in reality tax payers such as ourselves) then you can conclude that the fund is just a scam on the tax payers and that global warming is made up nonsense.


Agreed.
This will be an empirical test and I think they will fail there will be no funding for fusion concepts.
I hope I am wrong, but I base this prediction on past performance.

happyjack27
Posts: 1431
Joined: Wed Jul 14, 2010 5:27 pm

Re: Bill Gates is heading a $1 billion venture fund to combat climate change

Postby happyjack27 » Tue Dec 13, 2016 11:29 pm

Empirical tests are of two forms:

* in situ

measuring the temperatures and atmospheric composition of the earth's actual atmosphere.

https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2015 ... the-world/

* in vitro

performing experiments under controlled conditions and observing the results.

these you can perform at home.

for instance, try going outside in a black shirt on a hot day, vs a white shirt. see if one of the two is hotter.

or you can recreate herchel's experiment to see the radiative heating effects of lights of various colors.

http://coolcosmos.ipac.caltech.edu/cosm ... l_bio.html

you could also try different gases in a thin sheet and shine light in on one and measure the amount reflected and also the amount received on the bottom. etc. and try different colors of light to measure absorption and reflection and scattering spectrums of different chemicals.

etc.

plenty of options.

if in doing these experiments, you find a result that contradicts established scientific theory (with high statistical significance), please do publish!

pbelter
Posts: 178
Joined: Thu Oct 09, 2008 2:52 am

Re: Bill Gates is heading a $1 billion venture fund to combat climate change

Postby pbelter » Wed Dec 14, 2016 12:35 am

happyjack27

Are you really silly or are you being silly just for show?
How does color relate to CO2 temperatures? Do you think that because coal is black then carbon must be blacker than regular air and more CO2 means that atmosphere is darker so it absorbs more heat? This is not how it works.

I wanted to run the Greenhouse Effect in a Jar experiment but apparently it does not work even if you have a jar with pure 100% CO2 and the claimed increase in the atmosphere is measured in parts per million and the actual atmospheric CO content is way less than 1%.

http://www.weatherquestions.com/Why_the ... t_work.htm

The only effect of the CO2 increase is increase in the total biomass and greening of the deserts.

Talking about the scientific method
I suggest a simpler experiment you can run:

Measure temperature at noon and record it.
Measure temperature at midnight at the same spot and record it.

Compare the temperatures.
If the temperature during the night is lower than during the day then compare the conditions attempting to find the difference.
You may reach a conclusion that Sun is warming air during the day.
You can extrapolate that and create a general rule that variations in the Sun radiation cause temperature fluctuations.
Now, Sun is a spontaneous dynamic fusion reactor with variations in its output.

Now if you look into that you will find out that the Sun has a 11 year cycle, 200 year cycle and other suspected cycles that last thousands of years.
And the 200 year cycle is about to bottom out in 2035.
We are likely to see a noticeable drop in global temperatures soon.
On top of that we have Milankovitch cycles, variations in the content of dust in the galactic medium and processes like variation in cosmic rays and its effects on cloud formation.

Scientific method is a very useful tool but it has to be rigorously followed.
Just saying that color changes relate to CO2 positive radiative heating effect in our atmosphere,
or that increases in CO2 measured in parts per million do while simple experiment with 100% CO2 in a jar fails,
do not generate any credibility.
The fact that AL Gore and Bill Nye faked that experiment the,
fact that Michael Mann the creator of hockey stick refused to provide his raw data during a defamation lawsuit
and the fact that during Climate Gate there was an ample discussion of how to manipulate the data to "hide the decline" and destroy it prevent FOIA requests does not help the credibility.

But of course if I am talking to a believer in the True Church of AGW, then no facts can undermine the established religious dogma.

Maui
Posts: 505
Joined: Wed Apr 09, 2008 12:10 am
Location: Madison, WI

Re: Bill Gates is heading a $1 billion venture fund to combat climate change

Postby Maui » Wed Dec 14, 2016 12:39 am

pbelter wrote:The entire AGW is an idea designed to provide excuse for government growth and overreach and since warming is not a real problem nobody looks for real solutions like fusion.

What is more likely? Scientists universally intent on providing excuses for gov growth (at risk of jeopardizing their own integrity and careers)... or oil executives looking to solidify greater profits for longer into to future by sponsoring skepticism. Oil executive's careers depend entirely on shareholder profit and are virtually unaffected by the greater good. Scientists simply don't profit that much and (if my dad is any guide) are entirely interested in the facts. In fact, I would argue that the scientist that did find the mistake that everyone else was missing and publishes the research that disproves AGW has a stellar career ahead of themselves, likely including a Nobel.

pbelter wrote:I really hope I am wrong and substantial funds from that fund will go to fusion, but given the above it is extremely unlikely.

I guess I thought the typical conservative's wet dream involved billionaires investing in what they felt their money should be invested in rather than the government dictating investments. Where have I been led astray?

The thing that really drives me bonkers about the whole anti-AGW thing is that it doesn't even make sense anymore. Wind and solar are no longer just clean... they are also cheap. Alternative energy investment is crushing fossil fuel not because it is living off of government subsidies... but because there is more profit to be made.

So go on whining about the AGW "idea" and billionaires investing their billions, but the alternative energy market is going to continue booming whether you cry about it or not. I would love for fusion to pan out... but why harbor such disdain at the same time for tech that is offering many of the same benefits we're hoping to get from fusion?

hanelyp
Posts: 2186
Joined: Fri Oct 26, 2007 8:50 pm

Re: Bill Gates is heading a $1 billion venture fund to combat climate change

Postby hanelyp » Wed Dec 14, 2016 2:06 am

Government financial support is going to "green" energy, therefor you get "research" chasing that money. There is also profit in manufacturing a crisis to attract government money. The private sector absent government influence, on the other hand, wants real results that can turn a profit.
The daylight is uncomfortably bright for eyes so long in the dark.

Maui
Posts: 505
Joined: Wed Apr 09, 2008 12:10 am
Location: Madison, WI

Re: Bill Gates is heading a $1 billion venture fund to combat climate change

Postby Maui » Wed Dec 14, 2016 3:06 am

hanelyp wrote:Government financial support is going to "green" energy, therefor you get "research" chasing that money. There is also profit in manufacturing a crisis to attract government money. The private sector absent government influence, on the other hand, wants real results that can turn a profit.

I'd say fusion is a long way from real results that can turn a profit. Clearly we should not fund any such research. Really so sad (sad!) the investments in solar and wind paid off and they are already often cheaper, even without subsidies. Hopefully Trump/GOP can figure out a way to reverse the trend that is relentlessly making the goddamn stuff cheaper. Otherwise, we doomed to a stronger economy less dependent on foreign oil that may ---gasp-- even start to impact the imaginary AGW situation. What a sad world this is becoming. (sad!)

paperburn1
Posts: 2188
Joined: Fri Jun 19, 2009 5:53 am
Location: Third rock from the sun.

Re: Bill Gates is heading a $1 billion venture fund to combat climate change

Postby paperburn1 » Wed Dec 14, 2016 3:57 am

Bill gates did meet with some polywell guys a while back ; but by the end of next year Elon Musk will be solving the power problem "FOR the WORLD because he will have finished his second solar cell plant and that can account for 2 percent of the production needed to make the WORLD solar powered. (I haven't decided if he is a Superhero Or a Supervillain yet But I have found his Island Lair.)
I am not a nuclear physicist, but play one on the internet.

zapkitty
Posts: 267
Joined: Fri Apr 09, 2010 8:13 pm

Re: Bill Gates is heading a $1 billion venture fund to combat climate change

Postby zapkitty » Wed Dec 14, 2016 8:33 am

The Anti-AGW "thing" is simply a well-financed narrative. Very simple and it's documented.

After the fossil fuel oligarchs such as Exxonmobile were made aware of the realities of unchecked CO2 emissions by their own researchers they decided to follow the example of Big Tobacco by spending a few billion dollars over several decades to deny even the possibility of global warming... or "climate change" as it was renamed by the Bush dynasty.

And the reason the carbon kings did this was very simple and very understandable: to ensure trillions of dollars in profits over the following decades and thus their own grip on wealth and power.

But now the party is over as the poles melt, an untethered polar vortex wanders the northern hemisphere seemingly at random, antarctic ice shelves collapse one after the other (Larsen C started splitting last month), great coral reefs are dead or dying, a myriad of species on land and sea have vanished with untold more to follow... the list of consequences is long and time is getting very short as the bill comes due for the elites' decades of fossil fuel fun.

That bill, that monumental and very past due bill, is actually the underlying cause of much of what passes for news these days... how many quadrillions of dollars will the total run over the decades to come?

(Not counting the unnecessary billions of human deaths, of course, as those are just the little people.)

As of now the most terrifying thing, to the fossil oligarchs and their peers and enablers, is the faint possibility that they might be held to account for what they've done to the rest of us... and to this world.

RERT
Posts: 106
Joined: Mon Jun 02, 2014 9:10 pm

Re: Bill Gates is heading a $1 billion venture fund to combat climate change

Postby RERT » Wed Dec 14, 2016 12:05 pm

Name calling in the climate debate has to stop, and we have to engage seriously with each other to formulate a genuine consensus policy.

There is no doubt that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. Pumping billions of tons of it into the atmosphere is a perturbation of the climate system which is best avoided. There needs to be an active discussion of the extent of the problem, and the most economical way of dealing with it.

For uttering the above paragraph, many people would be screaming "Denier!", equating me to a war criminal, just because I don''t believe the frankly ludicrous claims of imminent climate catastrophe. I've just looked at the data, and there is no reason to panic.

An initial rise in CO2 and temperature is actually beneficial - agricultural productivity should rise, as is evidenced by the fact that that's what's actually been happening. There has been a substantial greening of the earth over decades. If you dig a little into the "dangerous 2 degrees rise" meme, I believe you will find at its root the guess that somewhere around there the net benefit might cross through zero.

The planet has been through much higher temperatures and much higher CO2 concentrations before. There has been vegetation in Antarctica, and CO2 levels up from 400ppm today to more like 3000 (IIRC) at points in the past. Ergo, the biosphere is not in any immediate danger. Similarly with sea-level changes. During the Emian interglacial, temperatures were several degrees higher than today for thousands of years. Still, the Greenland icecap did not go away. Sea-level rise rates vary from place to place, but haven't really changed in a hundred or so years. Finally, temperature always varies. Temperature today is well below the Holocene peak, only a few thousand years ago.

The sensitivity of the climate is slowly going down in recent observational studies. A figure of 2C per doubling of CO2 now seems much more likely than the 3c used in most models. Why does that matter? Because it gives us 50% more time to do whatever we decide is right, and that means 50% more decades, not years ( if you see what I mean! ).

That brings us back to policy. Personally, I fail to see why well engineered nuclear power can't be the principal component of a solution. Couple that with a 'moonshot' on batteries, and power and land transportation could be de-carbonised in a few decades, which is plenty soon enough (in my view).

I'd also offer my view on why this debate is so poisonous - it is because, in the face of the above facts, it would be hard to get the public to pursue ANY policy. A scare story is required, or a very modest and measured approach. I also think that that explains the "Denier!" meme. The debate has to be cut off, because the catastrophic the view does not stand up. In addition, there are certainly people who would use AGW as a lever to try and deconstruct our consumer life-style (for which aim stated baldly there is essentially zero public support).


Return to “News”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest