If You Like Your Junk Science, You Can Keep Your Junk Science

7 Responses to If You Like Your Junk Science, You Can Keep Your Junk Science

1. Paul in Sweden says:

   December 8, 2013 at 7:25 pm

   Your function in life is to provide generous income to government bureaucrats & provide subsidies to those that vote in a manner that will keep them in office.

   Reply
2. Paul Homewood says:

   December 8, 2013 at 7:30 pm

   Definition of “pollution”:

   the introduction of harmful substances or products into the environment
   http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/pollution

   Clearly CO2 is not harmful per se.

   Food is good for you, but eating too much is not. Does this mean all food is poisonous?

   Reply
3. Ivan says:

   December 8, 2013 at 8:25 pm

   I don’t know which is the bigger worry – that there is a moron notionally in charge of the country, or that enough morons voted for him in the first place. I understand that in the “new economy” we need to have a sizeable number of clueless serfs – but how many is too many?

   When I went to school, carbon dioxide was referred to as “the gas of life” – pretty much for the reason shown in your graphic.

   Reply
4. omanuel says:

   December 9, 2013 at 2:46 am

   Hi Steven,

   Junk Science has been thriving for the past sixty-eight (2013 – 1945 = 68 yrs) years.

   Thanks to being snowed-in today, Chapter 2 of the autobiography, “A Journey to the Core of the Sun,” was completed and is now posted below for consideration by you and other members of this group:

   https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/10640850/Chapter_2.pdf

   With kind regards,
   Oliver K. Manuel

   Reply
   • omanuel says:

     December 9, 2013 at 3:15 pm

     I hope Steven and other astute readers here will ask themselves why Professor Robley Evans left the decay energies of the neutron and the tritium atom off Figure 2.1 of the nuclear physics textbook? That figure is on page 35 (Or page 59 of the following pdf file)

     https://ia600306.us.archive.org/17/items/atomicnucleus032805mbp/atomicnucleus032805mbp.pdf

     If those two data points had been included, the intercept would have been at -1.5 MeV instead of -1.8 MeV, and his equations would have indicated a difference (in the absence of Coulomb interactions between positive charge) between the neutron-neutron and the proton-proton interactions.

     The entire concept of “nuclear binding energy” is as senseless as deciding if a floor is level by measuring the distance from the floor to the point directly above it on a sloping roof.

     Reply
5. Larry Fields says:

   December 9, 2013 at 7:31 am

   Dead link?

   Reply
6. Tom Bakert says:

   December 9, 2013 at 1:43 pm

   I have wondered for some time why, if CO2 is a dangerous pollutant, the FDA has not banned carbonated beverages.

   Reply