Monday, August 25, 2025
Wednesday, August 20, 2025
The Infinite Energy Source Made Possible By The Oil And Gas Industry
I've been saying for decades that we live on top of a massive ball of molten iron. About 84% of the Earth's volume is molten. I've argued that there is no shortage of energy, only that some forms of energy are more difficult to access.
Monday, August 18, 2025
Wednesday, August 13, 2025
Monday, August 11, 2025
Why natural gas produces less CO2
On Mon, Aug 11, 2025 at 10:15 AM Grant wrote:
Basically I agree, but I don't understand your comment on switching from coal to natural gas. Natural gas is very clean, but it still produces CO2, just not all the particulates. I think electricity production in Utah is almost entirely from coal fired plants, and coal reserves are projected to last about 1,000 years.
According to Google AI:
Natural gas produces less CO2 than other fossil fuels because it has a higher proportion of hydrogen relative to carbon. When burned, the hydrogen in natural gas combines with oxygen to form water (H2O), while the carbon combines with oxygen to form carbon dioxide (CO2). Since natural gas has more hydrogen and less carbon, it produces less CO2 per unit of energy compared to fuels like coal or oil.
Sunday, August 10, 2025
Global Warming and Natural Feedbacks
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VlKxuabwHCg&t=1965s
The temperature data, which shows a very slow warming partly caused by human activity, has led me to believe that we are not in a climate crisis. It has taken 140 years for the average global atmospheric temperature to rise by 1 degree Celsius, and this follows the end of the Little Ice Age and the 1880s—one of the coldest periods in United States history that killed hundreds of Americans. Many more people die from cold than they do from heat.
My view is reinforced by what I see as questionable behavior from Climate Alarmists and the IPCC. Politicians and alarmists have created a moral hazard in which scientists risk losing funding if they do not support the official narrative. The IPCC reportedly refuses to hire anyone who does not already believe in catastrophic man-made warming, and the infamous email leak suggested they were trying to "hide the decline"—concealing that tree ring proxies used for reconstructing past temperatures were unreliable compared with recent data. People have quit the IPCC claiming that it is corrupt. One person claimed that the real goal of the IPCC was to do away with free market capitalism.
By the mid-2010s, it was evident that climate computer model predictions were running far too hot. This led to shifting target temperatures. Around 2010, I watched videos warning that by the year 2100, we were on track for a 3°C increase—considered dangerous—but that limiting the rise to 2°C would be manageable. Only a few years later, the claim shifted: we were supposedly on track for a 2°C rise—now deemed dangerous—and that limiting it to 1.5°C would be manageable. I remain unconvinced that half a degree would make a significant difference.
To me, climate alarmism appears to be driven more by politics than by reliable science. There has been a political shift where fewer people are taking it seriously. Reportedly, climate policy has cost trillions of dollars, so I think that this is the greatest scam in human history.
However, there are simply too many unknown variables. Most of the debate centers on the amount of positive feedback to warming. But since feedbacks can be both positive and negative, and since these processes are not fully understood, it is difficult to make reliable long-term predictions. The current major point of contention is cloud cover. Skeptics argue that increasing cloud cover would produce a net negative feedback—seemingly common sense—while the IPCC claims the opposite.
Although the United States has reduced its CO₂ emissions, largely by switching from coal to natural gas, China has tripled its emissions through massive coal plant construction. While China has paid lip service to fighting climate change, its actions suggest that they don't care.
It is also worth noting that we may run out of most fossil fuels by the year 2100. Current estimates suggest 40–50 years of oil reserves remain. Reportedly, the United States has a very large shale oil reserve that could last the United States 300 years, but most of it is so difficult to mine that it would cost $10 per gallon at the pump.
The temperature data, which shows a very slow warming partly caused by human activity, has led me to believe that we are not in a climate crisis. It has taken 140 years for the average global atmospheric temperature to rise by 1 degree Celsius, and this follows the end of the Little Ice Age and the 1880s—one of the coldest periods in United States history that killed hundreds of Americans. Many more people die from cold than they do from heat.
My view is reinforced by what I see as questionable behavior from Climate Alarmists and the IPCC. Politicians and alarmists have created a moral hazard in which scientists risk losing funding if they do not support the official narrative. The IPCC reportedly refuses to hire anyone who does not already believe in catastrophic man-made warming, and the infamous email leak suggested they were trying to "hide the decline"—concealing that tree ring proxies used for reconstructing past temperatures were unreliable compared with recent data. People have quit the IPCC claiming that it is corrupt. One person claimed that the real goal of the IPCC was to do away with free market capitalism.
By the mid-2010s, it was evident that climate computer model predictions were running far too hot. This led to shifting target temperatures. Around 2010, I watched videos warning that by the year 2100, we were on track for a 3°C increase—considered dangerous—but that limiting the rise to 2°C would be manageable. Only a few years later, the claim shifted: we were supposedly on track for a 2°C rise—now deemed dangerous—and that limiting it to 1.5°C would be manageable. I remain unconvinced that half a degree would make a significant difference.
To me, climate alarmism appears to be driven more by politics than by reliable science. There has been a political shift where fewer people are taking it seriously. Reportedly, climate policy has cost trillions of dollars, so I think that this is the greatest scam in human history.
However, there are simply too many unknown variables. Most of the debate centers on the amount of positive feedback to warming. But since feedbacks can be both positive and negative, and since these processes are not fully understood, it is difficult to make reliable long-term predictions. The current major point of contention is cloud cover. Skeptics argue that increasing cloud cover would produce a net negative feedback—seemingly common sense—while the IPCC claims the opposite.
Although the United States has reduced its CO₂ emissions, largely by switching from coal to natural gas, China has tripled its emissions through massive coal plant construction. While China has paid lip service to fighting climate change, its actions suggest that they don't care.
It is also worth noting that we may run out of most fossil fuels by the year 2100. Current estimates suggest 40–50 years of oil reserves remain. Reportedly, the United States has a very large shale oil reserve that could last the United States 300 years, but most of it is so difficult to mine that it would cost $10 per gallon at the pump.
Coal will last the longest, so we may eventually be forced to burn more of it.
Saturday, August 9, 2025
Friday, August 8, 2025
Wednesday, August 6, 2025
Sunday, August 3, 2025
Saturday, August 2, 2025
There was NO first human
Scientists Discover Potential Cancer Cure in Ancient Tomb
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/XfiWQKQ49Oo
I have heard that cancer cells are weaker than normal cells because of their constant replication. This makes them easier to kill, yet we still have not cured cancer. I believe it is likely that a cure could be found in my lifetime.
Hear me out…
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/g3IrUIJytMY
@john2001plus
0 seconds ago
This is how Steve Irwin died. Wild animals are not pets, and they do not care if they kill you.
Microsoft Announces World's First Topological Quantum Chip
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/9SBVZr3lbS0
I have always been skeptical of quantum computing. Some of the claims made about it don't seem to make sense, such as suggestions that quantum computers access physical dimensions we cannot see. Others even claim they do not fully understand how their quantum computers work.
I am sure quantum computing works to some degree, but there are practical limitations. The number of qubits that can be packed into a small space will likely always be restricted. Furthermore, many systems require cooling their circuits to near absolute zero, making them impractical for widespread use.
Friday, August 1, 2025
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)