Saturday, May 17, 2014

'The End is Near'-- but from whom?

It seems that humanity isn't listening to our science masters:
But What Would the End of Humanity Mean for Me? 
Preeminent scientists are warning about serious threats to human life in the not-distant future, including climate change and superintelligent computers. Most people don't care...
I wonder why it is that people don't seem to care when scientists tell them that the apocalypse is upon us?

Perhaps it's because people remember the Malthusian apocalypses, and the Eugenic apocalypses, and the Pesticide apocalypses, and the Overpopulation apocalypses, and the Global Cooling apocalypses, and the Acid Rain apocalypses, and the Heterosexual AIDS apocalypses.

Scientists have been shoveling bullshit for a couple of centuries now, and people are smart enough to know when government contractors (which is what scientists are) hype imminent catastrophes to gin up funding and draw attention to themselves.

If the death toll from Malthusian policies and Eugenic cleansing and DDT deprivation and 'One Child' crimes against humanity in developing countries (upwards of a couple hundred million deaths) is taken as a prelude, the real extinction threat humanity faces is from scientists themselves.  

59 comments:

  1. Why am I not surprised at this further piece of bullshit spewed from the deranged brain of Egnor?

    Personally, I'm most worried by an Apocalypse precipitated by religious fanatics keen to fulfill the prophesies of Revelations and to bring forward the Second Coming (assuming that there was a First Coming, that is), which we have been awaiting for almost 2000 years already.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. If I were you, bach, I'd be worried about the Second Coming too.

      Delete
    2. Egnor,

      I'm not worried about something that's completely fictional.

      Delete
    3. Citizen Boggs, Committee of General SecurityMay 17, 2014 at 7:46 AM

      Glad to see you showed up, bonfire. There's a little matter I want to raise with you.

      A couple of days ago, you made this statement about a graph hosted on Jo Nova's site:

      "So dishonest people can't manipulate graphs? I know Jo Nova... [etc]"

      I read that, and I think most people would agree, as a veiled accusation of fraudulent manipulation of a scientific image.

      As it happens, that image is the intellectual property of the European Space Agency. I'm sure the ESA would take a rather dim view of a blogger altering it and using it for fraudulent purposes. Particularly on a popular, award-winning website that gets the visit count Jo Nova gets (hers is one of the most popular blogs in Australia, isn't it?). In fact, I'll bet under European Law it's a crime to do so. Probably Australian Law, too.

      Now I happen to agree with those laws, because I made a living on the production of intellectual property. People who break them should be exposed, sued if necessary, forced to recant, and, in sufficiently egregious cases (in the eyes of the IP owner), criminally prosecuted. If her bio is correct about her career, and you are correct about her "manipulation", then she's making money off fraudulent manipulations of scientific data and needs to be exposed. And, bonfire, are the man who says "J'accuse". This is your chance to be the Émile Zola of global warming.

      Jo Nova has a comment section. I think, at a very minimum, you should go there and raise your suspicions. She needs to be made aware of your accusation. No one, even a criminal, deserves to have people slinking around in the shadows accusing them of criminal behavior behind their back. Naturally, I didn't want to jump the gun and do this for you because I was pretty sure you'd like to get the credit.

      What say you?

      Delete
    4. Senile old fart,

      I don't look at Jo Nova's website. Anyway - you linked to her website. If you wanted to 'prove' anything, you would have linked to the original site.

      Also, it's difficult to sue someone for something published on the Internet. You and Egnor keep on proving it with your defamatory comments about the Clintons. And scientists.

      I doubt you're an expert on either Australian or European law. Particularly Australian law. Ian Plimer lost a bundle by attempting to sue creationists for fraud, and then decided to return the favour by committing fraud in 'Heaven and Earth'.

      Delete
    5. Citizen Boggs, Committee of General SecurityMay 17, 2014 at 8:15 AM

      So, bonfire, do you claim she manipulated that graph?

      Yes or no will do.

      Delete
    6. "Personally, I'm most worried by an Apocalypse precipitated by religious fanatics keen to fulfill the prophesies of Revelations and to bring forward the Second Coming (assuming that there was a First Coming, that is), which we have been awaiting for almost 2000 years already."

      You see, bachfiend, that's why people think you're anti-Christian bigot. Stop denying it. You're the KKK of Christian haters.

      Delete
    7. Senile old fart,

      No, but I accuse you of linking to an inadequately captioned graph on a third party site with the delusion you were proving something.

      Anonymous (who are you?),

      I'm prejudiced against religious fanatics who take the psychotic ravings of the anonymous author of 'Revelations' seriously. I'm not prejudiced against sane Christians.

      Delete
    8. Oh, I see. You're not prejudiced against Christians. You're only prejudiced against Christians who believe in Christianity. So you're off the hook.

      You think you're not a bigot because you attach conditions to your acceptance of another person's faith. There are some parts of the Bible that you don't like, which you'd rather that Christians don't believe. Quite a lot of parts, actually. So you demand that they stop believing those parts and if they don't, you hate them.

      That makes you an anti-Christian bigot. Embrace it. That's what you are.

      JQ

      Delete
    9. JQ,

      I'm prejudiced against religious fanatics who want to bring on the Apocalypse by fulfilling the prophesies of 'Revelation'. If you want to do that, then I'm prejudiced against you too.

      Anyway. So far I'm finding Pope Francis quite reasonable. I quite like him. Does that make me an anti-Christian bigot too?

      Delete
    10. Citizen Boggs, Committee of General SecurityMay 17, 2014 at 8:39 AM

      No? Fine. Thank you. It's good to know you have a shred of integrity left and can admit your accusation was just a cheap attempt to besmirch the character of someone with whom you disagree and also happens to be infinitely more successful than you are. Envy is such a nasty sin, bonfire.

      bonfire: "delusion you were proving something"

      What, exactly, did I claim I was "proving"?

      Well, I suppose I unintentionally proved you can't read graphs and that you will lie about "heretics" and wish horrible death on them to protect your apocalyptic cult. But that was purely serendipitous.

      Delete
    11. Senile old fart,

      You did prove you're an idiot and have money to burn unnecessarily.

      Delete
    12. Commissar Boggs, Ministry of TruthMay 17, 2014 at 8:56 AM

      bonfire: "You did prove you're an idiot"

      I'm not the one who can't read graphs, bonfire.

      Or should I call you Dr Dustbin Compression?

      :-D

      Delete
    13. Senile old fart,

      I don't bother to attempt to read graphs when they're inadequately captioned.

      Delete
    14. Sorry, that unisgned comment above was from me.

      TRISH

      Delete
    15. Commissar Boggs, Ministry of TruthMay 17, 2014 at 9:19 AM

      Right. You just don't "bother".

      All the captioning anyone needed to read and interpret at graph is right there. As I said, you just can't read graphs.

      I think you're out of gas, pardon the pun.

      Delete
    16. Senile old fart,

      If you want to be taken seriously you'd link to the original site rather than a batshit site such as Jo Nova's. And you only brought it up to divert attention from your claim that sea level rises for the next century will only be 1 mm a year.

      Delete
  2. Spot-on Mregnor. These pseudo-scientists have been feeding the general public their alarmist kool-aid for too long. Anyone who dares speak against the secular ideology of AGW is immediately ostracized from the "scientific community" and silenced, to say nothing of evolution and the big bang.

    http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-xioFgsSsXLg/UHrttpdizAI/AAAAAAAAAbI/_850Ps8-WMI/s1600/inconvenient-truth-global-warming-hoax-political-poster-1286997141.jpg

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Michael,

      I don't take anyone seriously who doubts the Big Bang. Even loons such as Egnor are happy to accept the Big Bang as being confirmation, somehow, of their creation myth in Genesis.

      Delete
    2. You're forgetting one small detail: causation. Time and space had to begin somewhere and something had to cause it to happen. Elements don't will themselves into being from nothingness.

      Delete
    3. Michael,

      So what is your version of how the Universe came into being? Just a brief sketch will do.

      I agree something caused the Universe. I don't think that there's any evidence that someone caused the Universe, although I'm open to convincing, if you have the evidence, that someone used something to cause the Universe.

      Delete
    4. Commissar Boggs, Ministry of TruthMay 17, 2014 at 9:17 AM

      Why did someone have to "use something"?

      Delete
    5. bachfiend, the universe had to have a first cause -- a Creator. To suggest that the universe is the natural end product of a massive explosion is an intellectual absurdity. Thus, the evidence for God is everywhere, from the astounding complexity of even the most minuscule cell to the incredible design and fine-tuning. Everything stands as a testament to the workings of an intelligence far surpassing all human comprehension. Indeed, what is existence and where did it come from? Why? How? As I said before, no element wills itself into being; it has to come from somewhere, a source. What is the source? Science does not possess answers to every question.

      Delete
    6. Michael,

      Agreed. The Universe has a cause. It's just not your delusion of a Creator. Your argument for the Creator is just ignorance. The Universe certainly does surpass your comprehension.

      Delete
    7. Common sense dictates that the universe was created; every single thing within it, every element, life-form, design, law, et al. points to the work of a Creator. I don't need pseudo-intellectuals selling me kool-aid about a magical self-caused universe and life magically popping out of non-life which then magically "evolves" into millions of individual species. And I'm delusional?

      Delete
    8. Michael,

      Common sense also dictated that the Earth is flat and unmoving (any fool can see that). And that the Sun revolves around the Earth, and not vice versa. Any fool can see that the Sun rises above the Eastern edge of the flat Earth every morning since time immemorial - or at least for the last 6000 years since Creation.

      No thanks - I will take my science from someone who isn't delusional as you.

      Delete
    9. Common sense dictates that computers aren't in the habit of building themselves, yet you buy into the notion that the universe just exploded into existence. Yeah, who's delusional?

      Delete
    10. Michael,

      It isn't common sense to think that the Universe is in any way similar to a computer.

      Delete
    11. The fined-tuned laws, the precise mechanisms, the readily apparent design and cohesion, the massive amount of data necessary to give everything a functional purpose, et al. The "programming" method is different from a computer, certainly, but the analogy is nevertheless sound.

      Delete
    12. Michael,

      No, the analogy isn't valid. We know computers are artificially constructed.

      It's also a circular argument to claim that the Universe is fine tuned for life, because we're here, and we're here because the Universe is fine tuned for life.

      We don't know that the Universe is perfectly fine tuned for life, which would be amazing, instead of just being so-so fine tuned for life.

      If the Universe is perfectly fine tuned for life, then life should be widespread in the Universe, in which case humans aren't exceptional. If humans are the only intelligence in the Universe, then the Universe isn't perfectly fine tuned for life.

      Design in life is easily explained by Darwinian principles. But then you reject Darwin for ideological reasons, so there's no point continuing this discussion.

      Delete
    13. Common sense dictates that *nothing* cannot create something.

      Delete
    14. Michael,

      I've noted to you in the past that the total energy of the Universe is zero 'nothing'. The positive energy of ordinary matter, dark matter, dark energy, ordinary energy, the tiny fraction in neutrinos, is exactly balanced by the negative energy of gravity.

      So 'nothing' has come from 'nothing'. This Universe had a start 13.82 billion years ago. It started as a bubble in a preexisting Multiverse, which is what created this Universe.

      At least the existence of the Multiverse is supported by the mathematics, which has managed to explain much of the evolution of the Universe.

      There's no evidence for your God. Not even common sense.

      Delete
    15. Listen to yourself. You're talking about multiverse, which is total atheist la-la land fantasy. It doesn't even deserve to be called a science of the gaps because there's effectively nothing scientific about it. And where did you get that the total energy of the universe is zero? Ridiculous. Universes don't just poof into existence. It's illogical to assume that the laws governing the universe weren't configured to exact specification and the only plausible explanation for this is intelligent design, i.e. God.

      Delete
    16. Michael,

      There's more evidence for the Multiverse than there is for your God existing some place outside time and space of this Universe.

      Explaining why the total energy of the Universe is zero would take considerably more space than is allowed on this blog. Particularly for a science illiterate who is idiotic enough to think that evolution or star formation can be proved in a few paragraphs.

      Anyhow. You're so moronic that you think that the Big Bang was an explosion of matter, adding energy to the Universe. Whereas, it wasn't matter that exploded. Space 'exploded' undergoing rapid expansion.

      And how do you know that the physical laws and constants were configured to exact specifications? As I've noted, we don't know that the Universe is perfectly fine tuned. Where's your evidence that it is?

      Delete
    17. You're lying. There's no credible evidence for a multiverse.

      Evolution (i.e. speciation through beneficial mutation) cannot be tested, observed or reproduced; therefore, it's not science. That's just all there is to it.

      There is no such thing as "star formation." God made them as they are whereas scientists can only make up just-so stories about how gaseous clouds free-floating through space managed to formulate solar systems of their own accord, which contradicts logic.

      Neither you nor I know how the universe came into existence, but there's nothing remotely scientific about claiming that it just appeared of its own accord. No way, no how.

      The universe operates on fundamental laws necessary to sustain itself, such as electromagnetic, quantum, thermodynamic, chemical, and other constants with precision. There is a regularity to the formation of galaxies in that they are of specific, identifiable shape: elliptical, spiral or irregular. Further, the earth's atmosphere is fine-tuned to create a sustainable ecosystem. If any of the various elements were thrown even the slightest out of whack, it could have catastrophic effect upon all life. Of course, a skeptic (such as yourself) will dismiss all of this as tomfoolery because you refuse to believe in God, but so be it. Whether or not we agree won't change reality in any way, shape or form. What is, is.

      Delete
    18. Michael,

      LOL. 'The Earth's atmosphere is fine-tuned to create a sustainable ecosystem. If any of the elements were thrown even the slightest out of whack, it could have catastrophic effects upon all life'.

      This coming from a character who believes that increasing atmospheric CO2 levels by around 40% from preindustrial levels doesn't have any effects on global temperatures. That AGW isn't happening.

      Anyhow. I stated that there's more evidence for the Multiverse than there is for the existence of your God in a place outside of the time and place of this Universe.

      It's simple logic. The Multiverse exists outside the space and time of this Universe. If God exists, then that's where God exists. Adding characteristics to a class makes it less probable not more.

      You're starting to disappear up your contradictions and trying to hide you're totally ignorant of science and logic.

      Delete
    19. "This coming from a character who believes that increasing atmospheric CO2 levels by around 40% from preindustrial levels doesn't have any effects on global temperatures. That AGW isn't happening."

      Man-made CO2, a trace gas, constitutes for a fraction of a percent. Water vapor absorbs far more heat and IR, about 1,200 times the amount. For that we should be taxed into submission? For what purpose? To redistribute wealth.

      "Anyhow. I stated that there's more evidence for the Multiverse than there is for the existence of your God in a place outside of the time and place of this Universe."

      God doesn't need to prove His existence. The universe does a fine enough job pointing to a Creator, because it couldn't just exist on its own accord.

      "It's simple logic. The Multiverse exists outside the space and time of this Universe. If God exists, then that's where God exists. Adding characteristics to a class makes it less probable not more."

      *sigh* Unbelievable.

      "You're starting to disappear up your contradictions and trying to hide you're totally ignorant of science and logic."

      Yeah, science and logic, like universes magically creating themselves, right? I mean that's real logical.

      Delete
    20. Michael,

      How exactly does your belief that humans increasing the atmospheric CO2 by a massive 40% not contradict your statement that the atmosphere is fine tuned so that if any of the elements were thrown even slightly out of whack it could have catastrophic effects on all life?

      You need to respond to all the comment, not just the part you think you'll be able to get away with.

      Anyway. Without greenhouse gases, according to the Stefan-Boltzmann law, the average global temperature would be minus 18 degrees Celsius, at which point there'd be no water vapor in the air.

      CO2 allows the Earth to retain heat causing warming, which allows the air to contain water vapor. Increasing CO2 levels causes further warming and hence increased water vapor. It's a positive feedback loop.

      Where do you think God is? If he exists. God is supposed to exist outside the time and space of this Universe - which is where the Multiverse is supposed to exist too.

      The probability of the Multiverse existing is greater than the probability of the Multiverse containing God existing. It's simple logic - adding elements to a class makes it less likely. It can't make it more likely.

      A simple example - islands are more common (probable) than Island with monkeys. Islands with monkeys can't be more probable than Islands in general, with or without monkeys.

      Delete
    21. Again, man-made CO2 is infinitesimal, like dropping one marble in a huge pile of marbles, or adding one tiny bubble in a large tank of water.

      The multiverse is an atheist delusion.

      God is present everywhere except for Hell and Purgatory.

      Delete
    22. Michael,

      You stated 'The Earth's atmosphere is fine-tuned to create a sustainable ecosystem. If any of the elements were thrown even the slightest out of whack, it could have catastrophic effects on all life'.

      Atmospheric CO2 levels have increased 40% over preindustrial levels. Greenhouse gases make life as we know it possible on Earth. Without greenhouse gases, the Earth's temperature would be minus 18 degrees Celsius. Greenhouse gases cause 33 degrees of warming, initially from CO2, because there wouldn't be any water vapour or methane at such frigid temperatures - CO2 leads to a positive feedback, increasing its warming effect.

      Why wouldn't humans' adding CO2 to the atmosphere not disturb the fine tuning you're claiming for the Earth's atmosphere?

      Also - if God created the Universe, then where was he standing when he did so? He can't have been standing in the Universe he's creating. He must have been outside the time and space of this Universe. What do you call it? I call it the Multiverse.

      And logically, the Multiverse without a god is more probable than the Multiverse with a god (it can't be less probable)

      Delete
  3. Commissar Boggs, Ministry of TruthMay 17, 2014 at 8:08 AM

    Egnor: "humanity isn't listening"

    They've been doing it too long, and too loudly...

    Peak Oil:

    2011 - WikiLeaks reveals that Peak [O]il, or the point when the maximum rate of global petroleum extraction has been reached and is about to enter terminal decline, is no longer the fringe theory it was just 10 years ago. [T]he just-released cables, which detail a back-and-forth between the U.S. consul general and geologist Sadad al-Husseini, the former head of exploration at Saudi Aramco, confirms that the situation is serious.
    2009 - The chief economist of the International Energy Agency says the world is running out of oil.
    1997 – Oil analyst Colin Campbell predicts peak production imminent.
    1980 – Carter's Energy Secretary James Schlesinger announces "future is bleak” and likely to grow bleaker due to oil shortages.
    1972 – The Club of Rome estimated that only 550 billion barrels of oil remained in the earth.
    1969 – According to estimates, the state of Oklahoma had 125 million barrels of oil left in the ground.
    1940 – U.S. Bureau of Mines predicts U.S.exhausts domestic oil reserves by 1954.
    1916 – U.S. Bureau of Mines warns of impending "crisis of the first magnitude.”
    1914 – U.S. Bureau of Mines predicts US has only 10-year supply remaining
    1885 – U.S. Geological Survey says California had “little or no chance of finding oil.” (California has produced over 7 billion barrels of oil).
    1874 – Pennsylvania State Geologist predicts U.S. has only four year oil supply remaining.

    lalala ♫

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Senile old fart,

      'Peak oil' doesn't just mean that oil production is going to decline. It also includes oil production not being capable of being increased sufficiently to meet demand.

      The global population is going to reach at least 9 billion by 2050. China and India are rapidly developing with a burgeoning new middle class wanting their automobiles too.

      Oil production could be increased to 120 million barrels a day from around 90 million and it still won't be enough. And America had a very good year last year, managing to produce 8 million barrels of oil a day, not even half of domestic consumption.

      Delete
    2. Commissar Boggs, Ministry of TruthMay 17, 2014 at 8:52 AM

      Oh, I know. We've heard it all before. Time to light my patio heaters and take a drive in my big block V8 pickup truck. Might as well get rolling and get the apocalypse over with.

      But first, I have a question for you, bonfire. You claim to have been quite the little globetrotter. And I don't doubt that. Idle trustfunder socialists have lots of time for that sort of thing. Get to see how the other 99% who don't have a managed, inherited income live, etc. I call it ecogawking the picturesque poor.

      The average person who says they care about climate change actually has a substantially worse than average footprint. Generally that’s because they tend to have a bit more money, and they tend to be people who like to think of themselves as multicultural and like to get out and see the world. Which means that they’re flying around a lot, and all that flying generally outweighs any other green lifestyle choices that they’ve made.
      --- Grist.com

      What's your carbon footprint...?

      lalala ♫

      Delete
    3. Senile old fart,

      Solar panels. Solar hot water system. Electricity use 3 kwatt.hr per day (average for Perth 15 kwatt.hr per day). 1 litre car, which I drive 16 km a week tops. No air conditioning. No heating. Use a bike and public transport. My next holiday - first for 3 years - is a coach tour of the Northern Territory in July, which is domestic. Vegetarian.

      So I suppose my carbon footprint must be enormous?

      Delete
    4. Commissar Boggs, Ministry of TruthMay 17, 2014 at 9:15 AM

      Russia? Remember talking about Russia?

      Don't be a fibber, bonfire?

      BTW, does your "car" have handlebars? Just curious.

      Delete
    5. Commissar Boggs, Ministry of TruthMay 17, 2014 at 10:36 AM

      bonfire: "Vegetarian."

      GreenThink / Atheist Ethics®: Burn a heretic, save a pig.

      Heh.

      Loon.

      Delete
    6. Boggs, they make a bumper sticker that says My truck cancels out 3 Prius”, you should get one, or perhaps the less specific“I'm an asshole”.

      -KW

      Delete
    7. Commissar Boggs, Ministry of TruthMay 17, 2014 at 11:17 AM

      Popeye: " they make a bumper sticker that says My truck cancels out 3 Prius”, you should get one"

      I didn't know that. I may do so. Tnx for the info! Got a link? I'll put it right beside my NRA Life Member sticker.

      Delete
    8. Senile old fart,

      What are you going on about Russia? I never mentioned Russia. My car is a Smartcar. German. Made by Mercedes. Very popular in Europe. I became vegetarian for ethical reasons - because I decided that it wasn't ethical to kill animals just for food (and that was over 30 years ago).

      Being vegetarian, though, does reduce my carbon footprint. I'm against capital punishment. Even for heretics.

      You're going incoherent with your senility.

      Delete
    9. Gramps: Time to light my patio heaters and take a drive in my big block V8 pickup truck.

      I don't think they equip wheelchairs with V8 engines. That would be impractical.

      Ho Ho

      Delete
  4. >>Perhaps it's because people remember the Malthusian apocalypses, and the Eugenic apocalypses, and the Pesticide apocalypses, and the Overpopulation apocalypses, and the Global Cooling apocalypses, and the Acid Rain apocalypses, and the Heterosexual AIDS apocalypses.<<

    I remember most of those predicted catastrophes that never materialized. The overpopulation apocalypse was perhaps the most overwrought but they were all hysterical. Unfortunately, I believed in most of them, but I have an excuse: I was drunk and high nearly every day until 1987.

    I don't distrust science but I do distrust the organized scientific establishment. They've earned my distrust by constantly crying wolf. Now they want me to return to eighteenth nineteenth century living based on some computer models that are always wrong. Sorry, I'm not going to do it.

    JQ

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. JQ,

      Yeah, right - they had photovoltaic panels, wind generators of electricity, hydrothermal generators, mass transport systems, nuclear power plants etc in the 18th and 19th centuries.

      Delete
    2. Commissar Boggs, Ministry of TruthMay 17, 2014 at 9:13 AM

      JQ, you nailed it, my friend:

      For more than two millennia wind-powered machines have ground grain and pumped water.
      --- Wiki: Wind Power

      In the year 1767 a Swiss scientist named Horace-Benedict de Saussure created the first solar collector
      --- ExploringGreenTechnology.com

      Uses of waterpower date back to Mesopotamia and ancient Egypt
      --- Wiki: Hydropower

      The discovery of electrical current, induction, and the photovoltaic effect was not the gating technology for these power generation technologies.

      And to include nuclear power in a discussion of antique technology is, well, silly.

      bonfire doesn't know anything about science. He just babbles and makes it up as he goes along.

      Love ya, bonfire. ;-)

      Delete
    3. Senile old fart,

      What the fuck are you raving about now? JQ believes that if we do something about AGW, we will be going back to 18th and 19th century technology.

      We won't, unless we don't develop a power source to replace fossil fuels before they become too scarce and expensive.

      Oil is currently $100 a barrel. Cheap, isn't it? America had a good year last year, managing to produce 8 million barrels a day, less than half of domestic consumption. Enjoy driving your gas guzzler before the oil runs out.

      Delete
    4. Senile old fart,

      And what are you raving about de Saussure? He didn't build a solar collector. He built a hot box. A portable greenhouse. And incidentally, demonstrated the effect of greenhouse gases in warming the Earth.

      Your dementia is getting worse.

      Delete
    5. Fiend, if de Saussure's 'hot box' didn't 'collect' energy from the sun, then how did it get hot?

      Anything which concentrates solar energy is a 'solar collector'. The includes photovoltaic cells, parabolic mirror arrays, flat plate water heaters AND (drum roll please...) all plants. Yep. The oak trees on our property here in Texas are busy collecting and storing solar energy every day.

      Delete
    6. David,

      A hot box isn't a solar collector. It doesn't collect energy in a useful form. It just takes the heat from the Sun and concentrates it, which will dissipate and be lost once the Sun goes done. You might as well claim that the ground is a solar collector too.

      Your oak trees are solar collectors. They're collecting and storing solar energy as chemical energy in the leaves, which will still be available for use much later.

      De Saussure's hot box can't be used to run a modern economy.

      Delete
  5. Bach who are these people who want an apocalypse?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Big Rich,

      Agreed. There aren't many Christians around who want an Apocalypse (I only brought it up to pull Egnor's chain, which usually nowadays means Senile old fart's chain).

      They do exist though. You haven't been paying attention.

      They're a fringe group mainly because most Christians are living their lives as if the world isn't ending any time soon. That God isn't going to be intervening to protect them in a calamity.

      George W Bush went into Iraq under the delusion that Iraq had WMDs. He didn't have the delusion that God would protect America by preventing Iraq using the (nonexistent) weapons. Or that Iraq using the weapons might, in some way, bring on the Second Coming.

      Delete