Replies to post #76763 on Quantum Materials Corp. (fka QTMM)

[drugmanrx]

I see QMC's licensee and AMTRON building the first QDSC Plant as a positive step

It is a positive step for QTMM towards commercialization, generating revenue,selling quantum dots, expanding their portfolio of quantum dot products, and bringing electricity to million of Indians who still don't have it, but IMHO it will have little to no effect on climate change.

Clarifying my point and answering your questions.

Do you not believe the 95+% of scientists that there is climate change?

The climate has been changing ever since this planet was formed.

Who are you attempting to blame for the climate change or more extreme temperatures and weather?

No one, How do you or any one else know if these are extreme climate change, were you or them here 500, thousand , million, ten million, a billion years ago to actually compare what was happening then. What about the 95% of those scientist a few decades ago predicting an ice age? What about the global warming scare which was disproven to be occurring so they took on a generic term "climate change" What about the 95% that gave us the erroneous food pyramid.

By the way you do realize those scientist are backed by political funding.

Well there is something that does contribute to climate change but is never in the discussion because humans can't do anything about it, "the sun". The sun goes though cycles as well. Not all solar energy reaching the earth is equal all the time. The sun sometimes is hotter and sometimes is cooler, and sometimes there is solar flare activity. If the furnace temp fluctuates than the room temp will fluctuates.

Are you saying Humans, in general are to blame?

Humans are to blame for changes in weather patterns *see previous post) not climate change.

Are you saying some corporations or politicians are to blame?

Politicians are to blame for creating this false hysteria over CO2. Do see you any of them reclaiming land and planting trees (a great device to reduce CO2)? No, they approve the removal of forest to build solar farms, windmill farms (which kills migrate birds by the millions) grow hemp, grow corn for ethanol rather than crops to eat, increase cities size, parking lots, sport stadiums, but not reclaiming land for forest. Their answer to "the problem" is a tax

Carbon utilization take CO2 out of the air or ground converts it to syngas, which in turn is convert to diesel fuel which is burn to create CO2 which is converted to syngas which is converted to diesel fuel which is burned to create CO2 so on and so on.

CO2 a renewable green energy source.

At one time there was no ice on this planet and it cooled so much that gigantic glaziers covered most of the earth surface, then the planet warmed and those glaziers retreated to the poles,what were human doing then to cause those climate changes?

[Kurt_Banoffee]

You don't make a clear point.
You don't say what proof you want, you just say you don't have it.
Do you not believe the 95+% of scientists that there is climate change?

Here is a set of very clear FACTS directly addressing your questions:

1) Mainstream anthropogenic climate change theory isn't even remotely proven. The very simple and very undeniable fact is that the atmosphere has not responded at all as the models have predicted. This doesn't mean man is not the cause, but it does absolutely mean there are errors in the science that is driving the assumptions used in the models.

2) It's not possible to "prove" any global climate change theory, there simply isn't enough data. There are also important climate systems such as cloud cover that we don't even begin to know how to model.

3) Believing the climate is changing is common sense as it has been for the last 4.5 billion years. Believing that man is causing the recent changes is a wholly different thing.

4) The 95% claim is complete nonsense dreamed up by John Cook who is a political hack by any definition. Not only was his "study" methodology of reviewing journal abstracts and divining the beliefs of the authors a joke, he didn't even follow the methodology he laid out. More importantly, of the 11,944 published climate papers that he examined, only 41 explicitly stated that humans caused most of the warming since 1950. That's 0.3% not 95+%.

When you tune your models to hindcast, and they fail to accurately forecast, there is a problem.

When the most accurate model of the climate over the past 20 years is the one that assumed no GHG growth, there is a problem.

When you claim 95% certainty in understanding a system as complex as Earth's climate, that's just a joke - particularly when virtually everything you predict fails to happen.

Finally, a very simple, easy to understand, undeniable fact is that in order for the computer models that are telling us that we are going to all fry to come up with their sensational, media and grantworthy predictions, they rely on assumptions that have NEVER been observed in nature. While doing this to try to understand the climate is science, claiming you understand the climate when your assumptions prove to be wrong IS NOT.

By all means, build every QDSC possible where it makes sense. Don't kill billions of people by denying them inexpensive electricity or bankrupt nations because PlayStation climate "science" claims certainty where none exists.

[JazzyJoe]