Page 4 of 4
Re: Is the ABSENCE of news, news?
Posted: Sat Mar 16, 2013 12:17 pm
by MSimon
Re: Is the ABSENCE of news, news?
Posted: Thu Mar 21, 2013 4:17 pm
by mdeminico
Do you really think that with our moron-in-chief who's so vested in "green energy" we wouldn't have heard about it if this worked perfectly right now?
Re: Is the ABSENCE of news, news?
Posted: Thu Mar 21, 2013 11:42 pm
by hanelyp
Are you sure he wouldn't kill it? He wants excuses for more power, not solutions.
Re: Is the ABSENCE of news, news?
Posted: Fri Mar 22, 2013 8:04 pm
by ladajo
I think as long as we see money in the can, it is moving forward with a sense of viability.
As long as
www.fpds.gov shows them alive, I think we can assume there is money in the can.
Re: Is the ABSENCE of news, news?
Posted: Sat Mar 23, 2013 1:02 am
by paperburn1
May 3 2012 EMC2 was awarded a $5.3 million contract (N6893609C0125) for work over the next two years. so the funding does not stop until 9/30/2013 and at that time (sooner by completion reports we will know) so it looks like we are stuck with each other until then.
\
https://www.fpds.gov/common/jsp/LaunchW ... ersion=1.4
Re: Is the ABSENCE of news, news?
Posted: Wed Mar 27, 2013 9:16 pm
by TallDave
mdeminico wrote:Do you really think that with our moron-in-chief who's so vested in "green energy" we wouldn't have heard about it if this worked perfectly right now?
Maybe, but the funding process seems to de-emphasize results in favor of campaign contributions.
Re: Is the ABSENCE of news, news?
Posted: Wed Mar 27, 2013 9:28 pm
by TallDave
Insurance companies aren't big into science fiction. They're more concerned about things that are going to impact their bottom line.
Indeed. Irrational panics are an insurer's best friend, they get to collect premiums for insuring against things that will never happen.
As I said before, the problem with CAGW is that it's speculative. It
could be true, but there's little more reason to think that we're going to experience catastrophic warming than there is to think we're going to experience catastrophic cooling (which would be far worse, an extinction-level event), and past climate models/predictions have a terrible track record (and the CAGW crowd has been notably mendacious about those predictions).
I also have to add that the behavior of people like Mann "you can't have my data," Hansen "Auschwitz," and Jones "delete FOIA requests" has been truly atrocious, and peer review has become a bad joke.
Frankly, I have severe doubts that climate is even deterministic within the relevant temperature ranges. But it makes for great enviro-politics, so I guess we'll keep spending tens on billions on it.
Re: Is the ABSENCE of news, news?
Posted: Thu Mar 28, 2013 7:34 pm
by paperburn1
Re: Is the ABSENCE of news, news?
Posted: Thu Mar 28, 2013 7:46 pm
by mvanwink5
Old NM PR. I believe that "plasma instability" issue is ancient history, back when they had an arcing problem, maybe 4 years ago, longer? I had not seen that picture though, is it WB7.1? It is not WB8 based on the picture in the microwave measurement paper, look at the seam welding.
Re: Is the ABSENCE of news, news?
Posted: Sat Mar 30, 2013 10:08 am
by MSimon
mvanwink5 wrote:Old NM PR. I believe that "plasma instability" issue is ancient history, back when they had an arcing problem, maybe 4 years ago, longer? I had not seen that picture though, is it WB7.1? It is not WB8 based on the picture in the microwave measurement paper, look at the seam welding.
Yes it is "old". Widely discussed when it was news.
Re: Is the ABSENCE of news, news?
Posted: Sat Mar 30, 2013 10:12 am
by MSimon
TallDave wrote:Insurance companies aren't big into science fiction. They're more concerned about things that are going to impact their bottom line.
Indeed. Irrational panics are an insurer's best friend, they get to collect premiums for insuring against things that will never happen. 8)
As I said before, the problem with CAGW is that it's speculative. It
could be true, but there's little more reason to think that we're going to experience catastrophic warming than there is to think we're going to experience catastrophic cooling (which would be far worse, an extinction-level event), and past climate models/predictions have a terrible track record (and the CAGW crowd has been notably mendacious about those predictions).
I also have to add that the behavior of people like Mann "you can't have my data," Hansen "Auschwitz," and Jones "delete FOIA requests" has been truly atrocious, and peer review has become a bad joke.
Frankly, I have severe doubts that climate is even deterministic within the relevant temperature ranges. But it makes for great enviro-politics, so I guess we'll keep spending tens on billions on it.
http://butnowyouknow.net/those-who-fail ... -timeline/
Re: Is the ABSENCE of news, news?
Posted: Sat Mar 30, 2013 12:48 pm
by mvanwink5
Hence the book State of Fear was written by Michael Crichton. It was the Sci Fi book that changed my thinking on GW.