For those who don't know, the http://www.ucsusa.org/ is an organization consisting mostly of practicing scientists, who have in common a concern for the environment and a desire for rational solutions to environmental problems (plus a few other issues like scientific integrity). They testify before Congress, prepare talking points for the media, write letters to scientific journals, etc., and generally appear to know people in high places.
They have a keen desire for clean energy, but have grave concerns about the safety of nuclear power plants. They're currently pushing for greater use of "renewable" energy sources, but I'm sure they recognize that wind and solar won't be able to provide a majority of baseline power needs.
In addition, of course, they're scientists — at least in theory, they should be better equipped than most to tell the real opportunities from the snake oil.
Maybe we should be working to bring the UCS on board. If we can convince them that polywell fusion has potential, they have connections to reach a lot of funding sources and policy makers who could help make it happen.
Union of Concerned Scientists?
-
JoeStrout
- Site Admin
- Posts: 285
- Joined: Tue Jun 26, 2007 7:40 pm
- Location: Fort Collins, CO, USA
- Contact:
Union of Concerned Scientists?
Joe Strout
Talk-Polywell.org site administrator
Talk-Polywell.org site administrator
-
Schneibster
- Posts: 1805
- Joined: Mon Jul 09, 2007 5:21 am
- Location: Monterey, CA, USA
Rocky Mountain Institute (RMI)
What about the Rocky Mountain Institute? Might they have close ties to UCS and also be an important ally? They were commissioned by the Pentagon to prepare the publication "Winning the Oil Endgame".
They are on board with global warming. How scientific can they be?
Me I'm a lukewarmist. i.e. The amplification factors are wrong.
All the lukewarmists agree with the IPCC on the contribution of CO2. Where the IPCC differs from the lukewarmists is in the amplification factor. Which the IPCC itself says it it doesn't even know the sign of let alone the magnitude. So the "results" of the IPCC are not very scientific.
BTW the rate of rise of CO2 has slowed for a couple of months this year. First time ever. Proof of nothing of course. It is attributed (preliminary) to the cooling oceans - which we do have proof of.
There are now definite hints that CO2 follows warming and is not the cause. I expect the evidence along those lines will get better as time goes on.
We should not tie ourselves to the CO2 monster. Just in case they flop badly.
No sunspots yet. http://www.spaceweather.com
BTW the sunspot number (which is mathematical and not a count of sunspots) was .5 for July. The lowest number since 1954. I sure hope we are not headed for a Dalton or Maunder minimum. It could be brutal.
Me I'm a lukewarmist. i.e. The amplification factors are wrong.
All the lukewarmists agree with the IPCC on the contribution of CO2. Where the IPCC differs from the lukewarmists is in the amplification factor. Which the IPCC itself says it it doesn't even know the sign of let alone the magnitude. So the "results" of the IPCC are not very scientific.
BTW the rate of rise of CO2 has slowed for a couple of months this year. First time ever. Proof of nothing of course. It is attributed (preliminary) to the cooling oceans - which we do have proof of.
There are now definite hints that CO2 follows warming and is not the cause. I expect the evidence along those lines will get better as time goes on.
We should not tie ourselves to the CO2 monster. Just in case they flop badly.
No sunspots yet. http://www.spaceweather.com
BTW the sunspot number (which is mathematical and not a count of sunspots) was .5 for July. The lowest number since 1954. I sure hope we are not headed for a Dalton or Maunder minimum. It could be brutal.
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.