It’s a good thing for that alliance that Oriana Fallaci is no longer with us. Back in the 1960s, she worked out a plan with some U.S. astronauts to sell that cheese in a chain of refreshment stands along the planets. See her 1967 book If the Sun Dies.

True, this isn’t very relevant to the thread topic. But, with the 50th anniversary of Apollo 11 coming up, I thought some might be interested in reading her unique take on space exploration.

Preordered the book, love Tom Toles. Sadly, not out until October.

Mal Adapted: “Should we assume climate change denial is what made Nicholas Schroeder, BSME, PE crazy?

Because I am the expert when it comes to crazy (I live in that ‘hood), I’ll answer that question.

In the past 30 years, sociologists have discovered that all humans deny observed reality at times; since it is the norm, denial is not itself pathological (i.e., crazy). Pathology comes with the extent and degree of denial.

The clown calling himself “Nicholas Schroeder” has posted his exact same falsehoods an astonishing number of times (over 700) in a hell of a lot of Internet forums (mostly in pro-reality forums, but also in anti-science “free market” cult forums). But he is doing it to flog (promote) one specific anti-science, pro-free market movie. This suggests he is not a denier: he is a disavower, for venal reasons (i.e., greed). He may indeed accept what all of the world’s experts say about human-caused climate change; he is just saying he does not, to sell movie tickets.

In reading your rant, I was reminded of all the PE’s I’ve known who didn’t seem to be able to understand that concentrated sodium hydroxide or sulfuric acid solutions were quite a bit denser than water. And of how rarely the typical PE even understood that pH was a logarithmic function. I’m reminded of a PE piloting a research boat who couldn’t read a marine chart, nearly resulting in tragedy. I’m reminded of all the PE designed systems I’ve known that have failed. So thanks for bringing back all those fond memories of my youth!

In the mean time, you haven’t mentioned a thing about infrared radiation, showing that you are perhaps more than a little deficient in the science that you need to know to understand this issue. Your description of an atmospheric trace gas with a long term record of stability as a “bubbling, churning caldron” is theatrical, misleading, and, it seems to me,basically wrong. And since you don’t have much respect for other disciplines, so you ought not to be surprised if you discover that you have managed to hang a “Kick Me” sign on your own dumb butt in this forum. Just sayin…

See this link for an example:
http://blog.nature.org/science/2016/04/22/climate-change-gamble-get-real-science-sea-level-rise-solutions/

And to make sure that he doesn’t miss the reply that I posted there, I’m reposting it here:
#############################

From above:

Mankind’s gross contribution over 260 years was 555 Gt…

Here’s a fun exercise that any professional engineer should be able to do without breaking a sweat.

Take that 555 Gt carbon and convert it to PPM CO2 in the atmosphere. 260 years ago, the atmospheric CO2 concentration was approximately 280 PPM. It is now just a bit over 400 PPM. How does the number you compute compare with the observed ~120 PPM increase?

Show your work. This is a problem that a bright high-school science student should be able to tackle. So it should be a slam-dunk for a professional engineer such as yourself.