Deaths from climate change

[JohnRoberts]

I didn't know that these even existed for residential use but the administration is now talking about mandating heat pump hot water heaters (by 2029). I have heard about these for swimming pool heaters but now these are available for home use (Home depot sells a couple). For only $1,700-$3,000 you too could have a high efficiency water heater. This is 3x to 6x the cost of conventional electric hot water heaters.

This strikes me as trial ballon or worse a negotiation initially asking for something totally cra cra so they can fall back and settle for something less crazy. The headlines are claiming that will make heaters cheaper and save consumer money. In the long term hot water heaters are maybe 25% of residential energy use, heat pump heaters are 30% more efficient than simple electric. So savings of 1/3 of a 1/4, but of a huge number. Of course the white elephant in the room is the initial cost for all this. Payback for me is unlikely in my lifetime.

They talk about condenser technology for gas hot water heaters and I am unsure what they are even talking about. Perhaps carbon capture from exhaust?

===

A few years ago while I was shopping a new clothes dryer I checked out heat pump technology... Today I see heat pump clothes dryers for $1k. Maybe 2x conventional technology. I asked my local appliance repair guy what his experience was fixing them and he said he hasn't seen many (any?) here in nowhere MS. The good news is that my old school (electric ) dryer is still working so I am not going to replace it until it fails.

===
An old personal musing of mine was to integrate a kitchen hot water source coming from the refrigerator's waste heat, of course not very practical.

Of course we should think about all of this but I worry that gubmint thinks they are masters of new technology, they can't even master the simple math.

JR

 

[user 37518]

and they are the past... compact nuclear reactors have been used by the navy for decades on ships. This has recently gained investment traction for civilian use but it still has to overcome the NIMBY resistance to having a nuke plant next door.

Sorry, John, no, they are not a thing of the past. Your own department of energy is investing on them

American microreactor developers are currently focused on gas and heat pipe-cooled designs that could debut as early as the mid-2020s.

Source: What is a Nuclear Microreactor?

Microreactors: In development with the first reactors expected in 2025

Source: Microreactors - INL

Their 2025 "Debut" is not "A thing of the past". Really, John, sometimes you could be a little be more flexible, a simple Google search would have sufficed.

More reading material:

https://www.gao.gov/assets/gao-20-380sp.pdf

 

[user 37518]

I read this and get what you mean. Little question: wouldn't it be better if renewable energy would be widely available (so also 24/7 without some of the troubles right now) for low cost? Wouldn't that also help poor people?

Yeah, it would be great, but sadly that simply doesn't work. Wind and solar are just too expensive, too unreliable, they do not produce the required amounts of energy for today's demands, and they require massive amounts of land area. So no, currently, that wouldn't help poor people

 

[Matador]

This strikes me as trial ballon or worse a negotiation initially asking for something totally cra cra so they can fall back and settle for something less crazy.

Oh how times have changed!

This is most likely an opening round of negotiation where [Trump] throws out unrealistic demands to move the needle then settles on something much more reasonable.

[Trump] generally offers anchors to establish a directional theme, often exaggerated, so they can later be negotiated back to a more sensible or moderate position.

 

[AnalogPackrat]

I didn't know that these even existed for residential use but the administration is now talking about mandating heat pump hot water heaters (by 2029). I have heard about these for swimming pool heaters but now these are available for home use (Home depot sells a couple). For only $1,700-$3,000 you too could have a high efficiency water heater. This is 3x to 6x the cost of conventional electric hot water heaters.

Far too expensive.

This strikes me as trial ballon or worse a negotiation initially asking for something totally cra cra so they can fall back and settle for something less crazy. The headlines are claiming that will make heaters cheaper and save consumer money. In the long term hot water heaters are maybe 25% of residential energy use, heat pump heaters are 30% more efficient than simple electric.

I have a hard time seeing how a heat pump system can be more efficient that pure resistive water heating. What about all of the compressor motor losses and the line losses?

So savings of 1/3 of a 1/4, but of a huge number. Of course the white elephant in the room is the initial cost for all this. Payback for me is unlikely in my lifetime.

The real problem is reliability and lifetime. Electric water heaters are dead simple with no moving parts other than a simple thermostat and maybe a relay. Heat pumps have lots of moving parts that will fail first.

They talk about condenser technology for gas hot water heaters and I am unsure what they are even talking about. Perhaps carbon capture from exhaust?

I had radiant hydronic heat in my previous house. We retrofitted it during a remodel/add-on to replace electric resistive heat. Added an LP tank and converted WH and range to gas also. I was given a choice of 50k btu boilers for the radiant system. A simple and relatively efficient Teledyne-Lars unit or a super-efficient condensing unit (Munchkin something or other) for about 2x the price.

I had my boiler serviced by a pro at about 12 years. He cleaned the heat exchanger and redid the thermal seals in the combustion chamber. Was still running strong at 18+ years when we sold the house. I asked the guy about the Munchkins and he said they were maintenance nightmares. Complex control boards and moisture problems. Glad I dodged that one.

===

A few years ago while I was shopping a new clothes dryer I checked out heat pump technology... Today I see heat pump clothes dryers for $1k. Maybe 2x conventional technology. I asked my local appliance repair guy what his experience was fixing them and he said he hasn't seen many (any?) here in nowhere MS. The good news is that my old school (electric ) dryer is still working so I am not going to replace it until it fails.

===
An old personal musing of mine was to integrate a kitchen hot water source coming from the refrigerator's waste heat, of course not very practical.

That and recovering waste heat from dryer outlet vent would be interesting.

Of course we should think about all of this but I worry that gubmint thinks they are masters of new technology, they can't even master the simple math.

That is the problem. Lawyers and policy wonks have no business in engineering and systems design or implementation.

 

[JohnRoberts]

Far too expensive.

+1

I have a hard time seeing how a heat pump system can be more efficient that pure resistive water heating. What about all of the compressor motor losses and the line losses?

resistive can be close to 100%, but heat pump actually extracts heat from the air for more than 100% heat output... In the summer the cool outlet air from the heat pump, could cool the house.

The real problem is reliability and lifetime. Electric water heaters are dead simple with no moving parts other than a simple thermostat and maybe a relay. Heat pumps have lots of moving parts that will fail first.

That's why I asked my repair guy about his experience with failure. Some modern appliances like the high efficiency washing machines, developed a horrible reputation pretty quickly.

I had radiant hydronic heat in my previous house. We retrofitted it during a remodel/add-on to replace electric resistive heat. Added an LP tank and converted WH and range to gas also. I was given a choice of 50k btu boilers for the radiant system. A simple and relatively efficient Teledyne-Lars unit or a super-efficient condensing unit (Munchkin something or other) for about 2x the price.

I had my boiler serviced by a pro at about 12 years. He cleaned the heat exchanger and redid the thermal seals in the combustion chamber. Was still running strong at 18+ years when we sold the house. I asked the guy about the Munchkins and he said they were maintenance nightmares. Complex control boards and moisture problems. Glad I dodged that one.


That and recovering waste heat from dryer outlet vent would be interesting.

logically an ideal clothes dryer would be a closed system just extracting the moisture. I'm sure smarter people than me have thought about this (no not the gubmint).

That is the problem. Lawyers and policy wonks have no business in engineering and systems design or implementation.

exactly....

My brother who is in the process of making his escape from SoCal is planning to build a new house in NC. He is specifying all NG appliances for that new build.

JR

 

[ruffrecords]

Back in 1996 Carl Sagan said:

"We’ve arranged a society based on science and technology, in which nobody understands anything about science and technology. And this combustible mixture of ignorance and power, sooner or later, is going to blow up in our faces. Who is running the science and technology in a democracy if the people don’t know anything about it? …

Science is more than a body of knowledge, it’s a way of thinking. A way of sceptically interrogating the universe with a fine understanding of human fallibility. If we are not able to ask sceptical questions, to interrogate those who tell us that something is true, to be sceptical of those in authority, then we’re up for grabs for the next charlatan, political or religious, who comes ambling along."

Cheers

Ian

 

[cyrano]

About the only scientific predictions I see that appear credible are rising sea levels, that we can adapt to. Not some existential threat that will wipe out all human life. Have you heard of a credible existential threat that I am not aware of?

How many do you want?

From the mercury in the permafrost layer, to the diseases that might stem from thawing (there are, fi thousands of human corpses that died from Yersinia (The Pest) or Bacillus anthracis (Anthrax).

Both aren't enumerated yet, but we know they'll be a problem.

I have read a lot about it for decades. Of course we need to research climate even further before some climate loon starts actively cooling the planet to save us.

So someone who does something is a loon, while a denier who wants to stop everything people are doing, is "normal".

I'll admit there's some lunacy and corruption goin' on, but that's hardly the point. Whatever you're doing, lunatics and scammers will jump onto the occasion if it's some kind of disaster, because the scammers know very well there's a good chance they won't be detected.

I submit that there are multiple science fiction doomsday predictions that too many people conflate with reality, while they are pretty much fiction.

Like?

Do you have one example?

And I do mean a scientific one, not one from the gutter press, or Fox.

Of course we should do the best we can... the united states has already made dramatic reductions in CO2 thanks mainly from switching from coal to NG.

I am under the impression the the US is dragging it's feet. Some of the largest methane leaks are in the US and easy to fix. But the petrol industry just doesn't care. Fortunately for the US, the biggest one isn't in the US, but in one of these former Soviet republics that's a dictatorship. I can't keep them apart, so I can't remember the exact one atm, sorry.

We could reduce CO2 even more with sensible use of nuclear energy but the public can't grasp two ideas at the same time (nuclear scary and nuclear carbon free energy).

CO2 isn't the biggest problem. It could be the easiest to fix, but I doubt it. Methane is much worse (about forty times, IIRC) for the atmosphere and might be a lot easier to fix (at least the emissions from the petrol production) but since every discussion is about CO2, it gets ignored. Probably also because a lot of people don't want to point the blame to the petrol industry, in fear that Saudi Arabia might defect from the club of super-wealthy anti-communist nutcases...

And don't get me started on nuclear. Isn't Tsjernobyl, Fukushima and Three-Mile-island enough warning? We can't have other parts of our planet going inhabitable. There's over eight billion of us out there. We need all the space.

There are over a thousand small nuclear power units out there in the former Soviet Union. That's a big fail, since nobody is managing them. Obviously, thieves have stolen the metal (if they are stupid enough) for scrap. What if some terrorist group starts making dirty bombs with the nuclear material? Still, the industry wants to sell exactly the same devices for use in households in the USA. At least, the Russians weren't crazy enough to use these in densely populated areas. They only used them were other options were very hard, like in lighthouses on an arctic island.

Then there's the 101 Russian suitcases with a small nuclear bomb inside. Most of these have vanished. A few turned up in the arms trade. Nobody seems to know where the rest went.

Let's not forget the number of nuclear reactors that are already on the bottom of the ocean. We don't know exactly how many, but it's at least a few...

 

[cyrano]

Followup:

The chart you found somewhere, probably isn't genuine. It doesn't come from the EIA's site, but from some obscure site called 'imagearchive.com'. imagearchive.com contains images from all around the internet, but doesn't even have a frontpage. It runs Xenforo, which is unusual for an archive site, since Xenforo is a forum. But they don't seem to use the forum part.

Unfortunately, it's hiding behind a CloudFlare shield. So I can't tell who's running it.

The EIA's site shows a completely different picture:

https://www.eia.gov/environment/emissions/carbon/
You really should thoroughly check your sources, John. I fear this one is a fake.

 

[JohnRoberts]

How many do you want?

I said credible (believable), there is a surplus of existential doomsday predictions.

From the mercury in the permafrost layer, to the diseases that might stem from thawing (there are, fi thousands of human corpses that died from Yersinia (The Pest) or Bacillus anthracis (Anthrax).

Both aren't enumerated yet, but we know they'll be a problem.

this is an extremely slow moving phenomenon so adaption to whatever comes is possible because we always have so far. Of course we need wealth to pay for the efforts, so that should also be a consideration.

So someone who does something is a loon, while a denier who wants to stop everything people are doing, is "normal".

I want thoughtful, sensible , practical responses. I do not see that happening now.

I'll admit there's some lunacy and corruption goin' on, but that's hardly the point. Whatever you're doing, lunatics and scammers will jump onto the occasion if it's some kind of disaster, because the scammers know very well there's a good chance they won't be detected.

Trillions of dollars in spendingthat will not make a significant change in temperature trajectory.

Like?

Do you have one example?

"Day after tomorrow", has been playing in pretty heavy rotation lately.

And I do mean a scientific one, not one from the gutter press, or Fox.

The doomsday projections are not very scientific.

I am under the impression the the US is dragging it's feet. Some of the largest methane leaks are in the US and easy to fix. But the petrol industry just doesn't care. Fortunately for the US, the biggest one isn't in the US, but in one of these former Soviet republics that's a dictatorship. I can't keep them apart, so I can't remember the exact one atm, sorry.

impressions vary...

CO2 isn't the biggest problem. It could be the easiest to fix, but I doubt it. Methane is much worse (about forty times, IIRC) for the atmosphere and might be a lot easier to fix (at least the emissions from the petrol production) but since every discussion is about CO2, it gets ignored. Probably also because a lot of people don't want to point the blame to the petrol industry, in fear that Saudi Arabia might defect from the club of super-wealthy anti-communist nutcases...

that is some interesting mind reading.

And don't get me started on nuclear. Isn't Tsjernobyl, Fukushima and Three-Mile-island enough warning? We can't have other parts of our planet going inhabitable. There's over eight billion of us out there. We need all the space.

there is a lot of world out there. Of course nuclear technology needs to be safe. Modern nuclear generation technology is safer (passive self quenching). I pay attention to the major nuclear generation plant in Ukraine, with Russia playing games about it's connection to the grid. It needs external power to cool and control the processor.

There are over a thousand small nuclear power units out there in the former Soviet Union. That's a big fail, since nobody is managing them. Obviously, thieves have stolen the metal (if they are stupid enough) for scrap. What if some terrorist group starts making dirty bombs with the nuclear material? Still, the industry wants to sell exactly the same devices for use in households in the USA. At least, the Russians weren't crazy enough to use these in densely populated areas. They only used them were other options were very hard, like in lighthouses on an arctic island.

Russia is not a model of good behavior.

Then there's the 101 Russian suitcases with a small nuclear bomb inside. Most of these have vanished. A few turned up in the arms trade. Nobody seems to know where the rest went.

reportedly Russia built 250 and one ex-general claims 100 are missing. Somehow these were under the control of the KGB. I do not know how strong the evidence for this is, but it makes a scary anti-nuclear talking point. Around the same time (1950-60s) the US developed similar technology (backpack sized) but did not build hundreds of them.

Let's not forget the number of nuclear reactors that are already on the bottom of the ocean. We don't know exactly how many, but it's at least a few...

I have long posited that ocean subduction zones (where tectonic plates slide under each other) might make a good long term dump site for nuclear waste.

Followup:

The chart you found somewhere, probably isn't genuine. It doesn't come from the EIA's site, but from some obscure site called 'imagearchive.com'. imagearchive.com contains images from all around the internet, but doesn't even have a frontpage. It runs Xenforo, which is unusual for an archive site, since Xenforo is a forum. But they don't seem to use the forum part.

Unfortunately, it's hiding behind a CloudFlare shield. So I can't tell who's running it.

The EIA's site shows a completely different picture:

https://www.eia.gov/environment/emissions/carbon/
You really should thoroughly check your sources, John. I fear this one is a fake.

I'm shocked... bad data... Thanks for checking my work.

I had heard multiple reports that the US was effectively reducing CO2 thanks to surfeit of NG replacing coal burning. My local clean-coal-cough power plant has been running on NG since it has been in service.

JR

 

[JohnRoberts]

According to Hillary Clinton, the summer heat wave the United States has been enduring is the fault of the same basket of deplorables she denigrated in 2016. Taking to social media to refresh her climate change street cred, the failed 2016 Democratic presidential nominee wrote: "Hot enough for you? Thank a MAGA Republican. Or better yet, vote them out of office."

That explains things....

JR

 

[cyrano]

I'd appreciate a serious answer. This answer is an insult. If you don't understand why, so be it. I won't comment on obvious (not so early) senility. Promised.

Quoting from WWW without a source... Tsk, tsk. Afraid to show one's source, are we?

https://americanwirenews.com/hillar...for-summer-heat-says-vote-them-out-of-office/
Needless to say, an ultra-right propaganda publication with a staggering 500 daily visitors, according to some web analytics site. Good news, John. You're not alone. Yet.

Standards are so low these days, I'll call it a publication and not a rag. Their feelings might be hurt, as this is all that the GOP can bring to the table...

 

[JohnRoberts]

I'd appreciate a serious answer. This answer is an insult. If you don't understand why, so be it. I won't comment on obvious (not so early) senility. Promised.

not sure if its worse to be called dumb or senile... but back at ya...

Quoting from WWW without a source... Tsk, tsk. Afraid to show one's source, are we?

I searched for a source that you would approve of, but most were sources you disdain. The MSNBC article had too much unrelated poop.

This was reportedly tweeted by Hillary's twitter ID, but there is some debate about who is working that. This is not a serious post, just an example of how hyperbolic the politicians are about this topic.

WASHINGTON (TND) — Former Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton suggested in a Tweet Tuesday that the Make America Great Again movement is to blame for rising global temperatures.

“Hot enough for you? Thank a MAGA Republican. Or better yet, vote them out of office,” Clinton said.

ABC is owned by Disney, is that liberal/progressive enough of a news source for you..?

https://americanwirenews.com/hillar...for-summer-heat-says-vote-them-out-of-office/
Needless to say, an ultra-right propaganda publication with a staggering 500 daily visitors, according to some web analytics site. Good news, John. You're not alone. Yet.

Standards are so low these days, I'll call it a publication and not a rag. Their feelings might be hurt, as this is all that the GOP can bring to the table...

of course shoot the messenger...

again I only shared this to demonstrate how hypocritical politicians are.... Do you maintain that the tweet did not occur?

JR

 

[Matador]

https://doi.org/10.25561/105549

Heatwaves are amongst the deadliest natural hazards with thousands of people dying from heat-related causes each year. However, the full impact of a heatwave is rarely known until weeks or months afterwards, once death certificates are collected, or scientists can analyze excess deaths. Many places lack good record-keeping of heat-related deaths, therefore currently available global mortality figures are likely an underestimate.

Without human induced climate change these heat events would however have been extremely rare. In China it would have been about a 1 in 250 year event while maximum heat like in July 2023 would have been virtually impossible to occur in the US/Mexico region and Southern Europe if humans had not warmed the planet by burning fossil fuels.

What we can say with certainty is that the temperatures experienced in these two regions would have been extremely unlikely to have occurred without human induced climate change. In contrast, the change in intensity is well-bounded and much less uncertain. We therefore only report a numerical synthesis for the changes in intensity in all three regions.

Climate change made these events several orders of magnitude more likely in North America and Europe. We can thus conclude that without climate change these events would have been virtually impossible to occur or, given the lower bounds seen in the upper left panels of Figures 4-5, they have been made at least 1000 more likely. For China, the change is slightly smaller, with an increase in probability of 52.7 (3.54 to 4110) which we round to about 50 times more likely.

 

[user 37518]

https://doi.org/10.25561/105549

First off, that is a report, and you cannot truly call it a "peer reviewed" report, since some of the authors are from the Imperial College and the Red Cross Red Crescent Climate Centre, and, hey, the only two reviewers are also from the Imperial College and the Red Cross Red Crescent Climate Centre, what a coincidence! Also, it is published in a University's webpage; I wouldn't equate that to "Nature" or a similar Journal. Secondly, the mere fact that it is called "scientific report" makes me want to cringe. Thirdly, it appears as part of a collection called "Graham Institute for Climate Change." I am sure that an institute which such a name doesn't have any ulterior motives or an agenda of any kind. Fourthly, what evidence there is in that paragraph you quoted aside from some probabilities? In fact, I looked at the paper, there are only probabilities from models, there is no hard evidence whatsoever.

Edit: Fifthly? Is that a word? ok, did you notice that many, many of the references being cited to justify their thesis are newspapers? Like CNN, The Guardian, some Mexican Newspapers like "La Prensa Latina", or a TV station like "TV Azteca" which is as trustworthy as the tv show "The VIew"?

If you still don't think "the science" is rigged, you are either blind or you don't want to see.

 

[AnalogPackrat]

Followup:

The chart you found somewhere, probably isn't genuine. It doesn't come from the EIA's site, but from some obscure site called 'imagearchive.com'. imagearchive.com contains images from all around the internet, but doesn't even have a frontpage. It runs Xenforo, which is unusual for an archive site, since Xenforo is a forum. But they don't seem to use the forum part.

Unfortunately, it's hiding behind a CloudFlare shield. So I can't tell who's running it.

The EIA's site shows a completely different picture:

https://www.eia.gov/environment/emissions/carbon/
You really should thoroughly check your sources, John. I fear this one is a fake.

Except that the EIA chart that you linked shows the same trend. "Energy related" CO2 emissions c. 1990 were 5B metric tons, peaked/plateaued around 6B from 2000-07 then fell back to 5B by 2021. That's a 15% decrease. What do the charts look like for China, India, or European countries?

 

[Matador]

In fact, I looked at the paper, there are only probabilities from models, there is no hard evidence whatsoever.

I fully admit, that the source isn't from a peer-reviewed intellectual powerhouse that we would typically see here in the Brewery, like "Zero Hedge", but the mathematics of attribution science are pretty fascinating all onto themselves.

 

[JohnRoberts]

https://doi.org/10.25561/105549

Excessive Heat Can Kill, But Extreme Cold Still Causes Many More Fatalities​

According to a 2021 study published in The Lancet Planetary Health, cold is far more deadly. For every death linked to heat, nine are connected to cold.

Excessive Heat Can Kill, But Extreme Cold Still Causes Many More Fatalities

This has been well addressed by Koonin, Epstein, Lomborg, etc in the climate discussion literature. A warming climate is likely to result in less temperature caused deaths.

Low cost energy will save lives from both causes.

JR

 

[user 37518]

I fully admit, that the source isn't from a peer-reviewed intellectual powerhouse that we would typically see here in the Brewery, like "Zero Hedge", but the mathematics of attribution science are pretty fascinating all onto themselves.

Being sarcastic doesn't make your arguments stronger, it only shows that you are trying to deflect from the fact that the report you cited is useless.

 

[jabe]

Yes Matador, when sharing a report about the heat happening right now, in July 2023, it can only be a report that has gone through the full peer review process, which surely only takes, I dunno, five minutes? Ten?

Of course if you'd rather share some anonymous rambling using Twitter as a primary source on a website hawking boner pills, that will pass muster. Snowflakes beware!

 

[jabe]

Excessive Heat Can Kill, But Extreme Cold Still Causes Many More Fatalities

Just going to share that last paragraph of that one...

However, we shouldn’t read into this that global warming is a good thing. Climate change has long-term impacts on sea levels, animal and plant life, and agriculture, each of which can have lasting deleterious effects on human health and wellbeing. Also, heat exposure deaths disproportionately impact impoverished regions of the world, including poor areas of the U.S. which implies that over time they’re much more affected by temperature-related deaths.

 

[user 37518]

Yes Matador, when sharing a report about the heat happening right now, in July 2023, it can only be a report that has gone through the full peer review process, which surely only takes, I dunno, five minutes? Ten?

Of course if you'd rather share some anonymous rambling using Twitter as a primary source on a website hawking boner pills, that will pass muster. Snowflakes beware!

Again, being sarcastic and appealing to ridicule doesn't change the fact that the report is worthless...

Furthermore, you contradict yourself, if the report is about July, a month that hasn't even finished, and it is already "reported" it just shows the futility of it and the lack of rigor of the reviewers. So it shouldn't be taken serious. If that doesn't convince you, perhaps the constant quoting of sources like "The Guardian" or "TV Azteca" should.

 

[cyrano]

I've seen the tweet. Nothing really out of the ordinary and certainly not anything newsworthy. But an excellent example of spinning a half-truth into election publicity. When I read it, it looked like a boutade. But that's only me, of course.

That graph you posted was so obviously fake, I couldn't see how you 'd miss that John. Made me jump to the conclusion that either you knew it was fake, or you were so blinded by propaganda that you wouldn't notice. It also doesn't have to do with my approval of a source. You suppose I would like the story if it came from liberal media, but I don't. There aren't very much major news channels I deem trustworthy. It usually requires a bit of effort to verify anything. So It could be lazyness? ;-)

Oh, the permafrost thawing doesn't go fast, but it's been going on for decades. The area were infected burials have taken place (human and animal) already thawed partially, fi. The area isn't as empty as it used to be. There are over 35 million people living in Siberia today, fi. And they're traveling quite a bit more too. A baby mammoth or two also turned up.

 

[JohnRoberts]

Just going to share that last paragraph of that one...

You mean re-share (highlight, amplify?) because I already shared that.
====
I am not claiming that global warming is good or bad, it just is.

JR

 

[Matador]

...doesn't change the fact that the report is worthless...

Opinions vary.

Are you sure you want the report too be peer reviewed, by the same "extremely biased scientific mafia" you just lambasted two pages ago? I would think not being peer reviewed should be a feature, not a bug.

In fact, the last 'report' posted here back on page 36, from a web site with a questionable name, with reviewers that had an agenda, with cites to other university web sites, that was not peer reviewed, seemed to garner a much different reaction from you.