... the National Academy of Sciences itself was convinced enough of the "Global Cooling" scare to actually publish a call for immediate action (Science News, Jan. 25 1975, p. 52). [Jane Q. Public, 2014-12-16]

I merely pointed out the established truth that it was taken seriously. And again: the cited announcement by National Academy of Sciences is not "nonsense". It, too, is real. [Jane Q. Public, 2014-12-16]

You linked to a blog and claimed it linked to an announcement in Science News, Jan. 25 1975, p. 52. But the blog you linked has two "Science News" links which lead here and here. Neither of those links lead to Science News, Jan. 25 1975, p. 52. Could you please post the link to Science News, Jan. 25 1975, p. 52?

While Jane looks for that link, he should also consider addressing this issue with his basic thermodynamics:

But net radiative power out of a boundary around the source = "radiative power out" minus "radiative power in", so the equation Jane just described also says:

NO!!!!! As I have explained to you innumerable times now, you can also consider your heat source, by itself, that "sphere". The only NET radiative power out comes from the electrical power in. Further, the cooler walls do not contribute any of that NET power out. That's what net means. [Jane Q. Public, 2014-12-16]

As I suspected, Jane disputes the definition of the word "net". Jane didn't get his nonsensical definition from any of his textbooks, because in physics, net power through a boundary around the source = "radiative power out" minus "radiative power in".

That's what net means. But after it became clear that Jane is hopelessly confused about the very term "NET" which he keeps capitalizing, I explained conservation of energy in a way that didn't require using that troublesome word. Draw a boundary around the heat source:

power in = electrical heating power + radiative power in from the chamber walls
power out = radiative power out from the heat source

Since power in = power out through any boundary where nothing inside is changing:

electrical heating power + radiative power in from the chamber walls = radiative power out from the heat source

Notice that this equation is equivalent to the equation Jane just described, but only if Jane uses the physics definition of the word "net". And in order to derive it, I didn't even have to use that word which has Jane hopelessly confused. All I had to use was conservation of energy.

But net radiative power out of a boundary around the source = "radiative power out" minus "radiative power in", so the equation Jane just described also says:

NO!!!!! As I have explained to you innumerable times now, you can also consider your heat source, by itself, that "sphere". The only NET radiative power out comes from the electrical power in. Further, the cooler walls do not contribute any of that NET power out. That's what net means. [Jane Q. Public, 2014-12-16]

As I suspected, Jane disputes the definition of the word "net". Jane didn't get his nonsensical definition from any of his textbooks, because in physics, net power through a boundary around the source = "radiative power out" minus "radiative power in".

That's what net means. But after it became clear that Jane is hopelessly confused about the very term "NET" which he keeps capitalizing, I explained conservation of energy in a way that didn't require using that troublesome word. Draw a boundary around the heat source:

power in = electrical heating power + radiative power in from the chamber walls
power out = radiative power out from the heat source

Since power in = power out through any boundary where nothing inside is changing:

electrical heating power + radiative power in from the chamber walls = radiative power out from the heat source

Notice that this equation is equivalent to the equation Jane just described, but only if Jane uses the physics definition of the word "net". And in order to derive it, I didn't even have to use that word which has Jane hopelessly confused. All I had to use was conservation of energy.

You're regurgitating complete nonsense. Once again, here’s figure 1 from Peterson et al. 2008. Notice that papers predicting warming vastly outnumbered those predicting cooling, even in the 1970s. Ironically:

• The term “global warming” was first used in a 1975 Science article by Wally Broecker called “Are we on the brink of a pronounced global warming?”.
• Sawyer 1972 estimated climate sensitivity as 2.4C, and Schneider 1975 gave a preliminary range of 1.5C to 3.0C.
• Manabe and Wetherald, 1975: “The Effects of Doubling the CO2 Concentration on the climate of a General Circulation Model.”
• In 1977, Freeman Dyson wrote that the “prevailing opinion is that the dangers [of the rise in CO2] greatly outweigh the benefits.”
• In 1977, Robert M. White, the head of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, wrote a report for the National Academy of Sciences that said “We now understand that industrial wastes, such as the carbon dioxide released in the burning of fossil fuels, can have consequences for climate that pose a considerable risk to future society.” [White, Robert, 1978, Oceans and Climate Introduction, Oceanus, 21:2-3]
• The 1979 JASON report “The long-term impact of atmospheric carbon dioxide on climate” estimated climate sensitivity as 2.4C to 2.8C.
• The National Academy of Science’s 1979 Charney report estimated climate sensitivity as 1.5C to 4.5C and said “If carbon dioxide continues to increase, [we] find no reason to doubt that climate changes will result, and no reason to believe that these changes will be negligible.”

While Jane is reading those papers, he should also consider addressing this issue with his basic thermodynamics:

Your own insistence that power in = power out (assuming perfect conversion and no entropic losses) belies this argument. You are arguing against yourself and you refuse to see that. If power in = power out (your own stipulation) ... [Jane Q. Public, 2014-12-14]

I'm not the only one insisting that power in = power out through any boundary where nothing inside is changing. Once again, that's a fundamental principle called "conservation of energy". Here are some introductions: example (backup), example (backup), example (backup).

As you can tell, conservation of energy is a fundamental physics principle. Assumptions of "perfect conversion and no entropic losses" aren't applicable, and anyone who mistakenly thinks they are should read through those examples to learn about conservation of energy.

If power in = power out (your own stipulation), and the only NET power INTO a defined spherical region is electrical, and the only NET power OUT of that region is radiative, then net radiative power out at steady-state must therefore be equal to the net electrical power consumed. [Jane Q. Public, 2014-12-14]

Jane seems to be saying that at steady-state:

net electrical power consumed = net radiative power out

But net radiative power out of a boundary around the source = "radiative power out" minus "radiative power in", so the equation Jane just described also says:

net electrical power consumed = "radiative power out" minus "radiative power in"

However, this new equation doesn't match Jane's earlier equation:

My energy conservation equation is this: electrical power in = (epsilon * sigma) * T^4 * area = radiant power out [Jane Q. Public, 2014-10-08]

Notice that Jane's earlier equation doesn't describe net radiative power out, which is why it violates conservation of energy. Is Jane retracting his earlier incorrect equation, or does Jane dispute the definition of the word "net"?

No,no. Global cooling. Haven't you read the scientific papers from top agencies and researchers from the 70's. Sheesh

You're regurgitating complete nonsense. Once again, here’s figure 1 from Peterson et al. 2008. Notice that papers predicting warming vastly outnumbered those predicting cooling, even in the 1970s. Ironically:

• The term “global warming” was first used in a 1975 Science article by Wally Broecker called “Are we on the brink of a pronounced global warming?”.
• Sawyer 1972 estimated climate sensitivity as 2.4C, and Schneider 1975 gave a preliminary range of 1.5C to 3.0C.
• Manabe and Wetherald, 1975: “The Effects of Doubling the CO2 Concentration on the climate of a General Circulation Model.”
• In 1977, Freeman Dyson wrote that the “prevailing opinion is that the dangers [of the rise in CO2] greatly outweigh the benefits.”
• In 1977, Robert M. White, the head of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, wrote a report for the National Academy of Sciences that said “We now understand that industrial wastes, such as the carbon dioxide released in the burning of fossil fuels, can have consequences for climate that pose a considerable risk to future society.” [White, Robert, 1978, Oceans and Climate Introduction, Oceanus, 21:2-3]
• The 1979 JASON report “The long-term impact of atmospheric carbon dioxide on climate” estimated climate sensitivity as 2.4C to 2.8C.
• The National Academy of Science’s 1979 Charney report estimated climate sensitivity as 1.5C to 4.5C and said “If carbon dioxide continues to increase, [we] find no reason to doubt that climate changes will result, and no reason to believe that these changes will be negligible.”

That's deliberate. You have to wait for it.

And said Senator's ass-hattery was covered here in February.

http://yro.slashdot.org/story/14/02/01/215218/senator-makes-nasa-complete-350-million-testing-tower-that-it-will-never-use

How can NASA spend their budget effeciently when congressional representatives decide what they are allowed and required to work on? In this case a Republican Senator (Roger Wicker from Mississippi) amended the funding bill to require them to finish building it.

Actually, with James Inhofe in charge of the Senate committe on commerce sceince and transportation, it might be the case that anything science-related or any actual accomplishments in space is a defect of the intended process of funnelling vital money to the people who fund senatorial re-election campaigns.

In this case the "poison pill" was Republican Senator Roger Wicker from Mississippi who attached an ammendment to NASA's funding bill requiring them to finish constructing the tower.

Government agencies like CIA and NSA use Signetics 25120 to store very sensitive information. After writing the data, the original source is then destroyed...

I want to avoid Google spying on me. Does the NSA have some servers I can use?

I don't see the distinction you're trying to make. They're directly helping you and you're indirectly hurting people? They're injecting you with an inactive harmless version of the disease that will protect you, while you're infecting other people with an active harmful version of the disease that may kill them. In either case, the sanctity of someone's body is being violated and it seems to me that what you're doing is worse in every way that matters. Therefore, if they deserve death, you deserve it more.

Also what's your stand on inhalable vaccines? If you're not injected, but instead required to breath in the vaccine does that make a difference to you? Are you still allowed to murder people for violating your body or is it hunky-dory because it's not "piercing someone else's skin"?

By the way: the "Greatest Generation" (which nobody but themselves call them) were the first generation in the history of the U.S. to leave their children with less than they themselves had. "Greatest Generation" my ass. [Lonny Eachus, 2012-11-01]

... I have problems with the whole "Greatest Generation" thing. ... their self-designation of "Greatest Generation" is undeserved. ... as a generation - aside from war effects - they were the greediest and least caring for future generations in history. ... They are the first generation in history to leave for their children an economy far worse than they enjoyed. ... I could go on, but I won't. My issue is with the name "Greatest Generation". They weren't. They aren't. By a very long way. [Lonny Eachus, 2012-11-16]

What they achieved was naming themselves "The Greatest Generation". Nobody else did it; they decided to call themselves that. And of course, that doesn't make it so. [Jane Q. Public, 2014-12-13]

Who said it first is irrelevant. I could have found that on Wikipedia too. [Jane Q. Public, 2014-12-14]

We either disagree about the definition of the word "irrelevant" or the phrase "nobody else".

If you have actual, direct evidence, why did you not link to THAT, rather than somebody else's claim? [Jane Q. Public, 2014-12-14]

I linked to reviews of actual, direct evidence by the U.S. National Academy of Sciences and The Royal Society (U.K.) in their joint publication (PDF), and another review of evidence by the American Association for the Advancement of Science, which publishes the journal Science.

While Jane is reading those reviews, he should also consider addressing this issue with his basic thermodynamics:

Your own insistence that power in = power out (assuming perfect conversion and no entropic losses) belies this argument. You are arguing against yourself and you refuse to see that. If power in = power out (your own stipulation) ... [Jane Q. Public, 2014-12-14]

I'm not the only one insisting that power in = power out through any boundary where nothing inside is changing. Once again, that's a fundamental principle called "conservation of energy". Here are some introductions: example (backup), example (backup), example (backup).

As you can tell, conservation of energy is a fundamental physics principle. Assumptions of "perfect conversion and no entropic losses" aren't applicable, and anyone who mistakenly thinks they are should read through those examples to learn about conservation of energy.

If power in = power out (your own stipulation), and the only NET power INTO a defined spherical region is electrical, and the only NET power OUT of that region is radiative, then net radiative power out at steady-state must therefore be equal to the net electrical power consumed. [Jane Q. Public, 2014-12-14]

Jane seems to be saying that at steady-state:

net electrical power consumed = net radiative power out

But net radiative power out of a boundary around the source = "radiative power out" minus "radiative power in", so the equation Jane just described also says:

net electrical power consumed = "radiative power out" minus "radiative power in"

However, this new equation doesn't match Jane's earlier equation:

My energy conservation equation is this: electrical power in = (epsilon * sigma) * T^4 * area = radiant power out [Jane Q. Public, 2014-10-08]

Notice that Jane's earlier equation doesn't describe net radiative power out, which is why it violates conservation of energy. Is Jane retracting his earlier incorrect equation, or does Jane dispute the definition of the word "net"?