|
STANFORD UNIVERSITY PROVES ITSELF FRAUDULENT AND CRIMINALNovember 9, 2019 Below is a transcript from a LinkedIn discussion in which the Stanford University Managing Director exposed herself and Stanford University as being fraudulent and participants in the criminal CO2 emissions global warming scam, proven as such by us in the discussion. The director removed the discussion proving the scam, fraudulence, and the crimes, but a transcript is given below. The original discussion was at the following address but was removed by the fraudulent Stanford Managing Director: This page represents our compliance with all engineering ethics including our primary responsibility to protect the public from technical fraudulence and crime. Naomi Boness, Ph.D. Managing Director at Stanford University 1d • Carbon sequestration is a critical component of the energy transition to ensure global warming doesn’t exceed the threshold laid out in the Paris accords. The Stanford Carbon Initiative is exploring all possible technologies for carbon management. This week Stanford convened leading academic and industry experts to discuss technology and policy opportunities and barriers. Great job organizing, Sarah Saltzer. hashtag#stanford hashtag#naturalgasinitiative hashtag#carboncapture
Joseph Higginbotham Chief Technical Advisor at Z-Terra Inc. 7h Personally I don't think the evidence for human driven climate change is very convincing. That really doesn't matter because it has become politically correct to believe in such a thing. That belief has become part of the environment in which we live. It is an expensive belief. The idea of carbon sequestration is capable of addressing this belief without doing away with fossil fuel entirely. This makes carbon sequestration an important technology for the hydrocarbon industry.
It is important to get the public to understand that lowering the amount of carbon in the atmosphere is not equivalent to ending the use of fossil fuel. These political correctness fads seem to get more constraining year after year for no good reason. I suppose it's the idea that if a little is good then a lot is better .... Like Joseph Higginbotham’s comment
2 Replies 2 Replies on Joseph Higginbotham’s comment Brian Coats President at Coats Engineering 7h It's simply wrong, fraudulent and illegal socialism, and a waste of money.
Brian Coats President at Coats Engineering 7h The tech is completely incompetent, to the infinite power. Only when alternatives become cheaper will they become valuable. govt dictation of alternative use is socialism and illegal in the US. It's one of he greatest crimes being committed today. (edited)
Leron Wells CEO at My Robot Investor 7h Hey Joe, I think history will decide, if we drop one degree C. by the middle of this century, as predicted by some, there will be a mass exodus from this belief and denials by many that they never really truly believed in it. Meanwhile the frost keep coming earlier and staying longer. 1 Like 1 Like on Leron Wells’ comment
Joseph Higginbotham Joseph Higginbotham 2nd degree connection2nd Chief Technical Advisor at Z-Terra Inc. 4h It would be nice to see the climate temp. drop one degree C. I hope folks who are hot on reducing CO2 emissions would agree. My concern is a bit different. I suspect that if we were to halt all injection of CO2 into the atmosphere it would have only a very small effect on the rising climate temperature. The reason I think this might be true is because the proxy data of past climate temperature is sampled at about a 1000 year sample interval. That kind of sampling has a lot of inherent averaging built in - my opinion. When you average over a peak through a 1000 year interval the peak is suppressed. So I believe that past temperature highs were much higher than the proxy data suggests. A 20 year interval is only one 50th of a 1000 year interval - almost meaningless.
But the socially correct train has already left the station and is picking up speed. Nobody really wants to discuss the science any longer. So we've got to figure out how to adapt. This carbon sequestration might be the answer. If you can show that you're sucking more CO2 out of the atmosphere than your putting in then you're one of the social "good guys." The finger should then point to Asian countries and China in particular. China's CO2 emissions is X 4 USA's Like Joseph Higginbotham’s comment
Leron Wells Leron Wells 2nd degree connection2nd CEO at My Robot Investor
8h Naomi, the one question I have, is what is the ideal atmospheric CO2 ratio? Should it be 300 PPM or lower, I never have heard an agreed upon number. 7 Replies 7 Replies on Leron Wells’ comment Brian Coats President at Coats Engineering 8h Increasing it is beneficial to all plant and animal life. Naomi is fraudulent and not answering questions. Can you answer mine? (edited)
Leron Wells CEO at My Robot Investor 8h Brian Coats yes of course, what is the question? Like Leron Wells’ comment
Brian Coats President at Coats Engineering 8h hard to find but it's there! How can any competent scientist or engineer possibly think that a trace gas CO2 composition of .0004 can have any significant effect on climate? Saturated water composition is about .04 near the water surfaces and varies wildly in the atmosphere (.01-.04), with storms, and is 4 times more powerful a "greenhouse" gas than CO2 in the presence of water (in absorbed IR radiation), per molecule! CO2 is called a greenhouse gas because it's plant food and encourages plant growth. Increased CO2 is good for all plant and animal life on earth! Photosynthesis is an endothermic reaction!!! So what do you think happens when we kill off more than 50% of plant life on earth by poisoning our oceans and deforestation and urban development? Exactly what is happening, is the answer. All competent scientists know that CO2 does not cause warming, warming causes increased CO2 because our waters are a giant sink and when temperature increases, CO2 is released into the atmosphere. I'm an expert on that as I added the CO2 solubility in water option to the only fully compositional thermal model ever developed, VIP-THERM. We wrote a SPE Journal paper on it in the 90's.
Brian Coats President at Coats Engineering 8h The obvious answer is that .0004 / 4 / 4 = .000025 is completely negligible compared to .01-.04 water relative ir absorption, to an engineer. See https://www.coatsengineering.com/ccus.htm for when I proved the scam 5 years ago on the SPE "Carbon Capture and Storage" technical section and was fraudulently censored. See https://www.coatsengineering.com/spe_censorship for recent proof of fraudulence and crime in my opinion regarding this and other issues. (edited)
Brian Coats President at Coats Engineering 8h So since Naomi won't answer it, she is proven incompetent and fraudulent by the scientific method, which most authors, publishers, and academic and even scientific organizations have forgotten, in favor of commercialism and fraud. We wouldn't be having this conversation otherwise.
Brian Coats President at Coats Engineering 7h We agree completely, no competent scientist or engineer could possibly believe the co2 emissions global warming scam. Thanks, you are the first to give the right answer after many have been asked! Like Brian Coats’ comment
Leron Wells Leron Wells 2nd degree connection2nd CEO at My Robot Investor
7h Brian Coats The answers is none, no reasonable analytical person that looks at a plot of temperature compared to atmospheric CO2 levels and does not see that temperature change always precedes changes in atmospheric CO2 levels. CO2 is an effect not a cause. If one merely looks at a CO2 graph as an anomaly plot instead of actual values, the ENSO cycles stand out like a sore thumb. 1 Like 1 Like on Leron Wells’ comment
Brian Coats You President at Coats Engineering 11h And the US was never part of the Paris accords because it was not ratified by Congress. Obama's signature and his unconstitutional attempts to make it legal are meaningless! And Trump says we're withdrawing even though it's not necessary. All he has to do is make it a Constitutional issue, making whatever valid accusations of illegal socialism as necessary. Case won. Election won. So why are you accepting and wasting research money under false pretenses? I think that's criminal. Brian Coats President at Coats Engineering 11h And now Stanford is also proving itself incompetent and fraudulent. Naomi, How can any competent scientist or engineer possibly think that a trace gas CO2 composition of .0004 can have any significant effect on climate? Saturated water composition is about .04 near the water surfaces and varies wildly in the atmosphere (.01-.04), with storms, and is four times more powerful a "greenhouse" gas than CO2 in the presence of water (in absorbed IR radiation), per molecule! CO2 is called a greenhouse gas because it's plant food and encourages plant growth. Increased CO2 is good for all plant and animal life on earth! Photosynthesis is an endothermic reaction!!! So what do you think happens when we kill off more than 50% of plant life on earth by poisoning our oceans and deforestation and urban development? Exactly what is happening, is the answer. All competent scientists know that CO2 does not cause warming, warming causes increased CO2 because our waters are a giant sink and when temperature increases, CO2 is released into the atmosphere. I'm an expert on that as I added the CO2 solubility in water option to the only fully compositional thermal model ever developed, VIP-THERM. We wrote a SPE Journal paper on it in the 90's. (edited)
4 Replies 4 Replies on Brian Coats’ comment Cesar Rodriguez Senior Reservoir Engineer at Smart Digital Energy S.A de C.V 9h Mr. Brian, it's interesting, could you please share that journal, many thanks. E: rodriguezcar23@hotmail.com
Brian Coats President at Coats Engineering 8h I already gave the SPE Journal reference on CO2 solubility. That fully implicit thermal compositional model is still the most advanced of its kind. Some other refs, here are the co2 and h2o ir absorption spectrum from NIST, see that the absorbed spectrums towards the ends overlap, so the much more concentrated H20 absorbs those wavelengths. If you integrate the area under the T=1 line and take the ratio you'll see that h2o absorbs about 15 times more ir than co2 per molecule. That's where the 15 comes from in my question. https://webbook.nist.gov/cgi/cbook.cgi?ID=C124389&Units=SI&Type=IR-SPEC&Index=1#IR-SPEC https://webbook.nist.gov/cgi/cbook.cgi?ID=C7732185&Units=SI&Type=IR-SPEC&Index=1#IR-SPEC Also see https://www.coatsengineering.com/Sustainability_and_CO2.htm and https://www.coatsengineering.com/spe_censorship.htm (edited)
Brian Coats President at Coats Engineering 8h Chang, Y., Coats, B.K., and Nolen, J.S., “A Compositional Model for CO2 Floods Including CO2 Solubility in Water”, SPE Reservoir Evaluation & Engineering, Volume 1, Number 2, April 1998.
Brian Coats President at Coats Engineering 8h Solubility tables are input so it applies to co2 gas/water(/oil, or not) equilibrium at any conditions. (edited)
Joseph Higginbotham Chief Technical Advisor at Z-Terra Inc. 13h I like this! Whether you believe humans are driving climate temperature increase or not, that belief exists and seems to have reached a "social tipping point" of its own. So that's driver number (#1). Driver number (#2) that has always existed is the human need for inexpensive and portable energy - the portable part is really quite important, especially for the farming industry and probably for the construction industry. This program recognizes both these drivers and seeks to satisfy both. The program might benefit greatly
if the drive toward "zero use of fossil fuel" could somehow be diverted
toward a drive for "zero carbon emission." They are not the same but the
general public may not realize that.…see more |
© 2000 - 2019 Coats Engineering, Inc.
|
