Professor Zimmerman tried to give himself the right to research science which in know to be wrong, but have funding for. Very humourous. But he do not have the right.
He is an academic professor, and you must always be on the side of truth. Researching science on the periphery you might be able to sneak through, but is wrong.
He can't contradict a basic tenant of biology: it teaches Xi year Olds that plants take in carbon dioxide. The fine detail is down to two parts per 1,000,000 outside of an ice-age.
In an ice-age it can rise to between four and 10 ppm. So for after the climate changes CO2 reacts to this. It rises when there are fewer plants and exposed sea to sink for carbon dioxide.
Sea bacteria metabolise carbon dioxide. They build bacterial bulk and excrete oxygen. They use fluid turbulence in place of light to initiate the process.
Professor Zimmerman's comments on fluid turbulence initiating nuclear fusion were correct. Green plants in the light do biological, molecular, nuclear fusion.
Life is powered by MNF. It turns water into helium and oxygen plus a lot of heat! When I calculate it it came about that 6x1028 Watts per gram of the hydrogen turned into helium. Or a a 80 Watts per molecule of water used for MNF.
Waterfalls and deep lakes do it. As does a beating human heart. Every life form on earth does it. Reacting oxygen with carbohydrates also does it.
Thus burning fossil fuels does it. Oxidising carbohydrates should take in energy if you look at the enthalpy balance. The extract energy from MNF makes burning fossil fuels very exothermic.
MNF also makes diesel engines out-perform petrol ones. If we titanium plate a petrol engine we doubleperformance. Or halve it's carbon emissions output. But plants have ensured that carbon dioxide has no effect on the climate anyway. But fossil fuels are expensive.
In 2000 I told Professor Zimmerman that replacing a cooling tower with a double helical heat exchanger would return 90% of the system heat to a turbine. So we will need to burn 1/9 the volume of fossil fuels to generate the same power.
This leaves nuclear power as fantastically toxic, dangerous and expensive. Fukushima gives you the idea. Although as even longer memories Chernobyl or even Windscale. They happen every 25 years, with worse and worse outcomes.
In contrast molecular nuclear fusion generates power with no carbon dioxide. No toxic waste. And is four times as exothermic as nuclear fusion. It is totally safe. It would not have trashed Japan.
England, take note. Build new nuclear power plants and spray plutonium over our green countryside. And make England unhabitable for 2000 years. For 10 billion UK pounds: what a bargain, not.
The cool thing is, nature shows us how to do molecular nuclear fusion. You do it for the every beat of your heart. At 30° C. And four bars pressure. Argument settled.