Global Warming Science-Politicians Vs. Diplomat-Politicians
Dean
I see that the credibility-impaired global warming politician-scientists are angry that other politicians aren't toeing the line sufficiently for them.
This community of researchers, laced as it is with croneyism and an opaque, non-accountable "peer review" funding system where they get to spend tax money on each other to protect their incomes, has no scientific credibility anymore. The Wegman Report pretty much said all that needs to be said about these people. If they won't clean up their act, and instead keep issuing ever more dire warnings (which coincidentally result in more money and more prestigious careers for themselves), and keep giving condescending, head-patting, "look at me I'm a saint" answers to pointed questions, there's no reason the rest of us should look at their sky-is-falling predictions with any less skepticism than we look at research put forward by tobacco company scientists.
These people are political bureaucrats, and they need to be treated like political bureaucrats.
*Update*: Argh, had the first link wrong. Sorry about that. This is what I meant to link.
Comparing them to tobacco researchers is another stretch, those were always a minority in the medical science field. The few scientists like W.S.S. are more like the tobacco researchers, people who have no direct involvement in climate research but who are paid lots of money by special interests to criticize people who are. So its funny you bring up Wegman and tobacco scientists in the same post.
It appears as if you can’t even read without imposing your own biased view onto the words in front of you.
Where does Dean mention anything about the amount of tax dollars spent on environmental research?
Where does he imply that folks are getting rich?
Why did you not address a single point in Dean’s post?
How can you expect anyone to take anything you say seriously?
Random aside: there is some doubt as to the "fossil" in fossil fuels.
Yes, oil is a finite resource whose maximum rate of production will peak in the next ten years. And yes, we can synthesize more. However, that process must be strongly energy positive in order to be really viable. My favorite petroleum replacement is oily microalgae. And take a look at GreenFuel Technologies.
GreenFuel isn't so much looking at petroleum replacement as simply more efficient energy extraction. The algae still require placement over coal-burning reactors in order to produce diesel.
I think in the future people need to learn to breathe out far less often.
Either that or we should sell our exhalations to China for Wal-Mart goods.
Here's to a future of unlimited possibilities through the magic of intelligence and innovation!
There is no conspiracy, Jeff. It's bureaucracy.
Under normal circumstances you cannot expect people to be objective about their own work. When they derive their entire income from that work, that problem only compounds.
The words here are "conflict of interest," and in my experience every time I raise it with anyone who's part of this petty bureaucratic-research establishment, their eyes go wide and they start looking very defensive or babbling about conspiracies.
You can just read Wegman.
Like all bureaucracies, corporate or government, they constitute an entity that seeks primarily to continue its own existence. The grey-hairs at the top make quite good livings and get to fly around the world for free to government and international conferences and talk in impressive tones to the press. Those underneath derive secure middle-class incomes and a sense of shared mission. They also a live in a world where they live and die by whether or not they get another research grant. But who decides whether they get a research grant? The grey-hairs, and also the middle management (sorry, the middle-aged scientists). The system is supposedly anonymous, but in point of fact everyone recognizes and is instinctively afraid of anything that would upset the apple cart.
And of course there's a lot of nodding and winking going on. Although all that tax money they get to spend is all supposedly shielded under anonymity, you meet your other friends in the good old boy network semi-regularly at conferences where you chat in vague terms about what's going on, and the latest exciting ideas, and you tend to recognize when someone's "anonymous" grant application comes in just exactly who it is.
Furthermore, the only people allowed into the good old boy network are the young PhDs who show themselves to be the most pliant. If someone seems too radical or arrogant, his career ends. Especially if, again, he's expressing ideas or making proposals that are not approved of by upper management (er, I mean, the more distinguished scientists in the funding system).
They're a bureaucracy, Jeff.
There are several specific proposals out there by scientists and others to institute reforms to make the system better and more accountable. They involve things like more independent auditing, more transparency in the process, making the review teams that dole out the funds multidisciplinary, and many other things.
But the bureaucracy will never enact reforms on its own. It's going to take an angry public, the people who actually pay the taxes to keep the little applecart going, for there ever to be true reforms.
By the way, this isn't just about climate change, but several other major areas of the sciences. The funny part being, plenty of scientists will tell you privately that I'm right about every fucking word of this--they'd just be endangering their careers if they said so publicly.
The result is still a net reduction in CO2 emissions since the carbon in the coal and natural gas ends up being used twice. Since we're going to be burning coal for the foreseeable future, GreenFuel's system turns what was once a waste product into a valuable profit center.
First off fossil fuels are NOT finite....Research conducted at The University of Wyoming has shown, that oil can be produced via bacterial interaction with decomposing plants and animals. This research was started back in the 70's, and now is in the fimal stages of field trials.
As far as oil production peaking in the next 10 years, I have been hearing that for the past 30 years. Fields that were producing nothing over the last 5 years, are now again producing oil and gas, by injecting CO2 into the rock strata, and extracting the oil and gas. Oil, coal, and natural gas will not be going away for the next 100 years or more, even with the increased consumption.
Snow in April.
Chills at The Masters in Augusta.
Ever seen a CO2 fire extinguisher? It throws off ice and snowflakes when you honk it.
That proves snow and ice are caused by CO2.
And honkees make the truth happen.
Just ask Algore.
Of course we all lose our tempers now and then. Dean freely admits to being imperfect in this regard, which is why regulars to this establishment will generally be cut more slack than people who we don't know very well.
Still: behave like an adult, or go find somewhere else to play. Thanks.