[geeks] Global warming, was Mr Bill?

[Shannon Hendrix]

On Sep 21, 2008, at 01:41 , wa2egp at att.net wrote:

>> Years ago, it was probably true that most scientists worked
>> independent of corporate interests.
>>
>> The opposite is true today.
>
> So you say.

Most scientists, engineers, and programmers now work for corporations.

They either work for their interests or they get fired.

I would imagine that the ration of corporate to non-corporate  
scientists and engineers is probably 5 or 10 to one.

I'm sure some percentage of corporations try to be neutral, but at  
some level anyone who works for a company is influenced by that  
company's interests no matter how pure they try to be.

>>> Not as much as nonscientists.  Most don't do it "thoughtlessly".
>>> That's your spin.
>>
>> No, it isn't a spin, it is an observation.
>
> A rather myoptic one.

A single observation out of many cannot be myopic or indicate the  
observer is myopic.

What I think is myopic here is ideas like this which I keep hearing:

...that scientists are all great guys like those you work with, with  
no corporate influence, and they always behave like an idealized  
Einstein on every endeavor.

...that global warming theory is irrefutable and perfect.

...that all other theories are impossible bunk.

...that consensus means that the object of consensus is by nature  
correct.

I think that's classically myopic.

> Most do not do research.  They apply the information and due to  
> malpractice insurance, have to spend their time with patients.

So if "most" of a profession is not doing research, then none of them  
are scientists?

> Cite figures.

I live near two of the largest medical schools in the world, and the  
scientists there are mostly doctors, and there are quite a few in just  
those two locations.

Some of the top scientists at EVMS Norfolk are also practicing doctors  
and professors, and some even have a private practice.

The same is true at DePaul nearby, and CHKD.

In fact, the very idea of medical research being done by people who  
aren't doctors is hilarious.

For that matter, most scientists are also applied science workers of  
some kind.

Not everyone can do pure theory.

>> I'm just pointing out that consensus is meaningless.
>
> No. Your opinion is that consensus is meaningless.  Doesn't make it  
> meaningless.

Consensus is just a description of a situation.  It does not in any  
way correlate to how true or valid the object of consensus is.

>> Oil companies don't just make oil products.
>>
>> They are also invested in alternative energy and they fund research  
>> on
>> global warming, including that which points the finger at them.
>
> More likely research that will refute it but invest in alternate  
> energy because they want a piece of that pie too.  When fossil fuels  
> get too expensive to use, what are these companies going to do?  If  
> they get into other energy, their future is more secure.

For an oil company to sponsor research to refute things like global  
warming, they would have to use scientists that were thoughtless, took  
money, and worked for corporate interests.

In any case, I've been reading about global temperature and human  
factors for a long time, and a good part of it was done by oil and  
energy companies, and most of it had fairly wide opinions and  
theories, not the one sided view you seem to think they have.

I've seen one-sided views that started with a fixed agenda from a  
whole lot of people, from all kinds of different backgrounds.  It's an  
unfortunate aspect of humanity that always disappoints.

The executive, marketing and PR, and sales divisions of a given  
corporation... certainly they paint whatever picture is needed to make  
sales, but that's hardly news.

Almost every company I have ever worked for had a split personality,  
usually focused between marketing and engineering.  It almost seems  
impossible to have a corporation without that particular mental disease.

>> I've been to events on global warming, and the oil companies are
>> frequently paying a good part of the bill for them.  I've seen  
>> several
>> that were sponsored by companies like Sunoco and other oil and energy
>> companies.
>
> Good PR so they don't look like the "bad guys".  They will cover all  
> of their bases.

So, you don't think that a scientists might also join the consensus,  
to avoid looking bad or going against the flow?

Consensus all too often operates like mob rule.

Sure, an oil company might work against a particular theory it doesn't  
like.

But so will a group of people who subscribe to a particular consensus.

If you are a scientist who is working on the alternative of sun  
induced heating with CO2 as the symptom rather than the cause, you  
might find it very hard to get funding or attention, because your  
sponsors and/or boss is afraid to go against the consensus.

> They did not set out to produce something that contributes to (the  
> possibility of) global warming but got stuck in that position.

Hopefully no one who calls themselves a scientist would set out to  
produce something blindly like that.

The only time you should start out with a goal is if you are solving a  
problem or you are challenging a theory.

> Alternate energy is a way out where they can still make profit from  
> their control of energy.

It's "a way out" for all of us.

Or will be if we find something that works before we run out of what  
we have.

Oil is used mostly because nothing else we have found works quite as  
well.

If an alternate comes along that really works, people will want it and  
use it.  So far, the alternatives have mostly sucked or been too  
expensive.

Energy dense liquid fuels are really convenient, for a lot of reasons.

Electric cars (just for example) ultimately change where the exhaust  
pipe and fuel filler are located.  I like them, when they work, but  
too many people don't understand the compromise.

It doesn't solve the problems of sustainability, and only partially  
eases the problems of pollution and dwindling resources.

But here again, a good example of a consensus: electricity is our  
savior.

It's building up like a snowball rolling downhill, blind to the  
"inconvenient truth" that our power grid is already maxxed out, the  
fuels it runs on are running out (including nuclear), and the fact  
that almost no one wants to fund more low-margin power generation  
facilities.

I am hopeful that we can solve those problems, but it scares me that  
we are diving headfirst into this without a whole lot of thought about  
the consequences, or the realities of what it really means.

I kind of wonder if we won't take a detour with liquid coal if things  
get really tight.

The military has already gone down that path.

-- 
Shannon Hendrix
shannon at widomaker.com