[geeks] Global warming, was Mr Bill?

[wa2egp at att.net]

> 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.

So now you're saying that all scientists are influenced by their bosses.

> 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.

If that's what you're hearing, you're listening to the wrong people or that's what you think you're hearing.

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

You're the one who claimed doctors were 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.

You used evidence of a localized area with two medical schools.  What about an area without any medical schools?  I think you biased your analysis.  Of course you have no figures.
 
> 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.

Not the definition I've seen.


> 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.

Isn't that you claim before?

> 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?

Some might but I would hope that would be a small minority.  The rest of the scientific community would probably not view that as desirable. 

> 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.

It would be hard to explain but if you have a good, logical explanation, it would be accepted by some, rejected by others but be debated by most until there was a general agreement (oh damn, another consensus).

Not all scientists work for companies or companies with vested interests.

> > 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.

I don't think they did. Just as tobacco companies did not set out to cause cancer in smokers.  The connection was found later.  

> 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.

So far, the only compromises I can think of are the lack of range on a charge, the amount of energy that can be carried per unit weight or volume, price of the battery and possibly the lifetime of the battery.

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

Fossil fuels (and nuclear) are not sustainable.  
> 
> But here again, a good example of a consensus: electricity is our  
> savior.

I don't know if that is a public or scientific consensus.  I've never heard scientists refer to electricity in that way.  It does seem to be a relatively efficient way of transferring energy, electric motors can be designed to be fairly efficient (>90%) but our storage techniques suck.

> 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.

Our power grid is not yet maxed out, the power companies have not constructed new plants to handle the increased demand.  Would be best to reduce the demand though.

When are we running out of nuclear fuel?  We don't have breeder reactors because U-235 is relatively plentiful in the US.  Other countries have little so they have to go to breeder reactors with their associated problems.  We just slowed down constructing them because of the cost, the problems with maintaining a plant and public perception.  It was not known that the radiation will destroy the metal structure of the reactor so they "wear out" more quickly.

> 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.

That's the whole thing about the global warming.  If it is true, shouldn't we be rethinking our methods of producing energy?

> 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.

The only problem is carbon is carbon no matter what form it is in.  Hopefully more efficient so we don't have to burn as much to get the same amount of energy.

Bob