I think that the real issue is whether it's a "danger". It's clear at this
> point that treating it as such is going to result in much government
> wheelspinning and redistribution of wealth and no corrective action to speak > of.
I'm inclined to agree - although now that the issue has been raised and so much noise made, I'd like to see it resolved (but I'm not holding my breath waiting for that to happen).
So rather than treat it as a "danger", why not just assume that it's
> going to happen and look for opportunities instead?
I haven't been able to bring myself to make even that assumption. There are already enough problems in the world to provide enormous amounts of opportunity - and the Internet spreads those opportunities around fairly well.
Yes, it is sufficient to conclude there is no global warming danger if the un-fudged numbers do not point in the same direction.
The universal presumption in almost all things is "that which was will continue to be." In the absence of known forces to the contrary, it is reasonable to assume there will be no change. One certainly does not fabricate changes then claim a trace gas is the cause.
Hmm. There's EMPIRICAL science - math, physics, astronomy, chemistry, etc. - and there's SOFT science (social science, psychology, climatology, phrenology, astrology) which may not be quantifiable, reproducible, or even believable.
Well, the NSF (National Science Foundation), et. al., politicizes science enough, wouldn't you say? It provides a first-level means of spending money where it needs to be spent (I didn't say it is a perfect system). So science is not (independently) left to the scientists. Tax payers, via politicians, get some say in what types of research are pursued with tax dollars.
Now, take that to the next level. When politicians decide what *type* of research is to be funded and then the results that receive continuing grants, what do you think will be the primary research interests and working hypotheses of the scientists so funded.
As one person said, the result of having the government pay for something is to continue to get more of that something.
Fair enough. If the government announces that they would like to see more reseach on education, then you will see more proposals to do research on education. I know of institutions which hire people to stay abreast of the types of proposals that are likely to be funded. What is your point?
It sounds like you already know what type of research will be funded. I don't pretend to know. Military applications seem like a safe bet.
I have heard this at MY breakfast table...." Yup, that's a good field to get into, the gov't is doling out all kinds of money for research projects..." and those kids are still in highschool. (They were talking about AGW)
I should imagine those kids are smart enough to know that if, after the first paper calls the whole AWG for what it is, their funding will be cut off.
On Wed, 27 Jan 2010 00:06:12 -0500, the infamous "Bill" scrawled the following:
I believe that his point is: Politicians get lots of mileage from saying they're doing something about AGWK, so they support funding of AGWK research. Skeptics don't scare the public or put money into the politicians' pockets, so they don't get funding.
Now find a way to burn that 'new' batch of hydrocarbons cleanly. This is not just about an infinite supply of oil, Bub, it's the mess it makes as well. Same for coal. If the stuff were to deliver itself at a power station for free, it is still godawful dirty. Just looking at the supply is looking at the problem with blinders on.
The biggest culprit, in terms of dirty power, are the base-load generating stations. That's where nuclear shines. ( I know..even in the dark, hahafrickin' ha)
Aluminum production is a VERY small percentage of the power used on a daily basis. So that dog don't hunt. The nice thing about aluminum smelters, is that they can run on off- peak hours smoothing the load curve.
A lot of dirt from fossil fuel also comes from mobile power. Electrification of mass transport (people and goods) is a huge step towards reducing dirty fuel consumption. Outlaw all stinky-fuel powered lawnmowers and weed-whackers and leaf blowers. Put your nation to work with push mowers and burn off some that fat! Outlaw tractors and combines, harvest by hand... burn off even more fat.
See, Bub? You don't have an exclusive on silly-talk.
Now for some light entertainment: *tuning my gittar*
*clearing throat*
When I was a child my family would travel Down to Western Kentucky where my parents were born And there's a backwards old town that's often remembered So many times that my memories are worn.
Chorus: And daddy won't you take me back to Muhlenberg County Down by the Green River where Paradise lay Well, I'm sorry my son, but you're too late in asking Mister Peabody's coal train has hauled it away
Well, sometimes we'd travel right down the Green River To the abandoned old prison down by Adrie Hill Where the air smelled like snakes and we'd shoot with our pistols But empty pop bottles was all we would kill.
Repeat Chorus:
Then the coal company came with the world's largest shovel And they tortured the timber and stripped all the land Well, they dug for their coal till the land was forsaken Then they wrote it all down as the progress of man.
Repeat Chorus:
When I die let my ashes float down the Green River Let my soul roll on up to the Rochester dam I'll be halfway to Heaven with Paradise waitin' Just five miles away from wherever I am.
HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.