|
Post by aj1983 on Jan 14, 2010 15:12:28 GMT
I agree, but the only science funding trend I can find here is a downward one. Nobody seems to be interested anymore. Why study hard and long to do science and get badly paid, when you can also do economics and law much easier and earn tons of money? Nuclear fusion would end all energy problems rather instantly... but none of this is going to happen as there is a lot of profit to be made from oil and coal. (Financing the terrorists in the middle east, great!)
Anyway, soaring oil prices will make us more dependent on other energy sources in the relatively near future.
|
|
|
Post by boxman on Jan 14, 2010 17:22:06 GMT
I agree, but the only science funding trend I can find here is a downward one. Nobody seems to be interested anymore. Why study hard and long to do science and get badly paid, when you can also do economics and law much easier and earn tons of money? Nuclear fusion would end all energy problems rather instantly... but none of this is going to happen as there is a lot of profit to be made from oil and coal. (Financing the terrorists in the middle east, great!) Anyway, soaring oil prices will make us more dependent on other energy sources in the relatively near future. Why do you blame oil companies for everything? Fusion is still very science fiction as the technology is still not mature enough for a power plant. It would cost more energy to run a fusion plant than it would generate in power with current technology.
|
|
|
Post by hairball on Jan 14, 2010 17:39:56 GMT
I dunno boxman, the first laboratory fusion was in the '70's. Mankind spent $150 billion to get a few kg of moon rocks and now spends $1 billion a year on developing a practically limitless power source. It makes no sense.
|
|
|
Post by slh1234 on Jan 14, 2010 18:34:48 GMT
I agree, but the only science funding trend I can find here is a downward one. Nobody seems to be interested anymore. Why study hard and long to do science and get badly paid, when you can also do economics and law much easier and earn tons of money? Nuclear fusion would end all energy problems rather instantly... but none of this is going to happen as there is a lot of profit to be made from oil and coal. (Financing the terrorists in the middle east, great!) Anyway, soaring oil prices will make us more dependent on other energy sources in the relatively near future. I would have to say that first, funds are not limited. Science should have to compete with all the other interests to get that funding. That means, they need to show results (real results, not the amateurish slop that CRU has produced and expected the public to happily finance). The politicizing of science is going to lead to less interest, and more exclusion of differing ideas. A lot less financing of terrorists in the middle east would come from oil or coal if other countries did not have extremist environmentalists in the way of exploiting their own national resources. You might be surprised who would benefit if this were to happen. Oil companies have an interest in making money. All of them realize there are more power sources out there than just oil, and as such, many of them are also researching alternative energy sources. Many (gasp) scientists and engineers work for oil companies in this research (or do we not give them status as scientists since they work for (gasp) oil companies?). Oil companies (or would they be more appropriately called "Energy Companies?") have a lot of resources that I think they can use much more efficiently than governments if allowed to, but let an oil company show 9 cents/gallon profit, and watch governments go nuts adding to their 51 cents/gallon tax because that 9 cents/gallon profit is "obscene." But what if we realized that oil companies (like all companies) exist to make money, allow them to make money and research the new energy alternatives out of the money they are making? I really think a less adversarial approach to energy companies might prove much more beneficial for all of us than the approach we've been seeing ... but that would take a change of heart politically for many people, and I think that's just beyond the ability of many politically motivated people.
|
|
|
Post by Ratty on Jan 14, 2010 22:51:49 GMT
I really think a less adversarial approach to energy companies might prove much more beneficial for all of us than the approach we've been seeing ... but that would take a change of heart politically for many people, and I think that's just beyond the ability of many politically motivated people.
Hear hear!
|
|
|
Post by stranger on Jan 15, 2010 2:12:32 GMT
Many of those shouting the loudest are doing the least to "conserve" energy. We have one of those who wants everyone to reach in their hip pocket, pull out USD $30,000 or so and get off the grid. In a college town that does not allow fixed storage batteries.
It really would be helpful if advocates had some conception of the processes. Such as the negative availability of 50 cents a watt solar panels, the hazards of keeping a few megajoules of battery on the back porch, and the difficulty a $20,000 a year family has in coming up with $30,000 for a solar installation.
Stranger
|
|
bd
New Member
Posts: 11
|
Post by bd on Jan 15, 2010 5:13:04 GMT
I really think a less adversarial approach to energy companies might prove much more beneficial for all of us than the approach we've been seeing ... but that would take a change of heart politically for many people, and I think that's just beyond the ability of many politically motivated people.
Well said.
|
|
|
Post by scpg02 on Jan 16, 2010 18:13:17 GMT
Oil companies have an interest in making money. All of them realize there are more power sources out there than just oil, and as such, many of them are also researching alternative energy sources. Many (gasp) scientists and engineers work for oil companies in this research (or do we not give them status as scientists since they work for (gasp) oil companies?). Oil companies (or would they be more appropriately called "Energy Companies?") have a lot of resources that I think they can use much more efficiently than governments if allowed to, but let an oil company show 9 cents/gallon profit, and watch governments go nuts adding to their 51 cents/gallon tax because that 9 cents/gallon profit is "obscene." But what if we realized that oil companies (like all companies) exist to make money, allow them to make money and research the new energy alternatives out of the money they are making? What you don't cover in this and what those who point out oil company ties don't address is a lot of the oil money is tied with the NGOs pushing AGW. Here is a quote from a friend of mine who did a lot of research on this. The entire post is great but this quote really points out the ties and how AGW is being used. Entire post[/b] Keeping it in the family they've put Lynn Orr, who is married to Susan Packard, in charge of the global energy project. The idea is that they can use the energy revenues and the carbon credits for removing a principal source of atmospheric methane, a powerful greenhouse gas. They need Kyoto or this will be a big loser of an investment. Curiously, if they disturb those nodules foolishly, they may end up releasing a great deal of methane to the surface which would release the gases into the atmosphere.[/ul]
|
|
|
Post by nemesis on Jan 16, 2010 21:23:04 GMT
Is this the same Hewlett and Packard ? From Richard Norths site on the Pachuri thread: eureferendum.blogspot.com/'And, if the hedge-fund contribution from CIFF - of over $2 million to the European Climate Foundation - looks generous, this is nothing compared with Polk's other venture, Climateworks. This organisation emerged from a study commissioned by six foundations: The William and Flora Hewlett Foundation; The David and Lucile Packard Foundation; The Energy Foundation; Doris Duke Charitable Foundation; The Joyce Foundation; and The Oak Foundation.'
|
|
|
Post by scpg02 on Jan 17, 2010 3:39:44 GMT
Is this the same Hewlett and Packard ? From Richard Norths site on the Pachuri thread: eureferendum.blogspot.com/'And, if the hedge-fund contribution from CIFF - of over $2 million to the European Climate Foundation - looks generous, this is nothing compared with Polk's other venture, Climateworks. This organisation emerged from a study commissioned by six foundations: The William and Flora Hewlett Foundation; The David and Lucile Packard Foundation; The Energy Foundation; Doris Duke Charitable Foundation; The Joyce Foundation; and The Oak Foundation.' Yes.
|
|
|
Post by stranger on Jan 17, 2010 3:41:12 GMT
Nemesis, don't confuse computer maker Hewlett Packard with the various foundations named for Hewlett and Packard. Like many receptacles for inherited money, their namesakes would begin immediate rotation should they learn of what their money is doing. Most are either covertly making the trustees a handsome profit - or pursuing social aims that would horrify their benefactor.
Stranger
|
|
bxs
Level 3 Rank
Posts: 115
|
Post by bxs on Jan 20, 2010 23:48:58 GMT
It has been reported in the London press that poor old-age pensioners are having to resort to buying books at thrift shops to burn to keep warm during the prolonged bitterly cold weather in the United Kingdom. In response to this humanitarian crisis, Freedom Action is calling on former Vice President Al Gore to join an effort to collect and airlift copies of his science fiction bestsellers to British people in dire need. “We are collecting copies of Al Gore’s An Inconvenient Truth, Our Choice, and Earth in the Balance and will send them to Oxfam in the UK to distribute for free to vulnerable people trying to survive the cold weather,” said Myron Ebell, Director of Freedom Action. “We call on Mr. Gore to co-operate in our effort to relieve human suffering by providing copies of his books for burning in stoves and fireplaces.” “It is appropriate that Al Gore’s books should be used to help keep poor people warm,” Ebell explained, “since the principal reason the British government is totally unprepared to deal with the brutally cold weather is because they have fallen for the global warming myths propagated by Gore himself in his bestselling books. Burning Gore’s otherwise worthless books to keep people from freezing is their highest and best use.” www.nhinsider.com/press-releases/2010/1/9/freedom-action-gores-books-can-help-alleviate-humanitarian-c.html
|
|
|
Post by scpg02 on Jan 21, 2010 5:24:17 GMT
|
|
|
Post by steve on Jan 21, 2010 11:10:56 GMT
“We are collecting copies of Al Gore’s An Inconvenient Truth, Our Choice, and Earth in the Balance and will send them to Oxfam in the UK to distribute for free to vulnerable people trying to survive the cold weather,” said Myron Ebell, Director of Freedom Action. “We call on Mr. Gore to co-operate in our effort to relieve human suffering by providing copies of his books for burning in stoves and fireplaces.” “It is appropriate that Al Gore’s books should be used to help keep poor people warm,” Ebell explained, “since the principal reason the British government is totally unprepared to deal with the brutally cold weather is because they have fallen for the global warming myths propagated by Gore himself in his bestselling books. Burning Gore’s otherwise worthless books to keep people from freezing is their highest and best use.” www.nhinsider.com/press-releases/2010/1/9/freedom-action-gores-books-can-help-alleviate-humanitarian-c.htmlActually, there are always copies of Michael Crichton's "State of Fear" in my local Oxfam bookshop. It probably has the same calorific value as dried manure.
|
|
|
Post by scpg02 on Jan 21, 2010 14:37:11 GMT
“We are collecting copies of Al Gore’s An Inconvenient Truth, Our Choice, and Earth in the Balance and will send them to Oxfam in the UK to distribute for free to vulnerable people trying to survive the cold weather,” said Myron Ebell, Director of Freedom Action. “We call on Mr. Gore to co-operate in our effort to relieve human suffering by providing copies of his books for burning in stoves and fireplaces.” “It is appropriate that Al Gore’s books should be used to help keep poor people warm,” Ebell explained, “since the principal reason the British government is totally unprepared to deal with the brutally cold weather is because they have fallen for the global warming myths propagated by Gore himself in his bestselling books. Burning Gore’s otherwise worthless books to keep people from freezing is their highest and best use.” www.nhinsider.com/press-releases/2010/1/9/freedom-action-gores-books-can-help-alleviate-humanitarian-c.htmlActually, there are always copies of Michael Crichton's "State of Fear" in my local Oxfam bookshop. It probably has the same calorific value as dried manure.
|
|