Global warming?

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by Fair&Balanced

Thank you, US Government's NCSA. for investing in the creation of the first web browser:

Al Gore Did Invent the Internet! I knew it! Here is proof!

[SamIam]

Nah, the Internet was invented by UT while he was messing around in someone's basement.

[Fair&Balanced]

Originally Posted by Coign

I post 900 papers, quote numbers from 3 of them, give links to a large amount of website summarizing them so you DON'T have to read through all 900 pages and yet you keep repeating over and over, "show me the numbers or you are just lying."

Another perspective on those 900 papers:

...a preliminary data analysis by the Carbon Brief has revealed that nine of the ten most prolific authors cited have links to organizations funded by ExxonMobil, and the tenth has co-authored several papers with Exxon-linked contributors.

Once you crunch the numbers, however, you find a good proportion of this new list is made up of a small network of individuals who co-author papers and share funding ties to the oil industry.

Analysing the ‘900 papers supporting climate scepticism’: 9 out of top 10 authors linked to ExxonMobil

***

However, our analysis also shows that many of the papers do not focus on human-induced climate change - and so have little relevance to the theme of the list.

Furthermore, some of the authors featured on the list surprised us, so we contacted a selection to see whether they supported this interpretation of their work - the responses confirmed their work is being misappropriated by inclusion in lists such as this.

“Using our paper to support skepticism of anthropogenic global warming is misleading.”

Much like Climategate which turned out to be all hot air and no substance.

And much like the Global Warming Petition Project of several years ago which claimed to have 500 scientists signing their petition denying global warming, but many didnt even know their name was on the list and others were just outright bogus.

[tw]

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

Is this where we hear about the advantages of the Chicago Climate Exchange?

No. That is another article nobody need bother to read. It simply blames Obama, the UN, and other usual suspects for corruption and evil. It's not news. It is what an extremist read so religiously as to almost be identified as a pedophile.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally Posted by Spexxvet

In both World Wars, the gubmint needed new weapons, like tanks and planes, and contracted private industry to develop them. I'd call that promoting R&D and new technology.

A little in WW I, but mostly just awarding contracts to the companies/people that came up with things they could use. As soon a the war was over, not so much. In WW II, big time. They took over practically all R&D and production for the war effort.

At the end of the war, the ramping up of the cold war sparked some R&D but that was mostly grants to collages to research what ever the hell they wanted. Sometimes it produced good stuff, but just as often it was the sex life of frogs in Guatemala.

It didn't really take off until DARPA geared up in the early 70s, which threw so much money around, it got so nobody wanted to fund research, because they could get it from the Feds for almost any field. Granted, they've gotten some great returns on some of it, but a lot of it just ended up making a few people very rich on our dime.

However to say all, or even a majority, of our progress was government funded is ludicrous. The antithesis of free enterprise, and make us more under control of the government.

[Spexxvet]

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

... Sometimes it produced good stuff, but just as often it was the sex life of frogs in Guatemala.

Hey! The study of the sex life of frogs in Guatemala saved my mom's life on 911.

[piercehawkeye45]

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

However to say all, or even a majority, of our progress was government funded is ludicrous. The antithesis of free enterprise, and make us more under control of the government.

Yes, to make an absolute statement either way is ludicrous. Both the private industry and government R&D have played a very large role in creating the technology we see today. Some technology is cheaper to develop and has an obvious economic gain so it is created solely in the private industry. Some technology is extremely expensive to create or does not have an obvious economic gain so it is developed under state R&D and then eventually private industry will take over and make it big. But when it comes to alternative energy, government R&D has already and will continue to play an extremely large role.

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

Doesn't answer the question as to why they would throw millions of dollars away into a part of the country that is literally awash with hydro-power.

He shouldn't answer the question because the question has no basis in reality. The current problem with Pacific Northwest is that there was an unusually high amount of water from snow melt this year, not with government officials throwing millions of dollar away. Your source even acknowledges that in the third paragraph. The problem could have been prevented but the solution to that still involves investing in alternative energy.

[Undertoad]

But when it comes to alternative energy, government R&D has already and will continue to play an extremely large role.

How do you know that?

[Fair&Balanced]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

How do you know that?

As TW pointed out, the distinction needs to be made between basic research, in which the government has been a signficant contributor, and applied research, where the private sector has and should be the primary contributor.

Government labs (not to just DoE, but DoD, NASA...) and govt grants to other labs (both pubilc and private) have been conducting and funding energy related research for years on a wide range of energy efficiency and renewables research.

It is a good model of public private partnerships.

The problem is we are falling behind China, Japan, EU and other nations who not only contribute significantly to basic R&D but also subsidize the industries resulting from the emerging technologies.

We've pretty much given the next generation car batteries to Japan, China and Korea.

We're still leading the world in govt R&D in nano-technology with real implications for alternative or more efficient energy resouces, but we are pulling back on govt investment as many of the other major players are increasing govt support.

Govt R&D investments in renewable or clean energy as well as increased energy efficiency can result in emerging technologies /industries that will have a global market.

THe question remains as to the commitment of the US to compete with the rest of the world with government supporting the basic r&d that is the foundation of future commercial development.

[Undertoad]

I was not asking you.

[infinite monkey]

[Fair&Balanced]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

I was not asking you.

I thought it was an open discussion.

[infinite monkey]

THIS FORUM IS CLOSED FOR REPAIR

[infinite monkey]

YOU MUST HAVE RESERVATIONS TO RESPOND TO THIS THREAD.

I know I do.

[piercehawkeye45]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

How do you know that?

I'm a Civil Engineer graduate student so I see all the research that is being done in alternative energy. I have a couple good friends working on projects directly related to wind energy and am at least aware of others. My specific field has a good amount of research dealing with shale gas and shale oil and the research is around 50/50 when it comes to the private and public sector.

The amount of interplay between the public and private research sectors is amazing and both are extremely important when it comes to innovation in scientific fields. When it comes to arguments such as public versus private sector research and the innovation that follows, people tend to just look a the large picture and not all the details, since people are not aware of the details, which completely skews our perception of what is going on.

To simplify, here is an example. Lets say to make a certain alternative energy economically viable, it is not as simple as saying that either the private or public industry created the technology. In reality, it would be more like 50 different concepts are needed. 30 will already be known but the other 20 needs research to figure out whats going on. The private industry may perform its own research on 7 of the 20 concepts, public institutions may perform its own research, from government funding, on another 7 of the 20 concepts, and a combined effort will result in researching the remaining 6 concepts.