Comments on: I Am a Dysonite II

By: forkthis

forkthis — Wed, 01 Apr 2009 23:55:45 +0000

To me, the alternative to “lots of people die” is “lots of people are never born.” I guess I'd rather bet the chips on humanity figuring it out than let Malthusian academics pick who gets to breed and how often.

I also question your facts. Many industrialized nations are experiencing flat or negative population growth. Take Japan for example:

http://www.indexmundi.com/japan/population_grow...

By: lyca

lyca — Mon, 30 Mar 2009 23:37:37 +0000

That's true. I guess I was oversimplifying. I hear enough about the grant process to know there's a fair amount of ideology going into it. And yes, there's overlap between the oil business and the alternative-energy business.

I was making a rough sort of point. When you're not in a position to judge the merits of a piece of scientific research, you may still want to have some way to distinguish a reliable scientist from a hack. Peer review and affiliation with elite universities is the best way we know to pick out the reliable people. Academia, while definitely influenced by biases in government and business, has some structures in place to prevent fudging, and those structures are loosened in industry. (Not that there hasn't been great industry-funded research: information theory was invented at Bell Labs, and one of its major theorems was proven by the founder of Qualcomm.)

If somebody thinks most university scholars are in a conspiracy against the truth, I'm inclined to call him a hack until proven otherwise. Science is, of course, not done by consensus. But a non-expert's best guess at the truth is to look at the scientific consensus, and I think that means academic scientists. It's sort of a way of managing ignorance.

By: Will Wilkinson

Will Wilkinson — Mon, 30 Mar 2009 22:55:48 +0000

lyca, I think your point could use some refinement. University research is largely funded by government grants, and those grants go predominantly to those whose biases reflect those in charge of choosing what research will get funding. For example, try getting funding to study to medical value of illegal drugs in the university. The funding process is incredibly ideological. Second, corporations often help finance university research. Many of the world's largest corporations, such as GE, and many of the “oil” companies, are now heavily in the alternative energy business, and actively seeking subsidies. That “solar-power company funding a scientist who believed in AGW” may well be a company like Shell.

By: lyca

lyca — Mon, 30 Mar 2009 18:53:07 +0000

The difference between academic research and industry-funded research is that while a university may have a vague leftish bias, a corporation has an explicit bias in favor of staying in business. The counterpart to Exxon funding a climate skeptic would be, say, a solar-power company funding a scientist who believed in AGW. Not Princeton funding Michael Oppenheimer. A university does not have a direct conflict of interest with the outcome of the research in the way that an oil company does.

By: Paul_G_Brown

Paul_G_Brown — Mon, 30 Mar 2009 17:46:48 +0000

/sigh

The amount of solar energy that reaches the planet each day has some fixed upper bound. Combine this upper bound with weather, and seasonal variation, and it means you have enormous variability in how much energy will reach those panels. There is a notion, in power generation, of something called "baseline", which is the amount of energy that can be generated 'reliably' (on a dark, cold, still, desert night).

In midwinter, you get about 1/4 the upper bound dailly solar energy. Consequently you will need to over-provision by a factor of 8-10, relative to mid-summer needs.

But when ideology trumps science ....

By: alphie

alphie — Mon, 30 Mar 2009 13:41:06 +0000

Exxon & Co. freely admit they fund "scientists" who are willing to take the pro climate change position, Craig.

Consider whether anyone would care what Freeman Dyson had to say if he'd come out against climate change?

I don't think so.

By: Craig

Craig — Mon, 30 Mar 2009 05:06:02 +0000

This is total nonsense. Have you any idea how much government and foundation money there is for studies which support AGW? And how hard it is for sceptics to get funding from those sources.
The idea that industry research $$, which lacks credibility, is somehow an incentive to tow the line is just silly.

By: alphie

alphie — Sun, 29 Mar 2009 22:38:24 +0000

True, Uknow.

The magical invisible hand.

By: uknowbetter

uknowbetter — Sun, 29 Mar 2009 21:26:50 +0000

Whereas alphie is pro-magic-wand and waving it around to make magic things happen.

By: uknowbetter

uknowbetter — Sun, 29 Mar 2009 20:49:24 +0000

That's just a rationalization.

Even they don't believe in their cause.

By: H.

H. — Sun, 29 Mar 2009 18:02:07 +0000

“Kill yourselves.”

If radical environmentalists killed themselves, then they couldn't spread knowledge and consciousness anymore. If I thought that killing all humans was best for the Earth, I would want to make sure that the last ones were environmentalists. You know, just to make sure that they wouldn't start multiplying and restart the cancer.

By: newshutz

newshutz — Sun, 29 Mar 2009 17:44:30 +0000

Solar cells seem to be on the same curve as integrated circuits. (Moore's Law)

At some point, the exponential growth will make electricity generation from solar cells be the most efficient.

By: alphie

alphie — Sun, 29 Mar 2009 17:34:22 +0000

Dr Ray Stantz: Personally, I liked the university. They gave us money and facilities, we didn't have to produce anything! You've never been out of college! You don't know what it's like out there! I've *worked* in the private sector. They expect *results*.

If you're a talented scientist, maybe, H.

If you're a hack, though, pro-dirty energy is the way to make money.

By: H.

H. — Sun, 29 Mar 2009 17:31:00 +0000

alphie, there is way more money to be made on the pro-side. Mainstream climate research gets billions of dollars and euros in funding. If I was a biologist, say, and I wanted to maximize my funding and get mentioned in the science pages of newspapers, I would make sure to somehow include evidence for climate change or its catastrophic consequences in my studies, even if I was studying squirrels' mating habits.

By: alphie

alphie — Sun, 29 Mar 2009 16:48:55 +0000

"Politically motivated studies serve one purpose, and that is to justify policy."

What to make of all the "scientific" research funded by the oil and coal companies.

Whenever I see an anti-climate change scientist or pundit discussing the topic, I just assume they're getting a monthly check from Exxon.

In such an overwhelming pro-climate change scientific environment, it sure pays to be a contrarian.