Please Scroll Down to See Forums Below
napsgear
genezapharmateuticals
domestic-supply
puritysourcelabs
UGL OZ
UGFREAK
napsgeargenezapharmateuticals domestic-supplypuritysourcelabsUGL OZUGFREAK

Scientist may have lied

  • Thread starter Thread starter lartinos
  • Start date Start date
L

lartinos

Guest
JUNEAU, Alaska — Just five years ago, Charles Monnett was one of the scientists whose observation that several polar bears had drowned in the Arctic Ocean helped galvanize the global warming movement. Now, the wildlife biologist is on administrative leave and facing accusations of scientific misconduct.
The federal agency where he works told him he's being investigated for "integrity issues," but a watchdog group believes it has to do with the 2006 journal article about the bear.
The group, Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility, filed a complaint on his behalf Thursday with the agency, the U.S. Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation and Enforcement.
Investigators have not yet told Monnett of the specific charges or questions related to the scientific integrity of his work, said Jeff Ruch, the watchdog group's executive director.
A BOEMRE spokeswoman, Melissa Schwartz, said there was an "ongoing internal investigation" but declined to get into specifics.
Whatever the outcome, the investigation comes at a time when climate change activists and those who are skeptical about global warming are battling over the credibility of scientists' work.
Members of both sides, however, said that it was too early to make any pronouncements about the case, particularly since the agency has not yet released the details of the allegations against him.
Myron Ebell, of the Competitive Enterprise Institute, said the case reinforces the group's position that people should be more skeptical about the work of climate change scientists.
Even if every scientist is objective, "what we're being asked to do is turn our economy around and spend trillions and trillions of dollars on the basis of" climate change claims, he said.
Francesca Grifo, director of the scientific integrity program for the Union of Concerned Scientists, said she's not alarmed by the handling of the case so far.
Grifo said the allegations made in the complaint filed by Ruch's group are premature and said people should wait to see what, if anything, comes of the inspector general's investigation.
Beyond the climate change debate, the investigation also focuses attention on an Obama administration policy intended to protect scientists from political interference.
The complaint seeks Monnett's reinstatement and a public apology from the agency and inspector general, whose office is conducting the probe.
The group's filing also seeks to have the investigation dropped or to have the charges specified and the matter carried out quickly and fairly, as the Obama policy states.
BOEMRE, which oversees leasing and development of offshore drilling, was created last year in the reorganization of the Interior Department's Minerals Management Service, which oversaw offshore drilling.
The MMS was abolished after the massive Gulf of Mexico oil spill. The agency was accused of being too close to oil and gas industry interests. A congressional report last year found MMS Alaska was vulnerable to lawsuits and allegations of scientific misconduct.
The agency announced steps to improve.
On July 18, BOEMRE told the longtime Anchorage-based Monnett that he was being put on leave, pending the investigation, according to the complaint. BOEMRE has barred Monnett from speaking to reporters, Ruch said.
Monnett could not immediately be reached Thursday.
His wife, Lisa Rotterman, a fellow scientist who worked with Monnett for years, including at BOEMRE's predecessor agency, said the case did not come out of the blue.
Rotterman said Monnett had come under fire in the past within the agency for speaking the truth about what the science showed. She said the 2006 article wasn't framed in the context of climate change but was relevant to the topic.
She feared what happened to Monnett would send a "chilling message" at the agency just as important oil and gas development decisions in the Arctic will soon be made.
"I don't believe the timing is coincidental," she said.
Rotterman said Monnett's work included identifying questions that needed to be answered to inform the environmental analyses the agency must conduct before issuing drilling permits.
"This is a time when sowing doubt in the public's mind about whether those findings can be trusted or not, that makes people think, I don't know what to believe," she said.
Monnett, coordinated much of BOEMRE's research on Arctic wildlife and ecology, had duties that included managing about $50 million worth of studies, according to the complaint.
Schwartz, based in Washington, D.C., said other agency scientists would manage the studies in his absence.
According to documents provided by Ruch's group, which sat in on investigators interviews with Monnett, the questioning focused on observations that he and researcher Jeffrey Gleason made in 2004.
At the time, they were conducting an aerial survey of bowhead whales, and saw four dead polar bears floating in the water after a storm. There were other witnesses, according to Ruch, and low-resolution photos show floating white blobs.
Monnett and Gleason detailed their observations in an article published two years later in the journal Polar Biology. In the peer-reviewed article, they said they were reporting, to the best of their knowledge, the first observations of the bears floating dead and presumed drowned while apparently swimming long distances.
Polar bears are considered strong swimmers, they wrote, but long-distance swims may exact a greater metabolic toll than standing or walking on ice in better weather.
They said their observations suggested the bears drowned in rough seas and high winds. They also added that the findings "suggest that drowning-related deaths of polar bears may increase in the future if the observed trend of regression of pack ice and/or longer open water periods continues."
The article and presentations drew national attention and helped make the polar bear a symbol for the global warming movement. Former vice president and climate change activist Al Gore mentioned the animal in his Oscar-winning global warming documentary, "An Inconvenient Truth."
The complaint said agency officials harassed Gleason and Monnett, and that they received negative comments after the journal article. Gleason took another Interior Department job; he didn't respond to an email and a BOEMRE spokeswoman said he wouldn't be available for comment.
In May 2008, the bear was classified as a threatened species, the first with its survival at risk due to global warming.
According to a transcript, provided by Ruch's group, Ruch asked investigator Eric May, during questioning of Monnett in February, for specifics about the allegations. May replied: "well, scientific misconduct, basically, uh, wrong numbers, uh, miscalculations."
Monnett said that alleging scientific misconduct "suggests that we did something deliberately to deceive or to, to change it. Um, I sure don't see any indication of that in what you're asking me about."
 
Now wait a second. Given that a scientist can either:

1) Do research on global warming with the presupposition it exists and get showered in funding.

2) Do research that discredits global warming, immediately get your funding cut and become a pariah in the global warming "scientific" (they aren't scientists) community.

And you mean to tell me most scientists are pro-global warming?

No way!
 
I noticed its not "global warming" anymore. Its "climate change" or some such shit thats more of a catch all phrase.

Good Times!
 
Now wait a second. Given that a scientist can either:

1) Do research on global warming with the presupposition it exists and get showered in funding.

2) Do research that discredits global warming, immediately get your funding cut and become a pariah in the global warming "scientific" (they aren't scientists) community.

And you mean to tell me most scientists are pro-global warming?

No way!
Meh...if they chose #2, then they are the darling of the side that has alot more money and private funding. Scientists aren't that smart after all.

Good times!
 
I noticed its not "global warming" anymore. Its "climate change" or some such shit thats more of a catch all phrase.

Good Times!
Sure, I'm not quite sure why there's that much care about it though.

It's not like years of damage can be undone in the early part of the century by some minor changes in the last few years. If people cared really that much over it, then there would be more of an uprising with force.

Just so I have it right:
Economy in the shitter. Meh.
Climate change. Meh.
Medical costs soaring. Meh.
Third world wars. Meh.
Raised debt. Meh.
Lost a hockey game. REVOLUTION!
Rodney King beatdown. REVOLUTION!
 
Meh...if they chose #2, then they are the darling of the side that has alot more money and private funding. Scientists aren't that smart after all.

Good times!

Anything privately funded is immediately considered tainted -- a trend that is occurring in medical research as well.

The cool, sexy dollars come from uncle sam. And you're only going to get those dollars if you're bought into the program.
 
Anything privately funded is immediately considered tainted -- a trend that is occurring in medical research as well.

The cool, sexy dollars come from uncle sam. And you're only going to get those dollars if you're bought into the program.

Government unbiased? People unbiased? Say it ain't so!
 
Government unbiased? People unbiased? Say it ain't so!

There's an easy way to eliminate the bias.

Eliminate the funding in the first place.

I think we've all done enough research into giving monkeys cocaine and studying the stretch receptors in a sheep's o-ring.
 
Now wait a second. Given that a scientist can either:

1) Do research on global warming with the presupposition it exists and get showered in funding.

2) Do research that discredits global warming, immediately get your funding cut and become a pariah in the global warming "scientific" (they aren't scientists) community.

And you mean to tell me most scientists are pro-global warming?

No way!

climate scientists are the real deal. I know a few myself, and they are legitimate academics who take their work fucking seriously. they are definitely not wealthy, and some are ubergeeks to the point of lols. Anyway, I can't argue strongly one way or the other for or against anthropogenic climate change, but you are totally wrong in questioning their integrity.

you on the other hand, deny anthropogenic climate change science without any scientific knowledge of the subject whatsoever. You do this based on pure greed, because you would prefer our government to not spend money funding the science, and of course mostly because you would rather not have costly regulations enacted on greenhouse gas emissions. You are like a smoker grandstanding against medical research that claims secondhand smoke is harmful. So really, who is the one lacking integrity in the matter: scientists doing legitimate and rigorous research on the subject, or you, who has remained deliberately ignorant on the subject yet argues strongly against climate change science because of monetary concerns? something to consider
 
climate scientists are the real deal. I know a few myself, and they are legitimate academics who take their work fucking seriously. they are definitely not wealthy, and some are ubergeeks to the point of lols. Anyway, I can't argue strongly one way or the other for or against anthropogenic climate change, but you are totally wrong in questioning their integrity.

you on the other hand, deny anthropogenic climate change science without any scientific knowledge of the subject whatsoever. You do this based on pure greed, because you would prefer our government to not spend money funding the science, and of course mostly because you would rather not have costly regulations enacted on greenhouse gas emissions. You are like a smoker grandstanding against medical research that claims secondhand smoke is harmful. So really, who is the one lacking integrity in the matter: scientists doing legitimate and rigorous research on the subject, or you, who has remained deliberately ignorant on the subject yet argues strongly against climate change science because of monetary concerns? something to consider

And I can't strongly argue one way or the other for or against anthropogenic climate change either, because the science is most definitely tainted.

I just have this silly notion that we shouldn't add trillions of dollars in regulatory cost and create entirely synthetic industries (i.e. carbon credits) over something that may or may not exist. I guess that makes me one of those mean-spirited conservatives.
 
And I can't strongly argue one way or the other for or against anthropogenic climate change either, because the science is most definitely tainted.

I just have this silly notion that we shouldn't add trillions of dollars in regulatory cost and create entirely synthetic industries (i.e. carbon credits) over something that may or may not exist. I guess that makes me one of those mean-spirited conservatives.

nah, i see your point, big time. but that is up to the policy makers. it isn't really fair to call the scientists crooks imo. how is the science tainted?
 
nah, i see your point, big time. but that is up to the policy makers. it isn't really fair to call the scientists crooks imo. how is the science tainted?

My best example is climategate. Anyone even loosely affiliated with that mess should have been completely over and done with in climate research. The top guy (the most red-handed one) got fired, but what do you want to bet that he (or at least his buddies) are still getting government funding? And the top guy used his data to secure grants -- that's fraud. I'm sure he's not on his way to jail.

If the climategate scandal had been over medical research, it would have put a scarlet letter on everyone involved and followed them for the rest of their careers. There's a former Synthes executive on his way to prison over non-reporting (let alone falsification of data).
 
nah, i see your point, big time. but that is up to the policy makers. it isn't really fair to call the scientists crooks imo. how is the science tainted?


You know that saying about statistics? Yeah, it can apply to scientists, too.

It's not so much that the science is tainted, but rather the interpretations and causal relationships that are attributed to it. Climate change isn't like counting fruit fly mutations -- we have very limited data to work with, and the extrapolations from such limited data can easily be flawed, influenced, or otherwise wrong.

That said, I can't respect the people who somehow "think" that 7 billon humans, billions of cars, and trillions of tonnes of shit from industrial plants has had no effect on this tiny, fragile planet.



:cow:
 
You know that saying about statistics? Yeah, it can apply to scientists, too.

It's not so much that the science is tainted, but rather the interpretations and causal relationships that are attributed to it. Climate change isn't like counting fruit fly mutations -- we have very limited data to work with, and the extrapolations from such limited data can easily be flawed, influenced, or otherwise wrong.

That said, I can't respect the people who somehow "think" that 7 billon humans, billions of cars, and trillions of tonnes of shit from industrial plants has had no effect on this tiny, fragile planet.



:cow:

climate scientists aren't idiots; they understand statistics and the limitations of statistical models as well as everyone else in academia. For some reason they are cast in a light of foolishness and incompetence though, if not outright corruption, and I think the root of this is gobs of money being thrown into propaganda to discredit them. from what i understand it is almost certain in their community that bad stuff is going to happen if the atmospheric concentrations of CO2 remain at this concentration, and it is specific regional impacts, as well as severity, that is open for debate. the notion of an entire scientific community conspiring to scare the public to earn research dollars is laughable to me; if their work was that flawed there would be plenty of people qualified and willing to rip it to shreds, and who at this point could probably get pretty famous doing so.
 
climate scientists aren't idiots; they understand statistics and the limitations of statistical models as well as everyone else in academia. For some reason they are cast in a light of foolishness and incompetence though, if not outright corruption, and I think the root of this is gobs of money being thrown into propaganda to discredit them. from what i understand it is almost certain in their community that bad stuff is going to happen if the atmospheric concentrations of CO2 remain at this concentration, and it is specific regional impacts, as well as severity, that is open for debate. the notion of an entire scientific community conspiring to scare the public to earn research dollars is laughable to me; if their work was that flawed there would be plenty of people qualified and willing to rip it to shreds, and who at this point could probably get pretty famous doing so.


No argument there.

This isn't my area, so I can't speak for them, but relative to other areas of science, there exists a lot moar room for extrapolation and interpretation than other areas of physical sciences. The timespan and data available for analysis is minute, and the domain (the earth/entire ecological system) is complex and, like the evening weatherdood, viewed as wrong as often as right to the layperson who doesn't know WTF a 50kts bulk sheer is and sees the world as only "rain" or "sun".

The anti-global warming conspiracy doods tend to be wackjobs who've watched too many episodes of the Xfiles and should not even be considered in this shit. I suppose they're to be expected on a meathead board, though.



:cow:
 
climate scientists aren't idiots; they understand statistics and the limitations of statistical models as well as everyone else in academia. For some reason they are cast in a light of foolishness and incompetence though, if not outright corruption, and I think the root of this is gobs of money being thrown into propaganda to discredit them. from what i understand it is almost certain in their community that bad stuff is going to happen if the atmospheric concentrations of CO2 remain at this concentration, and it is specific regional impacts, as well as severity, that is open for debate. the notion of an entire scientific community conspiring to scare the public to earn research dollars is laughable to me; if their work was that flawed there would be plenty of people qualified and willing to rip it to shreds, and who at this point could probably get pretty famous doing so.

Indeed, and science should be about sorting things out without name calling and demonizing the opposition. The scientists that question the global warming data are far more demonized; they're equated with holocaust deniers.

 
Indeed, and science should be about sorting things out without name calling and demonizing the opposition. The scientists that question the global warming data are far more demonized; they're equated with holocaust deniers.



The first key to being fooled (the second key after desire) is to not pay attention...

I wonder where else we could apply that...
 
I meant new atheists

but

yes...environmentalism is the 21st centry religion..agreed

Actually, Christians are shifting to environmentalism as their new religion...Rick Warren is a very influential Christian leader pushing the new religion.
 
You know that saying about statistics? Yeah, it can apply to scientists, too.

It's not so much that the science is tainted, but rather the interpretations and causal relationships that are attributed to it. Climate change isn't like counting fruit fly mutations -- we have very limited data to work with, and the extrapolations from such limited data can easily be flawed, influenced, or otherwise wrong.

That said, I can't respect the people who somehow "think" that 7 billon humans, billions of cars, and trillions of tonnes of shit from industrial plants has had no effect on this tiny, fragile planet.


:cow:

I'm 100% convinced that 7 billion humans, billions of cars and trillions of tons of shit from industrial plants have some effect. But the scientist in you should have the following two questions:

1) Are the natural remediation mechanisms of the planet sufficient to cope with the higher CO2 emissions without interfering with life on the planet?

2) Are there larger macro trends in global greenhouse gases that will overshadow our man-made emissions regardless?

And the economist in you should have the following two questions:

1) Given that the third world (India and China) aren't stopping their industrialization regardless of what we learn about climate change, shouldn't 100% of our research be put on remediation techniques anyway?

2) Our global supply of fossil fuels is limited. Therefore the CO2 they can release is limited. But the other, more nasty components resulting from incomplete combustion vary by how they are burned. On average, a barrel of oil in the US or Europe is burned vastly more cleanly than it would be in China or India. Wouldn't a true environmentalist want US and European cars to burn cleanly, but hope those developed nations deplete as much of those fossil fuels as quickly as possible?

...Or we could just go chain ourselves to a tree, tell the developing world to stay in the dark ages, play the bongos and chase hippy chicks who smoke a lot of dope.
 
I'm 100% convinced that 7 billion humans, billions of cars and trillions of tons of shit from industrial plants have some effect. But the scientist in you should have the following two questions:

1) Are the natural remediation mechanisms of the planet sufficient to cope with the higher CO2 emissions without interfering with life on the planet?

2) Are there larger macro trends in global greenhouse gases that will overshadow our man-made emissions regardless?

And the economist in you should have the following two questions:

1) Given that the third world (India and China) aren't stopping their industrialization regardless of what we learn about climate change, shouldn't 100% of our research be put on remediation techniques anyway?

2) Our global supply of fossil fuels is limited. Therefore the CO2 they can release is limited. But the other, more nasty components resulting from incomplete combustion vary by how they are burned. On average, a barrel of oil in the US or Europe is burned vastly more cleanly than it would be in China or India. Wouldn't a true environmentalist want US and European cars to burn cleanly, but hope those developed nations deplete as much of those fossil fuels as quickly as possible?

...Or we could just go chain ourselves to a tree, tell the developing world to stay in the dark ages, play the bongos and chase hippy chicks who smoke a lot of dope.


I don't think there are any econdoods inside me.

The scientist in me says sees that those two questions were already addressed ITT: they don't have an answer and are left for the PhDs to extrapolate.

A big part of science is not knowing. I think that's a big hurdle for most people to cross -- they simply have to know that something is or is not in a certain well-defined way, and the universe just doesn't work that way.

 
I don't think there are any econdoods inside me.

The scientist in me says sees that those two questions were already addressed ITT: they don't have an answer and are left for the PhDs to extrapolate.

A big part of science is not knowing. I think that's a big hurdle for most people to cross -- they simply have to know that something is or is not in a certain well-defined way, and the universe just doesn't work that way.


Great youtube ...I concur.
 
NASA Study Shatters Climate Alarmists’ Assumptions - By Mario Loyola - Planet Gore - National Review Online

“The satellite observations suggest there is much more energy lost to space during and after warming than the climate models show,” Spencer said. “There is a huge discrepancy between the data and the forecasts that is especially big over the oceans.”

Not only does the atmosphere release more energy than previously thought, it starts releasing it earlier in a warming cycle. The models forecast that the climate should continue to absorb solar energy until a warming event peaks.

Instead, the satellite data shows the climate system starting to shed energy more than three months before the typical warming event reaches its peak.

“At the peak, satellites show energy being lost while climate models show energy still being gained,” Spencer said.

This is the first time scientists have looked at radiative balances during the months before and after these transient temperature peaks.

Applied to long-term climate change, the research might indicate that the climate is less sensitive to warming due to increased carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere than climate modelers have theorized. A major underpinning of global warming theory is that the slight warming caused by enhanced greenhouse gases should change cloud cover in ways that cause additional warming, which would be a positive feedback cycle.

Instead, the natural ebb and flow of clouds, solar radiation, heat rising from the oceans and a myriad of other factors added to the different time lags in which they impact the atmosphere might make it impossible to isolate or accurately identify which piece of Earth’s changing climate is feedback from manmade greenhouse gases.

“There are simply too many variables to reliably gauge the right number for that,” Spencer said.

I've been criticizing the climate computer models for years...just sayin.
 
Are the natural remediation mechanisms of the planet sufficient to cope with the higher CO2 emissions without interfering with life on the planet?

climate models say no, unless you don't care about major cities being completely flooded etc.
 
2) Are there larger macro trends in global greenhouse gases that will overshadow our man-made emissions regardless?

i had a professor who argued this point vehemently. he says yes there are. his big thing was water vapor. most others i've talked to disagree. good question.
 
climate models say no, unless you don't care about major cities being completely flooded etc.

Haven't these models been found wildly inaccurate?

Was it a model or just Al Gore who predicted some sea level catastrophe due in the 1980's or 1990's?
 
1) Given that the third world (India and China) aren't stopping their industrialization regardless of what we learn about climate change, shouldn't 100% of our research be put on remediation techniques anyway?

Our GHG emissions per capita are way higher so in this case I think it's important to lead by example before putting too much pressure on the developing nations.


2) Our global supply of fossil fuels is limited. Therefore the CO2 they can release is limited. But the other, more nasty components resulting from incomplete combustion vary by how they are burned. On average, a barrel of oil in the US or Europe is burned vastly more cleanly than it would be in China or India. Wouldn't a true environmentalist want US and European cars to burn cleanly, but hope those developed nations deplete as much of those fossil fuels as quickly as possible?


our global supply is only limited by economics, not by the physical resource. if you look at unconventional sources like oil shale, there are trillions of barrels of potential production in the U.S. alone
 
Every decade needs a public panic, and every politician needs a (false) cause to support, and to divert government funding to. About a year ago, there was a student at Cal State Long Beach, who was writing a paper on Global Warming and the proof that it's not affected in any way, shape or form, by human actions. And he must have gotten some pretty damning evidence for his paper, because his "accidentally" drowned body was found in a river, and his dog was found (alive & well) with it's collar missing in another county, and his GF was found drugged and without ID, and walking around INSIDE the secured area of an airport 3000 miles away in Pittsburgh the next day. And by the way, the drowned bro was a swimming champion, and the water was 3 inches deep. And the kid's professor at CSULB was suddenly missing his computer and all his class files, and the kid's parents' computers were stolen in a mystery break-in. The Orange County Coroner (body was found a bit south of Long Beach), ruled that no autopsy was needed since it was "obviously an accidental drowning".

The kicker was; I was watching the KTLA News in Los Angeles the morning that the kid went missing, and they said about the college paper, and "what a star student he is" (didn't yet know about body found). Not only was the story NEVER mentioned again, but every link to it on the internet was dead the next day; ("page not found")

My take on it: He found some cancelled checks signed by Al Gore.

Charles
 
Our GHG emissions per capita are way higher so in this case I think it's important to lead by example before putting too much pressure on the developing nations.

Per capita isn't that important when you are outnumbered 20 to 1. Also, as their standard of living increases, their per capita usage will explode as well. They can't be more than 5-10 years away from suburbs.


our global supply is only limited by economics, not by the physical resource. if you look at unconventional sources like oil shale, there are trillions of barrels of potential production in the U.S. alone

If that's the case, we'll be on fossil fuels forever. The world will never shift away unless the alternative is cheaper.
 
If that's the case, we'll be on fossil fuels forever. The world will never shift away unless the alternative is cheaper.

........................................Until there's a realistic profit in other fuels and sources for motive power. Almost ALL of the research into alternative fuel, has been force-funded by the Democrats with taxes and fees put upon the oil industry. Believe me, and I'll put my life on this: Successful investors; whether they be in oil or real estate or beer, will put their money into something which WILL make a profit. That's the way America became what it is (oops, I mean WAS in the 1950s). The anti-corporate and anti-"rich" movements are actually just socialists, and should move to a nice, fair, equal place like Siberia. If you want to be an American and make it big, use your brain, open your eyes, and put your money and work into a product that someone will buy...

Charles
 
........................................Until there's a realistic profit in other fuels and sources for motive power. Almost ALL of the research into alternative fuel, has been force-funded by the Democrats with taxes and fees put upon the oil industry. Believe me, and I'll put my life on this: Successful investors; whether they be in oil or real estate or beer, will put their money into something which WILL make a profit. That's the way America became what it is (oops, I mean WAS in the 1950s). The anti-corporate and anti-"rich" movements are actually just socialists, and should move to a nice, fair, equal place like Siberia. If you want to be an American and make it big, use your brain, open your eyes, and put your money and work into a product that someone will buy...

Charles

I like the term "force-funded". That's very descriptive.
 
Haven't these models been found wildly inaccurate?

Was it a model or just Al Gore who predicted some sea level catastrophe due in the 1980's or 1990's?


i'm not sure, see claims both ways without convincing evidence for either =/
 
........................................Until there's a realistic profit in other fuels and sources for motive power. Almost ALL of the research into alternative fuel, has been force-funded by the Democrats with taxes and fees put upon the oil industry. Believe me, and I'll put my life on this: Successful investors; whether they be in oil or real estate or beer, will put their money into something which WILL make a profit. That's the way America became what it is (oops, I mean WAS in the 1950s). The anti-corporate and anti-"rich" movements are actually just socialists, and should move to a nice, fair, equal place like Siberia. If you want to be an American and make it big, use your brain, open your eyes, and put your money and work into a product that someone will buy...

Charles

environmental regulations will play a large role in what is profitable and what isn't.
 
His GF was found drugged and without ID, and walking around INSIDE the secured area of an airport 3000 miles away in Pittsburgh the next day. And the kid's professor at CSULB was suddenly missing his computer and all his class files, and the kid's parents' computers were stolen in a mystery break-in.
Charles

where did you get this information from?
 
Does anyone like corn that much? Why does it get that many subsidies?

They initially got overwhelming support due corn ethanol being an alternative to oil that we can produce right here in the US. Now that all these bad impacts of making corn from fuel have come to light, most people are against the subsidies. They have been hard to repeal though because corn growers are a powerful lobby, and constituents in farm states demanded that their representatives fight for them. They are starting to be repealed though and i'd be surprised see them last too much longer
 
They initially got overwhelming support due corn ethanol being an alternative to oil that we can produce right here in the US. Now that all these bad impacts of making corn from fuel have come to light, most people are against the subsidies. They have been hard to repeal though because corn growers are a powerful lobby, and constituents in farm states demanded that their representatives fight for them. They are starting to be repealed though and i'd be surprised see them last too much longer

1) I'm a significant investor in two ethanol plants. In one I'm a limited partner and in one I was with the general partner group. Our family did about two years of diligence before making the plunge.

2) Ethanol subsidies should be removed, because it's the right thing to do. Picking winners and losers is a mistake regardless of the circumstances.

3) People get riled-up over ethanol consuming corn, but corn was never the end game for ethanol -- cellulose is. Cellulose represents about 60% of all organic matter on the planet. You can't get away from it. I'll guarantee that as you read this, you aren't more than 12 feet away from some cellulose.

4) The idea since at least the year 2000 has been to use traditional sources (sugar cane, corn) to gain a foothold in distribution, then convert to either a biorefinery (bugs that eat cellulose and make CO) or an enzyme-based technique that turns cellulose into glucose (ORNL is surprisingly close on this one).

5) The problem with alternative fuels in general is the three-fold nature of the problem. It's not just the fuel technology, but it's also the infrastructure to deliver the fuel and the upgrade path for consumers. To most people, their car is the second most valuable asset they own (and sometimes the first, for renters). Just about any whiz-bang technology other than a car you can plug into the wall will be a huge investment risk to your average Joe.

But in a weird way, ethanol is emblematic of our larger problem with alternative energy. It's a really grunty solution that involves carbohydrates, uses our existing infrastructure (service stations) and can be easily worked into an upgrade path for consumers (i.e. flexfuel vehicles). But we're Americans. And Americans don't like grunty -- we like sexy. So instead we'll chase even more exotic batteries and make bigger and bigger technology bets in the name of whiz-bang technology. And I'm not really being critical here. It's just our way. I'm gonna snicker when all these exotic batteries with cadmium and lithium start showing-up in the bottom of lakes and in garbage dumps. We've got a big enough problem with the smaller lead batteries as-is.
 
........................................Until there's a realistic profit in other fuels and sources for motive power. Almost ALL of the research into alternative fuel, has been force-funded by the Democrats with taxes and fees put upon the oil industry. Believe me, and I'll put my life on this: Successful investors; whether they be in oil or real estate or beer, will put their money into something which WILL make a profit. That's the way America became what it is (oops, I mean WAS in the 1950s). The anti-corporate and anti-"rich" movements are actually just socialists, and should move to a nice, fair, equal place like Siberia. If you want to be an American and make it big, use your brain, open your eyes, and put your money and work into a product that someone will buy...

Charles

And if all else fails send in the marines because they will just take it..


I can't say enough about the two Marine divisions. If I use words like 'brilliant,' it would really be an under description of the absolutely superb job that they did in breaching the so-called 'impenetrable barrier.' It was a classic- absolutely classic- military breaching of a very very tough minefield, barbed wire, fire trenches-type barrier.
Gen. Norman Schwarzkopf, U. S. Army
Commander, Operation Desert Storm, February 1991
 
1) I'm a significant investor in two ethanol plants. In one I'm a limited partner and in one I was with the general partner group. Our family did about two years of diligence before making the plunge.

2) Ethanol subsidies should be removed, because it's the right thing to do. Picking winners and losers is a mistake regardless of the circumstances.

3) People get riled-up over ethanol consuming corn, but corn was never the end game for ethanol -- cellulose is. Cellulose represents about 60% of all organic matter on the planet. You can't get away from it. I'll guarantee that as you read this, you aren't more than 12 feet away from some cellulose.

4) The idea since at least the year 2000 has been to use traditional sources (sugar cane, corn) to gain a foothold in distribution, then convert to either a biorefinery (bugs that eat cellulose and make CO) or an enzyme-based technique that turns cellulose into glucose (ORNL is surprisingly close on this one).

5) The problem with alternative fuels in general is the three-fold nature of the problem. It's not just the fuel technology, but it's also the infrastructure to deliver the fuel and the upgrade path for consumers. To most people, their car is the second most valuable asset they own (and sometimes the first, for renters). Just about any whiz-bang technology other than a car you can plug into the wall will be a huge investment risk to your average Joe.

But in a weird way, ethanol is emblematic of our larger problem with alternative energy. It's a really grunty solution that involves carbohydrates, uses our existing infrastructure (service stations) and can be easily worked into an upgrade path for consumers (i.e. flexfuel vehicles). But we're Americans. And Americans don't like grunty -- we like sexy. So instead we'll chase even more exotic batteries and make bigger and bigger technology bets in the name of whiz-bang technology. And I'm not really being critical here. It's just our way. I'm gonna snicker when all these exotic batteries with cadmium and lithium start showing-up in the bottom of lakes and in garbage dumps. We've got a big enough problem with the smaller lead batteries as-is.

turbine power > ethanol plants



just sayin'
 
1) I'm a significant investor in two ethanol plants. In one I'm a limited partner and in one I was with the general partner group. Our family did about two years of diligence before making the plunge.

2) Ethanol subsidies should be removed, because it's the right thing to do. Picking winners and losers is a mistake regardless of the circumstances.

3) People get riled-up over ethanol consuming corn, but corn was never the end game for ethanol -- cellulose is. Cellulose represents about 60% of all organic matter on the planet. You can't get away from it. I'll guarantee that as you read this, you aren't more than 12 feet away from some cellulose.

4) The idea since at least the year 2000 has been to use traditional sources (sugar cane, corn) to gain a foothold in distribution, then convert to either a biorefinery (bugs that eat cellulose and make CO) or an enzyme-based technique that turns cellulose into glucose (ORNL is surprisingly close on this one).

5) The problem with alternative fuels in general is the three-fold nature of the problem. It's not just the fuel technology, but it's also the infrastructure to deliver the fuel and the upgrade path for consumers. To most people, their car is the second most valuable asset they own (and sometimes the first, for renters). Just about any whiz-bang technology other than a car you can plug into the wall will be a huge investment risk to your average Joe.

But in a weird way, ethanol is emblematic of our larger problem with alternative energy. It's a really grunty solution that involves carbohydrates, uses our existing infrastructure (service stations) and can be easily worked into an upgrade path for consumers (i.e. flexfuel vehicles). But we're Americans. And Americans don't like grunty -- we like sexy. So instead we'll chase even more exotic batteries and make bigger and bigger technology bets in the name of whiz-bang technology. And I'm not really being critical here. It's just our way. I'm gonna snicker when all these exotic batteries with cadmium and lithium start showing-up in the bottom of lakes and in garbage dumps. We've got a big enough problem with the smaller lead batteries as-is.

yea i think cellulosic is great. i know plants were having a lot of trouble getting off the ground due to issues with financing, but the DOE loan guarantee for the POET plant should be an amazing leap
 
They initially got overwhelming support due corn ethanol being an alternative to oil that we can produce right here in the US. Now that all these bad impacts of making corn from fuel have come to light, most people are against the subsidies. They have been hard to repeal though because corn growers are a powerful lobby, and constituents in farm states demanded that their representatives fight for them. They are starting to be repealed though and i'd be surprised see them last too much longer
Actually, my problem with the corn subsidies aren't with the alternative fuel angle.

The problem started with corn syrup and how it was impacting my (former) favorite drink -- soda.
 
yea i think cellulosic is great. i know plants were having a lot of trouble getting off the ground due to issues with financing, but the DOE loan guarantee for the POET plant should be an amazing leap

Cellulosic technology will eventually happen. It may take two more years and it may take 20 more. But once it does, we'd have a carbon neutral approach that could be used indefinitely.

But again, it's not sexy enough for Americans. We're obsesses with something that's whiz-bang, but that product is doomed to fail because your average working guy isn't going to bet the farm on a car that might not have the plug he needs in 5 years.
 
where did you get this information from?

It was in bits & pieces; starting from the first report on KTLA TV news, and then when my wife and I did daily searches for local news on it. As I said, any pages with any details other than "student accidentally drowned while walking his GF's dog", were removed from the Internet. CSULB no longer has an environmental sciences department as of last year, and I have no idea why, or if it has anything to do with that story.

If suddenly there's no more kx250rider on EF, and there's a story about "Ventura County farmer killed by falling Hass avocado, wife to undergo lobotomy in morning", then I will have become part of the coverup for opening my big Irish mouth too much, LOL...

Charles
 
NASA Study Shatters Climate Alarmists’ Assumptions - By Mario Loyola - Planet Gore - National Review Online

“The satellite observations suggest there is much more energy lost to space during and after warming than the climate models show,” Spencer said. “There is a huge discrepancy between the data and the forecasts that is especially big over the oceans.”

Not only does the atmosphere release more energy than previously thought, it starts releasing it earlier in a warming cycle. The models forecast that the climate should continue to absorb solar energy until a warming event peaks.

Instead, the satellite data shows the climate system starting to shed energy more than three months before the typical warming event reaches its peak.

“At the peak, satellites show energy being lost while climate models show energy still being gained,” Spencer said.

This is the first time scientists have looked at radiative balances during the months before and after these transient temperature peaks.

Applied to long-term climate change, the research might indicate that the climate is less sensitive to warming due to increased carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere than climate modelers have theorized. A major underpinning of global warming theory is that the slight warming caused by enhanced greenhouse gases should change cloud cover in ways that cause additional warming, which would be a positive feedback cycle.

Instead, the natural ebb and flow of clouds, solar radiation, heat rising from the oceans and a myriad of other factors added to the different time lags in which they impact the atmosphere might make it impossible to isolate or accurately identify which piece of Earth’s changing climate is feedback from manmade greenhouse gases.

“There are simply too many variables to reliably gauge the right number for that,” Spencer said.

I've been criticizing the climate computer models for years...just sayin.

This is new data people! Jesus Mary and Joseph...
 
This is new data people! Jesus Mary and Joseph...

do they have predictions of their own? isn't warming still going to occur if atmospheric CO2 concentrations increase? are they saying warming but not as severe, or are they saying throw everything out the window completely?
 
do they have predictions of their own? isn't warming still going to occur if atmospheric CO2 concentrations increase? are they saying warming but not as severe, or are they saying throw everything out the window completely?

The new data indicates the cloud cover is changing to release more heat as opposed to the Al Gore model that predicted cloud cover fueled by CO2 would cause more heat to be retained.

Basically, global warming will not have the catastrophic impacts the media and politicians have predicted.
 
The new data indicates the cloud cover is changing to release more heat as opposed to the Al Gore model that predicted cloud cover fueled by CO2 would cause more heat to be retained.

Basically, global warming will not have the catastrophic impacts the media and politicians have predicted.

I wont hold my breath waiting for this to hit the front page of the NYT and the 6 oclock news.
 
The new data indicates the cloud cover is changing to release more heat as opposed to the Al Gore model that predicted cloud cover fueled by CO2 would cause more heat to be retained.

Basically, global warming will not have the catastrophic impacts the media and politicians have predicted.

climate is still going to warm as atmospheric concentrations of CO2 increase though right?
 
climate is still going to warm as atmospheric concentrations of CO2 increase though right?

They don't argue that higher CO2 wouldn't cause warming, but NASA satellites have now shown that energy is radiated out of the atmosphere sooner as well as faster than any of the existing models predicted.

My personal take on the article is it appears the atmospheric temperature is less sensitive to CO2 concentration than others previously thought.
 
climate is still going to warm as atmospheric concentrations of CO2 increase though right?

Not nearly as much has been predicted by the flawed computer models, which means mitigation of impact based on current technology is probably more cost effective than reducing CO2 emissions.

I would love to live in a world where solar power is as cost effective as nuclear power, let alone coal. However, when you have China bringing online a dirty coal plant every week there isn't much the United States can do in comparison when it comes to reducing worldwide CO2 emissions. China has already surpassed the United States in energy consumption.....

 
Last edited:
Top Bottom