Now that the science of GW is settled, should we cut climate research and increase alternative fuel research?

Question

I read somewhere that funding for climate research has increased ten fold since the 1990s, surely we can cut back to that level of funding to do away with fossil fuels, the main cause of GW. The money would be better spent on finding a solution to the problem.

Answer 1

Sure, some increases in alternative fuel research are warranted. If that has to come at the expense of funding research on climate, so be it.

But we still need to know more about some things, like "feedback effects".

And alternative fuel research is actively funded by private enterprise, because there is potential profit in it.

So some shifts are appropriate, but it hardly means we should stop funding climate research altogether.

The groups that allocate research funds will surely consider all this.

Answer 2

Yes, of course. We know all there is to know about the climate, and what we don't know Al Gore will tell us when he gets enough money and adulation, and makes another terror film to show the kiddies.

We now know it all, and all dissent has been stifled, by
various means from censorship to cutting off research funds to shocked disbelief anyone could be so stupid as not to agree with the vocal majority of those who make their living on this project proving it right over and over!

Oh, and forget the little 90% computer error glitch, and forget all the computer scientists who were screaming about errors...they are silenced now, so the errors are no longer errors, but minor readjustments of data and methods.

And the government is falling right into place, with laws and proposals, and the world government is 100% sold, except some nasty little nations that think they ought not to be penalized for what the big guys do and ought to be able to develop their own resources and raise their people out of poverty, but we know that is untrue. They do not have a right to pollute any more than they do now. They do not have the right to raise the level of living of their people, or have refrigerators in their hospitals. Just too bad all their energy goes to waste! Or to other big nations.

Yes, this consortium of science and government and a faith in the politicians being right hasn't happened since the Dark Ages came to an end, has it? Everything is as settled as it was then, by consensus of those allowed to have a say.

Yes, let us be sure not to accidentally discover an "inconvenient truth" that shows yet another error in the Global Warming theories and practices.

And it is important that we turn away from rechecking anything that is so firmly and permanently settled by consensus, and try not to remember that most great scientific breakthroughs were made by individuals or small groups who sought truth, not Political Correctness. Who went against the "consensus" and found out Truth! And often paid the price also.

By all means, let us move all our discretionary income to the Consensus to find all the alternate fuels we can use to keep the CO2 levels up and their benefits down so we can live in perpetual poverty and fear! By Consensus!!

Answer 3

First, you must learn this: There are no solutions, only trade-offs. To have more of "A" you must accept less of "B".

IMO one of the biggest swindles in recent memory is ethanol. All the swooning over using corn to produce a "cheap renewable" energy source conveniently ignored several important considerations.

1) Corn is consumed by humans as food

2) Corn is used to make corn syrup and corn starch and in many many other products

3) Corn is fed to livestock which are used to feed humans

4) Planting more corn requires more fertilizers (made largely from petroleum) and more tractors and combines in the fields (burning diesel fuel which is a petroleum product)

5) The corn must be transported by trucks (burning diesel fuel)

6) The distilling process to make ethanol from corn uses a lot of electricity (produced mostly by coal-fired generating plants and oil and natural gas) and water

7) Since ethanol cannot be piped through existing pipelines it must be transported by trucks (using still more diesel fuel)

8) Ethanol has less energy than gasoline so more of it must be used to get the same amount of work as the gasoline it replaced

9) Increased demand for corn to be converted to ethanol drives up the costs of other uses for corn, thus costing consumers more at the grocery when they buy beef or chicken or pork or cornflakes or any other product using corn as an ingredient

Solar power is another oft-touted "alternative energy" that doesn't pass muster once it is examined. Since we can only count on sunshine approximately 12 hours a day, energy for use at night must be stored in batteries. Storage battery technology has improved but it requires an awful lot of batteries to power a heat pump or AC unit or microwave or lightbulb or computer or any common appliance we normally use. Whether wet cell or dry cell, batteries are expensive. They wear out and then become a disposal problem. Wet cells (like in your car) can actually explode. Dry cells are less efficient than wet cells so more are needed at a greater cost.

Then there is wind power. Serene pictures of gleaming, gently turning, towering non-polluting producers of electricity. Of course, if you're Robert Kennedy, Jr. you're promoting them - but not off the coast of Martha's Vineyard where they will spoil your view. If all the "wind farms" currently planned are constructed, wind power might contribute a whopping 6 or 7% of our annual consumption of electricity in 8 to 10 years. Not much when we have Al "The Biggest Hypocrite" Gore using 20 times more electricity than the average family of four. Wind generated electricity is only produed a few hours a day and then fossil fuel generators take over.

I could continue but I think you get the point.

Answer 4

We need research on both, of course. There is still so much about climate we don't understand. It will be crucial to know things like how fast will the ocean level rise? How fast will arctic ice melt? What will happen to the ocean conveyor? How will water supplies be affected? And while alternative fuels are important, they are only one part of the response.

Answer 5

Exactly. We no longer need to study something that is a known fact. What would be the point? To show the consensus was wrong?

Yes, it's time to divert these resources to bigger and better things.

These scientist who study global warming are very smart people. Maybe getting them out of their comfy gvmt office and into the real world would help find a solution faster.

I'm sure one of these scientist has the ability to design the next generation hybrid car, or a fail safe nuclear reactor.

Answer 6

But I thought the solution to global warming would cost more than living with the original problem? Shouldn't we do both? In terms of return on investment, research is cheap. If AGW turns out to be false, we'll save a lot of money. If it's true we'll save a lot of money. Maybe we can find the money somewhere? Iraq war to cost 2.5 trillion (trillion with a t) over 10 years.

We need to get this guy out of his comfy gov't office asap.
http://www.popsci.com/popsci/science/6661e3568cc83110vgnvcm1000004eecbccdrcrd.html

Answer 7

The science of global warming is anything but settled, unless by GW you mean George W, in which case by all means we should cut funding.

Answer 8

yes