After 50 Years Of Failed Predictions, Science Is In Crisis

[GrouchoTex]

one-zero-zero-one-zero-zero-one

[InHeavenThereIsNoBeer]

one-zero-zero-one-zero-zero-one

I don't think many are going to get that one.

And now it's stuck in my head.

[GrouchoTex]

I don't think many are going to get that one.

And now it's stuck in my head.

 

[dfwgator]

The point is that the consequences are worse if you're wrong. I know a lot of you may not think so, but solar and other green technology will continue to improve until it someday equals or outpaces fossil fuel in efficiency. If we can put people on the moon we can solve solar storage issues and a handful of other problems. Go look up solar progress and you will see that its growth is extremely impressive. I don't think that's going to stop. The energy we get from fossil fuel originally came from the sun. Does anybody really think it's not possible to more efficiently get energy from direct sunlight? The green revolution will happen either way. It's just a question of time.

I am all for coming up with alternative sources of energy, so that we don't have to invest so much blood and treasure in keeping the GD Saudis happy.

[Dexter]

There are two main approaches that we can take. We can continue as normal and let the market determine what forms of energy are used, or we can make big and probably cost inefficient changes in an effort to fight the possibility that humans are expediting climate change. I think the consequences are worse if AGW is actually happening and we do nothing. If it's not happening and we spend a ton of money on R&D to improve alternative energy then we will have expedited technology that I think will eventually take over anyway.

[Hoodat]

The green revolution will happen either way. It's just a question of time.

No, it is just a question of economics.  If given a choice, people are always going to choose what serves them best.  Or in economic terms, whatever gives them the most utility for their last dollar spent.

Let's take hydrogen for example - a tangible form of electricity.  Put a gas station on one corner and a hydrogen station on the opposite corner.  The gas station sells gasoline for $3/gal.  The hydrogen station sells a 1-gal-gasoline equivalent of hydrogen for $9.  Which station is the consumer going to utilize?

If you truly want consumers to stop using carbon fuels, then you must find a way to generate electricity (without using carbon) for less money than the carbon fuel equivalent.  Until you do that, consumers will continue to choose carbon.

btw, all that carbon stored underground as gas, oil, and coal, started out in the atmosphere if you believe all the dinosaur nonsense.  Just sayin'

[Dexter]

I happen to think science/technology R&D is one of the best investments humanity can possibly make. When solar takes over I want the panels being shipped all over the globe to have American flags on them, not Chinese or European ones.

[Dexter]

No, it is just a question of economics.  If given a choice, people are always going to choose what serves them best.  Or in economic terms, whatever gives them the most utility for their last dollar spent.

Let's take hydrogen for example - a tangible form of electricity.  Put a gas station on one corner and a hydrogen station on the opposite corner.  The gas station sells gasoline for $3/gal.  The hydrogen station sells a 1-gal-gasoline equivalent of hydrogen for $9.  Which station is the consumer going to utilize?

If you truly want consumers to stop using carbon fuels, then you must find a way to generate electricity (without using carbon) for less money than the carbon fuel equivalent.  Until you do that, consumers will continue to choose carbon.

btw, all that carbon stored underground as gas, oil, and coal, started out in the atmosphere if you believe all the dinosaur nonsense.  Just sayin'

What say you to making big investments in improving these alternative energy technologies?

[Cyber Liberty]

I happen to think science/technology R&D is one of the best investments humanity can possibly make. When solar takes over I want the panels being shipped all over the globe to have American flags on them, not Chinese or European ones.

I think Government has proved to be that absolute worst at managing their R&D.  They are not incentivized properly to do the job honestly.

[Cyber Liberty]

What say you to making big investments in improving these alternative energy technologies?

I have nothing against "making big investments" for that.  I have everything against Big Government forcibly taking money from taxpayers to do it.  See the difference?

[Dexter]

I think Government has proved to be that absolute worst at managing their R&D.  They are not incentivized properly to do the job honestly.

There has to be a way we can intelligently invest in R&D. I don't believe that it's impossible to expedite the growth of alternative energy technology.

[Dexter]

I have nothing against "making big investments" for that.  I have everything against Big Government forcibly taking money from taxpayers to do it.  See the difference?

A whole lot of taxpayer money is wasted on far more unworthy causes.

[Dexter]

it is just a question of economics.

We can expedite the growth of the technology so it's more capable of competing in the free market.

[Hoodat]

There are two main approaches that we can take. We can continue as normal and let the market determine what forms of energy are used

In other words, allow consumers the freedom to choose for themselves.

.  .  . or we can make big and probably cost inefficient changes in an effort to fight the possibility that humans are expediting climate change.

Before we do that, you would first have to provide evidence that humans are expediting climate change.  Do that first, and then we can talk about costly inefficient changes at the point of a gun.

I think the consequences are worse if AGW is actually happening and we do nothing.

Considering that fully 100% of global warming is caused by the sun, what steps should we take to control solar output so that it remains constant with no more solar eruptions?  Maybe we could regulate the earth's orbit around the sun so that it remains constantly the same distance away from the sun instead of the wobbly harmonic elliptical orbit it currently has?

If it's not happening and we spend a ton of money on R&D to improve alternative energy then we will have expedited technology that I think will eventually take over anyway.

We?  Who is 'we'?  No one is stopping you from buying electric cars and putting solar panels on your house.  But don't be using the power of government to deny me incandescent bulbs (which are 100% efficient - 5% light, 95% heat) or plastic grocery bags (which leave a heck of a lot smaller carbon footprint than their paper counterparts).

Let the market decide.  If non-carbon is better economically, then consumers will figure that out on their own.  The invisible hand knows best.

[Cyber Liberty]

A whole lot of taxpayer money is wasted on far more unworthy causes.

That is not a compelling argument for adding more waste.

[Dexter]

That is not a compelling argument for adding more waste.

It's not waste first of all, and maybe we can cut some of the actual waste to make room for things that will actually help humanity and America in the long run. If we let China and Europe outpace us with technology we will become more and more irrelevant.

[Smokin Joe]

The point is that the consequences are worse if you're wrong. I know a lot of you may not think so, but solar and other green technology will continue to improve until it someday equals or outpaces fossil fuel in efficiency. If we can put people on the moon we can solve solar storage issues and a handful of other problems. Go look up solar progress and you will see that its growth is extremely impressive. I don't think that's going to stop. The energy we get from fossil fuel originally came from the sun. Does anybody really think it's not possible to more efficiently get energy from direct sunlight? The green revolution will happen either way. It's just a question of time.

What might happen on some sunny day far away won't keep my family from freezing to death tonight. The bottom line is that current technologies are evolving, and NOT just in the solar sector--it is that evolution and development which led to the current boom in producing oil and gas from unconventional reservoirs, and is fueling our economic recovery, quite literally, such as that is.

When the renewable sector can put forth power with the capacity and the reliability of the more conventional means of producing energy, and do so without taxpayer subsidy, I think there will be something there.

Usually, such new methods are tried on a test basis and prototypes refined before going into production. Unfortunately, it seems as if those renewable energy platforms have often been rushed to market to take advantage of free money from the taxpayer's pocket, and not developed to the degree that they can compete on a level playing field. That day may yet come when those energy forms reach the ability to provide power for many uses, but it is a long ways off before motor fuels will be replaced.

While the growth of the tech was expedited by subsidy, having more units out there which are not up to the job is not a winning proposition. It just takes up a lot of space and consumes fiscal resources that could have been saved for the day when the technology was fully developed.

[Hoodat]

We can expedite the growth of the technology so it's more capable of competing in the free market.

Uh, no.  That's not how it works.  No one had to expedite the growtn of technology so that petroleum could become capable of competing in the free market.  All it took was a chemical engineer to figure out a way to separate kerosene from crude oil which cost less than separating it from whale blubber.

Here's a newsflash for you.  Fascism doesn't work.  It cannot compete with capitalism.  An entrepreneur putting an idea into action for his own benefit will always beat out a bunch of government bureaucrats determined to tell Willy Messerschmitt what to produce in his factory.  You don't have a smartphone today because a bunch of bureaucrats decided to expedite cellphone technology.  You have one because some entrepreneur though he could make money selling them.

[Dexter]

We?  Who is 'we'?  No one is stopping you from buying electric cars and putting solar panels on your house.  But don't be using the power of government to deny me incandescent bulbs (which are 100% efficient - 5% light, 95% heat) or plastic grocery bags (which leave a heck of a lot smaller carbon footprint than their paper counterparts).

Let the market decide.  If non-carbon is better economically, then consumers will figure that out on their own.  The invisible hand knows best.

Telling you you can't use a technology is a lot different than advocating for government funds to be spent on improving other forms of technology so they can compete.

[Dexter]

tell Willy Messerschmitt what to produce in his factory.

You're assuming intentions that aren't there. I want the government to stop wasting so much money on nonsense so it can divert some funds to research that will unlock secrets that will compell Willy to produce those things on his own without coercion. If you think the government can't expedite the growth of technology you are simply wrong.

[Dexter]

What might happen on some sunny day far away won't keep my family from freezing to death tonight. The bottom line is that current technologies are evolving, and NOT just in the solar sector--it is that evolution and development which led to the current boom in producing oil and gas from unconventional reservoirs, and is fueling our economic recovery, quite literally, such as that is.

When the renewable sector can put forth power with the capacity and the reliability of the more conventional means of producing energy, and do so without taxpayer subsidy, I think there will be something there.

Usually, such new methods are tried on a test basis and prototypes refined before going into production. Unfortunately, it seems as if those renewable energy platforms have often been rushed to market to take advantage of free money from the taxpayer's pocket, and not developed to the degree that they can compete on a level playing field. That day may yet come when those energy forms reach the ability to provide power for many uses, but it is a long ways off before motor fuels will be replaced.

While the growth of the tech was expedited by subsidy, having more units out there which are not up to the job is not a winning proposition. It just takes up a lot of space and consumes fiscal resources that could have been saved for the day when the technology was fully developed.

I don't think we should try to force inefficient technology. I want smart people to have all of the funds they need to test and improve the technology. Subsidizing solar so it can pump out inefficient technology is stupid.

[Hoodat]

If we let China and Europe outpace us with technology we will become more and more irrelevant.

 
Whoa, hold the phone.  China doesn't outpace us in technology.  Their system does not encourage innovation.  Instead, it boasts the very same central planning that you advocate.  The result of which makes China the biggest carbon polluter on the planet.  This illustrates yet another pitfall of central planning - externalities.  Pollution is an externality, which is not part of the bureaucratic equation.  Which is why advancements in pollution controls and green energy originate in countries that embrace capitalism.

[Smokin Joe]

It's not waste first of all, and maybe we can cut some of the actual waste to make room for things that will actually help humanity and America in the long run. If we let China and Europe outpace us with technology we will become more and more irrelevant.

We are helping humanity, @Dexter . What we disagree on is the way to do that. I do not agree that it is wise to produce vast numbers of devices or facilities which will not do the job at the expense of either industry which is getting the job done, or the average schmuck who is trying to feed their family.

Let the market decide.

Let those companies which pursue such technology do so with the help of their investors, who will gain if it works.

Do not force those who are getting the job done to pay for those who are not to continue their efforts.

If anything is to be funded from the public trough, let it be the fundamental research, and not the production level distribution. We are not in crisis.

As for AGW, when I obtained my Bachelor of Science in Geology, the talk was of the coming Ice Age. Now, we're supposedly going to boil in relentlessly rising oceans. Truth is, the climate changes, CO2 is a trailing indicator, not a forcing indicator, (like the fizz coming out of a beverage when it warms, the oceans give up CO2 as well, as they warm. Simple solution chemistry.)

There are people who have already become ridiculously rich off of climate panic, and continue to do so.  Yet the globe has been warmer and colder, long before humans had the technology to make substantial impact on it, so I'm not buying that we humans are the cause. We are just along for the ride.

[Dexter]

 
Whoa, hold the phone.  China doesn't outpace us in technology.

Not yet. If you're not worried about it then you're not paying attention.

[Smokin Joe]

I don't think we should try to force inefficient technology. I want smart people to have all of the funds they need to test and improve the technology. Subsidizing solar so it can pump out inefficient technology is stupid.

Well, we agree on something. Fund basic research, as the National Science Foundation has in the past, and let the commercial development proceed without subsidy.

[Dexter]

I do not agree that it is wise to produce vast numbers of devices or facilities which will not do the job at the expense of either industry which is getting the job done, or the average schmuck who is trying to feed their family.

That's not what I am saying we should do. Subsidizing solar companies so they can pump out shitty technology is stupid. I want the government to fund researchers that can improve the technology to the point that the free market actually wants to sell and buy it.

[Hoodat]

I want the government to fund researchers that can improve the technology to the point that the free market actually wants to sell and buy it.

I want private industry to fund the researchers that can improve the technology.  That is what the free market does.

Government can't even figure out that people might want WiFi on Amtrak.

[Dexter]

Well, we agree on something. Fund basic research, as the National Science Foundation has in the past, and let the commercial development proceed without subsidy.

YES! I am saying we should do more of that. Let's stop wasting so many funds on GARBAGE and fund science research.

[Dexter]

I want private industry to fund the researchers that can improve the technology.

The technology will improve a lot faster if the government funds research too. Your way stifles the speed at which humanity becomes more advanced. To me the advancement of science and technology takes priority over almost everything. You are mistaken if you think the government is incapable of expediting the growth of technology.

[Cyber Liberty]

I want private industry to fund the researchers that can improve the technology.  That is what the free market does.

Government can't even figure out that people might want WiFi on Amtrak.

Obastard provided us with an explanation why Government should not be doing Alt Energy. How much did he waste by dumping dumptrucks of cash on his cronies at Solyndra, and other companies he favored.

[Smokin Joe]

That's not what I am saying we should do. Subsidizing solar companies so they can pump out shitty technology is stupid. I want the government to fund researchers that can improve the technology to the point that the free market actually wants to sell and buy it.

But that is not what has been happening. What has been happening is a subsidy for wind and solar, before those are ready for prime time.

Not only that, but there are other ways the playing field has been less than level. Endangered and protected species are not so protected in the vicinity of a mirror farm or windmill, for instance. https://www.livescience.com/31995-how-do-wind-turbines-kill-birds.html

By contrast, https://www.forbes.com/sites/christopherhelman/2012/01/18/judge-throws-out-criminal-case-against-oil-companies-for-killing-birds-at-drilling-sites/ A few birds were found dead in 'reserve' pits and the government went whole hog against the oil companies involved, until the case was finally thrown out. There have been no such calls for imprisonment and fining of wind operators (or solar) like that of these individual oil company employees--and over far, far fewer birds than windfarms kill. 

[Cyber Liberty]

The technology will improve a lot faster if the government funds research too. Your way stifles the speed at which humanity becomes more advanced. To me the advancement of science and technology takes priority over almost everything. You are mistaken if you think the government is incapable of expediting the growth of technology.

Government can't help themselves, they politicize everything they touch.  The reason is simple:  Politicians are in the business of taking and distributing bribes.  I think the Government is incapable of expediting the growth of technology, and I am not mistaken.  I spent too many years in private sector R&D to fall for that Socialist crap.

[Dexter]

But that is not what has been happening. What has been happening is a subsidy for wind and solar, before those are ready for prime time.

Why are people attaching all of that to the statements I am making? That's stupid, and anybody that doesn't think so is either also stupid or hasn't given it adequate thought. If it wasn't already clear I want to make it known to everybody that I am not an Obama drone. I have my own take on these issues because I use my own brain rather than letting other people do my thinking for me.

[Dexter]

I think the Government is incapable of expediting the growth of technology

Well, I hugely disagree. It might not be as efficient as private sector research, but it still gives us technology and information we didn't have before. Are you aware of how much technology has been produced by the military and NASA? Both of those are government funded.

[Cyber Liberty]

Well, I hugely disagree. It might not be as efficient as private sector research, but it still gives us technology and information we didn't have before. Are you aware of how much technology has been produced by the military and NASA? Both of those are government funded.

"The military" is the lone exception to my opinion of Government run R&D, and that's because it's an issue of war (the military is just as prone to waste in peacetime).  It's interesting I didn't see you use the word "military" until now.

NASA was another potential exception, but the end of the Moon Flights happened, and it fell into the usual government pit of fraud, waste and abuse.  These are the great big, giant brains who thought it was just fine to launch a Space Shuttle with ice hanging off the bottom of the booster. 

[Smokin Joe]

Why are people attaching all of that to the statements I am making? That's stupid, and anybody that doesn't think so is either also stupid or hasn't given it adequate thought. If it wasn't already clear I want to make it known to everybody that I am not an Obama drone. I have my own take on these issues because I use my own brain rather than letting other people do my thinking for me.

You clarified your statements by saying the government should fund some basic research.

I merely stated that in practice, our tax dollars put a lot of substandard hardware out there and made  some purveyors of such and contractors rich.

I didn't mention Obama, nor his multitude of minions, nor the groupthink that has overshadowed environmental issues.

Since the topic is the failure of science, I'm just pointing out that 800 lb gorilla in the room, that science will be used/abused/and even reported fraudulently for prestige, political gain, and profit.

We need to guard against that, and against the pep-rally/consensus/up-for-a-vote mentality that seems to give credence to that which is most useful politically and which gets the most airplay, rather than scrupulously and dispassionately examine both the methods, data (unedited, thankyouverymuch!), and means of reaching conclusions before we go off half-cocked and throw the weight of the treasury behind the deployment of systems which are unnecessary and/or not fully developed.

Such corner cutting is only justifiable in times of genuine crisis, if then. 

[Dexter]

"The military" is the lone exception to my opinion of Government run R&D, and that's because it's an issue of war (the military is just as prone to waste in peacetime).  It's interesting I didn't see you use the word "military" until now.

NASA was another potential exception, but the end of the Moon Flights happened, and it fell into the usual government pit of fraud, waste and abuse.  These are the great big, giant brains who thought it was just fine to launch a Space Shuttle with ice hanging off the bottom of the booster.

The government is capable of expediting the growth of technology. The idea that it's not just isn't practical. I'm not saying there's not waste involved.

[Dexter]

We need to guard against that

The integrity of scientific research absolutely needs to be safeguarded. We are in complete agreement. We can't just give up on the government's ability to do research though. There's too much potential there for expediting the growth of humanity. We can do better than this.

[Smokin Joe]

The government is capable of expediting the growth of technology. The idea that it's not just isn't practical. I'm not saying there's not waste involved.

The government (sometimes) can expedite the development, the growth is and should be a market factor (even if the government is the purchaser of the tech). Development of the technology happens in University engineering departments, industry labs, and even garages and basements.
Let industry chase a profit, though, and the best minds will be on the problem, emphasis will be on the most promising leads, and the development from concept to viable product will be quick, relatively speaking.

If subsidies are offered for the deployment (growth, not development) of that technology, there will be those who chase that profit by being 'firstest with the mostest' in the marketplace, rather than ensure they have the most competitive product, and development will suffer as a result.

[Hoodat]

Are you aware of how much technology has been produced by the military and NASA? Both of those are government funded.

What economic breakthrough has been achieved because of technology produced by NASA or DOD?

[InHeavenThereIsNoBeer]

The government (sometimes) can expedite the development, the growth is and should be a market factor (even if the government is the purchaser of the tech). Development of the technology happens in University engineering departments, industry labs, and even garages and basements.
Let industry chase a profit, though, and the best minds will be on the problem, emphasis will be on the most promising leads, and the development from concept to viable product will be quick, relatively speaking.

If subsidies are offered for the deployment (growth, not development) of that technology, there will be those who chase that profit by being 'firstest with the mostest' in the marketplace, rather than ensure they have the most competitive product, and development will suffer as a result.

[Cyber Liberty]

The government is capable of expediting the growth of technology. The idea that it's not just isn't practical. I'm not saying there's not waste involved.

And I maintain that if it was once capable, it is no longer in today's environment of Socialists politicizing everything they touch.  Manhattan Project during WW2:  Great example of government being capable of innovating.  Solyndra:  Great example of how that innovation can be turned into a fat piggybank for political cronies. 

Alluding to the original topic (remember that?), the government corrupted science in order to advance Socialism, and now that they've done that, you'd have to be a fool to trust them to develop real technology.

[Dexter]

And I maintain that if it was once capable, it is no longer in today's environment of Socialists politicizing everything they touch.  Manhattan Project during WW2:  Great example of government being capable of innovating.  Solyndra:  Great example of how that innovation can be turned into a fat piggybank for political cronies. 

I think the government is still capable of doing real research. Giving up on that would be a complete disaster. It's unacceptable.

the original topic (remember that?)

Good discussions almost always evolve far beyond what was originally put forth.

[GrouchoTex]

What economic breakthrough has been achieved because of technology produced by NASA or DOD?

The orange drink TANG comes to mind......

Velcro?

[InHeavenThereIsNoBeer]

What economic breakthrough has been achieved because of technology produced by NASA or DOD?

What economic breakthroughs did we miss out on because of all the things our government(s) waste money on?

For all we know we got Tang and velcro for the low, low, cost of cold fusion.

[Dexter]

The free market will never undertake research and development, or ANYTHING really, unless it's profitable in the near future, but sometimes things are still worth doing even if they aren't currently profitable. That's where the government can be useful. Exploration comes to mind. What private business is going to pay big money for space exploration they have no way of profiting off of? Thinking everything should be handled by the private sector is short-sighted.

[InHeavenThereIsNoBeer]

Stratolaunch, Blue Origin, SpaceX

[Dexter]

Stratolaunch, Blue Origin, SpaceX

Elon Musk isn't going to do what NASA does (or should do). He's developing things that will make him money. When the goal is money rather than scientific discovery it limits the scope. The government is useful when the benefits of research are a generation away, because no private business is going to spend a bunch of money on that.

[Cyber Liberty]

Elon Musk isn't going to do what NASA does (or should do). He's developing things that will make him money. When the goal is money rather than scientific discovery it limits the scope. The government is useful when the benefits of research are a generation away, because no private business is going to spend a bunch of money on that.

OK, let's just give up and let the politicians politicize the rest of the sciences they haven't already corrupted.  I don't give a crap why Musk did what he did, BTW.  I'm just glad he shot that car into space.  He did it for "profit."  BFD.

[Dexter]

OK, let's just give up and let the politicians politicize the rest of the sciences they haven't already corrupted.

Maybe if our country was more of a meritocracy and actual scientists had more control over matters related to science things wouldn't be so screwed up. I won't give up on the potential government has for expediting technological growth. It's too important.