[Wild Weasel]

I think the future lies with greater business / university partnerships, rather than purely state funding. The state has an appalling record of wasting taxpayers' money on junk science latterly.

E.g To the east of Exeter they're building a huge new science park that is meant to tie in Exeter University with various start ups and R&D companies.

Exeter Science Park

[karkus30]

Originally Posted by Wild Weasel

I think the future lies with greater business / university partnerships, rather than purely state funding. The state has an appalling record of wasting taxpayers' money on junk science latterly.

E.g To the east of Exeter they're building a huge new science park that is meant to tie in Exeter University with various start ups and R&D companies.

Exeter Science Park

Don't get me started on that one. We already have one of those. The get investment then sell the idea on and that's the last we see of the money that was spent. I suspect the economy benefits vey little, but I can't find any figures to back that up so might be very wrong.

[icstm]

software is all post 1950.
And as was pointed out DNA/RNA and protein research is far advanced post 1950.

Remember that a "breakthrough" is often a title provided by history.
Also remember that much of science and engineering research was funded by governments through the defence and war departments, this has changed.

Google / Facebook and very different to Microsoft/IBM (with large historical and current government contracts)

More importantly the reason science is not invested in is because the common man and woman in this country does not value it, mainly because let alone understand it, they do not even know what it is. They think mechanics and eletricians are engineers.

[MikeTV]

Originally Posted by Wild Weasel

I think the future lies with greater business / university partnerships, rather than purely state funding. The state has an appalling record of wasting taxpayers' money on junk science latterly.

Like what? That seems like a spurious claim, without specific examples.

Originally Posted by Wild Weasel

E.g To the east of Exeter they're building a huge new science park that is meant to tie in Exeter University with various start ups and R&D companies.

Exeter Science Park

Are you saying that you're against industry and academia collaborating? Because that's what the science park is for.

[karkus30]

Originally Posted by MikeTV

Like what? That seems like a spurious claim, without specific examples.
Are you saying that you're against industry and academia collaborating? Because that's what the science park is for.

There is a need to integrate universities, business acumen and investment. The difficulty is keying the brains in the area and building on it. The Science parks are, unfortunately a big, visible, white elephant. Again, I have a lot of experience with them. The idea is great, but they get used for the wrong reason. Many who make use of them utilise the facility as a cheap development option, but the development just gets sold on and that's the end of it. Of course they are hailed as a huge success, the politicians like to use them as crown jewels. It's far better to invest in the businesses already in the area, particularly those that have 50+ employees and have a background as a local company, with proper local links.

Get the science students into the companies that are looking for new products to sell and get them properly sponsored.

There is many ways.

[MikeTV]

Originally Posted by karkus30

There is a need to integrate universities, business acumen and investment. The difficulty is keying the brains in the area and building on it. The Science parks are, unfortunately a big, visible, white elephant. Again, I have a lot of experience with them. The idea is great, but they get used for the wrong reason. Many who make use of them utilise the facility as a cheap development option, but the development just gets sold on and that's the end of it. Of course they are hailed as a huge success, the politicians like to use them as crown jewels. It's far better to invest in the businesses already in the area, particularly those that have 50+ employees and have a background as a local company, with proper local links.

Get the science students into the companies that are looking for new products to sell and get them properly sponsored.

There is many ways.

I agree that we need to foster links between academia and industry. But how are we supposed to pay for all this sponsorship? Taxpayer's money? And who is going to decide which companies are going to be the beneficiaries? And how do we decide whether they are using that money responsibly, or just peeing it up the wall? Who makes that determination?

Then what about fundamental science with no obvious direct commercial payback? Who is going be left to do that, and where do they get their money?

We could chuck a load of money at glaxo, say, and tell them to spend it on research. But how does that benefit anything, other than glaxo's profit line? What's to say glaxo's cheaper headache pill is more worthy than academic research into cancer?

I think we have to spend on pure research, without commercial constraints. And funding priorities need to be decided by the academics themselves. Which is how it works today, more or less. It's not a perfect process, because there will always be an element of governmental interference, and subjectivity in deciding what is most worthy. But it kind of does work, becuse of the peer review process, which directly influences funding decisions.

[karkus30]

Surprisingly there are lots of companies who have reached a point where their product range is mature. They have healthy cash flows and bank balances, there are also lots of small investors with money from retirement pots who would like to invest, but don't like the stock markets. The model for pure science is different, but if you start by uniting these investors, clever students and manufacturing companies to some extent, success breeds success. Once other companies see it working they will want a bit of the action and then the pure research becomes icing on the cake. That could be a mixture of public investment and private finance.

[MikeTV]

That's fine and to be encouraged. But I don't see how it gets you a large hadron collider or an earth observation satellite.

[karkus30]

Originally Posted by MikeTV

That's fine and to be encouraged. But I don't see how it gets you a large hadron collider or an earth observation satellite.

Well the Hadron collider already is, earth satellites are often dual purpose anyway. The enlightenment didn't start with a Hadron Collider. From small shoots and all that.

[MikeTV]

Originally Posted by karkus30

Well the Hadron collider already is, earth satellites are often dual purpose anyway. The enlightenment didn't start with a Hadron Collider. From small shoots and all that.

No, but these were purpose-built and funded by taxpayers. What venture capitalist would invest in building one, waiting 20 years for it to built, in the hope that some day it may provide a commercial benefit. And then why would they let anybody else use it?

As I tried to explain before, the free market isn't the solution to all the worlds problems. If it were, we wouldn't need governments.

[IronGiant]

Isn't Richard Branson building spaceships? or is that hype?

[MikeTV]

Originally Posted by IronGiant

Isn't Richard Branson building spaceships? or is that hype?

He is. What's your point?

[IronGiant]

I thought you were saying that private investors/venture capitalists weren't interested in building satellites? Whereas there seems to be a lot of private investment in space technology at the moment.

Just thinking out loud really, it wasn't a major point.

[Wild Weasel]

Originally Posted by MikeTV

Like what? That seems like a spurious claim, without specific examples.

The whole global warming scam of course. Billions wasted in the search for unicorn poop.

Are you saying that you're against industry and academia collaborating? Because that's what the science park is for.

No it was an example of what I think is a good idea.

[tapzilla2k]

Originally Posted by karkus30

Well the Hadron collider already is, earth satellites are often dual purpose anyway. The enlightenment didn't start with a Hadron Collider. From small shoots and all that.

The Hadron Collider is an example of what can be done between Governments from various countries and the University sector, with a goal to understand the fundamental nature of the Universe. You seem to fail to understand that Business only invests in Science if it can see a product and thus profit from it.

Basically Science is the persuit of answers to Questions posed in theory. Answers to those questions can sometimes lead to breakthroughs that can make you a lot of cash. Or not.

Do a bit of research and you'll see a lot of inventions and Scientific breakthroughs happened by accident.
In terms of Space, Nasa having retreated somewhat has opened it up to the private sector to explore Space. We need a combination of the two. Exploring the solar system is vital, especially given our dwindling resources.

Originally Posted by IronGiant

Isn't Richard Branson building spaceships? or is that hype?

He is, the first flights are not far off. Though you will need £100K+ for the pleasure of being in low earth orbit for 15 or 20 minutes.

Originally Posted by Wild Weasel

The whole global warming scam of course. Billions wasted in the search for unicorn poop.

Climate Science is a vastly complex subject, precisely why there is a lot of conflict between the scientists. The scale of the challenge is probably equal to finding the Higgs Boson and other related particles (Dark matter etc). You may think global warming is a scam, but there is definitely something happening to the climate. The only question is to what degree human activity is having an impact upon the Environment and Climate. That is a question worth answering even if it upsets our vested interests.

[MikeTV]

Originally Posted by tapzilla2k

Climate Science is a vastly complex subject, precisely why there is a lot of conflict between the scientists.

Actually, I don't think there is much conflict, there is an overwhelming scientific consensus. But I think it may be true in the mind of some of the public, due to fools like jeremy clarkson, and wealthy vested interests like the Koch Brothers and other libertarians, using their vast resources to deliberately distort public perception, in an endless campaign of misinformation.

Originally Posted by tapzilla2k

The only question is to what degree human activity is having an impact upon the Environment and Climate. That is a question worth answering even if it upsets our vested interests.

I totally agree.

[sidicks]

Originally Posted by MikeTV

Actually, I don't think there is much conflict, there is an overwhelming scientific consensus.

No there isn't, and in any case that is meaningless, given the evidence for how proper debate has been deliberately curtailed / prevented.

Originally Posted by MikeTV

But I think it may be true in the mind of some of the public, due to fools like jeremy clarkson, and wealthy vested interests like the Koch Brothers and other libertarians, using their vast resources to deliberately distort public perception, in an endless campaign of misinformation.

In general there is much greater vested interest in those for MMGW than against.

I prefer to look at the evidence (or lack of it) for man-made global warning:

No increase in temperatures for 10 years or more despite significant increases in Co2 emissions

An environment which is just about the opposite of what those wonderful climate models predicted.

Historically CO2 levels were much higher than currently.

Etc etc

Basically MMGW is a convenient lie to allow governments to control and tax the people more.

MMGW has been selected as the 'answer' and scientists have been paid to produce models that justify that conclusion,

Except those models have been proven to be woefully inaccurate.

The IPCC is a political forum not a scientific one.

[Squiffy]

I would go further. Even if there is MMGW, so what?

It has proven almost impossible to get CO2 emissions down. Altho ironically only the US has seen significant progress by use of Shale Gas. Which a lot of the green lobby are against.

But I'm not sure anyone has conclusively shown that a warmer world is worse overall. While it may cause problems in some areas, there is also the benefits possible in increased forestation and the opening up of previously marginal farmlands.

[icstm]

The LHC is a large expensive experiment.
If we can afford it, great, if not it gets cut.

If you want to get industry moving then sure invest in applied science.
If you are wealthy and want to better your civilisation sure spend tax money on pure research and literature.

In any case, a better way to view a science park is as a tool to get critical mass of a partiucular industry or sectors with synergy working closely together.

[MikeTV]

Originally Posted by sidicks

No there isn't, and in any case that is meaningless, given the evidence for how proper debate has been deliberately curtailed / prevented.



In general there is much greater vested interest in those for MMGW than against.

I prefer to look at the evidence (or lack of it) for man-made global warning:

No increase in temperatures for 10 years or more despite significant increases in Co2 emissions

An environment which is just about the opposite of what those wonderful climate models predicted.

Historically CO2 levels were much higher than currently.

Etc etc

Basically MMGW is a convenient lie to allow governments to control and tax the people more.

MMGW has been selected as the 'answer' and scientists have been paid to produce models that justify that conclusion,

Except those models have been proven to be woefully inaccurate.

The IPCC is a political forum not a scientific one.

Thank you, Professor Sidicks.

[karkus30]

Originally Posted by MikeTV

Actually, I don't think there is much conflict, there is an overwhelming scientific consensus. But I think it may be true in the mind of some of the public, due to fools like jeremy clarkson, and wealthy vested interests like the Koch Brothers and other libertarians, using their vast resources to deliberately distort public perception, in an endless campaign of misinformation.
I totally agree.

Hmm, not Austrian economics version of libertarian at any rate which is one of the reasons Murray Rothbard left in 1981.
in fact if that was libertarianism, particularly in the current guise that Koch and his cronies have developed into a republican support organisation I would willingly let it burn in hell and I would push it in.

As for global warming, it's the tip of a very large iceberg of connected issues which may be more important than the result of the issues.

In other words, we are polluting our own environment but the majority still boil kettles and drive cars
We like to go on holiday.
We like to eat meat. Turning to Vegetarianism would cut the most polluting gas which is Methane. It would also reduce the drain on fresh water supplies.
We have developed our economy, yet we complain at China and India developing its economy.
We use oil, but we don't cost it on its impact On the environment.

Where the hell do you stop. It has to be a good thing to reduce or prevent pollution regardless of talk of Global warming. Unfortunately I think Global warming has become a victim of its own high ideals. Most people can get behind reduction in pollution, but Global warming is such an emotive subject that no one knows quite where to start to solve it. Any solution is pushed unilaterally at countries and industries and is quickly shrugged off as victimisation. While academics might agree that GW is fact, they offer little in the way of real world practical solutions. It's like saying water is bad for you, we can say that we hear what they say, now what's the alternative and the answer is don't drink it. I think we should try and separate things, the world won't get behind GW no matter how real the danger is.

How do you stop river, air, sea and land pollution when those resources are unmanaged and free ? How do we stop over fishing ? Deforestation. Free resources will always be abused because they are a no mans land, only volunteers and small charitable agencies are available to prevent this and are far too marginal.

[MikeTV]

I don't think it's hard to switch to renewable energy sources and sustainable lifstyles. I think it's hard to convince enough people.

[Trollslayer]

Mike - then you will need to give up the home theatre as will everyone else.

[tapzilla2k]

Originally Posted by Squiffy

I would go further. Even if there is MMGW, so what?

It has proven almost impossible to get CO2 emissions down. Altho ironically only the US has seen significant progress by use of Shale Gas. Which a lot of the green lobby are against.

The changes in sea levels will displace people thus cause conflict. If weather patterns are disrupted then that will lead to shortages of water in some parts (more in others) and may lead to conflict between countries over water. Look towards Ethopia and Egypt fighting over the Nile at some point.

Extracting Shale gas ? I'm on the fence about that until I see more evidence about it's effects on the environment and it's Economic cost effectiveness.

But I'm not sure anyone has conclusively shown that a warmer world is worse overall. While it may cause problems in some areas, there is also the benefits possible in increased forestation and the opening up of previously marginal farmlands.

Rising Sea Levels are a consquence of warming, no matter what the cause of the warming turns out to be. Tropical Islands will be the first to go (and some are already seeing the effects of rising sea levels). We can adapt to a warmer world but it won't be as easy as the climate we have today.

Originally Posted by sidicks

No there isn't, and in any case that is meaningless, given the evidence for how proper debate has been deliberately curtailed / prevented.



In general there is much greater vested interest in those for MMGW than against.

I prefer to look at the evidence (or lack of it) for man-made global warning:

No increase in temperatures for 10 years or more despite significant increases in Co2 emissions

An environment which is just about the opposite of what those wonderful climate models predicted.

Historically CO2 levels were much higher than currently.

Etc etc

Basically MMGW is a convenient lie to allow governments to control and tax the people more.

MMGW has been selected as the 'answer' and scientists have been paid to produce models that justify that conclusion,

Except those models have been proven to be woefully inaccurate.

The IPCC is a political forum not a scientific one.

Plant life scrubbed the Planet clean of CO2, said plant life (and animals) over millions of years were turned into Oil and other fossil fuels. Which we are now burning like there is no tomorrow. Thus we are releasing all that CO2 back into the atmosphere.

As for CO2 levels, Pre industrial level was around 280 ppm vs June 2012's level of 396 ppm. Highest it's been in the last 800 thousand years to 20 million years. The Pre industrial level was taken from Ice Core samples - Natural and anthropogenic changes in atmospheric CO2 over the last 1000 years from air in Antarctic ice and firn
CO2 levels as measured in Hawii - Trends in Carbon Dioxide

The reason why there was more CO2 in the atmosphere in the distant geological past was due to volcanic activtity, astroid strikes and so on.

As for no temperature rise in the last 10 years ? You have to look at the long term trends not one decade. If Temperatures rise this decade then the last one will be a blip. If not then you might be onto something.

As for the Politicians ? Of course they will jump a bandwagon to raise more tax income. They are nothing if not predictable in that regard.

[sidicks]

Originally Posted by tapzilla2k

Rising Sea Levels are a consquence of warming, no matter what the cause of the warming turns out to be. Tropical Islands will be the first to go (and some are already seeing the effects of rising sea levels).

Which islands are you referring to?

Originally Posted by tapzilla2k

As for CO2 levels, Pre industrial level was around 280 ppm vs June 2012's level of 396 ppm. Highest it's been in the last 800 thousand years to 20 million years.

Co2 levels have been more than ten times this level in the past. If CO2 drives temperature, why didn't the planet heat up back then?

Originally Posted by tapzilla2k

As for no temperature rise in the last 10 years ? You have to look at the long term trends not one decade. If Temperatures rise this decade then the last one will be a blip. If not then you might be onto something.

If CO2 is driving temperatures, why have they not increased in the last 10 years?

The climate changes on a scale over hundreds and thousands of years, yet the global warming supporters only focus on the last 100 years...

Anyway, doesn't this belong in the pixie dust / plant food sub-forum?!

[MikeTV]

Originally Posted by Trollslayer

Mike - then you will need to give up the home theatre as will everyone else.

What - and then we'd all have to start attending communal theatres instead, with actual real people in them, in like a "shared experience", to cut down on environmental impact? That's just a crazy concept! I wonder if it would ever catch on.

[Trollslayer]

Originally Posted by IronGiant

I thought you were saying that private investors/venture capitalists weren't interested in building satellites? Whereas there seems to be a lot of private investment in space technology at the moment.

Just thinking out loud really, it wasn't a major point.

The space industry has reached the point where private investment is viable. It has taken quite a long time to get to this point but we are there now.

[Trollslayer]

Originally Posted by MikeTV

What - and then we'd all have to start attending communal theatres instead, with actual real people in them, in like a "shared experience", to cut down on environmental impact? That's just a crazy concept! I wonder if it would ever catch on.

A chance to advertise all that essential antibacterial hand wash etc.. Kerching!

[tapzilla2k]

Originally Posted by sidicks

Which islands are you referring to?

There are many Islands around the world that will be effected by changes in Sea Levels. One example ~ U.S. Tropical Islands Impacts & Adaptation | Climate Change | US EPA

Plenty more to be found using google and through Peer Reviewed Scientific papers.

Co2 levels have been more than ten times this level in the past. If CO2 drives temperature, why didn't the planet heat up back then?

You are of course forgetting about the other Greenhouse gasses. Like Methane. The planet did heat up and cool down over long peroids of time. Some were intersected by Ice ages. What might be happening now is Human activity has thrown the Planet out of it's equilibrium and thus we may see runaway temperature rises. Most Climate scientists are not that fussed about the last 10 years, they look at the long term trends. Usually found in ice core samples.

If CO2 is driving temperatures, why have they not increased in the last 10 years?

It might be due to the fact that the oceans being part of the carbon cycle have absorbed a lot of the Co2 taking it out of the atmosphere. Which means the oceans acidity levels have been on the increase. The Evidence of that can be found amongst the world's Coral reefs if you can be bothered to do some research.

Also you can ask why did the Little Ice Age happen, whereby temperatures dropped quite rapidly.

Of course this could all be made moot by the simple act of the world's permafrosts melting releasing millions of tonnes of methane and other greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere or major volcanic activity of the kind not seen in the last few hundred thousand years.

The climate changes on a scale over hundreds and thousands of years, yet the global warming supporters only focus on the last 100 years...

So why are you concentrationg on the last 10 years ? Most Climate scientists compare today's climate with the climates of the past using Ice Core samples. You are just honing in on the political wrangling of the UN's climate body. I prefer to pour over Peer reviewed Scientific Journals when I have the time.

Anyway, doesn't this belong in the pixie dust / plant food sub-forum?!

It belongs where ever the Mods and Admin's decides it belongs.
Personally I'd rather be cautious and learn as much as we can about our impact upon the environment. Rather than partying now and leaving the consquences for future generations.

[icstm]

The simple truth is that Northern Europe had a Little Ice Age a few centuries ago we had warmer climate during the Roman era (so they could grow vines in North England) and technically we are still in an Ice age throughout mankind's time (we have two ice caps).
None of this is on a variation that has really swung the world over its 100s millions of life.