Inconceivable Truth: Does science has an agenda?

Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Sure you do.

If you have a "green" company, you now get $500M in govt. funding. $tens of $billions in the past three years.

And if you promise research that shows global warming is a "hoax" you get billions of dollars from conservative groups and industry.

Besides "green" more that global warming as Mags pointed out. Stay on topic.
 
And if you promise research that shows global warming is a "hoax" you get billions of dollars from conservative groups and industry.

Besides "green" more that global warming as Mags pointed out. Stay on topic.

The entire market cap of Apple, the largest company in the US, is under $500B. If you sold the whole thing to the Chinese, it would cover about 1/3 of the government's deficit this year. Government dwarfs the dollars from conservative groups and industry to such a huge degree it isn't funny (it's scary).
 
Did slapping "global warming" on the grant proposal help you get the money?

No but saving the environment did. Carbon credits are a thing of the past. Gore already made hundreds of millions. Time to cash out
 
The entire market cap of Apple, the largest company in the US, is under $500B. If you sold the whole thing to the Chinese, it would cover about 1/3 of the government's deficit this year. Government dwarfs the dollars from conservative groups and industry to such a huge degree it isn't funny (it's scary).

That's ALARMING!

How do you discern what tax payer money is spend on climate research and what tax payer money is spent on the "climate hoax"?
 
Last edited:
No but saving the environment did. Carbon credits are a thing of the past. Gore already made hundreds of millions. Time to cash out

Congrats on the grant. Is it a government grant? Did you find the review process transparent and fair?

I've been involved in a few grant proposals (mine were for research money). I've been impressed with the emphasis on the scientific method from the review panel. Their feedback always revolves around things like having a clear hypothesis and the strength of the experiment. It's a lot of work and research to even get a proposal together but it's exhilerating when you get accepted.

The researcher I work for actually goes to DC twice a year to review proposals for the NSF. He has mentioned submissions that attempted to use buzz words to gain attention but that they often had little substance and weak experiment designs.
 
That's ALARMING!

How do you discern what tax payer money is spend on climate research and what tax payer money is spent on the "climate hoax"?

As much as they can soak the government for. $600 hammers, $900 toilet seats. Ring a bell?
 
Congrats on the grant. Is it a government grant? Did you find the review process transparent and fair?

I've been involved in a few grant proposals (mine were for research money). I've been impressed with the emphasis on the scientific method from the review panel. Their feedback always revolves around things like having a clear hypothesis and the strength of the experiment. It's a lot of work and research to even get a proposal together but it's exhilerating when you get accepted.

The researcher I work for actually goes to DC twice a year to review proposals for the NSF. He has mentioned submissions that attempted to use buzz words to gain attention but that they often had little substance and weak experiment designs.

We were just giving the oil remediation company information. They hired an outfit from Seattle that does all the grant organization for a percentage of the grant proceeds. I thought that was weird that someone legally can take a portion of the grant, but I rolled with it. I will tell you they got through a ton of red tape.
 
Oil and corn subsidies seem relevant.

Did you know algae is the cheapest form of organic protein source for fuel? It's really easy to grow too. All you need is sun, water and a little fertilizer. Then you skim it and it grows back in days. I don't know why more companies invest in that technology. It's not a food source, that won't effect the food market like corn, sugar or palm oil.

But if you use palm oil, it's the second best efficient source of fuel.
 
Did you know algae is the cheapest form of organic protein source for fuel? It's really easy to grow too. All you need is sun, water and a little fertilizer. Then you skim it and it grows back in days. I don't know why more companies invest in that technology. It's not a food source, that won't effect the food market like corn, sugar or palm oil.

But if you use palm oil, it's the second best efficient source of fuel.

Why yes, I did know that! Blue Green algae is what I want to see, but i think the oil companies don't want it mass produced.
 
Why yes, I did know that! Blue Green algae is what I want to see, but i think the oil companies don't want it mass produced.

They'd be really stupid not to. It's cheaper to make than drilling for oil and refining it.
 
At the time Ike left office, he made his famous "military-industrial complex" speech. Some people know that the phrase was "military-industrial-scientific complex" up until the last minute when it was removed from his speech.

Complete fiction.
 
I've read that he originally wrote it as the "military-industrial-congressional complex" and another claim that it was the "military-industrial-academic complex" so it's easy to scratch your head and say, "which one was it?" It's all hearsay at this point since there is no evidence aside from what Eisenhower actually wrote.

I don't believe we have a military-industrial-scientific complex. Politicians seem to meddle in science more than science meddles in politics. Also, we'd live in a vastly different society if scientists had any sort of actual power in this country.
 
They'd be really stupid not to. It's cheaper to make than drilling for oil and refining it.

But what if the technology becomes as simply mainstream as keeping a pond in your backyard that you skim every day? What about all of the money invested already in the land and machinery?
 
Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientifictechnological elite.

(from the speech)

Beware!
 
But what if the technology becomes as simply mainstream as keeping a pond in your backyard that you skim every day? What about all of the money invested already in the land and machinery?

Okay I'm going to let you pick my brain. This is a project I've been working on for the past 8 years. It's a tough sell, but personally I think it's an awesome recycling program. I will tell you the players, just because I doubt any of you would compete with my company.

a 1 acre raceway (think of it like a shrimp farm race way that is 3 feet deep) of Blue Algae in normal conditions can produce more protein in a 6 month cycle then 1,000 acres of corn. The footprint is quite small. This program would be set within a pig farm community.

We have a methane reactor system in Iowia, using 1 pig finishing facility (2,000 pigs per building X 4 buildings = 8,000 pigs). Those pigs generate 1.7 gallons of manure per day through a normal turn (finishing stages 60 lbs - 200 lbs or 45 days). There are 2.5 turns per year. That generates roughly 900,000 gallons of pig shit. The anaerobic digester will produce about 1 gigawatt of electricity everyday for 300 days of the year. The problem with pig manure is its unstability. The manure can't be bottled because it expands so farmers must pay to get this manure out of their farm. Most pig farmers have huge amounts of corn farms; because they can plow in the pig manure in the fall. But because of the salt index getting too high; they must lower their manure injection about 15% per year. The rest must be paid to be disposed of.

Then the byproduct of the digested pig shit is put into a aerobic settling pond and treated by our products to form liquid stabilized organic fertilizer. There is a huge amount of CO2 that is produced through this process. We have this settling pond isolated indoors; so we can trap the CO2 and inject it into an outdoor Blue Algae pond; which will increase the production 10 fold. You must extract the Algae everyday, because at night the algae dies from lack of oxygen.

A daily skimmer automatically skims the algae; which is passed through a filter. The left over water from the filtration is recycled to the aerobic processed manure; so we won't need more water to add powdered ingredients to the process. The amount of Algae created would create more ethanol than 10,000 acres of corn; while producing well over 1 gigawatt of electricity to the surrounding farm community. The community co-ops electrical farm equipment and donates the excess manure to the cause. Basically farmers lower their costs, produces electricity; which generates more income; has viable fertilizer to sale out of the community; and can ship out the algae to refining companies to produce ethanol.

So for this farming community, they have 5 revenue streams.

1.) Selling the electricity back to the grid

2.) Selling the pigs for food

3.) Selling the corn grown from the pig shit

4.) Selling the stabilize liquid pig shit as fertilizer

5.) Selling the Blue Algae to the oil refinement companies to process alternative fuel.

TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTION:
Now if the oil companies were smart; they would pay a premium for this algae and "co-op" other farms like tyson does with their chickens. Basically the model is: We supply the protocol, the seeds or program and every month, we pick up your algae for "x" price per ton. So even the ma and pa farms can still sell their algae and make a decent profit too.
 
Okay I'm going to let you pick my brain. This is a project I've been working on for the past 8 years. It's a tough sell, but personally I think it's an awesome recycling program. I will tell you the players, just because I doubt any of you would compete with my company.

...too long to quote

I like it a lot!
 
tumblr_lzgkvjMUDR1qjsewxo1_500.jpg
 
Well push that stuff Mags! I want to hear about it in the news, not on a blazers forum. ;]

You have no idea the cost of these programs. We tried using the "Gate's foundation" for a grant on this program, but they put their efforts in feeding Africa. I'm hoping for some epic sales to fund this project. It's about 100 mil to really get it going. The refining equipment for Algae is roughly 5 mil alone. The property, professional staff, research equipment, paying a farming coop, methane producing generators are all very expensive. Also, we need to find the sales to purchase the fertilizer as well. 2.5 million gallons of fertilizer is a lot to sell. LOL
 
You have no idea the cost of these programs. We tried using the "Gate's foundation" for a grant on this program, but they put their efforts in feeding Africa. I'm hoping for some epic sales to fund this project. It's about 100 mil to really get it going. The refining equipment for Algae is roughly 5 mil alone. The property, professional staff, research equipment, paying a farming coop, methane producing generators are all very expensive. Also, we need to find the sales to purchase the fertilizer as well. 2.5 million gallons of fertilizer is a lot to sell. LOL

I would seriously try to contact T Boon Picken's people. If it's profitable and discourages foreign oil usage, I think you could convince his people.
 
I won't speak for Science his self, but I can state unequivocally that I don't has an agenda when I do science.
 
I won't speak for Science his self, but I can state unequivocally that I don't has an agenda when I do science.

Did you see the recent study in Nature about sea level rise? Recent contributions of glaciers and ice caps to sea level rise

You had written that you worked in this field.

A lot of the news I saw focused on the Himalayan glaciers but I thought it was amazing how they used satellites to measure the amount glaciers contribute to sea level rise.

How big is the part of glacier melt in sea level rise compared to the thermal expansion of the oceans?
 
1/2 to 2/3. The answer to your question.
 
The projections by the alarmists don't make a lot of sense to me.

The sea rise is barely noticeable. I live near the beach, and the water level isn't any closer to the boardwalk than it was 40 years ago.

The Nature paper gives a fairly broad range of sea level rise. Low estimate of 1mm, high of 1.5mm.

The IPCC talks about many feet of sea level rise over the next 90 years.

Let's do some math. A meter is about 39 inches. Call it a yard. At 2mm rise a year, it would take 500 years for the levels to rise a meter.

Cheers.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top