Looking To Pad The Research Pockets
Ok, this is so bogus. How in the world can they come up with these numbers when they don’t even know what technologies are going to be the most effective? What happens if the money is invested in technologoies and projects that aren’t efficient? Do their numbers still hold credence? It sounds to me like some people are scared because the recession, lower oil prices, and some of the the coldest recorded temperatures in certain areas in decades have caused a reduction in the amount being funneled to research climate change. So, they use a marketing tactic by making this bold, sweeping statement saying we have this small window of opportunity in hopes of securing more investment dollars for their research.
Believe me, I favor finding ways to decrease our use of carbon-based fuel. I believe there are health risks and possible climate changing repercussions if we don’t. But I don’t believe these numbers have any credibility other than in the “it makes sense that the more we spend and the quicker we spend it, the greater chance for success we have” sort of way. There are just too many variables.
Tags: climate change
December 29th, 2008 at 5:51 pm
I am wondering how you know their numbers aren’t bogus? I tried to get into the research paper to see where the author “got” numbers but I would have had to pa 10 bucks to prove them wrong or right. According to the abstract their method was about paying less for better numbers to use in research. It is critical for us to question research, however, we should be careful not to call their numbers bogus unless you can prove it. In another article I read from that same magazine something about taking two steps forward and one back is still progress.
December 31st, 2008 at 11:27 am
It’s not just the numbers, it’s also the reporting of their findings. I’m not questioning what progress they may be making. Perhaps it’s not even the researchers fault and is just the reporter telling the story. The point is, there are way too many variables involved to make the sweeping statement the article does about having so small a window in which to operate. And the timing is extremely suspect with people pulling back on funding due to the economic situation and the sudden reduction in energy prices taking the urgency away from climate change and alternative energy sources. They use the words “suggest” and “could” but then tie a 90 percent probability of achieving their goals if we spend 2 percent of global GDP on climate projects, all without knowing which projects will produce the greatest results.