that is my instinct as well. but the rule makers have us all so tied in knots you have to weigh the risk to which rule you're breaking in order to "do the right thing." let me demonstrate. a paper bag flies out my car window as I'm driving down a road in Arches National Park. I stop the car and debate: I want to pick up the litter. But to do so means I will walk across the desert floor and disturb crypto-biotic soil that has taken thousands of years to develop and if disturbed will result in erosion of a very delicate landscape. Paper or plastic? If paper, I weigh the fine for littering of a compostable item against a non-compostable item. and then I have to weigh the fine for littering against the fine for walking not on designated walkways (the crypto-biotic disturbance). it's a real dilemma :)

To continue our existence on Earth, the essential choice open to humans is either to live as nomadic hunter-gathers surviving solely on what Nature provides by way of sunlight, temperate climates, animals, and plants or, to take control of our environments by creating our own heat. As a species, humans have opted for the latter approach. No method yet devised for creating heat is 100% efficient as to by-products. So the argument over the best way to mitigate and lessen the onerous effects of these by-products is:
1) To allow free men and free markets to respond and change as they reason, or
2) To allow environmentalists and crony-capitalists and junk-scientists to continue their graft-ridden, Utopian schemes to drive humanity back to the hunter-gatherer world of our ancestors.
The choice is either/or. Regulation can only delay proper solutions and destroy the environment.

Nick, I am solidly in the camp of - climate fear mongering is a convenient hoax which the global elite have turned into a doomsday cudgel in order to implement a global tax and therefore a de facto world government.

That said, the author Michael Crichton wrote a novel "State of Fear".
It made two points:
1) Global warming (et al.) is bullshit.
2) Funding of scientific research is to blame.

At the end of the book, there is a note from the author.
In this note, Crichton appeals for an agency (he did not care if it was public or private) to act as an official manager of the funding of scientific research.
This agency would provide funding in a double-blind fashion: the party which wants a subject researched and is willing to fund it never knows the party who is conducting the research, and vice-versa.

I think Crichton is right, but in speaking to research scientists I have met, there is also a problem with peer review (Monett and Gleason's naked plea for funding which AlGore cited as proof that the polar bears were dying off, was peer reviewed by, among others, Monett's wife) and with a glut of scientific journals responding to the overabundance of research scientists who believe their inferior research was given short shrift by being rejected for publication (e.g. The Journal of Vibration and Control)

At the end of the day, "science" (read that as pseudoscience) is the *religion* of our ruling class.
We all know how well *that* works out.

It is curious to see an anti-capitalist diatribe on the Gulch site, but there is truth in it- " if you have a contrary project, the odds of funding go to 0."
Exactly, government is the major source of science funding (money). Governments love carbon change alarmism as it justifies more taxes and more government jobs. A scientist to tap into this has to follow the party line. To actually disagree leads to sidelining and often dismissal even from university and apparently independent institutions as government money is so prevalent. Even worse, the green volunteer groups start massive smear campaigns.

"A little truth please? "
nickuris, you ask for truth.
The truth is that the heading -climate change denying- is dishonest.
The climate of earth, or more correctly the regional climates of earth, have changed are still changing, and will continue to change. Many eminent scientists of whom Soon is one, have established that human activity has no measurable effect on climate. This is heresy in the new religion for which they are punished by being censored and sacked from government jobs, hounded by green fanatics and there is unlimited money to investigate and publish any possible real and invented transgression. If Soon got money from a coal company or not is immaterial and insignificant compared with the flood of government money going to climate charge alarmism.
This alarmism, which has the aim of more taxes, more handouts to cronies and failures, and the return of civilization to the stone age, actually claims that carbon dioxide, a plant food, an essential to all animal life of earth, is a pollutant.

The truth is,
the more carbon dioxide the better, it is about 400ppm (about 0.04%) in the atmosphere at the moment.
No deleterious concentration has been suggested, amounts 20 times the current level are understood as safe. There is no sound theory and there is no evidence that it controls temperatures.

This is an interesting problem. Capitalism requires a basic morality that must first be present. I wrote about something like this at this link.
https://twitter.com/overmanwarrior/statu...

I don't put all those articles up because I don't want to drive everyone crazy with them. But Ayn Rand was struggling with the same basic problem.

I know personally, if I'm driving across the middle of the desert and nobody is around, and some trash blows out of a car I'm driving. I go pick it up, not because of a government regulation, but because it's the right thing to do. I don't need some pin head to tell me what's right or wrong. I already know and act in accord to that knowledge. The question of the day is who is better equipped to provide morality, the capitalist, or the government. A blend of both simply doesn't work, which is what he have now.

"That is one of the bad sides of capitalism, it is not optimized to balance the overall needs of all against it's needs." Capitalism does not naturally end in lowest costs. It rewards value. but there are economies of scale and just because the govt makes and edict doesn't mean the edict is reasonable or rational. Businesses want to maximize profit, but if they don't promote value or get a bad reputation for making people sick, that is a vulnerability easily exploited by a competitor.
"..actually, in that self interest will trump group interest."

"The notion of “collective rights” (the notion that rights belong to groups, not to individuals) means that “rights” belong to some men, but not to others—that some men have the “right” to dispose of others in any manner they please—and that the criterion of such privileged position consists of numerical superiority." Ayn Rand, The Virtue of Selfishness

talk about following the money. an entire new currency has developed out of thin air (pun intended) around the CO2 carbon credit BS. "Charging" companies with a "credit" which is based on data also pulled out of thin air-is just nonsense. But we are to take it seriously and accept it as an iimportant structure in business. I sent out a n overnight letter with UPS and had the "option" to "buy" carbon credits with real money. Nonsense govt stamped and backed and Gore keeps getting richer off an imaginary industry.

I do agree that the article is biased, but the point was, there are lots of articles on the other side getting cught "biasing" stuff, I am just saying this is true for ALL sides, today you will not find any volatile subject that is honestly evaluated, everyone wants to spin it their way, so they buy whatever tools the y need, scientists and data. But some of those buying ARE businesses and business people. I do not see anyone as being squeaky clean in this.

It's not anti business, but resides in a belief that we are where we are because business, as it stands, is inherently unable, unwilling, and unable to operate in a responsible fashion. If it costs 100.00 a ton to by low mercury coal (purely hypothetical) more than regular coal, a capitalist business will??? Not buy it of course. That is one of the bad sides of capitalism, it is not optimized to balance the overall needs of all against it's needs. I do not know of any system that does, actually, in that self interest will trump group interest. Anti-business is as much a hot button term as "hate speech", neither should be used in a debate. There are issues with business that are harmful tp the others that have to live with the results who have no connection to it, have you seen that China is exporting it's "dirty" business to other poorer countries, so they can have the waste? Because they have messed their environment up so bad they can barely breathe. It's not a right or wrong, your way or my way decision, because there is no such solution. It is just the reality of it. Making environmental responsibiltiy a litmus test for "prto or anti business" is not valid, Intel is an example, they spend a hell of a lot more on their environmental footprint than they have to, because they have found it is BETTER for their business. Since they are paying 96 cents a share dividend, I would have to say they are not doing too much wrong.

"Funding" is how startups survive. One would hope that private industry "funds." A Tesla car is majorly "funded" by govt loans. So is the fast rail project in California (which Musk promoted). Private sector tends to weed out bad players and reward new, disruptive business. Government picks winners and losers. The worst kind of monopoly. Massive regulatory burdens de facto keep emerging new companies from competing with Big Business. I don't really understand what you mean by "money holders," but it sounds anti-capitalist as well.

J I disagree. Two examples. The amount of pollution from coal in London turned the trees black and Peppered moth population changed from mainly white to mainly black as a species and back without any government regulation.

The EPA after the clean air act required scrubbers for coal fired power plants. The reason the expensive scrubbers was to protect West Virginia coal, the same effect could have been had by just changing to hard coal from the western US.

15 years ago McDonalds had to pay people to cart away their waste grease today they have to lock up waste grease.

The history of capitalism is the history of turning waste products into useful products and this is what cleans up pollution, not regulations.

By the way, my brother is a CE in a small company in Louisville KY that does refinery work. He and I debate this endlessly, and we still have not found conclusive proof either way.

"That is the problem that has been around since the start of the Industrial age." Are you suggesting that the Industrial Revolution was a bad thing? Most of the people on Earth owe their life to the businesses and inventors who built those smokestacks that keep them alive. In major cities, the reason you go up many steps to the first floor of old buildings, is because the streets were filled with horse manure. Each new industry is "cleaner" than the last one for the most part.

I am not arguing the way the regulation is done and implemented is as bad as it can be, but is a reflection of the system that it comes from. There are so many "purchased" holes in regulation as to cause more harm than good. An ideal state would be business would be responsible enough to know that what they produce, they mitigate. That is really where the problem starts, government just escalates and makes it worse with incompetent bureaucrats creating inane regulations. Business then compunds it by either buying exemptions or claiming they can't do anything because it "costs" too much. It is a broken system, of that there is no doubt, and I do not claim to have a good answer that would work. You are spot on about CO2 simply because there are good arguments for both sides, but no real data that I have ever heard that is conclusive. A whole lot of theory, and then you go right back on the merry go round of counter theory and plain just "lying". I am not enough of a chemist or physicist to know if the "it can't be a green house gas because" or the It has to be a greenhouse gas because" crowd is right or wrong. I just know if there are 2 such polar opposites, one must be wrong. Now which one?

jb, that is really interesting, in that I always interpreted it that he had lab space but that he was really working on the side, which is why he didn't turn it over to the company. That really raises the question then of his moral authority in the first place, since the company paid for his work and materials, did it not own the motor, and he basically "stole" it? Rearden was a more clear cut case. in that he owned the company and created it within, I see no conflict. I will have to go back and listen to that bit of the story, I thought it was told to Dagny in the train car by the "bum" , and I had a suspicion the bum may have been him?

your response sounds anti-business. Your assumptions that business will behave unethically and must be regulated by a benevolent and ethical government is not supporting capitalism.
Polluting smokestacks, for example , represent lost energy which represents lost dollars to a coal producing plant. Capturing methane emitted from landfills represents revenue. There are economic incentives for "cleaning up" your business. But this post is about man made global warming and simply stated the article was biased. If the science was compelling there would never have been a "need" to doctor research and collude. That makes govt backed research in the area as unethical as a business who dumps toxic waste.

Galt invented his motor with the financing of The Twentieth Century Motor Company. I am funding my own research and development now, and would expect anyone worthy of Gulch participation to do likewise. Rearden funded his own R&D, and it took him 10 years to optimize Rearden Metal.

As a chemical engineer, I will readily admit that prior to 1980, there was considerable pollution coming from the chemicals and energy industries. That has changed radically with the passage of the Clean Air Act and the Clean Water Act. However, now, the amount of environmental regulation is so onerous that it is difficult to get much done in the several engineering fields that I am part of.

I have no problem with responsible environmental compliance, and can even stomach regulations on CFC's, but the definition of CO2 as a pollutant is downright ridiculous ... unless you want to stop breathing to help comply with the latest regulations.

I appreciate your effort to keep it scientifically honest. I also understand just what you are saying about the funding thing, it is as corrupt a system as any we have, because it is always based on the perception of the approver, the money holders. So, if you have a contrary project, the odds of funding go to 0. So then you go to some rich dude or institute that leans your way, and you are approved (always with strings). A vicious circle that ends with no good data, as it is always skewed to the payer. John Gault was a character, remember, so it was in Ayn Rands story he was able to come up with his motor. But in reality, would he have been able to today, if he had to go get "funding?"

Khalling, I respectfully disagree with the thought this is about regulation. I do not believe an industry has the right to just pollute, or damage or do any harm to the environment just because they exist. They have a responsibility to do whatever it takes to mitigate the results and by-products of whatever it is they do. That is the problem that has been around since the start of the Industrial age. Business wants to do business, and if their business destroys the environment, then too bad. The regulation is only required because they will not do it on their own. If business was ethical, then there would be no need for regulation. I do not want to appear to endorse regulation, I just want the responsibility to be on their shoulders. Just like politicians, business will try to tell you all about how it is either not their problem, not their fault, or why it is their right, to do whatever they do. The result are mountain tops in NY state that have such high mercury content from coal plants in Ohio, that nothing grows, nothing lives there, and nothing will. That is wrong. There are filters that can be installed to remove the mercury, but they are expensive. So they don't, and they buy politicians to make sure they don't. That gives the environmental people ammo to scream and buy their politicians to get more regulation. It is a vicious circle.At least my company (Intel) has figured out that going overboard to meet all regulations, and better, is cheaper than not. In the process they have developed some systems that others use now, and the improvements end up getting offset by income. It can be done, but you have to go beyond the usual mediocre management practices that think cost cutting means laying off all your people but retaining management, which is the norm in about 90% of business today. Of course both sides in the climate thing have bought and sold "their scientists", that's why you can never tell who is lying about it, so people end up ignoring the whole issue.

at the end of the day, this is about regulating. Industries have a right to fight back against them. Since the government seems to only want to fund climate change scientists, why isn't ok for industry to fund scientists who disagree with the concept of man made climate change? I can't speak to the conflict of interest because I don't know which papers the article is referring to. I would also add that the article is clearly biased. It refers to climate change as a settled issue, it splits hairs over how the media refers to this particular scientist and finally, research costs money. It seems reasonable if I were in the fossil fuels area, I might hire scientists to research whether man made climate change was a real concept or not. Finally, the reputation for data tampering, agenda and outright lying lies firmly with the scientific community promoting climate change. There was more evidence of temperature data being changed and included in research just recently. If the argument is so compelling, why was there a need to tamper with data and collude? Both have been proven to have happened. I'd say it was just embarrassing but it casts a pall over science in general.

As someone who is in academia who tries as much as possible to avoid government funding, I can tell you that playing the funding game is very difficult. I have put some of my own money into my research partly to avoid such conflicts of interest, but mostly to avoid being self-contradictory / hypocritical about my turn away from The State Science Institute.