Since you've cited your own credentials, attacking them isn't personally attacking you.
Originally Posted by franksargent
I am a Research Hydraulic Engineer (retired) for the Coastal and Hydraulics Laboratory at ERDC
. The lead article on their website was the last project that I worked on as a private contractor. The technology is patented and I'm one of the patent holders.
Did a lot of structural engineering on that project, in addition to the usual wave and current induced hydrodynamics. Field work, laboratory work, numerous numerical analyses, and analytical work (numerical hydrodynamic modeling), I've done all four, extensively in my career. Have had the chance to work on several very interesting and technically challenging projects during my career.
You've shown, just like Gore, how there is plenty of money opportunities within "government" work while likewise claiming just the opposite, lack of profit motive. You note yourself as the patent holder and thus know due to intellectual property rights, that royalties are paid on patents. You've claimed yourself that government pensions in an age of 401k's make them a very sound and expensive asset. As is always the case, the rich don't have to have the money in their pocket, they just control it. Donald Trump doesn't have to own the private jets. His corporation just leases them and he conveniently flies in them.
These climatology centers and foundations, are in control of massive amounts of dollars and are seeking even more. Every politicians and WARMmonger are declaring the future to be rich with green jobs and the next technological gold rush.
Yet folks like yourself are dismissing skepticism due to the profit motive. Please, that is nonsense. Don't cite yourself as someone who is sticking patents under their name and declare that there is no financial stake in the matter. You show exactly why and how there is a financial stake.
As you note, an engineer has to design to possible future specs. If they own a patent related to a claimed future spec and thus the patent must be used in all future products that now meet that spec, they have just become rich without lifting a finger.
Everyone can make LCD screens, but I have patented the technology that allows them to perform in the same manner but with 20% less energy. People can ignore the energy use and thus ignore my patent. However I lobby the government to regulate energy use on LCD panels and suddenly... I'm a rich man. Suddenly my patent can no longer be ignored and in fact, is the key to staying in business.
You don't just prove the point Frank, you personify it.
You've declared that you have patents related to engineering. If the specs don't have to account for 100 years of global warming, if the specs presume no rising sea level, then perhaps the final engineering specs won't make use of engineering techniques that just so happen to fall under your patents. Thus they can be ignored. However if the government has to include such conclusions, then those patents are accessed and some become rich and others poor.
Being readers on an Apple forum we see this sort of thing going on all the time.
So again, you show exactly why the game is being played as it is being played and show exactly how the profit comes out even while claiming an altruistic motive.
So, while I'm not a climate scientist, we do deal with coastal and inland flooding due to hurricanes and other extreme weather events, we design coastal and inland structures, and as such, must be cognisant of future sea levels for 100-year structural design lifetimes. Same goes for hydrology for return periods of 100 years or greater.
You've not afforded other educated professionals the same courtesy you extend yourself here. You dismiss them outright. By your own reasoning, the same should be done to you.
I can, and do, read extensively from the climate science literature, and have looked into, and used, the raw ice core data extensively, for my own educational purposes.
I'm sure every person who has written the books, articles, funded foundations, etc... all the stuff you have called into question and dismissed, has done the exact same thing. Stephen McIntyre is a mathematician for goodness sakes and spends his time at Climate Audit...checking the math. Yet you dismiss him outright. Dismiss yourself outright as well lest you be a hypocrite under your own reasoning.
I've already mentioned that I'm a "bit" of a polymath, for what that's worth.
I do understand many science, engineering, and technology disciplines very well, as it was an essential part of my job description.
Understanding them isn't enough. You dismiss anyone who does not have the proper credentials.
In regard to the emails, I do believe that all temperature data and code will be released shortly, they've started to do so already (All.zip).
Once all raw data and codes are released, others can attempt to do their own reconstructions, heck look at the last paper I linked to, Mann's 2009 paper, unzip the files and you have ~100MB of proxy data and codes, it's all there for anyone else to use.
The IPCC and CRU don't "make a profit" as you claim, they have never "made a profit" no one "makes a profit" in the public/academic sectors. Jiminy Cricket, listen to yourself!
Hollywood movies don't have to make a profit. Books don't have to make a profit. Patents don't have to make a profit. They just have to break even while paying out what the contract stipulates. If the movie contract stipulates that the star makes twenty million and it breaks even, the star is still twenty million richer. If the book author makes an advance of $10 million and then the publisher doesn't recover it, or only breaks even in subsequent printings, then the author is still $10 million dollars richer. If a patent holder is paid a royalty or or if the foundation that is controlled by individuals is paid that on that royalty, then is money transferring hands. If the patents are accounted for in the engineering specs, or even if are part of a pool of owned patents they constitute intellectual property and thus wealth.
If anything, your post has shown that folks like yourself are the MOST biased people speaking on this matter. You know that the initial spec sheet determines EVERYTHING about how that project can be engineered and thus who and what will be used. If the spec demands it last 50 years instead of 25, the whole nature of what is used can change. If the sea levels rise 50 feet instead of 5 feet, entirely different materials, construction methods and yes PATENTS, are accessed and thus who is enriched, changes completely.
Again Frank, you aren't just an example, you PERSONIFY what is at stake in these discussions and those pushing the WARMING agenda just happen to own carbon offset companies. They just happen to hold the patents on technologies that allow the same component to work with a lower power footprint and the industry ignored it because the $10 difference in annual electrical use wasn't worth it. When the government mandates it, it suddenly becomes very worth it.
Global warming is about controlling and redistributing wealth. It always has been and will be. It is the ultimate example of the intent game and Al Gore is the ultimate example of someone who has enriched himself by 100 million dollars while collecting Nobels, and "saving" the planet.