Hacker News Reader

Comment by BurningFrog | Hacker News Reader

Meh. Anyone with serious expertise in an area will have "ties" to the relevant industry.

If people with such ties are untrustworthy, that means no experts can be trusted, and all you're left with is the uninformed and various angry activists.

I'll take my chances with well informed experts who are possibly not perfectly impartial.

View on HN

When corporate grants are bringing research groups into existence more or less from scratch, it's fair to call it more than "ties." At the very least, this is far beyond the norm in fields I keep track of- for instance, pharmaceutical companies helping fund academic biomedical research happens, certainly, but only in limited cases and generally it's considered a significant asterisk next to whatever the study finds. When those same companies are carrying out their own research (say, clinical trials for a new drug) they typically do so under external supervision, with rigorous reporting standards.

For that matter, the choice isn't between oil-industry experts and complete novices. Carbon capture is chemistry; there are plenty of chemical engineers with independently-funded academic positions, or involved in non-oil-industry funded companies. If some of them published a review of the plausibility of carbon capture, I'd listen to it.

But there is no advantage here to produce FUD. In fact it acknowledges the primary problems of fossil fuels, not deny them. They are not seeking FDA approval on a drug, or trying to show that CO2 makes us smarter and healthier. I won't use more gas now because of this article. However, if they can do it (and they have for several years in a test), then we can slow the rate of new carbon, while the growth of solar continues to grow, I think it is a potential win for us, and for a company able to do it.

You will absolutely use more gas because of this article. Just the headline out there will have an effect (since people tend to remember mostly the headlines). When your local enviro-hippie comes and starts asking you to fly less, drive less, buy local, save energy, etc... -- you'll have just slightly less incentive to do that. "What's the big deal", you'll say. "We can just suck the CO2 out of the air."

I think this is exactly the effect that fossil fuel companies hope the FUD will produce.

It ignores the energy cost to turn the damn CO2 into fuel. If we had a cost effective way to BOTH capture CO2 AND turn it into fuel, then we wouldn't be drilling for fuel..

It ignores the atmospheric CO2 that is no longer abosrbed by the greenhouse plants by feeding them this CO2: in this sense its $100 dollar per tonne CO2 more expensive than letting the greenhouse plants extract it themselves!

It's just a good news show, now nature.com is doing it too!

Meh. You’ll only take your chances with someone who absolutely has conflicts of interest is what you’re really saying.

No, what they're saying is that conflicts of interest are so common and mundane that they don't have much signal on their own.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com