Real Science, Fake Science, Green Advocacy, and Public Policy

John Droz, Jr., Physicist

In an amazng admission, environmentalists are now acknowledging that they were wrong to have promoted biofuels! This came about due to the overwhelming evidence that biofuels are a NET environmental liability.

Of course biofuels were a bad choice all along, so why did we waste enormous amounts of time and money going down this dead-end road?

The answer is obvious: this was a self-serving lobbyist idea. Essentially every time we have lobbyist-written energy and environmental policies the results have been:

1 - objectives that are not met,
2 - costs that are much higher than projected, and
3 - numerous unintended adverse consequences.

The solution is simple: we should have Science-based energy and environmental policies.

When will we learn?

I fully expect that in the not-too-distant future that environmentalists will make a similar begrudging concession about industrial wind energy.

The indisputable fact is that no scientific assessment has concluded that wind energy is a Net Societal Benefit — because it’s not.

Lobbyists (e.g. AWEA) have become skilled at deceiving the public about Science — because they know that a scientific endorsement of their product is effectively an imprimatur.

In their aggressive campaign to undermine genuine Science, they have successfully recruited some sympathetic, susceptible scientists to be their allies in presenting fake science. It’s a sad story.

Here are some excellent comments about real Science that should be understood and committed to memory.

Once we’re clear about what genuine Science is (a process), it will be much harder for the con artists to fool us into thinking that biofuels, wind energy, etc. are sensible energy options.