A Global Warming Science Fair Challenge

Perhaps Al Gore or some other organization could award a total of $100,000 in scholarships to the 100 best student projects that present anthropogenic carbon dioxide as the cause of global warming. The fossil fuel power industry or some other organization could also award a total of $100,000 in scholarships to the 100 best student projects that suggest other possible .

Perhaps the money would be better spent on actual engineering or research rather than trying to prove pre-defined conclusions.

It seems to me a suggestion of Lillipution idiocy...Lets pay someone to prove it's better to slice the pointy end off the egg.

Give the money to students who have an idea about how to stop global warming...regardless of the cause!

Del

I totally concur that politics is distorting perspective here.

Why should the goal be to get smart kids to come up with ideas

"that suggest other possible causes for global warming."

How about

"creative solutions to mitigate the effects of global warming".

==================================================

Is this forum for engineers, or hucksters?

if hucksters are allowed, I will start a new thread:

"How could Al Gore have sucked as bad as Dubya has.."

I'm sure it would generate significant HEAT..

but no significant VALUE.

What a horrific waste of energy. Since 99% of science fair projects are simply recycled science, this would just be a giant rehash of the rehash of science that takes place on pro/con global warming websites now.

How about something useful? Creating cleaner and more efficient ways of doing things is both good science and good engineering.

Sounds like you just want to throw more fuel on the global warming fire. Have more people think up ways to prove it's happening. Have all these people jumping the gun over issues that may be unfounded.

Case in point the melting of Greenland's glaciers. Someone posted an article this past week that the cause may be a hot spot that was detected in the earths mantle under the ice.

Heck you will have some kid present his with the proposal of zero population growth. As are bodies give off heat which contributes to global warming. I am sure the math would support the conclusion.

I like the idea of the science fair challenge. Lets make it global. The project is to find ways to reduce green house gases. Solutions are more beneficial to mankind then to find cause and blame.

It's all just surreptitious brainwashing. I just can't figure out what agenda it is satisfying.

What? A thread on global warming!

Oh, this has a twist? Very cool!

I can now espouse my political & social veiws as they refer to child labor laws!

All that and Al Bore!

Crap. I'm already sleepy. <yawn>

Thanks to everyone who has commented so far on my original proposal for a science fair challenge. I framed the challenge based on many years of working with young people on school science fair projects. I can see the results of this project and I'm excited by the possibilities.

It is a responsibility of school science instructors to monitor the methodology and objectivity of student projects. Several layers of judging by professional engineers and scientists will insure that the challenge finalists have followed valid scientific procedures.

I am often astounded by the high quality of student science projects. Many of them might be coached by professionals, but that is how it will be for them in the workplace where junior engineers and scientists work alongside or under the direction of seniors.

We reward many young singers and entertainers with money and fame. Why not reward some of our young engineering and science hopefuls?

We reward many young singers and entertainers with money and fame. Why not reward some of our young engineering and science hopefuls?

Excellent point.. I was probably rather harsh, as planning, research and presentation are vital parts of science. I just feel that the practical/hands on is more inspirational.

You are to be applauded for any science work with kids.

Regards

Del

Come on now, the High School Students couldn't do any worse than the status quo.

After twenty years the weather forecast has had no discernible improvement.

More data and many orders of magnitude faster computers and no improvement.

The real trick would be recognizing the brain fart that found the solution of future modeling.

A second thought you would create it to head hunt future talent and guide them into industry. Don't get the Gov. to involved they will be taking planes to the middle of the desert to undisclosed work AREAs.

2cents

Brad

Yes, and furthermore, it would teach them to investigate facts for themselves and generate their own responses to a critical matter which affects all of us on the planet.

"These potential engineers and scientists may or may not be able to prove their project conclusions, but their energy and imagination will contribute to a better understanding of the global warming issue."

Although many people denigrate this issue as "political" in nature, and invoke "GORE" to demonstrate their objection, there appears to be near consensus among scientists that the issue is as you have stated it.

There is no way to "over-publicize" a matter which has the potential for global catastrophe, in my opinion: this is such a matter, and there is a global catastrophe underway.

Conjuring up Greenland as as place where ice is melting because of "a hot spot in the mantle" conjecture is facile, but not gemane to consideration of the worldwide loss of glaciers.....

Just for the heck of it, I returned here after being absent for a few years..

and to see if "Global Atmospheric Warming" was still a political lightening rod for folks to fling "Gorish Platitudes" at.

And if so, are all the projects on "sequestration" undertaken by industry, just wasted money chasing foolish causes?

Enquiring mind(s) want to know.

thank you.

Yes, AVI, the Global Atmospheric Warning controversy is still a lightning rod. I see some unspoken problems with sequestration. There isn't enough carbon dioxide in the atmosphere to make it profitable to use atmospheric CO2 for carbonated beverages. Cola beverage makers use chemical reactions to make their CO2. Alcohol beverage makers use bioactivity to make their CO2. The sequestration people will manufacture the CO2 that they pump underground because extracting it from the atmosphere is too expensive. If sequesters do extract some CO2 from smokestacks, for example, then for every carbon atom pumped underground, two oxygen atoms will also go underground. Taxpayers and consumers will pay somebody to make CO2. They will also pay to pump that CO2 underground. Then they will pay for storing the CO2. Beverage makers will pay to buy the CO2 they need, and then pass that expense on to consumers. As atmospheric oxygen decreases, the sequestration people will charge dearly to replenish it from their CO2 stockpile.

There's an exceptionally creative "D" before and after the AVI..

I)

===========

I think there is another way, and shall reveal my brilliance shortly,