One of the tawdriest bits of political chicanery in recent times has been the gathering of a coven of scientists of note in various fields to have them pontificate about things they have no grasp of, in service of some political agenda.

. . . seven laureates got on stage for a panel discussion of climate change and energy challenges.

Though they were all admittedly speaking beyond their fields of expertise, the scientists offered unfiltered political and social advice.

Some argue that the views of such people about things they don't understand are still valuable, at least compared to those who normally spout off on these things such as politicians, journalists, activists and normal citizens. This is seldom the case. Their views are generally of little value though there are exceptions where a wiser and more mature individual does have value to give, but it is no more frequent among scientists than any other group of normally bright individuals, perhaps less so.

Five of the panellists had signed the 1997 declaration calling for political action in Kyoto against global warming.

So we know right away that we have five fools who have no grasp of socio-economic reality.

When asked for a winning set of strategic solutions, the laureates strongly supported the increased use of nuclear power, as well as solar energy and photovoltaic cells, while criticizing the focus on biofuels. The consensus was that solutions had to come from technology available now, not in 50 years. They added, however, that implementing the technology in a way that would make a difference would take global commitment from governments, scientists, engineers, and society at large.

The blunder here is again in not understanding human societies. If technologies of the future are disregarded due to the pressing nature of the problem then so must societies of the future be discarded as pipe dreams that will not eventuate soon if ever.

Giaever, the panel’s self-proclaimed “skeptic” in regard to the importance of global warming, questioned the likelihood of obtaining such a feat. Since the Kyoto agreement, “I don’t see much change in these years when we were supposed to have done something about this already,” he said. “If we are really worried about this thing why don’t we talk about nuclear power?”

In response, Rubbia suggested the use of thorium high-energy nuclear reactors. “If we want to have nuclear energy available we need to solve the issue of waste — either by reactions based on thorium or depleted uranium or burning with an incinerator.” With thorium, he said, 1 ton can do the job of 200 tons of uranium to run a standard power plant for a year. It has the added benefit of producing less waste, and it addresses the fear factor - the opposition from the public and some governments to further development of nuclear energy because of its connection with the nuclear bomb. Using thorium for nuclear energy is a “safe use of a tool that cannot be diverted in the wrong way, and it would be available for many years to come,” said Rubbia. “There’s no reason not to call it renewable energy.”

While the science of such reactors is current, the engineering and building of them on a scale large enough to matter for climate change will not soon be accomplished. Given the heightened focus on energy systems in the world among scientists and engineers it is not unreasonable to speculate that better solutions will exist before these older systems can actually be built. That doesn't mean that we should sit on our hands and hope, but it does mean that grand projects of the sort that rise to political significance are not on.

Michel, who shared the Nobel prize in chemistry in 1988 with Deisenhofer and Robert Huber for their work on photosynthesis, argued that farmers should install photovoltaic cells to obtain energy rather than try to press the energy from biomass such as corn. Nature, he argued, has been trying to improve on energy conversion using photosynthesis throughout evolutionary history and has succeeded in storing only 0.7 to 0.8 percent of the Sun’s energy — any more than that and the plant gets sunburned.

When a farmer converts biomass to energy, he gets 0.03 percent of that solar energy back. “That is why we should be against producing biofuels,” Michel explained. When it comes to converting rainforests to farms for biofuels, “We are killing the forest in order to produce biodiesel for Europe, so we should stop this immediately,” he said, receiving strong applause.

This one is in the wheelhouse for anyone with a smattering of science savvy, and Michel truly parked it. Dissing biofuels has become like beating up on kids, but we are still burdened with them as a consequence of political madness and green grifters profiteering on climate and geopolitical angst.

“As a take-home message, the climate issue, controversial as it is, is not the most pressing problem. Rather it’s the energy issue, which is, however, more of a socio-economical problem than a scientific one. Science already provides the necessary technical solutions to solve it, but there is a lack of political will to implement them.”

What should his generation of scientists do to solve the problem? “We have to take political discussions more seriously and try to influence the people in charge to make the right decisions,” Sentef said. “It is our responsibility to act together as a strong scientific community across disciplinary and political borders.”

This again shows the intellectual poverty of scientists when they step outside their domains. The inability to grasp that we do not have either the science or the technology necessary to deal with current problems since it is not possible to regiment the world in a way that can muddle through with inadequate technologies, is a crippling liability. It may serve the political needs of posers who only seek power in the present, or opportunists seeking rents, but it doesn't help with the problems society faces.

Scientists can provide us with useful understandings of physical systems. They have the data at hand and the training to make sense of it. Knowing that plants are very inefficent at capturing solar energy, even though they have had every incentive for billions of years to get better, and that the efficiency is reduced further, by a huge factor, in converting that meager energy to a liquid fuel, makes it pretty obviously a silly idea for a way to provide transportation for the world. It has boutique applications, it's a clever hack of minor significance, but a solution to energy needs it is not.

This is the service that they can provide to society. It is the information they possess, not their political views, that is of value to the social mind. When such information is stated plainly so that it can be processed by other specialists and non-specialists society is enhanced.