The Skeptics Case - Global Warming

[gunslnger.livejournal.com]

The Skeptics Case

The data presented here is impeccably sourced, very relevant, publicly available, and from our best instruments. Yet it never appears in the mainstream media — have you ever seen anything like any of the figures here in the mainstream media? That alone tells you that the "debate" is about politics and power, and not about science or truth.

Please read the link. Go ahead and read it critically. It presents the data and the argument very clearly and isn't a polemic.

I think the main point here is that there is sufficient grounds for there to be a debate/discussion on the issue in society, but that politics and the media are not allowing it. Just like the argument for free speech in general, if the argument on one side is so clear and convincing, then what's the harm in allowing the other side to point out the perceived flaws in it? But a seemingly large proportion of the proponents of global warming tend to just try to shut up the objections. This is probably coming much more from the political arena than from the scientific arena, but they do overlap.

Think about your own reaction to these challenges. How do you respond? Do you want to try and independently verify the claims in some manner or do you simply dismiss it and stick to your belief as it is right now? Then I suggest you think about whether you do this on other subjects too; is it your pattern or is this topic special?

Comments

[gunslnger.livejournal.com]

The point of a libertarian system, which I advocate, is that you don't need to have one person think of all the solutions. You have millions of people working on pieces as needed. I'd certainly like to claim that I could solve all of it (and I probably could if I put my mind to it, and got paid for it) but we don't need that. There are plenty of possible options that can be/are being investigated and lots of smart people to think up new ones. Personally, I think battery technology can get a lot better pretty soon, and with that, various methods of power generation become usable.

[peristaltor.livejournal.com]

The point of a libertarian system, which I advocate, is that you don't need to have one person think of all the solutions. You have millions of people working on pieces as needed.

*sigh*

The more I hear about what people regard the libertarian system to be, the more I question it. Why? One does not need to be "libertarian" to do exactly what you describe. John Michael Greer—hardly libertarian, the Archdruid— calls this most sensible approach to problem solving "dissensus," the literal antithesis of "consensus." Essentially, people try things and continue working with what works best. One does not need libertarians to guide the way. You also failed to mention specific technologies and how they could be implemented without destroying the economy. Try again.

I'd certainly like to claim that I could solve all of it (and I probably could if I put my mind to it, and got paid for it) but we don't need that

No, actually, you probably couldn't, and for two reasons.

First, one person couldn't solve all the problems of 7 billion. We humans have a reductive capacity for understanding, something Thomas Homer-Dixon explained very well in The Ingenuity Gap, and Dietrich Dorner noted in The Logic of Failure. The ecology is a complex dynamic system; we humans are pretty good at solving non-complex linear problems. Thus, I don't care how smart you are, you can't solve this one alone. Don't feel badly. No one person can.

Be that as it may, there's another problem with your assertion and a reason I highlighted the second portion. When we are paid to do a job, the pay actually inhibits our ability to do that job creatively. This has been well documented (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u6XAPnuFjJc) as an artifact of our cognitive processes. It's also, if you think about it, another nail in the economic libertarian canon which dictates that the highest-paid members of our society "earn" the money they claim because the work they do requires they are paid more. They cannot. They are simply in a better position to negotiate their wages. The truly intelligent must not think about their monetary compensation—in which case they would probably do that job anyway, just for the challenge. Bottom line: if you are paid to do a creative job, you will probably do a worse job than if you just did the same creative task for the challenge. This isn't theoretical. It is observational and concrete.

Which leaves me with my original assertion. While I agree that batteries need to be both cheaper and more efficient (wow, there's a contradiction!) to be any help, I admit that such a cheap and abundant battery would be helpful. Since it doesn't exist, though, I cannot allow it as an answer here.

Still, one cannot store the energy one can no longer produce. Furthermore, there are no expandable electric propulsion solutions available, and I say that as former owner of all-electric vehicles. What additional technologies would you suggest? 7 billion rely upon your answers. Tick tick.

[gunslnger.livejournal.com]

One does not need to be "libertarian" to do exactly what you describe.

This is true, but other systems tend to stifle it to various degrees, whereas a libertarian system would encourage it.

Thus, I don't care how smart you are, you can't solve this one alone.

I didn't mean to imply that I'd be doing it alone.

When we are paid to do a job, the pay actually inhibits our ability to do that job creatively.

Your statement does not accurately reflect what the documentation you cite actually says. The video was essentially about bonuses, not about being paid for it at all (it even says that near the middle). But regardless, I wasn't tying my performance to the amount of pay. I was merely saying that I wasn't going to do it for free.

Since it doesn't exist, though, I cannot allow it as an answer here.

Of course it doesn't exist yet. That's the point. If we had the solutions right now, we'd be using them. The issue is what are we going to get in the future.

Still, one cannot store the energy one can no longer produce.

Solar/wind/hydro, etc. will all be producible even if we had no oil. Oil is essentially solar energy in a dense form. We just need something that can also store energy in a dense form.

[peristaltor.livejournal.com]

Your statement does not accurately reflect what the documentation you cite actually says.

Perhaps. The talk is by the author of the book Drive, which does very specifically note that pay inhibits creative problem solving. The talk did indeed focus on the size of the pay, rather than simply pay itself. (I re-watched.)

If we had the solutions right now, we'd be using them.

I am completely flummoxed when this point is raised, time and time again. Here's the conversation:

"We have a problem!" (In this case, AGW)

"Don't worry, technology will solve it."

"Which technology?"

"How should I know?!? We don't need it yet. When we need it, it will be there."

And here we have the clincher, the point that seems to completely elude many: What if it doesn't? Seriously. What if the solution we need doesn't materialize when we need it? Our lands are riddled with the remains of civilizations that are quite simply gone. Something either killed them, or drove them elsewhere by necessity, or both.

Now, we are actually in a worse position than those now-defunct civilizations, simply because they didn't rely upon dense energy. If we run low on cheap energy, shit will get serious even if the weather doesn't change for the worse. Which brings us to your last point:

Solar/wind/hydro, etc. will all be producible even if we had no oil.

Yes, but we cannot develop the above alternatives without the oil. The oil, and I mean just the oil, drives our economy. Literally. Skeptical? Try filling your tank with anything but unleaded (or whatever your particular vehicle takes). You want to put up some solar? Great! Some guys with trucks will come by and install the panels. A small hydro plant? No problem! A guy with a cat will move dirt to form the dam. The rest is simple plumbing and wiring, which will come by later on another truck.

Hey, I've addressed this very problem before (http://talk-politics.livejournal.com/1435183.html). Developing alternatives will be tricky to impossible without first finding a replacement for our dwindling resources, and there ain't no replacement for those that won't cost us a significant portion of our GDP.

[gunslnger.livejournal.com]

I didn't say we don't need it yet and it will magically be there when we do. I said that people will work on the problem if we don't constrain them or misdirect them. AGW is a misdirection and government constrains.

Your examples with trucks and oil being needed to develop solar/wind/hydro is how it is now or in the past, but we are at the point where it's not that hard to change those out for things that don't use oil. It's not like we're going to run out of oil so fast that we can't take measures to adjust.

[peristaltor.livejournal.com]

Your examples with trucks and oil being needed to develop solar/wind/hydro is how it is now or in the past, but we are at the point where it's not that hard to change those out for things that don't use oil.

Spoken as someone who has obviously never actually owned or operated those alternatives.

On this topic I speak from experience. I have owned two all-electric vehicles (one of which I built). I spent a few years working for Electric Vehicles NW here in Seattle, an operation that at first converted petroleum vehicles to all-electric drive and now specializes in human-electric hybrid vehicles. I know how much resource energy and money—especially money—it takes "to change those out for things that don't use oil." I also know first-hand how much more limited those changed-out alternatives are in terms of real-world use. (There's a saying in electric vehicles: You can have speed, range, and affordability. But you can only pick two.)

I'm not just talking about the electric alternative. Every other thing that doesn't use oil faces similar restrictions and escalated costs, both for construction and operation. It all ultimately comes down to Energy Return on Investment. Oil has the highest EROI and the highest portable energy density. Replacing our existing transport infrastructure with any alternative is analogous to swapping out a VW Beetle with a 5-speed Schwinn. You will be able to move stuff, just not as much or as fast.

Try to imagine what our economy would—or, realistically, will look like when a third to a half more of everyone's expendable income needs to go to transportation and food. This has happened. The television was invented/developed in the 1920s, but didn't become a regular part of US life until after the Great Depression and WWII. No one had money to spend on sets. The industry's refinement stagnated for almost 30 years until the economy recovered in the '50s. Expect the same for solar, wind, short-term arbitrage & etc.

I admit, it's great to dream of a future filled with carbon-free cheap energy; but once you take a hard look at what sacrifices it will take to get to such a future, it seems an ever more dream-like and distant a vision.

[gunslnger.livejournal.com]

Yes, right now we're at the point in the development that would be equivalent to the 20's with television. Not much demand, not much innovation, because we haven't needed to yet. We'll see what happens.