271 comments on DrumBeat: December 6, 2007
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Show without comments | PDF version
271 comments on DrumBeat: December 6, 2007
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Show without comments | PDF version
Search The Oil Drum with Google
Support The Oil Drum
Recently on TOD:World
TOD:Campfire
TOD:Europe
- Oilwatch Monthly November 2009
- Some predictions on the forthcoming Russian-Ukrainian gas 'crisis'
- The US stimulus and "green jobs" for wind energy
TOD:Canada
- In this house, we obey the laws of thermodynamics!
- The Round-Up: October 24, 2008
- Compressed Air Energy Storage - How viable is it?
TOD:Australia/NZ
- Australian Senate: Peak Oil motion defeated 31:6
- The Bullroarer - Friday 20th November 2009
- The Bullroarer - Friday 13th November 2009
TOD:Net Energy
Blogroll
Energy Sites
- The Coming Global Oil Crisis
- Die Off
- Dry Dipstick
- Energy Bulletin
- From the Wilderness
- Life After the Oil Crash
- Peak Oil Crisis
- Peak Oil News and Message Boards
- Powerswitch
- Rigzone
- Matthew Simmons
- Wolf at the Door
Environment & Sustainability Sites
- The Daily Green
- EcoGeek
- Eco Street
- Green Car Congress
- Green Options
- green.alltop.com
- Gristmill
- RealClimate
- Sustainablog
- Treehugger
- WorldChanging
Blogs
- The Big Picture
- Casaubon's Book
- Cleantech Blog
- Clusterf
k Nation (Jim Kunstler) - The Cost of Energy
- David Strahan
- The Energy Blog
- Entropy Production
- European Tribune
- GraphOilology
- Health After Oil
- jeffvail.net
- Mobjectivist
- Peak Energy (Australia)
- Peak Energy (USA)
- R-Squared
- Resource Insights
Finance & Economics Blogs
- Calculated Risk
- The Crash Course
- Ecological Economics
- Econbrowser
- Environmental Economics
- Infectious Greed
- The Mess That Greenspan Made
- Mish's Global Economic Trend Analysis
Organizations
Peak Oil Primers
Beware email scams!
Beware email scams claiming to be from this site. We do not have any job openings. If anyone contacts you about a job at The Oil Drum, do not reply to them, and definitely do not give them any personal information or send them money. Read more here.
“What gets us into trouble is not what we don't know, it's what we know for sure that just ain't so.”
—Mark Twain
User login
Contact
- Content: editors at theoildrum dot com
- Tech support: support at theoildrum dot com
Personnel
- Editors: Nate Hagens, Gail the Actuary, Prof. Goose
- DrumBeat Editor: Leanan
- Contributors: ace, Engineer-Poet, Heading Out, jeffvail, JoulesBurn, Sam Foucher, Robert Rapier
- TOD:Campfire: Glenn, Jason Bradford
- TOD:Europe: Chris Vernon, Euan Mearns, Francois Cellier, Jerome a Paris, Luís de Sousa, Rembrandt, Rune Likvern, Ugo Bardi
- TOD:Canada: benk, Libelle
- TOD:ANZ: Big Gav, Phil Hart, aeldric
- Emeritus: Stuart Staniford
- Technician: Super G
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 United States License.
GAIA Host Collective
Global WARMISM? What, believing scientific data is now a religion? Oh come on!
On the other hand, the author does have a point in that many people believe global warming to be true simply because other people do, or may not even really believe it to be true but simply agree because it's the popular thing to do.
After all, how many people do you know that go to church even though they don't consider themselves "religious?" How many people have you met that automatically assume you're Chrisitan because THEY are? Is believing global warming a religion? Certainly not. However, people can be easily swayed by others if they have no reason to stay with their current position, be it emotion, or fact.
~Durandal (www.wtdwtshtf.com)
Yeah, that's the latest tactic. They have lost on the science, so now they try and describe it as a religion of some sort. Either that or insist that it will be too expensive to try and do anything about so we should learn to live with it (I guess in a way restating Lomborg's writings).
Doesn't surprise me to see this sort of writing on the pages of the Urinal.
Its really absurd. The reason that people accept Global Warming is because there is a body of science that lies at its core. Yes, its not complete, and there is plenty of room for improvement, but it is now compelling enough for action.
On the other side of fence is not simply healthy scepticism - its largely manufactured denial. The same old lies get trotted out. The same quibbling around the edges and the same people whose allegiances are bought and sold.
Now, applying the precautionary principle to something as vital to the only planet we have to live on, means that we have to move to protect it as quickly as possible. The concern that this will result in a more constricted economy and a potentially less free society is probably valid. We may not be able to fly across the planet on a whim or drive every day everywhere in the largest vehicle possible. We may not be able to consume & discard hydrocarbons derived products in the same quantities. There may be uprisings from the formerly well-off's.
This is going to be a tough transition but it is possible to do minimizing the bloodshed. It will take education, understanding and sensible government that looks out past the next election.
"Have your cake and eat it too" has always been good politics.
The recent work at the Millennium Institute shows that the Best Economic Policy is a combination of the Best Environmental Policies in an oil constrained world. A FAR easier sell !
Best Hopes for that draft of a Peer Reviewed paper that I am working on,
Alan
The smooth operating of the western political systems will be interrupted by scarcity (energy, food, etc) - there is no doubt about that. Peak oil will solve many of the AGW issues unless we dive headlong into coal although I doubt that we could possibly mine the volumes of coal required to make up increasing shortfalls in oil production.
What will require a supreme effort will be curbs prior to the full impacts of AGW. How will citizens react to severe curbs on their ability to consume hydrocarbons is the question. Rationing based on carbon usage is probably how we will have to do it. The problem that will arise is when we see how small our carbon budgets will be. And will the rich be subject to the same carbon budget as the poor? I imagine that a future carbon black market will quickly spring into being where the plastic bags, shrinkwrap and the other little necessities of modern life will be traded at great prices.
Its going to be interesting.
Hmmmmm!!!
Last night I attended a meeting in the UK Parliament. Jeremy Leggett (Solar Century),Martyn Williams (FOE)and Chris Vernon from The Oil Drum Europe were presenting.
http://www.appgopo.org.uk/index.php
While waiting for the meeting to start I was discussing the climate change article that I was reading in the FT with the people sitting next to me.
Basically, to avoid irreversable catastrophic change the challenge is to reduce CO2 emissions to about 20% of 1990 levels by 2050 - because the emissions are cumulative we have to start reducing emissions now otherwise the challenge will be to get to the 80% reduction by an even earlier date.
So, the proposed interim target is a 30% reduction of CO2 by 2020 (with the added complication that we will have almost no nuclear by then!) We also need to grow the economy so we would expect primary energy use to grow 25% or so by 2020 if the IEA are to be believed.
The scale of investment in alternatives required was a shock to the climate change people - especially when I pointed out we wouldn't even meet the UK Kyoto challenge.
The words 'task' and 'impossible' come to my mind!
When Chris put up a chart showing the 'Russian' solution I could take no more, and left the meeting as I had probably seen the only solution that would do the trick. I was in Russia when they tried it ... not good!
The UK government are not prepared to plan including the effects of imminent peaking of oil and gas since, if word got out that they are even considering such a thing, the public would panic ... so, party on, it's official!
So how do we "fix" this then? Does this not show that it is physcially impossible to achieve CO2 cuts in the long run, save what PO will do to us?
Richard Wakefield
No. Not necessarily.
Nature has a way - in the very long run - if all else fails!
It works for all other species so I expect it will work for humans too - if we are not as clever as we think we are.
Because of the timing of the various FF peaks it seems we can burn all the conventional oil and all the natural gas that we can persuade to come out of the ground and still not double the CO2 levels from the pre-industrial era - now, you have to have faith that the politically run IPCC data is correct and that it is a safe or even desireable thing to do! - but you can't burn the coal.
So, the big question is, how do we stop people burning the coal?
And that is it! We are not as clever as we think we are. We think we can "fix" climate change, willing to spend tens of billions, when in fact we have no idea what the future will do to us. We have become so arrogant that we now think we are the gods of the planet. That's because of what we have done so far. Everyone is comfortable in the notion that anything thrown at us we can fix. Movies re-enforce this (eg Armageddon and Deep Impact, etc). The good guys always win scenario.
Your first point, however, is the correct one. In the end Nature will have it's say. We are a temporary blip.
Richard Wakefield
In the end Nature will have it's say. We are a temporary blip.
Perhaps this explains your policy preferences. It matters very little if the "blip" is a little shorter or a little longer. But what DOES matter (and is of more immediate importance), is if your monthly electric bill might increase by a couple of dollars or not.
It is just a matter of perspective and values.
Alan
Why?
So far, for most of my long life, it just does!
Because, sadly, people only vote for politicians that propose growth. Our modern OECD economies know no other way.
People only work for companies that grow.
The world population grows - in our world (that is, in reality, completely abnormal) exponential growth of almost everything is the paradigm - it's completely unsustainable eventually (hopefully not too soon) so enjoy it while you can.
Probably, like me, you enjoy a quality of lifestyle unimagined by your forebears (and that goes right back to the first cell that ever evolved, as life is continuous) - a thought that seems extremely improbable but is actually true for most people.
If you want to know what the opposite of growth is like? - try Zimbabwe!
So we can support a growing population. Which we need to grow the Economy. Which we need to support a growing population. Which we need to grow the economy. Which we need to support a growing population...
Does anyone alse see how utterly ludicrous this is?
We don't. We ban the construction of new Coal-fired power stations, and the repair of major elements of existing ones (like boilers). With bans in place, Generator companies will be forced to a) leave the market, or b) invest in cleaner technologies, such as Solar PV, Concentrating Solar Thermal, Nuclear, etc.
Convincing our various governments to implement the ban (especially in countries like Australia, where Coal exports support tens of thousands of workers) will be the hard part.
It is true that the economy needs to grow if the population grows. But it must continue to grow even if the population is static!
Here's why: Our monetary system is created by debt. That is money is created from debt. Video explaining the concept. http://youtube.com/watch?v=vVkFb26u9g8
What does this mean? Here is a micro example that scales to our fractional reserve banking system. Let's say that there is 10 dollars in the world because you borrowed 10 dollars from me the banker. So you have 10 dollars worth of debt but 10 dollars in hand that you spend on a pair of shoes. The owner of the shoe store then buys a chair from a furniture store that you are employed at and you receive a 1 dollar as a wage.
Now you begin to pay the bank back a dollar at a time. We begin to see the problem if you pay off your debt there will be no money in the system
What's worse if the bank is charging you interest (10 %) it becomes impossible to pay back 11 dollars of debt with only 10 dollars in circulation.
If the economy doesn't grow it collapses. It has to grow to pay interest on the current debt in circulation.
It seems like this scenario has to be wrong because it's so insane. And it is.
Here is another example of growth. A painter makes a painting he wants to sell. He has no money. Does the painting have any value? No, not until it is sold. So someone comes along and buys the painting for $1000. Now the painter has $1000 in cash and the buyer has a painting worth $1000. This means that the economy just grew in wealth by $1000. We now have $2000 of wealth here.
So the buyer then want's to borrow $1000 from the bank. He uses the painting as collateral. The bank creates the $1000 in his account from nothing (all the bank is required to have on deposit is a small fraction of what they lend out). The bank can do that because the item has a monitary value. So the creation of the money for the item is correct. Once paid back the money is "destroyed". Well, that's how it's supposed to work.
So now we have $3000 in wealth from that one painting and the initial $1000 the buyer had.
This is fiat money creation. The money is created to give a monetary value to goods that are created or manufactured that have intrinsic value. (bartering shows this)
This is why we went off the gold standard because other things have value than just gold. If you want a gold standard, then why not a plantium standard, or a microchip standard? Just as arbitratry. Gold has no more intrinsic value than anything else. Only a percieved value, just like everything else.
Richard Wakefield
Someone needs to read up on history.
gold has value due to two reasons.
1. it's pretty
and
2. it was rare and hard to acquire.
a gold/rare mineral standard is good because it sets ACTUAL physical limits on a system that normally has none. to create money in such a system one must have the same amount of gold/ rare mineral that what ever denomination you use.
a fiat system doesn't have this needed limit and always fails because the people who run it always succumb to the temptation of just making more to cover the debt.
or to put it even more simply rarity = value. thats why the artist's painting has value it's one of a kind. thats why gold has value, it's rare. in a fiat system money is not rare it's virtually limitless and because of this it always fails because it's value will always reach 0. the dollar has been crashing since we got off the gold standard it's just been so gentle a decline no one has noticed.
So, with a fixed amount of gold, how does the painting get value? As things are made that has value, the amount of gold would have be spread thinner to cover it (butter spead too thin), hence the value of gold would increase. How is that any different that the fiat money creation? And note, that fiat money creation is only because of goods which have value are created. I've discussed this at length with my brother-in-law in an attempt to understand how this works. He's VP of a government agency that overlooks banks and trust companies. His job is to make sure they follow the rules. Though, that said, he has been VERY busy the last few months on this whole debt issue.
The point is, as people create wealth through the creation of objects, is that not wealth creation period? Money is nothing more than a unit of measurement? There is certainly far less money, the float, around than the value of all goods, severices, bank acounts, stocks, etc.
Having a gold standard will also be skewed to the countries that have the largest gold extraction and mineral deposits regardless of all else in the country. Is that fair?
I would think the reason for getting off gold (which included the ability of anyone to own gold) was brought about by reasons that make sence, at least at that time.
That's not to say what we have is perfect, far from it. It's that there is no perfect system when people's two emotions are involved -- fear and greed. These two is what sets the value of anything. So the flaw is not the system, but those who practice the system.
Richard Wakefield
I keep seeing this over and over, and I must keep correcting it over and over.
It is NOT necessary for an economy to be growing for interest to be charged and repaid.
Let's say we have a sustainable, zero-growth economy. You and I each bring in $1000 per year, every year, which covers our living costs. You want to borrow $100 from me. I have tightened my belt and done without some things to save up that $100. Now, you are going to have to tighten your belt and do without some more things to repay me that $100 plus an extra $10 interest. Note that this is a ZERO-SUM TRANSACTION. There is no reason for either the money supply or the economy to have grown for it to happen. All that was needed was for different people to make different allocations of their available resources depending upon different priorities.
Note well, however, what was missing from this transaction: fractional reserve banking. I could only lend out money that I had actually saved. It is fractional reserve banking that inflates the money supply. A sustainable, zero-growth economy must have a stable money supply, which means that it must not have fractional reserve banking.
One final note: Some people claim that in a sustainable, zero-growth economy there would be no interest charged, but this is clearly wrong. In a sustainable, zero-growth economy, waste would be the cardinal sin. All assets would have to be used as efficiently and optimally as possible. This means that every asset -- including spare money available for investment -- would have to have a rental value. Assets without rental value that are available for "free" would inevitably be misused and wasted. A zero-growth economy would not be able to make up for the waste, resulting in a continually contracting economy.
How does this work, no growth, if people create goods that they can sell? Soon as a new item is created and sold, the growth in over all wealth has gone up has it not? If I grow a crop of wheat this year, and increase my output the following year is that not wealth growth? Soon as you add a new person on the planet, doesn't the economy have to grow?
Richard Wakefield
Increase = growth, sustainable means zero growth, means no increases.
Sustainable means that approximately the same size wheat crops are produced year after year, and those (plus other food crops) are just sufficient to support a non-growing population. New goods that are created, e.g. baskets, pretty much just replace the existing inventory as they wear out, with the old ones being recycled into compost to grow the materials for the new one. A closed circle, in other words.
Of course people buy and sell and trade, but it is a zero-sum game. Any one person's net gain would have to come at one or more other people's net loss. The only exception would be that to the extent that people have surpluses of different items in excess of their most pressing needs, the marginal utility for each person can be increased by trading those items that they have in surplus for other people's surplus that they don't have enough of; this would be a non-zero-sum transaction, but in a sustainable society at carrying capacity, there just wouldn't be room for an ever-increasing amount of it. There would really only be room for significant inequalities between people to the extent that the population was kept below the carrying capacity. If the population is right at carrying capacity, then inequalities mean that some people starve and die. Whether or not that happens, or is allowed to happen, is up to the population of that society, I guess.
I AGREE but we DO have a fractional reserve banking system that has an unstable money supply, therefore we need to INCREASE our current growth under the current WORLD banking system.
Or in other words, we need to continue to increase growth in order to continue to increase growth.
Except that we don't need to continue to increase growth. Indeed, given a global society that is either already past or very close to overshoot, increased growth is just what we don't need.
What's the Russian solution?
I don't have the chart - but, basically, the USSR collapsed economically and politically - and it had the desired effect - look at charts of USSR oil production as an example and you will see it - production of everything dropped by 35% or so!
I don't know how to put up a graph that shows this, somebody else may be able to help.
Oh okay, I just didn't know which "solution" was presented (Stalin's purges, etc). Thanks!
If cancer cells could vote...?
www.tripledistilledscarconol.info
The rep from COSEIA, the Colorado solar industries people frames it this way. We need to choose abundance over scarcity. Reliance on fossil fuels is being condemned to scarcity, relying on conservation and renewables is relying on abundance.
Ultimately, if the environment goes down the tubes, the economy goes down the tubes. We are dependent upon the environment for whatever wealth we have. Kill the goose, lose the eggs. I don't know if we can continue our current growth path, but it probably needs to be sold that way.
Personally, the need to grow is just a function of our collective illusion that growth is necessary for happiness and well being. It may be the other way around.
I think growth can be good at times and bad at other times. When a population has the resources and space to grow, then that is good for the population. When resources and space become limited, then bad things happen to the population if they try to maintain that growth.
We are really no different than any other organism in the world that is coming up to its sustainable limits of growth. Are we smart enough to recognize it and act accordingly before bad things happen?
Don't answer that...it was rhetorical.
The essence of capitalism is that it produces goods and services to sell at a profit. Part of that profit then becomes capital, which must (what else are you going to do with it) be invested to produce more goods and services to make more profit and capital. Ad infinitum. The capitalists are trapped in that kind of a system because of competition. All capitalists must try to grow because, if they don't other capitalists will, and put them out of business. Under capitalism, the only way I know of that might stop this is if you have a system of heavy taxes that only allows enough profits to be retained by the capitalists that they will be able to cover the costs of maintenance and repair, and nothing more. But the only way you are ever going to be able to do that, is if you get rid of capitalism. Their money just gives them too much power! (It's interesting that the greatest period of American capitalist prosperity was the 1950's, when corporate taxes were extremely high.)
triphop, I wish that we had 'education, understanding and sensible government that looks past the next election' but, unfortunately, we do not.
When education is reduced to teaching to the 'FCAT', understanding is constrained by human nature, and our government makes statements like 'the American way of life is not negotiable', I dont see a lot of hope for changing the course that we are on. Even in America, supposedly one of the most affluent countries, there is no out cry by a majority for meaningful change. Unfortunately I cannot see a happy ending on this course...just shoals ahead.
True, but there is a sale on plasma TVs at Walmart this weekend. So things can't be too bad. ;-)
Oh you guys, come on now!
And next they will be getting me to believe that smoking really does cause cancer.
GW is just another one of those do gooder causes!!!
I mean seriously there are guys living into their 80s fit as a fiddle and they smoked a pack since they were 16 years old.
Panic makers everywhere.
Air causes cancer, water causes cancer, vegetables cause cancer. I'm just sick of it all!
They just want us to worry so they can make a buck selling solar panels and hybrids. It's a German(wind turbine/solar cell manufacturers) and Japanese(totyota hybrids) plot to destroy the good old American way of life. I like my 4x4 off road GM car just as it is and I keep the windows open all weather and hate sweaters.
Those new age types from the coasts want to make us change our traditional way of life for those imported goods they think are hip and drink french wine and eat their imported cheese and wear Italian clothes and next they'll want me to go to a Buddhist temple and prey to an 8 armed goddess. It's all from Satan I swear it. did you ever hear Hotel California played backwards. I swear it was Satan talking!
"I mean seriously there are guys living into their 80s fit as a fiddle and they smoked a pack since they were 16 years old."
Heh. Love it when people bring out that kind of nonsense.
Yes, and for every one of those there are a whole bunch more from the same birth cohort that used to smoke just as much, but don't anymore because they are in the grave.
Yup.
Everyone believes the earth orbits the sun because scientists say so. But it's actually very difficult for laypersons to prove. That's why the geocentric model persisted until the 17th century. Confirmation of the heliocentric model by means of stellar parallax observation wasn't even accomplished until the 19th century.
If one wants to fully understand global warming, one must buckle down, learn and become conversant with all of the theories, models, techniques and data that underpin the scientific discourse of the past 30 years. The climate scientists who have acquired such a working knowledge have earned their expertise and authority.
We may have anti-scientific know-nothings in the halls of government, industry and media power, but that doesn't change the fact that hard work is required to obtain a working knowledge. You don't get something for nothing, as much as the armchair critics would like it to be so.
Exactly,
Scientific method requires that everyone should repeat the experiment for himself, and believe his own observations. Surrounding AGW, there is no reporting (that I can find) of amateurs doing this. I have researched CO2 measurement, to build a monitoring experiment that my child's elementary school can use. No kits, plans, local news coverage, nothing.
Science is not a religion, and IPCC are not the high priests. People should be just as familiar with the evidence for rising CO2 levels as they are with that for gravity, or they will continue to be vulnerable to myths.
What about evidence that does not support AGW theory?
And the doom-and-gloom alarmism that is not supported by any evidence at all, but is nothing more than a vehicle to get more funding through scaring the public? Now that's a form of religion. A method used every Sunday by preachers.
There's lots of faith based beliefs around the actual science going on, including ignoring evidence that does not support the orthodoxy.
Richard Wakefield
There is virtually no evidence that speaks against AGW. There are some abmbiguities and gray areas that are harped on my deniers, but evidence? Not much.
Please read the articles with their references in www.worldclimatereport.com They post a large number of them.
Richard Wakefield
Okay I looked at the first 2 articles in my lunch break:
http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2007/12/03/more-on-new-york-...
http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2007/11/28/terminating-warmi...
Neither of these contradicts the theory of AGW.
What the first does is point to a common misconception about GW - i.e. that it will increase the number of tropical stroms. Meterologists do NOT think this. Warming may increase the intensity of storms, but not their frequency (weaker ones may decrease in frequency). See for example:
http://ams.allenpress.com/perlserv/?request=forward-links&doi=10.1175%2F1520-0442(2004)017%3C3477%3AIOCWOS%3E2.0.CO%3B2
The second article is highly misleading. Looking at temperature changes over a small region, such as California, says nothing of global temperature changes. Plus, whether you pick a small region - such as California - or the whole world, localised differences are to be expected - they are not unusual or evidence against AGW or GW in general. Average temperatures are all that matter - and we need to take into account sea and land temperatures. Modelling temperature changes is not a simple task - and I suspect that anyone jumping on an article like this as evidence against AGW has a very overly-simplistic view of the complexity of the world's ecosystem.
Back to work... :|
World Climate Report reviews papers that not only bring into question the "offical" AGW theory but the "common" view of climate change. I've seen many times, including here, the notion put out that GW will cause more, stronger, hurricanes (even though the IPCC said there is no GW signal in the hurricane record). How many times have you seen Katrina used to justify that GW is happening? Try Al Gore!! The New York reference shows that the notion of more Katrina like hurricanes is not supported by past history.
As for intensity of storms, there is debate about that too. With more moderated temps there will be fewer cold fronts. Those are what cause the tornados. Thus there could be FEWER and less intense storms due to CC. Look further and there is a review of a paper that did a 5000 yr study on storms in Europe. No change in either the rate nor intensity of storms.
I havn't yet read the other. But please, do a search there on your favorite topic. They have lots.
Richard Wakefield
I read your little bit and just sort of lean back in my chair and think - wow, we really have no hope at all. The inability even to distinguish when science is science, or even what science is.
When I read how the United States scores lowest on math and science in the world, I understand its ramifications. It is like going back in time. It must be what an old surviving educated Roman must have felt like after the barbarians crossed into France and Italy, unable to even comprehend the learning they were destroying.
Yes, global warming is a doom and gloom religious belief, and the sun circles round the earth as do all the planet and the moon (indeed all of the cosmos circles round this lowly planet created out of nothing), and we aren't descended from apes at all. No, we were created from clay at the hand of god, just a scant 6,000 years ago. Luckily for us we survived the terrible flood that covered the highest mountains in a 40 days rain, along with all the animals of the earth housed in a single boat that was 400 cubits long and sealed by the hand of god.
Amen
Hey! He's Canadian! (not that I think you're wong. I'm just saying)
One man with the truth on his side makes a majority in the end. Bring it on JR!
Just what the world needs, more truthiness. But then, hey, Bush is the expert. Wasn't his major in science??
I can't get over the gnawing feeling that all these weird anti-global warming posts aren't actually being penned in some windowless office at an Exxon office somewhere by twenty year old interns. It was, after all, the same tactic used by the tobacco industry in the 1960's with letters to the editor.
Imagine the fate of the earth in the hands of marketing firms, treating the issue like they would sell coke.
I'm leaning back in my chair again - we really are doomed.
Bush actually has a degree in history, if you can believe it.
Oh, I do believe it. In the modern US system, it is quite the norm to acquire academic credentials without actually learning things.
I'm actually sitting in front of my computer at home getting ready to start my day of work. No I'm not paid by anyone to post here. And I don't smoke, never have.
Richard Wakefield
Leanan, I call for banning Richard Wakefield since he has repeatedly besmirched every scientist who has put his signature to the global warming thesis, by ascribing their positions to greed. It may be true that a few of the positivists are corrupt just as it is undoubtedly true that a few of the deniers are corrupt. To casually impugn their motives would be actionable if he were to say it about one of them.
The second reason is that he is wasting a lot of space on this blog, which is ostensibly about oil supply, and discussions about other topics should be limited. But he goes on and on , refusing to reply to arguments and demanding that we supply proof to the contrary of opinions on denial sites [he should look at http://www.realclimate.org/ himself]. Personally, I don't care what he wants to believe, but there is no way in hell I want to have to sort thru large blocks to get at intelligent comment because they have been infected with his drivel.
Forgetting about that should for the while, it seems to me that you're asking an awful lot of regular folks. Gravity is immediately verifiable. Tell me the theory, and then ask me to walk in air. Voila, you've proved the theory to me when I hit the ground.
It's not so easy with GW, not so easy at all. Understanding GW, it seems to me, requires a tremendous expansion of the mind. At the very least, it requires an understanding (and appreciation of) the fundamental interconnectedness of all phenomena.
How are you going to get folks to see the connection between them and some future, abstract catastrophe when most folks don't even have an appreciation for the connection between their behavior and its fairly immediate personal consequences? "I can't understand, Doctor, why I can't lose weight," he says as he eats his third Big Mac of the day.
This is the problem isn't it? How to make GW (or PO) REAL... How to make a (we think!) valid prediction come alive?
How do we know anything, really? I'm not being facetious, here, I'm just trying to point out that the problem is much larger than any "truth" about GW that science has uncovered.
Put another way, the new paradigm will be seriously considered when the old paradigm busts you up side the head with a two-by-four! When the universe tries to get your attention, the last tool in the kit is pain and suffering.
Pain and suffering have a way of focusing the mind.
And to steal a phrase:
Best hopes for early attention and minimal suffering...
Generally speaking, any opinion held by a significant number of people exists because other people believe in it. The number of people who independently derive conclusions is small, and in the case where those conclusions conflict with more popular ideas society exerts an extinguishing effect.
This is poorly understood even by activists; one might say especially by activists. "No rational cause can succeed without irrational support".
(I'm quoting myself here to start a trend).
Those who seek to change the world by turning the masses into scientists will be forever disappointed. Everyone who expects a significant percentage of americans to EVER understand thermodynamics, raise your hand.
I leave as an exercise for the reader why the stuff we discuss here, on the level it's discussed, is self-limiting in the culture.
Of course, the dishonesty of that article is to imply that just because the support is predominantly irrational, the argument itself is incorrect. That's stupid, no matter what the majority thinks.
or fails to think.
People need to keep in mind that Carnot efficiency is "just a theory". That gravity keeps the Moon in orbit around the Earth is "just a theory". That London, Ont was buried under deep ice several thousand years ago is "just a theory". Peak Oil is "just a theory". Human caused global warming is "just a theory".
You are confusing data sets (observations) with theories (that explained how those observations work). Gravity is a theory. There is yet an explanation of what gravity actually is. How it differs from the other 3 forces. Why is gravity always attracting and never repelling like the other 3 forces? So the theory of gravity is far from solved. They've been working on it since Einstien failed to figure it out.
The theory of evolution is the same. It went through a significant change when Punctuated Equilibrium showed that the last 150 years of gradualsism consensus was wrong, or mostly wrong.
Peak oil is a theory. AGW is a theory. All of which can be overturned by one bit of new evidence. PO is history if a new Ghawar is found, history for a while anyway. It's POSSIBLE that can happen, but not very likely. If the world average temps starts to fall 1 or 2C even though CO2 emissions continue to grow, then AGW theory has a problem. Is it possible? Yes. Is it likely? Well that is the big question!
That's the context. And if this logic is a reason to muzzle me, or ban people who do not agree with your dogma, then that is just plain censorship. Would you bad someone from here if they challenge the notion that PO will be catastrophic? No, as people have many times. I'm one of those who thinks that the catastrophic predictions of CC are unwarranted, and because of PO, irrelevant.
Richard Wakefield
No I would not ban anyone on this site who is holding genuine views. It strengthens, rather than weakens, TOD.
With the caveat of posting at a certain minimum level of intellectual rigor and analysis and preferably capable of proper debate.
Alan
In the roughly two years that I have been reading the Drum before I saw Mr Wakefield's name I have seen every objection to AGW that you have brought up debunked several times already.
Serious environmental problems have always threatened those with a deep vested interest in the status quo. This is particularly threatening to the sunken costs in coal mines and oil fields. It is particularly threatening to utilities which want to keep making money without massive investments in new technologies. "Stick with what you know" is basic conservative business dogma. I have no idea why Mr. Wakefield feels so threatened by the reality of the damage being done by the use of fossil fuels. I would be happy to see him present evidence to the contrary which is completely knew and which would convince climate scientists that they are wrong. Scientists are not dogmatic. They are very welcoming of new evidence which changes what they have learned. They are eager to support research which may change what they were taught in school. That is why they became scientists. The example of punctuated equilibrium is a case in point. The example of AGW is a case that has spent 100 years of gradually building a set of data points to support an idea which only one man believed in. Please, please Mr Wakefield give the world new evidence that gives us piece of mind about the future my daughters will be coping with.
Well, here is some good news evidence that climate change is not a threat. First is China. No increase in either drought times or wet times in the past 500 years. Things are as they have been.
http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2007/11/13/centuries-of-yell...
Second, is this one that the US has been seeing an increase in precipitation, less drought, over the past 50 years.
http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2007/12/07/sign-of-the-times/
Both of these counter AGW claims that predict a dire future.
The threat I see is when dogma becomes established in the midset of the public regardless of the evidence or the challenges from people like me. This eventually becomes a witch hunt of people like me who challenge, to the point where we become outcasts and unable to even get a job. We already see this with people who claim that anyone who challenges AGW orthodoxy should not be certified for work. Or are the same as holocost deniers. This can very easily happen once a dogma gets entrenched, and I see AGW dogma getting very entrenched.
Richard Wakefield
Sorry to hear you are unemployed just because of your personal opinion on AGW.