Climate Change Thread

[Pioneer10]

History has repeatedly shown quick economic depression to an economy leads to revolts and war. The middle east is volatile for a variety of reasons, but despite the news outlets saying otherwise, there are plenty of educated, middle class people throughout Syria, Iran, and the UAE. Pulling the financial stability out from under those countries doesn't reduce the power of terrorism, it increases the threat. Large scales of layoffs mean a large population of desperate people who would (in this specific case) rightfully blame America for their misfortunes. None of that makes the world better.

Not to mention, as I stated earlier, if we exit the fossil market quickly production of resources won't just halt. Building the infrastructure is expensive, the mining is actually relatively cheap. All that would happen is the international cost of said resources plummet. So China, India, and all other developed/ developing countries would be far less inclined to make a shift: Their power costs go down which means production costs drop, which in turn undercuts American products. The depreciation of the fossil energy sector drives a volatile area into depression, likely inciting significant terrorist action.

None of that sounds appealing to me.

This argument completely dismisses that their will be more wars due to climate change more then any short term financial instability. Long term the resource curse seems to be one of the few real macroeconomic theories that predicts long term outcomes which goes against the idea of the best long term interest of these countries is to constantly depend on high fossil fuel prices. The presumption too is that this will happen overnight and cause immedite economic collapse is faulty. Oil dropped by 50 percent in the last year and we dont see revolution in Saudi Arabia. We do however see how pipeline building for long term benefit of corrupt states gooes down. Regardless from a pure selfish perspective their are wars all over the world that the US is not involved with. We are not in the Middle East for humanitarian reasons and with no oil it would be like areas such as sub saharan africa from US military perspective

The idea that China and India will just mine is also faulty. Beijing residents literally have days were no one cam go outside and mined fossil fuels cause pollution beyond just CO2 which is why anti global warming people were surprised when China agreed to set to carbon policy that was more aggressive then anyone predicted. They need to do it for several reasons: the net cost beyond just mining is extremely expensive. The costs though are from negative externalities that are not born by the individual or firms which pay for the extraction and use cost

Returning to climate change and cause of conflict . Dont take my word for it the US military which has steadily increased its threat assessment from climate change to now where it is considered an immediate threat. As a prime example of this being a prescient analysis is we already see it in Syria where drought destabilized their rural areas and was a major trigger for their civil war.

 

[KI4MVP]

History has repeatedly shown quick economic depression to an economy leads to revolts and war. The middle east is volatile for a variety of reasons, but despite the news outlets saying otherwise, there are plenty of educated, middle class people throughout Syria, Iran, and the UAE. Pulling the financial stability out from under those countries doesn't reduce the power of terrorism, it increases the threat. Large scales of layoffs mean a large population of desperate people who would (in this specific case) rightfully blame America for their misfortunes. None of that makes the world better.

Not to mention, as I stated earlier, if we exit the fossil market quickly production of resources won't just halt. Building the infrastructure is expensive, the mining is actually relatively cheap. All that would happen is the international cost of said resources plummet. So China, India, and all other developed/ developing countries would be far less inclined to make a shift: Their power costs go down which means production costs drop, which in turn undercuts American products. The depreciation of the fossil energy sector drives a volatile area into depression, likely inciting significant terrorist action.

None of that sounds appealing to me.

What kind of revolt and terrorism do you think will happen when entire nations become too hot to sustain human life?

 

[KI4MVP]

Okay, I get that. But from what you were saying earlier, I thought the only specific thing you were advocating was some extra government funding for research. I tend to agree with MalTalm that would mean diminishing returns because the most effective, efficient, and likely more successful avenues are already being researched by the private sector. But now, you seem to be going beyond just additional research funding and advocating...what, exactly? That's where I'm confused.



You've argued that solar-powered cars already are cheaper, and already have an economic advantage. Are you still saying that's the case, or not?



Okay, so I assume you're now saying that all that stuff doesn't yet exist. But this brings me back to China, India, and the rest of the developing world. So, two scenarios:

1) what if the technological advances you are assuming (sufficiently improved range and charging for solar cars, battery disposal issues, etc.) are not resolved quickly enough to enable large scale production to stop global warming. What do you advocate if the entire process from research to large-scale production doesn't happen as fast as you want, which I assume would be your position right now?

2) You're now addressing the infrastructure issue I've been trying to discuss for pages now, so that's progress. So okay, let's say we get to the point (and we may not in the short-medium term) where battery performance is improved significantly. But, as you note, the cost of conversion and a new infrastructure is huge. What happens in China and India, who have exploding energy needs and are more likely to use solar just to add more capacity rather than replace capacity?



You are not addressing the point I am raising. You are talking about how big the problem is. I am trying to get specifics from you with respect to solutions. And I'm still not clear on that.



Compared to this? Absolutely. When cost is really no object, and you're talking about accomplishing a single, discrete event, you have a huge advantage.

Powering electric cars is absolutely cheaper than gas powered cars. If you happen to live somewhere where your electrical power comes from solar or other renewables, then powering your electric car from that is cheaper and 100% emissions free. There are a coule of problems.

There are very few places where the power actually comes from solar.
It becomes problematic to take trips in an electric or soon to be limited available hydrogen cars. Charging stations are limited, take at least a half hour to charge, and hydrogen fuel stations are even more limited. I'm not sure if the hydrogen fuel cell cars are out now but know they will be in limited availability soon if they aren't already.

Better batteries, faster charging and more charging stations, preferably powered with renewable energy are needed for electric cars.

If at first china only built plants with renewable energy that would be a heck of a lot better than building more coal plants. Eventually it will cost too much to not replace the existing plants with solar.

I don't want to just fix one piece of the puzzle, I want us to push all aspects forward. Accelerate the rate of change and improve our chances of solving this before it's too late. R&d, product development, infrastructure, new standards all need to be addressed in parallel. If we do these one at a time it will absolutely take too long.

You asked what happens if we don't get it done in time, we as a species are screwed, that's what happens. That's why we can't afford to wait around and just hope the problem resolves itself on its own,

 

[SalvadoranCavsfan]

If you actually truly believe that climate change is real, then the immediate negative economic impact is nothing compared to what will happen if the planet continues to heat up. Choosing to delay any kind of action because it is pricey right now is incredibly selfish. You understand that with tough decisions we can make sure that this planet is habitable for generations to come. Without changes now the problem will be harder to reverse or possibly even impossible. If you truly believe that climate change is real, inaction is the single greatest slap in the face to your future children and grandchildren. They will be responsible for trying to solve our failings, or will be too busy fighting over water and resources to care.

If you actually do not believe in climate change then don't worry, everything will be just fine. All of our fossil fuel resources will never run out, and saving the environment is for hippies and liberals anyways.

 

[MalTalm]

So now the discussion is evolving into hyperbole...

What kind of revolt and terrorism do you think will happen when entire nations become too hot to sustain human life?

Three years ago, I was on this very same message board expounding on man-made climate change, determined to get people to the heart of the discussion. While this is ultimately a sports board, I think it's a reasonable place to get some intelligent commentary on political issues: The posters tend to be a bit more savvy than other places of the internet. Instead of getting to a real discussion, I argued with @Maximus and @gourimoko who both stated they believed in climate change, but didn't believe a significant part of the issue was man-made. I honestly don't remember what side @KI4MVP was then, or if he was even in the discussion, but when both Max and Gour are on the same side, forget it, the discussion isn't happening.

Fast forward to today: Let's move the discussion past "Is climate change real"? The answer is yes. Undoubtedly so. Let's have a more thought-provoking and honest discussion of what can/ should be done. That requires people come to the table with an open mind, and try to see the complexities from every angle. We've been going in circles for pages, and I still have no real idea of what actionable thing people want, short of a blanket concept of the government should spend money on it. And believe me, I want to see the other side here.

Here's where I am at, bullet point style.
*The renewable energy market is currently growing exponentially
*Solar power efficiency is doubling roughly every 2 years
*As the cost of solar energy go down, demand increases. As that demand increases, emissions slow
*There is already a shit ton of carbon in the atmosphere. If emissions went to 0 tomorrow, that is an issue we would still need to address.
*Emissions are a world issue, not a state issue. If America cuts emissions by 10% and China increases emissions by 10%, progress wasn't really made
*Like it or not, fossil fuels are a multi-billion dollar worldwide industry. Causing massive harm to that industry would have huge ramifications immediately and in the long term.

So back to the topic at hand: On this one point, you are right KI. But to that end, we should now be preparing those countries for that inevitability. It is coming, we should be proactive. That's an actionable item I would wholeheartedly support. But those countries are in trouble regardless of initiatives we could put in place tomorrow. Again, we're already at a turning point. I wouldn't simply argue that it isn't cost effective to try and reconfigure our entire energy system to try and slow global warming down enough to save countries who will likely be the most affected by climate change, I would say it's impossible.

If you actually truly believe that climate change is real, then the immediate negative economic impact is nothing compared to what will happen if the planet continues to heat up. Choosing to delay any kind of action because it is pricey right now is incredibly selfish. You understand that with tough decisions we can make sure that this planet is habitable for generations to come. Without changes now the problem will be harder to reverse or possibly even impossible. If you truly believe that climate change is real, inaction is the single greatest slap in the face to your future children and grandchildren. They will be responsible for trying to solve our failings, or will be too busy fighting over water and resources to care.

If you actually do not believe in climate change then don't worry, everything will be just fine. All of our fossil fuel resources will never run out, and saving the environment is for hippies and liberals anyways.

@SpanishCavsfan This whole post is just completely absurd, you're coming at this from too emotional of a place... This is filled with fluff and no substance. What hard choices need made, and to what end? Do you actually think that if it takes 10 years longer to cut emissions to near zero, that will be the difference between being able to solve or not solve global warming? Truth is, we don't have any way to "reverse" global warming currently. What carbon is in the atmosphere will stay there until such a technology is developed to extract it and store it back in the Earth. Good news though: The private sector as well as many universities around the world are researching that. Some of that research is even being conducted with federally allocated money. Sounds like we're on the right track...

No one is advocating "delay", people such as myself are arguing that the change is real, is happening naturally, and the best course of action is to allow that to continue. Selfish is a poor word choice, it's off the mark and naive. Allowing a natural evolutionary shift in the energy market will create less of a burden on many people all around the world, most of which don't actually inhabit America. The government would need to get involved if this issue was not profitable, thus the private sector wouldn't be motivated to solve it. As it stands, there are billions and billions of dollars for the first company to undercut the cost of fossil fuels.

I asked this before, and I didn't get an answer, so I'll ask it again more directly:

If the choices were:
A. We spend 100 billion of tax payer money on trying to accelerate the adaption of renewable energy in this country, which in turn shifted production overseas causing unemployment to rise back to 12% and our GDP to shrink, thereby making what is already a large tax burden on this country near unsustainable for the next 2 generations leading to massive cuts or outright elimination in entitlements. In doing so, the world temperature was 4*C higher in 100 years.

B. We allow the private market to solve the energy crisis, which takes an extra 5-10 years. Unemployment stays low and our GDP continues to rise annually. The temperature is 5*C higher in 100 years.

 

[Jordan]

Investment in renewables would be worth it just in terms of military costs. A We have something like 3 entire aircraft carrier bsttle groups that are kept online for the middle east. Saudia Arabia and it Madrasas which support extremist Islam is all about oil. Funding for Israel is basically to neuttalize the advantage of petro states. Then you have Russia which is essentiay an oil company with a a massive army around it. All these cost calculations dont take this into this account as a massive amount of our military resources are used to protect world oil supplies or ironically fight off effects caused by the wealth of those countries with oil.

Sent from my SM-N920P using Tapatalk

I'm going to jump in here. I agree with this, to a certain extent, but I think there are aspects worth pointing out.

First, to your point, in his book The Confrontation, Walid Phares examines Saudi oil money and finds that almost 90 percent of the funding of Jihadi networks comes from oil-rich regimes (31). So, to that extent, I absolutely agree. We need to end our relationship, as it currently stands, with Saudi Arabia. And that doesn't even account for how terrible their human rights record is.

Second, and here is where I depart a bit, I think the issue is more complicated. Firstly, Thomas Lippman - scholar at CFR -- has explained in his book Saudi Arabia on the Edge that the Saudis have already begun marketing in the alternative energy field. SO they'll make money off of us through that route, even after oil disappears. More importantly, though, the relationship is about much more than oil. U.S. politics is afraid of Iran, even after the nuclear agreement, and to that end will always ally with the Saudis. Think about it, Iran and Russia are buddies. Their policies align perfectly. We don't like either and the Saudis fight them in the Mid. East, so we support the Saudis.

It's all asinine, and I agree, we need to move away from the Saudis yesterday. But we won't. So, unfortunately, I don't think alternative energies really push us along that path at all.

 

[gourimoko]

@MalTalm, I think your posts deserve a more thoughtful response, and haven't had the time to write one out just yet, but wanted to respond to this snippet first.

I asked this before, and I didn't get an answer, so I'll ask it again more directly:

If the choices were:
A. We spend 100 billion of tax payer money on trying to accelerate the adaption of renewable energy in this country, which in turn shifted production overseas causing unemployment to rise back to 12% and our GDP to shrink, thereby making what is already a large tax burden on this country near unsustainable for the next 2 generations leading to massive cuts or outright elimination in entitlements. In doing so, the world temperature was 4*C higher in 100 years.

B. We allow the private market to solve the energy crisis, which takes an extra 5-10 years. Unemployment stays low and our GDP continues to rise annually. The temperature is 5*C higher in 100 years.

I think option A isn't remotely possible or plausible for quite a few reasons.

First the issues speaking to the point you're making:

1) Only $100 billion spent on the adoption of solar power honestly isn't remotely enough; it'd probably get us an additional 20-30 GW which under the best case scenario would be a 2% shift in total US power. Best possible case scenario we could hope for would be a series 40-50 GW combined capacity plants, and again, that'd be less than 4-5%.

2) You'd need $100 billion spent annually, for at least the next 10-15 years to get the United States away from needing coal power. And that doesn't include the necessary capital investment to increase our use of nuclear power (which is necessary for any such plan).

You could increase the capital investment and decrease the time required; again, no new technologies are really needed, so it's a matter of available funding. You'd be much better off with $150-200 billion spent, with direct funding and public ownership (like the highway system).

3) Much of this money likely would be in the form of loan guarantees to private corporations, so it's hard to state an actual cost to consumers. If banks were willing to issue several hundred billion in loans for such projects over the next decade, and these projects were largely backed by the Federal government, it's hard to say exactly how much taxpayers would need to spend in upfront costs per annum. These banks could offer the same loans to the federal government, preserving public ownership, but I'm fine with private ownership if that gets the job done.

With respect to your conclusion about unemployment though;

4) I'm totally not seeing how this would result in 12% unemployment and an actual recession. I think you greatly overestimate the number of people working in the coal industry - which is largely the industry such proposals look to supplant. To get the numbers you're talking about, millions upon millions of people would need to lose their jobs.

Only 0.12% of the American workforce works in coal power related jobs. If you cut half of those jobs replacing 35% of the U.S. power output with solar, you'd cause a net increase of unemployment of 0.06% with respect to permanent employment minus the increase of permanent jobs created by new solar power plants.

5) To do any of these proposals would likely cost well over $1T over then next 10-15 years. However, this revenue doesn't simply disappear, instead, it's directly injected into the private economy. According to Keynesian economics, this would result in a proportional increase in GDP over the same period; not a decrease, let alone a recession.

6) Entitlements really haven't anything to do with this in my view. According to the Tax Policy Center (a conservative group), if taxes were gradually raised 7% with respect to GDP (currently at 24% of GDP) over a 10 year span, the US gov't could balance the budget without spending cuts. Under this same metric, a substantially smaller increase in taxes across the board could pay for such proposals without actually involving military spending cuts (which should be cut) or entitlements.

7) Increase the national debt by even $2T is sustainable. I'm not sure why you think the United States would suffer economic collapse under such conditions.

So, all in all, I think this is a very obvious false dilemma. We could stimulate the economy with a national works program to build solar power plants throughout the nation without bankrupting the American government or causing a recession.

Government spending on such programs generally has a stimulative effect on the economy.

 

[Pioneer10]

I'm going to jump in here. I agree with this, to a certain extent, but I think there are aspects worth pointing out.

First, to your point, in his book The Confrontation, Walid Phares examines Saudi oil money and finds that almost 90 percent of the funding of Jihadi networks comes from oil-rich regimes (31). So, to that extent, I absolutely agree. We need to end our relationship, as it currently stands, with Saudi Arabia. And that doesn't even account for how terrible their human rights record is.

Second, and here is where I depart a bit, I think the issue is more complicated. Firstly, Thomas Lippman - scholar at CFR -- has explained in his book Saudi Arabia on the Edge that the Saudis have already begun marketing in the alternative energy field. SO they'll make money off of us through that route, even after oil disappears. More importantly, though, the relationship is about much more than oil. U.S. politics is afraid of Iran, even after the nuclear agreement, and to that end will always ally with the Saudis. Think about it, Iran and Russia are buddies. Their policies align perfectly. We don't like either and the Saudis fight them in the Mid. East, so we support the Saudis.

It's all asinine, and I agree, we need to move away from the Saudis yesterday. But we won't. So, unfortunately, I don't think alternative energies really push us along that path at all.

They have been marketing in that field and with all that desert they really do have a lot of capacity to produce solar but let's to be honest they just wouldn't have the nearly the kind of price setting power that they have an oil. A finite resource where you have the most oil reserves is a lot different then sunshine and technological prowess which you are definitely not the world leader.

Saudi long term I think is also going to change: clearly 9/11 was far more related to the religious teaching that the Saudi kings have used to justify their reign then anything out of Iran. The Persians actually have a much more liberal state then the Saudi as well (this is of course relative to each other and not a comparison to a Western nation). I think the nuclear deal where the US is finally aligning it's energy AND fighting jihadism financially into one

 

[Jordan]

They have been marketing in that field and with all that desert they really do have a lot of capacity to produce solar but let's to be honest they just wouldn't have the nearly the kind of price setting power that they have an oil. A finite resource where you have the most oil reserves is a lot different then sunshine and technological prowess which you are definitely not the world leader.

I agree here but it is not that simple. But they will still play a major role in the energy market. Again though, I don't think it is what the alliance is based on.

Saudi long term I think is also going to change: clearly 9/11 was far more related to the religious teaching that the Saudi kings have used to justify their reign then anything out of Iran. The Persians actually have a much more liberal state then the Saudi as well (this is of course relative to each other and not a comparison to a Western nation). I think the nuclear deal where the US is finally aligning it's energy AND fighting jihadism financially into one

No chance. The Saudis have been financing this stuff since the 1970s. They've continued after 9/11 and the U.S. doesn't care. The U.S. actually supported this in the 80s. It's a cost benefit. Saudi Arabia fights the bad groups (ISIS, AQ), they are supportive of Israel, and they provide us an ally in the geopolitical battle against Russia

Also, Saudi Arabia walks a fine line. It's a rentier state. So they function by doing what Nazih Ayubi terms "bonanza modernization." Essentially, bonanza modernization allows the dominant class to enjoy the stable state without paying for lower class citizens out of it’s own pocket. So they modernize in certain areas (such as creating free healthcare, paying for students to go anywhere in the world for college, etc.) while still maintaining a hold on power. For this to occur, though, the regime must have a source of income not attached to economic creation. In this case, it is oil. But also, and here is where the policies are important, it is also the exporting of religion. They don't promote religion just to be dicks. They do it because it gives them a hold on society. When they dumped religion in the late 70s, it lead to an uprising (1979 Meccan Mosque uprising). When they did it in the mid-2000s, a bunch of Saudis joined al-Qaeda.

This isn't to say that all Saudis are religious nut jobs. Most aren't. But the ones that aren't are content under bonanza modernization. The ones that are, on the other hand, are wealthy and have access to power and weapons. So until oil becomes obsolete, which won't happen for many years, the regime will stay the same. And until the Iran regime changes to one that doesn't support Russia and Hezbollah, the U.S. will stayed allies with the regime.

P.S., not trying to be a dick and don't have time to edit. You know your stuff and this is an awesome conversation.

 

[Pioneer10]

Also, Saudi Arabia walks a fine line. It's a rentier state. So they function by doing what Nazih Ayubi terms "bonanza modernization." Essentially, bonanza modernization allows the dominant class to enjoy the stable state without paying for lower class citizens out of it’s own pocket. So they modernize in certain areas (such as creating free healthcare, paying for students to go anywhere in the world for college, etc.) while still maintaining a hold on power. For this to occur, though, the regime must have a source of income not attached to economic creation. In this case, it is oil. But also, and here is where the policies are important, it is also the exporting of religion. They don't promote religion just to be dicks. They do it because it gives them a hold on society. When they dumped religion in the late 70s, it lead to an uprising (1979 Meccan Mosque uprising). When they did it in the mid-2000s, a bunch of Saudis joined al-Qaeda.

This isn't to say that all Saudis are religious nut jobs. Most aren't. But the ones that aren't are content under bonanza modernization. The ones that are, on the other hand, are wealthy and have access to power and weapons. So until oil becomes obsolete, which won't happen for many years, the regime will stay the same. And until the Iran regime changes to one that doesn't support Russia and Hezbollah, the U.S. will stayed allies with the regime.

I agree that this will not be over night and I'm fully aware of why the Saudi's are doing what they do and I would be surprised if they change (beyond that rentier states can be very unstable: the King's princes are all about dead now. Successions can be very messy business). What I do think is that long term strategic interests of the US are not aligned with this religious fundamentalism and while everyone pussy foots around this in government talks: it was not just Israeli's who did not want a nuclear deal with Iran. The US will I believe look to more of a neutral position in the Middle East: let the knives come out for each other. What is the key to this? Reduce oil dependence.

 

[Jordan]

I agree that this will not be over night and I'm fully aware of why the Saudi's are doing what they do and I would be surprised if they change (beyond that rentier states can be very unstable: the King's princes are all about dead now. Successions can be very messy business). What I do think is that long term strategic interests of the US are not aligned with this religious fundamentalism and while everyone pussy foots around this in government talks: it was not just Israeli's who did not want a nuclear deal with Iran. The US will I believe look to more of a neutral position in the Middle East: let the knives come out for each other. What is the key to this? Reduce oil dependence.

Over course strategic interests are not with the Saudis. They never have been. Neither has been are alliance with Israel. But as long as Russia and Iran are actively involved in the Middle East we'll ally with the Saudis. The U.S. is all about stability. You cannot ally with both the Saudis and Iran, so the U.S. will be forced to choose. Because of the Republican Party, Hezbollah, Israel, and yes, oil, the U.S. will stick with the Saudis. Without oil the other three factors are still in play.

I think you're going about the interest argument the wrong way. In relation to Saudi Arabia, the biggest benefit isn't a change in the alliance, but if we have alternative energies and don't need as much oil from them then they have less money to spend on financing Jihadis.

 

[KI4MVP]

@MalTalm - how did you come up with +4C as the best case and +5C as the worst case?

 

[The Human Q-Tip]

I don't want to just fix one piece of the puzzle, I want us to push all aspects forward. Accelerate the rate of change and improve our chances of solving this before it's too late. R&d, product development, infrastructure, new standards all need to be addressed in parallel. If we do these one at a time it will absolutely take too long.

Okay, my question is what exactly are you advocating the government do? Because otherwise, you're in the boat with those of us saying to let the market handle it. So let's go bit by bit here:

1) R&D -- I get that you want the government to spend more money on this. I happen to agree with MalTalm that the most productive research is going to be occurring in the private sector, and that more government expenditures will yield diminishing returns, but at least I get what you want to there.

2) "Product development". What does this actually mean in terms of what you want the government to do, as opposed to the private firms operating in the market developing the products they make?

3) "infrastructure". Again, what exactly are you advocating here? Gas stations were privately built, financed, and owned. Power plants generally were built with private money as well. There's also to issue of large scale tooling, etc. And even on the personal level, installing solar panels, geothermal, or whatever costs a lot of up front money. So exactly what do you propose the government do about that?

4) Standards...again, are you talking about a government mandate here, or what?

 

[The Human Q-Tip]

No one is advocating "delay", people such as myself are arguing that the change is real, is happening naturally, and the best course of action is to allow that to continue.

For a great many people, if they can't personally see or read about something actually happening, it's not happening. That's why there is this inevitable bias towards having the government do things -- because it gets reported on by the media, debated, etc., and people can see it. And very often, because the goal of the media is readership/viewership, it gets reported in such as way so as to maximize the pros, and minimize the cons. Assuming the reporter actually has a coherent understanding of it at all, which is very often not the case..

But what happens in terms of R&D, prototype development, etc. outside of government simply doesn't get the same level of coverage. The step by step, solving one knotty little problem after another progress generally required for developing usable technology simply isn't sexy enough to get reported.

That's compounded exponentially by the rise of internet expertise. People who do not work in the industry read "cool" articles somewhere about some fantastic advance or progress, or read cherry-picked data that does not fully encompass the real world nits inherent in making things actually work, and then become advocates for whatever their favored pet projects is/are. It was the "Omni" effect from during the 80's/90's.

I honestly have a hard time getting in the minds of such people. Do they really think that the article they just read is something that the tens of thousands of people working in private industry haven't already considered? The reality is that the real experts are either already working on that stuff, and so (rightly) view such articles as just stating the obvious (at least it's obvious to the actual experts), or they know that there are a whole bunch of practical problems that are either glossed over or not mentioned in the article.

A lot of us are experts in something, and nothing is more frustrating than when people who don't know what they're talking about think they do. And you try to explain it, and can't, because they lack the background to know which arguments have merit, and which don't. The funny thing is that we can all recognize it when we're the expert, and get annoyed at those who don't know what they don't know. But that doesn't stop people from playing the internet expert when it comes to other peoples' actual expertise.

There probably isn't any better example of all that than in the alternative energy discussion, because global warming is such a cause celebre that everyone wants to think there is an easy, obvious answer.

 

[Maximus]

Back in 2007, Al Gore said the climate models indicated that the ice cap would be gone during the summer months in 5-7 years. I said bullshit, he's just being an alarmist. Who was right? Me or the soon to be first carbon billionaire who has a carbon footprint equal to that of a small city?

Does man impact the climate? Sure, i don't think anyone would deny that. The issue is - how much of an impact is man having on climate change...i have no clue...i dont think there's a consensus on how much of an impact either. So I'm not for bankrupting industries and crippling the economy. Technology will find a way and it wont take long...it's accelerating at a geometric rate. The singularity is near, most of what we consider problems won't be problems any more. We will have unlimited free energy in the next decade or two.


Michael Crichton said it best about consensus science...

Michael Crichton:
“I want to pause here and talk about this notion of consensus, and the rise of what has been called consensus science. I regard consensus science as an extremely pernicious development that ought to be stopped cold in its tracks. Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you're being had.

Let's be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus.

There is no such thing as consensus science. If it's consensus, it isn't science. If it's science, it isn't consensus. Period.”