Remember that old saw about getting someone to understand something when his livelihood depends on not understanding it? It applies to CO2 heavy industries if AGW is real, and it applies to the vast majority of researchers in fields related to climate if it is not. So when a Team Blue politician gets together with a Team Blue scientist, and using a bunch of Team Blue institutions, creates a study saying that Team Blue must be given more of Team Red's money, Team Red gets upset. Then when Team Zebra hacks a computer and proves that the original Team Blue guy was a lying sack of crap who used phony data run through the shredder at 2am after someone asked for it, and ran it through an algorithm that produced Team Blue desired results regardless of the data input, Team Red says "see, it was a Team Blue scam all along."
None of that had anything to do with science. Researchers publishing their data, methods, and conclusions in a way that is open, repeatable, and falsifiable, THAT is science. The way Mann, et al did it was politics. And what we choose to do to address the problem, will be politics as well.
California government is broke AS WELL AS it's population. We have a third of the welfare cases in the country. We are 16th of 51 on households living in poverty. If you adjust for cost of living, we're the forth worst state to make a living.
Sure there are some people with gold plated Ferraris here, and pockets of awesomeness along the coast. But it's all coming apart here, like a slow motion San Bruno.
THIS is a great post. Well thought out, measured, reasoning, articulate. Please allow me to respond in the same manner.
OP is suggesting, to borrow your car analogy, that we are not in fact driving off a cliff, but that we ARE in fact, headed down a hill. You look both look 20 miles down the road, and see that it is a thousand feet lower. He is suggesting that there is a road, some parts perhaps steeper than others, that leads down the mountain. You are suggesting a cliff, with no safe way from here to there.
If, over the next 5 years, the global temperature raises 10 degrees, we are indeed going to feel like we drove off a cliff. Millions of homes will be destroyed in floods, global crop failures will cause mass starvation and global resource wars. Granted. If that same change takes place over a hundred, or two hundred years, we will deal with it. Melting icecaps will increase the amount of water in the water cycle, increasing precipitation. People will slowly stop buying beachfront property as it becomes unstable and dangerous, one lot at a time. Huge expanses of land in the north (Think Northern Canada, and Northern Russia, and Greenland!) will go from useless, to marginal, to adequate over a few generations. Billions of people, over generations, will each make small, individual choices that will benefit them, and as a species we will cope just fine.
Most "AGW-deniers" aren't necessarily challenging the idea that average temperatures may be rising, on average, by a fraction of a degree per decade. The challenge comes to one of the following: 1. That the change is primarily caused by man 2. That the change will continue IRREVERSIBLY, FOREVER 3. That the change will at some point become exponential 4. That the change will occur at a catastrophically rapid pace 5. That warming is, in and of itself, A Bad Thing 6. That humanity will not be able to adapt, or will simply sit on the beach and drown 7. That the solution involves allowing someone to create, from thin air, carbon credits, which can then be sold for real money 8. That the solution is to force a reduction of the population, regardless of method 9. That the solution involves creating some sort of super-government to mandate things globally
When one of these points is brought up, and the answer is "SHUT UP YOU DENIER!" the conversation degrades quickly. Thank you for responding civilly, and being willing to listen.
As far as nuclear power's concerned, we can't afford to build the old designs (I mean 1st to 3rd generation stuff like Fukushima) anymore. We would need to use modern designs, which are often either experimental (molten salt, pebble bed,...) or expensive (Gen 3+ or Gen 4 PWRs). They also take years to build correctly! Can we really afford to wait?
Ten years ago, here in the USA, someone said "we need to open up more lands for extracting our oil!" The response was "But those sources won't actually deliver any oil for a decade!" They are still closed, and we need the energy now, just as we did then.
So to answer your question, YES! Build the experimental and expensive plants now. Maybe nuclear power tech can improve exponentially, but we'll never know until we get it going. As designs get better, we can take some of the worst ones offline, and maybe even replace some coal or NatGas plants.
How come operated safely =/= controlled by corporatists? Think about your last trip to the DMV. Think about mailing a package via USPS vs FedexKinkos.
I do agree with you on the reprocessing. Don't we have tons and tons of nuclear waste lying about? How about we offer our entire supply for free to the company that can reliably and safely generate power from it? Create an incentive for anyone who can reduce the half-life of the waste by a given percentage?
Demographers expect the world population to stabilize by approximately mid-century. Sure, population growth until then will increase CO2 emissions. But it won't increase them nearly as much as previously poor populations industrializing and dramatically ramping up their energy consumption. Rising energy demand in currently developing nations, not rising population, is the real problem.
And in order to harness more energy without increasing CO2, we need to...?
Personally, I think we should take all our nuclear waste that is supposed to be dangerous for 100,000 years, and use it to generate electricity. Also, solar powered residential air conditioners.
I know, let's subsidize pastureland instead of corn. We can do it by having people install wind/solar generation in their pastures, and subsidize THAT!
Cattle probably wouldn't be fattened up with corn as much if there weren't such high subsidies on corn. If the cattle were fed on wild grasses that grew in areas unsuitable for large scale farming, and suburban yards were full of vegetable gardens instead of grass, it could happen. But you can't force people to eat broccoli. And you can't force soccer moms to give up kids' soccer practice for weeding the garden. Hell, you can barely force me to mow my lawn:)
Don't worry! With the USA having $15T in debt, and the Eurozone having €10T in debt, and neither one having any intention of paying any of that back, and with the people who actually have money not willing to continue financing it for much longer, we're well on our way to having some sort of global catastrophe that will significantly reduce the population. Whether it is civil wars over debt slavery, or border wars over resources, or global wars over debt repudiation, exponential equations don't do well in finite systems. Hopefully some tech and some slashdotters make it to the other side OK.
[ ] physical [ ] legislative [ ] market-based [ ] chemical approach to global warming. Your idea will not work. Here is why it won't work. (One or more of the following may apply to your particular idea, and it may have other flaws.)
[ ] it violates the First Law of Thermodynamics [ ] it violates the Second Law of Thermodynamics [ ] catalysts are NOT magic Specifically, your plan fails to account for [ ] sounds too good to be true. [ ] actually is too good to be true. [ ] no supporting studies or other peer-reviewed research [ ] marketing materials use the word "proprietary" and/or "patent pending" way too often. [ ] company founders^H^H^H^H^H^Hperpetrators previously convicted of fraud and/or embezzlement [ ] investors must have the ability to suspend disbelief at will [ ] the energy needed to accomplish your simple transformation [ ] it requires more non-renewable energy inputs than the renewable energy produced by it. [ ] It requires immediate cooperation from the entire world all at once. [ ] People will cheat. [ ] It requires the population to act contrary to self-interest. [ ] Extensive existing infrastructure. [ ] Problems storing power. [ ] Inefficient power transport systems. [ ] Variable weather. [ ] Rich and powerful industries and lobby groups who stand to lose money. [ ] Politicians who know nothing about science. [ ] It uses Nuclear power, and that scares a large number of people who don't get the science behind it. [ ] It uses science, and that scares a large number of people who don't get the science behind it. In summary: [ ] Nice try, but it won't actually work. [ ] You're a scammer trying to blind investors with psuedoscience. [ ] You're completely nuts.
[ ] physical [ ] legislative [ ] market-based [ ] chemical approach to global warming. Your idea will not work. Here is why it won't work. (One or more of the following may apply to your particular idea, and it may have other flaws.)
[ ] it violates the First Law of Thermodynamics [ ] it violates the Second Law of Thermodynamics [ ] catalysts are NOT magic Specifically, your plan fails to account for
[ ] the energy needed to accomplish your simple tranformation [ ] it requires more non-renewable energy inputs than the renewable energy produced by it. [ ] It requires immediate cooperation from the entire world all at once. [ ] People will cheat. [ ] It requires the population to act contrary to self-interest. [ ] Extensive existing infrastructure. [ ] Problems storing power. [ ] Inefficient power transport systems. [ ] Variable weather. [ ] Rich and powerful industries and lobby groups who stand to lose money. [ ] Politicians who know nothing about science. [ ] It uses Nuclear power, and that scares a large number of people who don't get the science behind it. [ ] It uses science, and that scares a large number of people who don't get the science behind it. In summary: [ ] Nice try, but it won't actually work. [ ] You're a scammer trying to blind investers with psuedoscience. [ ] You're completely nuts.
I've never yet seen a piece of hardware that didn't need drivers installed... Just adding one more file to the list of 20 or so needed to get your new (camera, flash drive, external HD etc.) to work is not a real hassle.
Sending people to a earth-crossing asteroid would be a concern if we discover one that would actually collide with earth. Unlikely I know, but possible, and it'd be a good thing to have in our pocket if we need it. A good lunar base that could produce energy for itself and other projects would be a jumping off point for more space exploration, and a far better place for telescopes than under earth-atmosphere.
It would have been far more appropriate to challenge the MPAA in court. It would have put them on the defense.
AFAIK, in the U.S. a trial can only take place when someone has been accused of a crime. Doesn't the constitution prevent 'what if' inquiries to judges?
We're worried about the large-scale pirates, who have the special hardware to write the special sectors on the disc. They can make illegal copies, even if we, the legitimate buyers of DVD's can't make our own archival copies.
The movie industry will continue to release DVD's. Why? For the same reason that they continued to release VHS tapes after people found they could hook up two VCR's together and make copies of the movie. Just because DVD can now be copied doesn't make it a less valid method of distribution. People still buy VHS tapes, and CD music, and playstation games, and what else has copy protection been skipped on?? People will continue to buy DVD movies. This changes nothing.
Slashdot Mirror
Remember that old saw about getting someone to understand something when his livelihood depends on not understanding it? It applies to CO2 heavy industries if AGW is real, and it applies to the vast majority of researchers in fields related to climate if it is not. So when a Team Blue politician gets together with a Team Blue scientist, and using a bunch of Team Blue institutions, creates a study saying that Team Blue must be given more of Team Red's money, Team Red gets upset. Then when Team Zebra hacks a computer and proves that the original Team Blue guy was a lying sack of crap who used phony data run through the shredder at 2am after someone asked for it, and ran it through an algorithm that produced Team Blue desired results regardless of the data input, Team Red says "see, it was a Team Blue scam all along."
None of that had anything to do with science. Researchers publishing their data, methods, and conclusions in a way that is open, repeatable, and falsifiable, THAT is science. The way Mann, et al did it was politics. And what we choose to do to address the problem, will be politics as well.
California government is broke AS WELL AS it's population. We have a third of the welfare cases in the country. We are 16th of 51 on households living in poverty. If you adjust for cost of living, we're the forth worst state to make a living.
Sure there are some people with gold plated Ferraris here, and pockets of awesomeness along the coast. But it's all coming apart here, like a slow motion San Bruno.
THIS is a great post. Well thought out, measured, reasoning, articulate. Please allow me to respond in the same manner.
OP is suggesting, to borrow your car analogy, that we are not in fact driving off a cliff, but that we ARE in fact, headed down a hill. You look both look 20 miles down the road, and see that it is a thousand feet lower. He is suggesting that there is a road, some parts perhaps steeper than others, that leads down the mountain. You are suggesting a cliff, with no safe way from here to there.
If, over the next 5 years, the global temperature raises 10 degrees, we are indeed going to feel like we drove off a cliff. Millions of homes will be destroyed in floods, global crop failures will cause mass starvation and global resource wars. Granted. If that same change takes place over a hundred, or two hundred years, we will deal with it. Melting icecaps will increase the amount of water in the water cycle, increasing precipitation. People will slowly stop buying beachfront property as it becomes unstable and dangerous, one lot at a time. Huge expanses of land in the north (Think Northern Canada, and Northern Russia, and Greenland!) will go from useless, to marginal, to adequate over a few generations. Billions of people, over generations, will each make small, individual choices that will benefit them, and as a species we will cope just fine.
Most "AGW-deniers" aren't necessarily challenging the idea that average temperatures may be rising, on average, by a fraction of a degree per decade. The challenge comes to one of the following:
1. That the change is primarily caused by man
2. That the change will continue IRREVERSIBLY, FOREVER
3. That the change will at some point become exponential
4. That the change will occur at a catastrophically rapid pace
5. That warming is, in and of itself, A Bad Thing
6. That humanity will not be able to adapt, or will simply sit on the beach and drown
7. That the solution involves allowing someone to create, from thin air, carbon credits, which can then be sold for real money
8. That the solution is to force a reduction of the population, regardless of method
9. That the solution involves creating some sort of super-government to mandate things globally
When one of these points is brought up, and the answer is "SHUT UP YOU DENIER!" the conversation degrades quickly. Thank you for responding civilly, and being willing to listen.
As far as nuclear power's concerned, we can't afford to build the old designs (I mean 1st to 3rd generation stuff like Fukushima) anymore. We would need to use modern designs, which are often either experimental (molten salt, pebble bed,...) or expensive (Gen 3+ or Gen 4 PWRs). They also take years to build correctly! Can we really afford to wait?
Ten years ago, here in the USA, someone said "we need to open up more lands for extracting our oil!" The response was "But those sources won't actually deliver any oil for a decade!" They are still closed, and we need the energy now, just as we did then.
So to answer your question, YES! Build the experimental and expensive plants now. Maybe nuclear power tech can improve exponentially, but we'll never know until we get it going. As designs get better, we can take some of the worst ones offline, and maybe even replace some coal or NatGas plants.
How come operated safely =/= controlled by corporatists? Think about your last trip to the DMV. Think about mailing a package via USPS vs FedexKinkos.
I do agree with you on the reprocessing. Don't we have tons and tons of nuclear waste lying about? How about we offer our entire supply for free to the company that can reliably and safely generate power from it? Create an incentive for anyone who can reduce the half-life of the waste by a given percentage?
Demographers expect the world population to stabilize by approximately mid-century. Sure, population growth until then will increase CO2 emissions. But it won't increase them nearly as much as previously poor populations industrializing and dramatically ramping up their energy consumption. Rising energy demand in currently developing nations, not rising population, is the real problem.
And in order to harness more energy without increasing CO2, we need to...?
Personally, I think we should take all our nuclear waste that is supposed to be dangerous for 100,000 years, and use it to generate electricity. Also, solar powered residential air conditioners.
Exponential equations versus linear ones.
Hard to support yourself in a nice job that pays well, when you're (in labor/nursing/watching a 2 year old).
A woman needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle. Until, of course, she needs a man. And if there is no man, she'll just marry Uncle Sam.
I know, let's subsidize pastureland instead of corn. We can do it by having people install wind/solar generation in their pastures, and subsidize THAT!
Oh, we are you say? Hm.
Cattle probably wouldn't be fattened up with corn as much if there weren't such high subsidies on corn. If the cattle were fed on wild grasses that grew in areas unsuitable for large scale farming, and suburban yards were full of vegetable gardens instead of grass, it could happen. But you can't force people to eat broccoli. And you can't force soccer moms to give up kids' soccer practice for weeding the garden. Hell, you can barely force me to mow my lawn :)
Don't worry! With the USA having $15T in debt, and the Eurozone having €10T in debt, and neither one having any intention of paying any of that back, and with the people who actually have money not willing to continue financing it for much longer, we're well on our way to having some sort of global catastrophe that will significantly reduce the population. Whether it is civil wars over debt slavery, or border wars over resources, or global wars over debt repudiation, exponential equations don't do well in finite systems. Hopefully some tech and some slashdotters make it to the other side OK.
Your post advocates a
[ ] physical [ ] legislative [ ] market-based [ ] chemical .)
approach to global warming. Your idea will not work. Here is why it won't work. (One or more of the following may apply to your particular idea, and it may have other flaws
[ ] it violates the First Law of Thermodynamics
[ ] it violates the Second Law of Thermodynamics
[ ] catalysts are NOT magic
Specifically, your plan fails to account for
[ ] sounds too good to be true.
[ ] actually is too good to be true.
[ ] no supporting studies or other peer-reviewed research
[ ] marketing materials use the word "proprietary" and/or "patent pending" way too often.
[ ] company founders^H^H^H^H^H^Hperpetrators previously convicted of fraud and/or embezzlement
[ ] investors must have the ability to suspend disbelief at will
[ ] the energy needed to accomplish your simple transformation
[ ] it requires more non-renewable energy inputs than the renewable energy produced by it.
[ ] It requires immediate cooperation from the entire world all at once.
[ ] People will cheat.
[ ] It requires the population to act contrary to self-interest.
[ ] Extensive existing infrastructure.
[ ] Problems storing power.
[ ] Inefficient power transport systems.
[ ] Variable weather.
[ ] Rich and powerful industries and lobby groups who stand to lose money.
[ ] Politicians who know nothing about science.
[ ] It uses Nuclear power, and that scares a large number of people who don't get the science behind it.
[ ] It uses science, and that scares a large number of people who don't get the science behind it.
In summary:
[ ] Nice try, but it won't actually work.
[ ] You're a scammer trying to blind investors with psuedoscience.
[ ] You're completely nuts.
Your post advocates a
[ ] physical [ ] legislative [ ] market-based [ ] chemical .)
approach to global warming. Your idea will not work. Here is why it won't work. (One or more of the following may apply to your particular idea, and it may have other flaws
[ ] it violates the First Law of Thermodynamics
[ ] it violates the Second Law of Thermodynamics
[ ] catalysts are NOT magic
Specifically, your plan fails to account for
[ ] the energy needed to accomplish your simple tranformation
[ ] it requires more non-renewable energy inputs than the renewable energy produced by it.
[ ] It requires immediate cooperation from the entire world all at once.
[ ] People will cheat.
[ ] It requires the population to act contrary to self-interest.
[ ] Extensive existing infrastructure.
[ ] Problems storing power.
[ ] Inefficient power transport systems.
[ ] Variable weather.
[ ] Rich and powerful industries and lobby groups who stand to lose money.
[ ] Politicians who know nothing about science.
[ ] It uses Nuclear power, and that scares a large number of people who don't get the science behind it.
[ ] It uses science, and that scares a large number of people who don't get the science behind it.
In summary:
[ ] Nice try, but it won't actually work.
[ ] You're a scammer trying to blind investers with psuedoscience.
[ ] You're completely nuts.
"these countries have a disturbing tendency to create people who are violently opposed to the core values of America and we don't owe them shit"
Isn't this a description of our government? Just replace 'countries' with 'people'.
I've never yet seen a piece of hardware that didn't need drivers installed... Just adding one more file to the list of 20 or so needed to get your new (camera, flash drive, external HD etc.) to work is not a real hassle.
Sending people to a earth-crossing asteroid would be a concern if we discover one that would actually collide with earth. Unlikely I know, but possible, and it'd be a good thing to have in our pocket if we need it. A good lunar base that could produce energy for itself and other projects would be a jumping off point for more space exploration, and a far better place for telescopes than under earth-atmosphere.
http://www.prorec.com/prorec/articles.nsf/articl es/8A133F52D0FD71AB86256C2E005DAF1C
http://biz.yahoo.com/t/s/scox.html
Shows that insider stock trades are rapidly approaching the two million dollar mark since June.
I still don't want it!
It would have been far more appropriate to challenge the MPAA in court. It would have put them on the defense.
AFAIK, in the U.S. a trial can only take place when someone has been accused of a crime. Doesn't the constitution prevent 'what if' inquiries to judges?
We're worried about the large-scale pirates, who have the special hardware to write the special sectors on the disc. They can make illegal copies, even if we, the legitimate buyers of DVD's can't make our own archival copies.
The movie industry will continue to release DVD's. Why? For the same reason that they continued to release VHS tapes after people found they could hook up two VCR's together and make copies of the movie. Just because DVD can now be copied doesn't make it a less valid method of distribution. People still buy VHS tapes, and CD music, and playstation games, and what else has copy protection been skipped on?? People will continue to buy DVD movies. This changes nothing.