Another very interesting tidbit on Climate Change

[Stella_Omega]

t's not a real "principle," but purely a political tool.

Actually, it's part of the Hippocratic oath, that doctors traditionally take.

Why oh why do you keep talking about bureaucrats? I've never once said a word in their favor. I don't think they work well either. I also know damn well that "unbridled capitolism" is not the answer-- witness 3113's thread on fucked-up land development policies.

Small things can have big effects; microbes and viruses, for instance. Elk have died from mosquitoes literally draining their blood. Poor farming techniques caused the Dustbowl during the thirties, and archaeologists say that the same poor farming techniques exacerbated the conditions that created the Sahara Desert.

Anyway, I have to let you know that I will not be coming back to this thread, because if I'm going to jack off-- I have better ways to do it.

 

[neonlyte]

I know that, dear, and so does Mr. Crichton. I said you really should go to the piece and read it, but I'll c&p a few more grafs (it's not real c&p friendly).

~~~~~~~~~~
http://www.michaelcrichton.com/speech-complexity.html#

. . . But the shock that I had experienced reverberated within me for a while. Because what I had been led to believe about Chernobyl was not merely wrong—it was astonishingly wrong. Let’s review the data.

The initial reports in 1986 claimed 2,000 dead, and an unknown number of future deaths and deformities occurring in a wide swath extending from Sweden to the Black Sea. As the years passed, the size of the disaster increased; by 2000, the BBC and New York Times estimated 15,000-30,000 dead, and so on…

Now, to report that 15,000-30,000 people have died, when the actual number is 56, represents a big error. But, of course, you think, we’re talking about radiation: what about long-term consequences? Unfortunately here the media reports are even less accurate.

The chart shows estimates as high as 3.5 million, or 500,000 deaths, when the actual number of delayed deaths is less than 4,000. That’s the number of Americans who die of adverse drug reactions every six weeks. Again, a huge error.

But most troubling of all, according to the UN report in 2005, is that "the largest public health problem created by the accident" is the "damaging psychological impact [due] to a lack of accurate information…[manifesting] as negative self-assessments of health, belief in a shortened life expectancy, lack of initiative, and dependency on assistance from the state."

In other words, the greatest damage to the people of Chernobyl was caused by bad information. These people weren’t blighted by radiation so much as by terrifying but false information. We ought to ponder, for a minute, exactly what that implies. We demand strict controls on radiation because it is such a health hazard. But Chernobyl suggests that false information can be a health hazard as damaging as radiation. I am not saying radiation is not a threat. I am not saying Chernobyl was not a genuinely serious event.

But thousands of Ukrainians who didn’t die were made invalids out of fear. They were told to be afraid. They were told they were going to die when they weren’t. They were told their children would be deformed when they weren’t. They were told they couldn’t have children when they could. They were authoritatively promised a future of cancer, deformities, pain and decay. It’s no wonder they responded as they did.

Citing Crichton in the manner you choose is spurious at best. The radiation model all nations worked to in 1986 predicted death and ensuing injury at the rates initially reported by newspapers (largely) who were not on the ground and simply dusted off their 'fact sheets' to embelish their articles. We (as a species) learnt something from Chenobyl, that radiation in relatively low doses was less dangerous than scientists predicited. Throwing in a 2005 UN report to reinforce your argument smacks of muddled thinking. I'm sorry to be harsh.

The learning curve on radiation is in its infancy, we all know radiation exposure kills, we are now uncertain as to the magnitude of exposure that can cause injury or death. We don't know if some people are more susceptible than others to radiation exposure and until we can hold reliably informed opinion as to the danger it is quite acceptable for some people to hold strong anti-nuclear views. I happen not to be one of them, equally, I'd prefer not to have a nuclear power station in my back yard.

 

[amicus]

Interesting article Roxanne, once again I am in your debt and offer my appreciation for your efforts.

A couple points, if I may. Crichton is relatively new to this area of thinking, as he himself pointed out, while many of us have been pursuing this subject for nearly half a century.

He is, I think, basking in the warm glow of his recent discoveries and, as such, has not yet gone beyond the 'box', in terms or replacing the gloom and doomer's with a positive and simple approach to the future and to the continued existence of the species and the environment.

The vague over all feeling I am left with is that we are powerless to control or direct the future as our degree of ability can never approach the complexity of existence.

I propose that a much simpler thought process is possible when dealing with the imponderables brought forth in the piece and in reality itself.

I draw upon whatever resources I have acquired in my attempt to understand the nature of life and the evolution of both flora and fauna here on the 3rd rock.

However, the necessary brevity will no doubt leave ample room for debate and disagreement.

"Kiss". Keep it simple stupid.

For simplicity's sake, leave mankind out of the entire scheme of nature and perceive how the entire ecological system, all things included, actually, in reality, functions.

Beginning with our recently acquired knowledge about Plate Tectonics, everything changes at differing rates.

The changes are not chaotic, as many choose to 'believe', rather, causal in nature whether we understand or not.

Flora and Fauna compete for living space. The most successful survive and procreate and multiply and mutate and evolve, all modified, of course, by the ever changing nature of the planet and environment.

The weeds and ants in my garden seem to survive in spite of what I do to cultivate my tomato's and corn, but in my own small way, I change this small part of the ecosystem.

Occam's Razor applies, perhaps, the simplest solution is most likely the most efficient.

The freedom to function in one's own self interest, be it a tomato plant or a human being, is about as axiomatic and self evident as anything can be.

Crichton seems to conclude that we cannot manage our existence and if we try, we do so badly.

I rather think a diversified approach, wherein each entity can function, as I suggested, in its' own best interest, will provide a key to the future that is not predictable in specific terms, but is, in general.


Again, Roxanne, thank you for the thought and the effort to continue the discussion.

As always...


amicus...

 

[geronimo_appleby]

does anyone know the isbn for 'on the beach' - nevil shute?

 

[neonlyte]

does anyone know the isbn for 'on the beach' - nevil shute?

1-84232-276-1

 

[geronimo_appleby]

1-84232-276-1

if i get a duff copy, i'll be back.

 

[neonlyte]

if i get a duff copy, i'll be back.

just make sure it's not glowing

 

[amicus]

There is a wealth of reading pleasure and excellent information in most of Nevil Shute Norway's work; a total of twenty-six novels as I recall. I have the First Printings of many of them.

amicus...

 

[S-Des]

The learning curve on radiation is in its infancy, we all know radiation exposure kills, we are now uncertain as to the magnitude of exposure that can cause injury or death. We don't know if some people are more susceptible than others to radiation exposure and until we can hold reliably informed opinion as to the danger it is quite acceptable for some people to hold strong anti-nuclear views.

I'm pretty sure that was Rox's point about Global Warming.

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

Interesting to watch how exchanges related to this issue flow, as demonstrated by this one today. I post information that the widely repeated death totals for Chernobyl were off by several orders of magnitude. One member of 'the opposition' responds that the immediate death rates aren't the issue, but the long-term radiation poisoning. So I post some more from same source, showing that this too was monstrously exagerated, with very negative consequences for the local population.

The response to this was somewhere between, "Duh - everyone knows that" and "it's complicated," and I get chided for spurious citations. Hmmm, it's become confused at that point about what we're "supposed" to believe, but that doesn't get in the way of a round of jolly nuke bashing, with references to "On the Beach," "glowing" references, etc.

"We are at war with Oceana, we have always been at war with Oceana." Hmm - I could have sworn that yesterday it was Eurasia . . .

 

[neonlyte]

I'm pretty sure that was Rox's point about Global Warming.

You're right!

A room full of Carbon Dioxide will kill, as will a room full of radiation. We thought we knew something about the latter and Chernobyl was both a warning and evidence (to some degree) that radiation exposure may not present the high level of risk assumed by scientists for the last 50-70 years. The jury is out on the risk issue.

We know diddly squat about cause and effect of Global Warming. Evidence suggests it is occuring, evidence links GW to carbon emissions, it is inconclusive whilst simultaneously having a large body of scientific opinion supporting the linkage. Prudence suggests we adopt measures to deal with GW and I'm all in favour of that.

If people want to maintain the life style they currently enjoy and expect their kids and grandkids to enjoy an improving lifestyle it is more likely than less likely that nuclear will provide a substantial part of future energy needs. On the balance of 'risk', I'd prefer the nuclear option over a battle to control dwindling energy reserves, though the battle might easily reduce the world population to the level of Roxannes 'utopia', quite what they'd enjoy is anyones guess.

As time passes the message of GWB's poodle sounds ever more accurate: 'There are things we know, things we know we don't know, things we don't know we don't know... '. I keep thinking it would be nice if we all agreed there was an awful lot we don't know and seek to find a way forward that has minimum impact upon our species because as sure as eggs is eggs what we continually reference as environmental fragility is actually species fragility.

I'm not siding with the 'doom laden' camp but I do think the risk of severe species depletion is increasing. The risk isn't contained in a potential 2C rise in global temperatures, that's containable if expensive, much beyond that would risk species catastrophy. The 'environment' would cope, wouldn't suit us, but it doesn't actually care too much about 'us'.

My point about Roxanne, Crichton and Global Warming is that we can't be sure who is right. Hammering a position based upon singularities (Chernobyl) misses the point and only serves to obsfucate a rational path to tackling issues that confront each of us. Nuclear power may be a solution and in concert with other energy options it may take stress out of future energy pinch points. In this context, when I read of the Indian Governments plan to raise an extra 400,000,000 cattle to provide methane for public transport, and China's ability to support future energy needs by burning coal, the whole idea of carbon balance looks shaky. Global opinion is largely against nuclear but it may be our best short term option, Chernobyl only changed the perspective, it didn't prove nuclear was 'safe'.

 

[S-Des]

You're right!

Well, there's a first time for everything.

I agree for the most part with the rest of your post. I'm far more in the green camp than in the other, but I do get annoyed at the whole, "Al Gore is the Messiah and you must not question him" attitude. There's plenty to be unsure of with all the varied claims, but I wouldn't be a bit surprised if many (if not most) turned out to be correct. Just like the border issue, I think we should make improvements while we're deciding on the best, safest course for everyone involved. I'm all for using less fossil fuels, better gas mileage, recycling, improved building codes (to take advantage of all the technology that's out there and to leave the door open for future integration with emerging technologies), and about 1000 other things that would be better than what we're doing right now. I just don't want to have many mistakes compounded by making more. Let's do the things we can all (OK . . . almost all) agree on, then go from there. At least that would be my two cents.

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

Prudence suggests we adopt measures to deal with GW and I'm all in favour of that.

. . . I keep thinking it would be nice if we all agreed there was an awful lot we don't know and seek to find a way forward that has minimum impact upon our species because as sure as eggs is eggs what we continually reference as environmental fragility is actually species fragility.

. . . My point about Roxanne, Crichton and Global Warming is that we can't be sure who is right. Hammering a position based upon singularities (Chernobyl) misses the point

. . . Global opinion is largely against nuclear but it may be our best short term option, Chernobyl only changed the perspective, it didn't prove nuclear was 'safe'.

As SDes suggested, your post evinces a reasonable and realistic view that is not the norm (among those who are not totally on my side in this debate ). Just a few points, related to the excerpts I've excised:

That "minimal impact" is really the key. People really have no conception of the cost of the command-and-control "solutions" that the enviros running the show now would impose. It's all very satisfying I'm sure to sneer at "Big Oil's profits" (saying that last word in the same tone as "slimy turds,"), but that is the most superficial analysis, and ignores the devastating consequences on ordinary people of genuine energy shortages and skyrocketing prices as these policies are implemented. Already, due to overregulation and NIMBYism, the US is on a knife edge of gasoline shortages due to an inability over the past couple decades to expand refinery capacity. We are just a couple bad accidents or a hurricane away from 1973-style gas lines, "gas-less Sundays," and potential rationing. That would cause a major U.S. recession, which would ripple around the world, diminishing the well-being of billions.

And that is just one little enviro regulation run amock. Multiply that in scores of related areas and you start to get an idea of what "the cost" really means.

Sure we can lower populations and overall energy use - in time. I described here a very plausible scenario for what the world could look like in 200 years. It's a far more plausible scenario than than the doomsday ones so beloved of enviros - and many AHers - BTW, for the reason Klaus put so well:

"The environmentalists ask for immediate political action because they do not believe in the long-term positive impact of economic growth and ignore both the technological progress that future generations will undoubtedly enjoy, and the proven fact that the higher the wealth of society, the higher is the quality of the environment. They are Malthusian pessimists."

But that "immediate political action" will cause a world of hurt, literally. However, most who are pushing for it, including many right here, refuse to seriously think through these real consequences. They evade thinking with fantasies about "alternatives," having no conception of their inadequacy in the face of the magnitudes of energy required by even a much more efficient industrial civilization serving a smaller population, as in my 200-year scenario. They also evade with superficial and fashionable capitalist-bashing - "Oil company profits :sneer: " . Neon's remarks about nuclear show that he does understand this reality.

I dunno - maybe that gasoline shortage and worldwide recession/depression will be necessary to force people to stop allowing public policy to be made on the basis of green mysticism and floating abstractions, and take seriously the consequences of their putative policy preferences in real suffering for real people. That's sad, and so unnecessary.

What frightens me more is the prospect that the future will be made a version of the 1970s "malaise" ecept on steroids, with everyone convinced that "it's all downhill from here," settling gloomily into acceptance of steadily declining standards of living and quality of life. The tragedy of that outcome is that it pulls the rug out from hundreds of millions - billions, really - in the developing world who right now are the threshold of ascending from near-subsistence level existance to something close to the comforts, conveniences and security enjoyed by the West. We'll still have those at a diminished level, but aspiring Chinese, Indians and others will be fucked. And it's all so unnecessary.

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

My point about Roxanne, Crichton and Global Warming is that we can't be sure who is right. Hammering a position based upon singularities (Chernobyl) misses the point and only serves to obsfucate a rational path to tackling issues that confront each of us.

The point is, the absurd overestimation of the impact of Chernobyl was not a singularity. Crichton: "I began to research other kinds of disasters that might fulfill my novelistic requirements. That’s when I began to realize how big our planet really is, and how resilient its systems seem to be. Even though I wanted to create a fictional catastrophe of global proportions, I found it hard to come up with a credible example." (emphasis added)

Crichton is a brilliant individual, a very good researcher, and rigorously trained in the scientific method. I've cited Bjorn Lindstrom in other threads, whose Ph.D is primarilly related to statistics. Neither of them are "tools of the oil industry" or any such thing. They don't "have a dog in this fight." Yet when they turned their appropriately trained attention to this issue, they came to the same conclusions.

Predictions of imminent ecological collapse are the stock-in-trade of the professional enviro movement. These have been bought hook, line and sinker by so many who don't apply much thought to what's behind such claims, lack the ability to put facts in context in the way of people like Crichton and Lindstrom, and in any event have a mystical view of nature that makes them predisposed to accept the enviro claims. Add to that the apparent attraction of apocalyptic scenarios to the human psyche throughout human history, and you have the recipe for a lot of bad ideas and tragically flawed public policy, per my previous post.

News flash: We're not "all gonna die " due to human affects on the environment, and neither is "the earth." I'd offer one of those Julian Simon bets about the state of the world environment in 50 years, that there will be no catastrophe and it will even be improving as a greater proportion of the human population ascends to a level of economic well being where they can afford to care about such things (and coincidentally vastly reduce their birth rates). But I'm too old to hope to collect.

~~~~

Oh and BTW, Chernobyl was an obscene "kludge" of a first generation reactor that never would have been built in a place where the rule of law prevails. The modern plants being built today are to Chernobyl as a Lexus is to a 1890 car. It has no relevence to current debates about nuclear energy.

 

[WRJames]

I'm afraid the lesson we learn, if we take a dispassionate view of the situation, is that nature does not mean well for us, in the long term. Extinction seems to be the norm. We assume that because we are aware of who we are, we are somehow the end statement of creation (or evolution, depending on your point of view). But there is no reason that should be true.

To me, the greatest danger of the global warming debate is that it will somehow be used as an argument that technology is evil and dangerous, and needs to be curbed for a more "natural" state of existence. Don't get me wrong -- I live out in the middle of the woods, I love "nature", I think we have a duty to respect the rest of life on this planet. But -- what if global warming is in fact part of a "natural" cycle -- not something manmade? What if our attempts to curb greenhouse gases have no effect on this trend? What if the "inconvenient truth" is simply inconvenient, out of our ability to control? Then what? We are going to need more energy, not less, to cope with a planet that is suddenly hostile to us.

 

[rgraham666]

Possibly.

But we can't go on using the internal combustion engine or its variants for energy forever, or even for much longer. The fuel they use is going to run out.

Furthermore even if the CO2 from these things has no effect on climate change the other waste products do poison our air, water and soil.

We're intelligent enough, I believe, not to foul our own nests.

 

[S-Des]

We're intelligent enough, I believe, not to foul our own nests.

I'm pretty sure we've proven that isn't the case.

 

[rgraham666]

I'm pretty sure we've proven that isn't the case.

Sigh. Too true. As a species we're more often clever than wise.

 

[flavortang]

Global warming is just a conspiracy propagated by evil liberals who own stock in the car company that makes Priuses. Can't everyone see that?

 

[rgraham666]

Global warming is just a conspiracy propagated by evil liberals who own stock in the car company that makes Priuses. Can't everyone see that?

Shhh. It's supposed to be a secret.

I'm dispatching a UN black helicopter even as I type.

 

[neonlyte]

The point is, the absurd overestimation of the impact of Chernobyl was not a singularity. Crichton: "I began to research other kinds of disasters that might fulfill my novelistic requirements. That’s when I began to realize how big our planet really is, and how resilient its systems seem to be. Even though I wanted to create a fictional catastrophe of global proportions, I found it hard to come up with a credible example." (emphasis added)

~~~~

Oh and BTW, Chernobyl was an obscene "kludge" of a first generation reactor that never would have been built in a place where the rule of law prevails. The modern plants being built today are to Chernobyl as a Lexus is to a 1890 car. It has no relevence to current debates about nuclear energy.

We are going at cross purposes here, so let me be clear.

I'm responding to Chernobyl as a singular event in the history of nuclear events. It matters little that the event happened at Chernobyl or that the plants design was below the standards set in other nuclear generating countries. What changed was the perspective of the outcome of a singular event, a nuclear plant melt-down. Going on to link Crichton's 'works of fiction' to global meltdown stretches my credulity, it is just not a reasonable hypothesis. We could all write disaster novels, the subjects to choose from are virtually endless... but they are just fiction.

How nice it would be if Global Warming was a fiction plot, or that oil supplies were only depleting in the pages of a book, unfortunately best opinion has both scenarios as true just as the the lack of devastation following Chernobyl's melt-down is true; doesn't mean the next one won't be a disaster of horrendous proportion.

The ecosystem of the planet cares not one jot for Crichton's novels, destroying the planet is probably beyond our ability, I wouldn't want to bet against the planet's ability to destroy us.

 

[rgraham666]

My favourite Crichton quote.

"You don't understand. The planet is not in danger. We are in danger. We don't have the power to destroy life on this planet. We don't have the power to save it either.

We might have the power to save ourselves."

 

[neonlyte]

I wish I had your memory Rob. I'm trying to write a Nude Day entry based around the sculpture of a particular living artist... and I've forgotten his f**king name

Great Crichton quote.

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

I'm afraid the lesson we learn, if we take a dispassionate view of the situation, is that nature does not mean well for us, in the long term. Extinction seems to be the norm. We assume that because we are aware of who we are, we are somehow the end statement of creation (or evolution, depending on your point of view). But there is no reason that should be true.

. . . What if the "inconvenient truth" is simply inconvenient, out of our ability to control? Then what? We are going to need more energy, not less, to cope with a planet that is suddenly hostile to us.

On the first, we are different, because it's in our hands direct our own evolution, or freeze it for that matter. And we are the only species that can't become extinct just because of variations in climate, etc., because we have have the intellect and the tools to adapt to just about anything. In time, even to living in space. All we need is energy and material.

It is a fact that the earth and every creature on it is doomed - when the sun blows up in a few billion years. We don't have to be around to be scorched like the rest, however. It's in our power to have distributed ourselves far and wide through this galaxy, and maybe even others.

In the short run - the next few hundred, thousand or tens of thousands of years - When the climate becomes either warmer or cooler, which it certainly will, it won't be "more hostile" to us. It will just be different. It may be more or less hostile to those with preferences regarding summer or winter sports, but that's about all. There may be disruptions to certain populations, and I'm all for helping peoples relocate if need be, but we can afford that.

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

With regard to oil depletion, over the next century oil will steadily rise in price as the easier to lift and process stuff is used up. Long before we "run out" the price will have risen to the point where other energy sources are more cost effective. There is no particular difficulty in transitioning over several decades to an-electric economy powered by nukes (or possibly geothermal) that can provide all the comforts and conveniences that fossil fuels provide for only marginally greater cost, and to every person on the planet.