Reason Over Emotion

[Huckleman2000]

[/I]

~~~

Hi, Neon, good to see you. Something ate 18 tomato plants I grew from seed. I got a posse together, armed them and we are on a hunt for the dastardly devil.

ami...

/threadjack
I read about planting tomato plants through the holes in the bottom of pots, so they hang beneath the pots. Then you suspend the pots, and the tomato plants grow downwards. This keeps them away from varmints, and doesn't require stakes. You water and feed them from the top, into the openings of the pots.
/threadjack

 

[Huckleman2000]

Who are the hoaxers and what are they after?

I can answer that one.

It's the statists. They're using the fear created by global warming to scare people into changing their habits so that the economy is destroyed creating the conditions for a Socialist one-world government to be installed.

Understand them well, you do.
A scientist, you are not?
The rebel alliance - join it, you must.

 

[amicus]

/threadjack
I read about planting tomato plants through the holes in the bottom of pots, so they hang beneath the pots. Then you suspend the pots, and the tomato plants grow downwards. This keeps them away from varmints, and doesn't require stakes. You water and feed them from the top, into the openings of the pots.
/threadjack

~~~

Chuckles...dunno about that...seems like they would simply make a 180 and search for the sun regardless. Did learn something though from a satellite dish installer that used to sell, Solar Prism greenhouses. He says that a tomato plant will keep growing for years inside a greenhouse, producing fruit all year long.

But the damned greenhouse effect is expensive, about three grand a pop.

end threadjack....

amicus....

 

[R. Richard]

Dr_M:
For quite some time there was a 100% consensus among serious researchers that the very earliest Americans came across the Bering Straight when an ice age had made it a land bridge. The Amerinds then turned South and proceeded at a trot until they came to Clovis, New Mexico, arriving in about 11,000BC. The area around Clovis, New Mexico was the site of the first permanent Amerind settlements.

If you were an archeologist and you disagreed with the 100% consensus, then you were welcome to your opinion, as long as you kept quiet. If you tried to publish, the 'Clovis Police' would see to it that your career came to an abrupt end.

The position of the 'Clovis Police' has become steadily more untenable and now archeologists are begining to find new world sites that pre-date the Clovis site and, little by little, the scientific community is beginning to realize that the 'Clovis Police' were wrong.

If you have never worked for a university, you have no idea how much politics runs the educational world. If you discover something that is not involved with politics, they will defend to the death your right to say it. If you discover something that is involved with politics and not per the political consensus, they will defend to your professional death their right to prevent you from saying it.

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

I'm just curious here. This

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is often taken as providing the definitive scientific data on the whole problem of climate change. They're a UN group comprising 2500 scientific experts in their fields, 850+ authors, hundreds of reviewers from 40 countries, backing of over 100 different nations, &c. &c.

Two of their lead findings, taken verbatim from The Wikipedia entry:

--Warming of the climate system is unequivocal.

--Most of (>50% of) the observed increase in globally averaged temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely (confidence level >90%) due to the observed increase in anthropogenic (human) greenhouse gas concentrations.

Now, we've crossed swords before on the subject of science and technology, and you might have me down as anti-technology but I'm not, not really (just anti thinking-it-will-fix-everything. ) And here's a place where I'm entirely content to leave it up to the experts to tell me what's what. When they tell me that we're part of the problem, I believe them, and yet you don't. Why?

I don't think you're so naive as to believe that "consensus" business you bring up concerning global warming. You certainly must know that scientific theories rarely have 100% scientific consensus, especially at the stage in their development that the anthrophogenic contribution to global warming is.

(In fact, I just heard something interesting. There's more consensus among climate scientists that humans contribute to global warming than there is among medical researchers that viruses cause AIDS. Apparently some AIDS researchers still think its caused by gay sex and bathhouses. But you wouldn't expose yourself to the AIDS virus because there isn't 100% consesnus, would you?)

As far as discrepancy among the numbers in the predictions and models, that's entirely to be expected too. Modeling is terribly imprecise and difficult and the failure of models is not disproof.

But meanwhile, to believe that what the IPCC report says is wrong, you have to convince yourself that these perfectly reputable climate scientists are engaged in some insane hoax that borders on absolute paranoia, putting their careers and reputations at risk, lying and falsifying data as if they were members of the Bush administration getting ready to invade a foreign country.

Is this your idea of scientific objectivity? You don't think maybe you have some tiny little bias?

That is a fair question. BTW, technology can cure all ills, except a broken heart.

This isn't a complete answer, but it will give you some idea.
First, dismiss anything contained in the IPCC summary, which is a notoriously political document assembled by UN bureaucrats. You did not specify whether this is the source of your cites.

Second, Cato put out a report last year, "Is the Sky Really Falling? A Review of Recent Global Warming Scare Stories," by Patrick J. Michaels. Here's the final few paragraphs, which come after 15 pages detailing the alarming amount of bad research being pumped out in the service of "the consensus." (I won't apologize for using that term snarkily - it's the other side that has taken to abusing it to promote a political agenda.):

Discussion and Conclusion It is apparent that many recent stories on melting of high-latitude ice, hurricanes, and extinctions are riddled with self-inconsistencies, are inconsistent with other findings, and are reported—as much by scientists themselves as by reporters—in extreme or misleading fashions that do not accurately portray the actual research.

This begs for an explanation. Perhaps it is simply the way science always has been, but that the dramatic policy implications of global warming compel some people (including this author) to examine the refereed literature with more scrutiny than would normally be applied. The alternative is that recently the peer review process has begun to allow the publication of papers that should have been dramatically modified before being accepted.

If the latter is true, then another explanation is required. One hypothesis would be that “public choice” dynamics is now entering into science. But this would seem to require unethical behavior on the part of a wide scientific community. Under this model, the review process becomes less stringent if a paper promotes the economic well-being of the reviewer, and more stringent if it does not.

“Well-being” here means professional advancement and reward. It is a fact that in the United States the taxpayer outlay for socalled global change science is now in excess of $4 billion annually. Universities reward their faculty on the amount and quality of research that they produce, which, in climate science, requires considerable taxpayer funding. If the funding stream is threatened by findings downplaying the significance of climate change, the public choice model would predict rather vociferous review. If it is enhanced, this model would predict a glowing, positive review.

Whether or not this bias exists, the recent tidal wave of global warming papers on polar ice, hurricanes, and extinctions has included an incredible number of omissions and inconsistencies. It is to be hoped that this paper will help to set the record straight on these aspects of climate change.

 

[kendo1]

It's not true that ostriches bury their heads in the ground.
It just seems like it.

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

It's not true that ostriches bury their heads in the ground.
It just seems like it.

You know, I've been around the block a few times in this life, and I like to think I've picked up some practical wisdom along the way, and a good sense of the ebbs and flows of human affairs. What I'm about to say is totally unscientific, and frankly it's a habit that drives some of those close to me IRL crazy, in part because my win/loss record on such things is very high, and often I'm right about things that they would prefer I get wrong. Here goes:

I have a sense that the global warming hysteria and "scientific consensus" has reached its peak. It wouldn't surprise me one bit if disconfirming evidence starts to drip out, then flow, then pour. GW has become an "establishment" thing, and that will start turning journalists from being cheerleaders back to their proper role of skeptics. When the public starts hearing about some of the gaping holes in the theory and data, and lurid tales of misfeasance and malfeasance by practitioners, they will turn. I will look like a genius, and the doomsayers will all have "forgotten" the extent to which they've spent the last few years pointing up and crying, "It's falling! It's falling."

I could be wrong. Past performance is no guarantee of future results, but over the years those who have bet against me have lost money.

 

[dr_mabeuse]

That is a fair question. BTW, technology can cure all ills, except a broken heart.

This isn't a complete answer, but it will give you some idea.
First, dismiss anything contained in the IPCC summary, which is a notoriously political document assembled by UN bureaucrats. You did not specify whether this is the source of your cites.

Second, Cato put out a report last year, "Is the Sky Really Falling? A Review of Recent Global Warming Scare Stories," by Patrick J. Michaels. Here's the final few paragraphs, which come after 15 pages detailing the alarming amount of bad research being pumped out in the service of "the consensus." (I won't apologize for using that term snarkily - it's the other side that has taken to abusing it to promote a political agenda.):

Discussion and Conclusion It is apparent that many recent stories on melting of high-latitude ice, hurricanes, and extinctions are riddled with self-inconsistencies, are inconsistent with other findings, and are reported—as much by scientists themselves as by reporters—in extreme or misleading fashions that do not accurately portray the actual research.

This begs for an explanation. Perhaps it is simply the way science always has been, but that the dramatic policy implications of global warming compel some people (including this author) to examine the refereed literature with more scrutiny than would normally be applied. The alternative is that recently the peer review process has begun to allow the publication of papers that should have been dramatically modified before being accepted.

If the latter is true, then another explanation is required. One hypothesis would be that “public choice” dynamics is now entering into science. But this would seem to require unethical behavior on the part of a wide scientific community. Under this model, the review process becomes less stringent if a paper promotes the economic well-being of the reviewer, and more stringent if it does not.

“Well-being” here means professional advancement and reward. It is a fact that in the United States the taxpayer outlay for socalled global change science is now in excess of $4 billion annually. Universities reward their faculty on the amount and quality of research that they produce, which, in climate science, requires considerable taxpayer funding. If the funding stream is threatened by findings downplaying the significance of climate change, the public choice model would predict rather vociferous review. If it is enhanced, this model would predict a glowing, positive review.

Whether or not this bias exists, the recent tidal wave of global warming papers on polar ice, hurricanes, and extinctions has included an incredible number of omissions and inconsistencies. It is to be hoped that this paper will help to set the record straight on these aspects of climate change.

*L* See, this just baffles me! The Cato institute is not a scientific establishment for one thing. It's a political establishment with a well-known conservative pro-business political agenda. They're biased.

Now, the IPCC report was not put together by a bunch of "UN Bureaucrats". It was put together by a bunch of UN Climate Scientists. Like 2500 of them Pretty much the best we have in the world. I'd like to know on what grounds this report is "Notoriously political" - who made that call.

I mean, let's be serious here. Let's be objective. Let's take the best data we have, and what is the best data?

This "report" by Patrick J Michaels of the Conservative Political Cato Institute isn't really a report, I take it? From what you've posted here it's a critique of other studies in which he finds errors. I assume the point is, that the IPCC report and all other resarch supporting anthropogenic global warming is supported by shaky research like Patrick J Michaels has uncovered, i.e. that it all rests on bullshit.

Do we have any of this bullshit? I mean, contrary to what this guy thinks, there are fortunes to be made if anyone can prove the IPCC boys wrong. Absolute fortunes. If I could go into the Coal Board and say "Give me $25 Million and I'll prove the CO2 stuff is crap" don't you think they'd jump at the chance? Do you really think that all these contentious scientists have formed into some big cabal to protect their cushy, high-paying jobs?

You notice how he hedges his statements too? He's not saying there's collusion, mind you... Only that it looks like it

That thing about peer review? That's how the system works. If you have a better system, than use it. And funding? Well of course global warming research gets more money than other research, just like research into the viral cause of AIDS gets more funding than research trying to prove that AIDS is caused by anal sex. I mean, this is ridiculous. You're like a goddamn creationist! You're just intentionally blind. Prejudiced. You just refuse to see.

*L*. Yeah. Science marches on. Rationalism. Empiricism. The hope of mankind.

 

[rgraham666]

*L*. Yeah. Science marches on. Rationalism. Empiricism. The hope of mankind.

Would that it were so.

 

[dr_mabeuse]

You know, I've been around the block a few times in this life, and I like to think I've picked up some practical wisdom along the way, and a good sense of the ebbs and flows of human affairs. What I'm about to say is totally unscientific, and frankly it's a habit that drives some of those close to me IRL crazy, in part because my win/loss record on such things is very high, and often I'm right about things that they would prefer I get wrong. Here goes:

I have a sense that the global warming hysteria and "scientific consensus" has reached its peak. It wouldn't surprise me one bit if disconfirming evidence starts to drip out, then flow, then pour. GW has become an "establishment" thing, and that will start turning journalists from being cheerleaders back to their proper role of skeptics. When the public starts hearing about some of the gaping holes in the theory and data, and lurid tales of misfeasance and malfeasance by practitioners, they will turn. I will look like a genius, and the doomsayers will all have "forgotten" the extent to which they've spent the last few years pointing up and crying, "It's falling! It's falling."

I could be wrong. Past performance is no guarantee of future results, but over the years those who have bet against me have lost money.

I'll bet you dinner. Loser buys winner dinner in Baghdad.

 

[dr_mabeuse]

I'll bet you dinner. Loser buys winner dinner in Baghdad.

No. I take it back

See, you could never lose. There's nothing that would ever convince you that anthropogenic global warming was a fact, is there? That's the trouble with you deniers. There's absolutely no way to convince you. You have no criteria of proof. You'll keep denying to the end.

Go ahead. I dare you. Tell me what it would take to convince you.

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

No. I take it back

See, you could never lose. There's nothing that would ever convince you that anthropogenic global warming was a fact, is there? That's the trouble with you deniers. There's absolutely no way to convince you. You have no criteria of proof. You'll keep denying to the end.

Go ahead. I dare you. Tell me what it would take to convince you.

I know, it's unfair. What I've offered is not a "disprovable hypothesis." I said it was completely unscientific. It's like I've reversed the positions on the the atheism thread - here I'm using "intuition" and many of the fuzzy tools that people think I rail against there, contra reason (I don't rail against them; I only say that reason is the final arbiter.)

Well, we could make a Julian Simon - Paul Erlich bet: Pick a date in the future when plausibly both of us are still alive, select an objectively measurable metric, and determine how much to bet. I forget the amount of the bet Erlich lost, but do remember that his stiffed Simon. No surprise there - he never admitted that he was wrong in 1970 that 90 percent of humans would starve to death over the next 15 years.

BTW, I was pretty convinced he was right then, and that all the other pollution terrors described on that first Earth Day and the later Club of Rome report spelt doom on Roxanne et al. I was young an impressionable then. I've learned a lot about the world since then, and that's what informs my unfair prediction.

Oh, and let's do dinner in Florence. That way, I won't care who won or lost.

 

[Huckleman2000]

[snip]Do we have any of this bullshit? I mean, contrary to what this guy thinks, there are fortunes to be made if anyone can prove the IPCC boys wrong. Absolute fortunes. If I could go into the Coal Board and say "Give me $25 Million and I'll prove the CO2 stuff is crap" don't you think they'd jump at the chance? Do you really think that all these contentious scientists have formed into some big cabal to protect their cushy, high-paying jobs? [snip]

That's what infuriates me as well - the oil lobby is paying tens of thousands of dollars for anything they can put in a friggen' press release, let alone what they'd pay a credible climatologist! And what cushy high-paying jobs??? A university professor is lucky to make six figures, about what an oil company lab rat could pull in. "Taxpayer outlay for so-called global change science is now in excess of $4 billion annually". Pfft. Exxon Mobil posted 1st quarter profits of $9.28 billion. That's profits, not revenue. Anyone care to venture a guess as to what 'taxpayer outlay' for oil company profits is? Here's a clue: A helluva lot more than $4 billion annually.

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

Perhaps the point is this: The definition of what makes an issue "political" is that it deals with matters that are intrinsically ambiguous. GW, and more importantly the role of humans in it, is intrinsically ambiguous. There is no "consensus." There is no certainty. There is a mass of conflicting data.

On one side are those who would apply the "precautionary principle" and impose draconian changes on our entire civilization. On the other are those who examine the cost-benefit analysis of such changes and conclude that the former are so monumental that it would be folly to impose them on ourselves in the absence of much less ambiguous data pointing to a threat of Gore-esque proportions.

If you imagine that those costs will be born by "greedy oil and coal execs" or "fat cat capitalists," you're mistaken. It will fall on the desperately poor in the third world, who will suffer and die in greater numbers because development will be retarded and the cost of living increased. The poor in the developed world will find their lot harder. The middle class will have to struggle more to provide for their own economic security, and will enjoy a lower standard of living. These costs are real, and unavoidable if you greatly increase the price and limit the availability of energy, which is where all this is inevitably heading. THAT part is unambiguous.

Finally, humans cannot survive under the precautionary principle. It is intrinsically contradictory. Life entails risk, and you can't escape it.

 

[Huckleman2000]

Perhaps the point is this: The definition of what makes an issue "political" is that it deals with matters that are intrinsically ambiguous. GW, and more importantly the role of humans in it, is intrinsically ambiguous. There is no "consensus." There is no certainty. There is a mass of conflicting data. ...

Not really. The "mass" of data is just about unanimous, and those opposed are resigned to chip away at isolated data points and lunging from those to ridiculous overreaches that purport to "disprove" much broader conclusions.

Pointing at 1970's and 1980's alarmist predictions based on the science of that time, and using that as a justification for dismissing modern climatology doesn't make any sense at all. I mean, for all those arguments are worth, where's my flying car?

If your faith is in technology to find a solution, why not support government investment in alternative energy? We know for goddamn sure China and Korea and the other nations you point at as paragons of capitalist virtue are investing in alternative fuels research. Given their more dictatorial governments, they will be able to implement technological change more rapidly throughout their infrastructure, and the benefits of technological change will go to them, not the US. At what point do you abandon 'free-market' idealism to support the competitive position of the US?

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

Not really. The "mass" of data is just about unanimous, and those opposed are resigned to chip away at isolated data points and lunging from those to ridiculous overreaches that purport to "disprove" much broader conclusions.

Pointing at 1970's and 1980's alarmist predictions based on the science of that time, and using that as a justification for dismissing modern climatology doesn't make any sense at all. I mean, for all those arguments are worth, where's my flying car?

If your faith is in technology to find a solution, why not support government investment in alternative energy? We know for goddamn sure China and Korea and the other nations you point at as paragons of capitalist virtue are investing in alternative fuels research. Given their more dictatorial governments, they will be able to implement technological change more rapidly throughout their infrastructure, and the benefits of technological change will go to them, not the US. At what point do you abandon 'free-market' idealism to support the competitive position of the US?

"The 'mass' of data is just about unanimous."
Oh really?
Unanimous about what, specifically?

"Why not support government investment in alternative energy?"
Two reasons: Genuine innovation rarely comes from government funded research. Those who seek those funds trim their sails to catch the money, not to look in the most promising directions. Second, assuming for discussion's sake that anthropogenic warming is the threat the alarmists contend, who's to say that "alternative energy" is a signifigant part of the solution? Frankly, it seems to me that if you were truly sincere about your belief in how dire the threat you wouldn't want to throw government dollars at highly speculative and politically "sexy" alternatives. Instead you would be pushing for a massive expansion of proven nuclear technology, which produces no CO2, and could easily provide all the energy needed for an electric economy that within 50 years could perfectly substitute for all the comforts and conveniences modern civilization provides. Frankly, the fact that you're pushing for solutions that require big lifestyle changes in the direction of the post-materialist aesthetic preferences expressed on SeaCat's recent thread makes me suspicious as hell about the agenda of you and all the other warming alarmists.

You know what? I don't want to live in a yurt heated with goat dung and ride a bike to work. I like my 1,800 sf centrally heated, air conditioned house, my Taurus wagon, the occassional airplane ride, tomatos in the winter, and a reasonable amount of material goodies. You're telling me I gotta give some of that up, and when I ask, "Why? Why not build nukes?" I get a bunch of gobbledy-gook.

Yeah, I'm suspicious as hell. And that makes me doubly skeptical. And I don't have to look very far to find lots of disconfirming evidence of this "just about unanimous consensus."

 

[R. Richard]

Now, the IPCC report was not put together by a bunch of "UN Bureaucrats". It was put together by a bunch of UN Climate Scientists. Like 2500 of them Pretty much the best we have in the world. I'd like to know on what grounds this report is "Notoriously political" - who made that call.

Dr_M:
Nothing in this world has ever been put together by 2500 people. There may have been 2500 people who signed off on the report and there may even have been 2500 data points, one per person, but 2500 authors, no way! You know that as well as I do.

If the IPCC report is like most documents of the type, it is put together by a fairly small team with one or two 'leaders' deciding what is finally said. Usually the New York Times method is used for final editing: "All the news that fits, we print."

If the IPCC report is the definitive answer, what is the opposing view? There is always an opposing view in something as difficult to measure as global warming. Please cite the opposing view.

 

[R. Richard]

If your faith is in technology to find a solution, why not support government investment in alternative energy? We know for goddamn sure China and Korea and the other nations you point at as paragons of capitalist virtue are investing in alternative fuels research. Given their more dictatorial governments, they will be able to implement technological change more rapidly throughout their infrastructure, and the benefits of technological change will go to them, not the US. At what point do you abandon 'free-market' idealism to support the competitive position of the US?

In the area where I live, there are lots of 'eco freaks' who are investing in alternate energy sources. In each and every case, the alternate energy sources will, over their projected lifespan, consume more energy to build and deploy than they will ever generate. [Well actually there is one exception. A guy who lives by a stream has built a water wheel that turns a generator. The generatior supplies him with some percentage of the electricity he needs at very low cost. However, not many of us live near a convenient stream.]

Of course China and Korea are investing in alternate energy research. They are currently importing expensive oil and they would like cheaper. Most likely the eastern alternative energy research will come to the same conclusion as the western alternative energy research. The conclusion is nuclear works and the rest of the approaches do not.

 

[Pure]

just a couple questions for Roxanne,

of the 'everything is going splendidly' persuasion.

do you see any national or global problem regarding pollution (e.g. of oceans, lakes, water supply, atmosphere)? anything needing to be done, there?

do you see any problems with extinction of animals and or destruction of habitat? i'm thinking the supplies of cod from the North Atlantic, as an example. anythng needing to be done, there?

---
on the main debate, it's kind of old hat, but do you see any problem with US reliance on coal and oil for energy? is there any reason to economize? to switch? i know you've mentioned nukes, but i'm unclear as to whether you think there's any reason to switch to them, for electric power, for example.

 

[amicus]

You know, I've been around the block a few times in this life, and I like to think I've picked up some practical wisdom along the way, and a good sense of the ebbs and flows of human affairs. What I'm about to say is totally unscientific, and frankly it's a habit that drives some of those close to me IRL crazy, in part because my win/loss record on such things is very high, and often I'm right about things that they would prefer I get wrong. Here goes:

I have a sense that the global warming hysteria and "scientific consensus" has reached its peak. It wouldn't surprise me one bit if disconfirming evidence starts to drip out, then flow, then pour. GW has become an "establishment" thing, and that will start turning journalists from being cheerleaders back to their proper role of skeptics. When the public starts hearing about some of the gaping holes in the theory and data, and lurid tales of misfeasance and malfeasance by practitioners, they will turn. I will look like a genius, and the doomsayers will all have "forgotten" the extent to which they've spent the last few years pointing up and crying, "It's falling! It's falling."

I could be wrong. Past performance is no guarantee of future results, but over the years those who have bet against me have lost money.[/QUOTE]

~~~

You are not wrong, not that it matters, your intuition is 'right on', and it is already happening. Note that from the almost screaming desperation of those on this forum who have invested so much in their 'belief', that they cannot imagine bearing the embarrassment of failure.

Ask them where the "Ozone hole" farce now stands. That only cost about a hundred billion in alternative refrigerants, which it turns out, was not necessary at all.

amicus...

 

[cantdog]

Ask them where the "Ozone hole" farce now stands. That only cost about a hundred billion in alternative refrigerants, which it turns out, was not necessary at all.

That one's easy. Check the NOAA site. The ozone hole was predicted, and then detected, and now being monitored on an ongoing basis. Go ahead and look. There is no scintilla of doubt about it, or its cause.

 

[amicus]

That one's easy. Check the NOAA site. The ozone hole was predicted, and then detected, and now being monitored on an ongoing basis. Go ahead and look. There is no scintilla of doubt about it, or its cause.

~~~

Not to threadjack, folks, do your own google. The 'so called' hole in the Ozone, over Antarctica, turned out to be a cyclical event, just like global climate change is a cyclical event with no evidence that the activities of humanity influenced any changes whatsoever.

These folks have a belief and an agenda to destroy human progress. I guess they want to live in that thatched hut and cook over a goat dung fire as someone suggested.

I prefer my 14th floor condo, thank you.

amicus the intolerable...

 

[Liar]

These folks have a belief and an agenda to destroy human progress.

In the name of logic and reason: Bwahaha!

They (and I guess that includes me) believe that in order to secure long term human progress, we need a change of direction, to steer clear of a big gaping hole in the road. So you see, we're a bunch of guys who are pro progress. (The debate is whether we're right or wrong about that hole, not our intentions.)

So by using your method of reasoning, it must mean that the other side is against it. Why do you hate progress, amicus?

 

[neonlyte]

In the area where I live, there are lots of 'eco freaks' who are investing in alternate energy sources. In each and every case, the alternate energy sources will, over their projected lifespan, consume more energy to build and deploy than they will ever generate. [Well actually there is one exception. A guy who lives by a stream has built a water wheel that turns a generator. The generatior supplies him with some percentage of the electricity he needs at very low cost. However, not many of us live near a convenient stream.]

Of course China and Korea are investing in alternate energy research. They are currently importing expensive oil and they would like cheaper. Most likely the eastern alternative energy research will come to the same conclusion as the western alternative energy research. The conclusion is nuclear works and the rest of the approaches do not.

Not true.

http://css.snre.umich.edu/main.php?control=detail_pub&pu_report_id=170

Read the University of Michigan study - it's 70pgs but hey, lets get things right.

Photovoltaics (conventional design) have a primary energy input (PEI) payback of between 3.5 and 8 years and a minimum lifetime of twenty years.

PEI takes into acount everything used to maufacture, assemble and install the PV panels. Current designs seek to eliminate high PEI materials used in manufacture and assembly to reduce the payback time. New PV technologies are literally embeded in window glass, they are cheap, require no additional support infrastructure and will have significantly lower PEI payback periods. This technology is currently available in Portugal though I'm annoyed to discover there is a current three year waiting list for PV glass.

 

[amicus]

[QUOTE=Liar]In the name of logic and reason: Bwahaha!

They (and I guess that includes me) believe that in order to secure long term human progress, we need a change of direction, to steer clear of a big gaping hole in the road. So you see, we're a bunch of guys who are pro progress. (The debate is whether we're right or wrong about that hole, not our intentions.)

So by using your method of reasoning, it must mean that the other side is against it. Why do you hate progress, amicus?[/QUOTE]


~~~

It is really quite simple, Liar, although you will not comprehend, but perhaps others will, which is why I invest the time and thought to reply.

"...They (and I guess that includes me) believe that in order to secure long term human progress, we need a change of direction, ..."

The key words in your statement: "They, believe, we, need..."

The problem with your vision of 'progress', is that it is a 'manufactured' one. Your vision, your dreams, your concept of what is 'good' for the whole of mankind. The viewpoint of you fucking intellectuals who hate the common man and his way of life.

You have the egotism to think you can better direct the lives of men than they can. An age old perversity of Kings and Popes and those who would be 'Kings' in their own right under any guise.

I, on the other hand, advocate only absolute human and individual freedom. You see, I trust those huddled masses of the illiterate to 'choose' how they shall each live this short span we have. I have no grandiose future in mind for humanity. I seek only to maintain and expand those freedoms innate to existence; progress will come of its' own accord and in its' own time.

Like most leftist utopians, you think you can direct the future of mankind when you cannot even manage your own affairs.

amicus...