Re: Global Warming: Junk science at it's [best] worst

On Sep 10, 6:09 pm, bill.slo...@xxxxxxxx wrote:
On Sep 11, 10:26 am, Simon S Aysdie <gwh...@xxxxxx> wrote:

On Sep 10, 12:37 am, bill.slo...@xxxxxxxx wrote:

On Sep 10, 4:25 am, Richard The Dreaded Libertarian <n...@xxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:

On Sun, 09 Sep 2007 02:45:42 -0700, bill.sloman wrote:
On Sep 9, 9:26 am, Richard The Dreaded Libertarian <n...@xxxxxxxxxxx>
...
So, we should _encourage_ global warming, because when it reaches
runaway, it will be like the Biblical Flood, and purge all of the
wicked people off the planet, right?

If it gets serious, global warming will cover rather more of the earth
than the biblical flood, which probably records the flooding of the
Black Sea basin when the Mediterranean broke through the Bosphorus

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bosporus

It's likely to purge all of the good people as well, along with most
other forms of animal life. The end-Permian mass extinction isn't the
only one that seems to have been caused by global warming.

And, given this, are you claiming that exhorting the maximum number
of people to wring their hands, gnash their teeth, rend their garments,
and submit to your dictates of who should do what when, will change
the course of the Planet's evolution?

Which way?

Try reading George Monbiot's "Heat" - ISBN 0-7139-9924-1 - which sets
out how residents of the U.K. might cut their carbon dioxide output
down to the 0.8 tons per year which might lets us hold global warming
to only 2.0C.

How can CO2 emissions or energy use be cut in the aggregate? What is
the cost?

At the moment., U.K. residents average 9.5 tons per year (US residents
produce about 20 tons).

I take that as evidence that US residents are more productive. You
have to be more productive, and thus richer, to generate that amount
of waste.

In fact you have to live in a poorly insulated house,...

Who decides what "poorly insulated" is? "Wise" tax-payer paid
"scientists" and legislators? No house insulates perfectly, so it is
inherently a value-laden assertion. It could be a simple rationale
(made locally, by the people paying the bill) that the capital costs
of retrofitting are too much more than the recurring costs of the
energy bill. The ability to have and heat a house is regarded as
wealth.

...use the air-conditoner a lot,...

That is regarded as wealth.

... drive to work in a car on your own...

That is regarded as wealth.

... and fly overseas when you tke a vacation.

That is regarded as wealth. So you are making my point.

European productivity per worker in the richer European countries
isn't wildly different from U.S. figures - it basically reflects
capital investment per worker ...

I agree that capital investment per worker is probably the most
dominant factor. However, I have no inherent trust in government
generated productivity stats. I said that already, so citing
government stats isn't going to convince me of much along those lines.

I remember the old political editorial cartoon that had crane holding
a giant bolt. The crane was labeled "Soviet Economy" and the giant
but useless bolt was labeled "Soviet GDP."

...- and the difference in carbon dioxide
output per head has more to do with living in smaller, better-
insulated houses, travelling shorter distances to work - more often by
public transport - than anything else.

Living in a more distant but preferred house is a value choice, and
the ability to make it is regarded as a comparative wealth question.
You are assuming apples and apples. That is wrong. It could be just
as well interpreted that Europeans just can't afford to live farther
away and drive bigger and more preferrable vehicles, and are therefore
less wealthy. In point of fact, that is probably a better judgement,
because it looks at how people actually behave, rather than how a
politician or government-paid statistician/economist decides to load
the question/answer with their own value judgements regarding what
should be counted as wealth.

The politician asks: "What is 2+2?"

Mathematician: "4"

Economist, who pulls the curtains closed and asks: "What do you want
it to be?"

A good rule to live by is: Never ever ever ever trust a politician or
their paid statisticians.

I think energy consumption per capita is probably a better measure of
wealth than all of the stats governments come up with.

Possibly, but you don't have to burn carbon to generate energy.
Denmark now generates 20% of its electricity from windmills.

Not every country has the wind Denmark does. And 20% is nice, but is
missing 80%. I'm all for that sort of energy, but it doesn't look
like solar and wind will ever amount to much more than 15-20% of the
total. There is a major gap that has to be filled even for today's
demand. Basically it comes down to hydrocarbons or nukes of some sort
to fill the gap.

Also, we know that energy demands will rise and not fall as machine
efficiency goes up and societies become richer (more productive). It
is perhaps counterintuitive that energy demand will go up as machine
efficiency goes up, but that is precisely what history shows. This
has been know since the days of William Stanley Jevons and The Coal
Question. This is very old news, but is strangely not commonly
known. Some people actually believe a more efficient air conditioner
will lower aggregate energy demand. That is false. A best it is a
break even proposition (ceteris paribus), but is actually more likely
to increase energy demand in the aggregate.

People believe that using compact flourescent lamps will lower
aggregate energy usage and and also therefore the "carbon
footprint" (againceteris paribus). This is patently false -- a
classic /fallacy of composition/.

There are basically two ways to reduce carbon emissions:

1. Go nuke in a big way, and supplement with things like wind and
solar
2. Destroy massive amounts of wealth, and probably a lot of people
along the way.

Energy demand is going to increase. That is a basic reality.

It looks as if air travel will have to go, but otherwise we can hang
onto a tolerably comfortable modern lifestyle.

I have heard it claimed that a passenger jet -- if fully or near fully
booked -- is in the same neighborhood for energy/beeLine as the
average passenger car (w/ one person). If you look at ticket prices,
and compare it to what it would take to drive, then it seems to be a
reasonable claim. And this is true even though many of the aircraft
in service are old designs and not as efficient as newer aircraft.

The biggest single problem with aircraft is that there isn't any
immediate prospect of replacing kerosene with something that doesn't
burn to carbon dioxide.

You are calling for total elimination of hydrocarbon use. It isn't
going to happen.

I'm heavily dependent on jet travel and I really wouldn't like it if I
couldn't fly backwards and forwards from the Netherlands to Australia.
None-the-less, George Monbiot's "Heat" claims that this is one luxury
we are going to have to forego if we want to have a reasonable change
that there will be a Netherlands to fly back to in a few years.

Maybe the Dutch can become real estate moguls by investing in cheap
Greenland real estate. Seriously, the standard solution to living in
a flood zone is to move to higher ground. They can take their cute
wood clogs and tulips with them.

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: reasonably sane summary list of items for govt energy review.....
    ... Everything we do to create that wealth has energy considerations. ... impact (if we think that carbon emitted into the atmosphere is 'bad'). ... this means we should have a carbon tax. ...
    (uk.politics.misc)
  • Re: Defining Chi with Judo Terms thread
    ... that "grow wealth" does not imply making each individual wealthy. ... "given energy" which we are not. ... Pilot plants of Ocean Thermal power systems have been built and ... number: - Fresh water. ...
    (rec.martial-arts)
  • Re: Defining Chi with Judo Terms thread
    ... You really don't know how the economies of places where growth rate is ... that "grow wealth" does not imply making each individual wealthy. ... "given energy" which we are not. ... costly to compete with coal fired plants, ...
    (rec.martial-arts)
  • Mitigation of global warming
    ... Energy efficiency and conservation ... Solar Power ... Carbon capture and storage ... Emissions from housing are substantial, ...
    (misc.invest.stocks)
  • Re: Mitigation of global warming
    ... Sorry I didn't have the "energy" to read your long post clear through. ... Mitigation of global warming involves taking actions aimed at reducing ... Solar Power ... Carbon capture and storage ...
    (misc.invest.stocks)