Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Politics of Energy -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Bearcatbob who wrote (4149)	1/11/2009 10:27:48 AM
From: Sam	2 Recommendations Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 86356

1. GW is a political movement and not a science driven movement. It gives relevance to fools who would be lost to obscurity. The data has been shown to be wrong and the predictions false. This premise is why we cannot have a real dialogue. The only part of the above that I agree with is the first 5 words, but even there we give different meanings to the words--the political movement is based on science, it would not exist without the science. That isn't to say that there are no wacky parts of the political movement. Every political movement has wacky parts. That is an unchanging aspect of the human condition.

To: Bearcatbob who wrote (4149)	1/12/2009 10:06:38 AM
From: RetiredNow	Respond to of 86356

Since you were kind enough to post all of your thoughts, I'll respond to each. 1. GW is a political movement and not a science driven movement. It gives relevance to fools who would be lost to obscurity. The data has been shown to be wrong and the predictions false. If it were just a political movement, then the majority of the worlds climatologists and scientists would not be in agreement over the trends they are seeing. Politics play a big role, but politics are driven first and foremost by the big lobby machines. Who has the most lobby money? Oil and coal companies. And you can be damn sure they aren't lobbying against their own interests. So this statement is silly on its face. 2. GW alarmism is a profitable business to be in - so much so that threats to the gig are fought irrationally. Truth in the promotion of GW is long since lost. The effort to stifle debate is huge - why? Which business is more profitable, oil and coal or renewables? At this point, the evidence is overwhelming that oil and coal are much much more profitable. So your argument that profitable business fight for their causes fiercely is true. But oil and coal companies have more resources with which to push their agenda, which is to spread fear, uncertainty, and doubt about renewable energy. Looks like in your case, it is working. 3. GW is a great example of "group think". The environment of the issue is such that you are made to feel like you are nuts if you disagree. Science is a process of trial and error, developing hypotheses and testing them statistically, then publishing and getting peer review. If the hypothesis is testable and the results are repeatable, then the theory gains traction. This is the case with global warming. What's remarkable about GW is that many of the theories across so many scientific disciplines all point to the same conclusions. That is why you see such broad spectrum consensus, which SHOULD make you feel like an idiot if you disagree. If the data is being faked, as you seem to think, then it would be the biggest, most complex, fraud perpetrated in the history of man. 4. GW alarmism is a huge threat to the true needs of our world. Spending trillions on a maybe in place clear incontrovertible needs will do serious harm to thw world population. The only threat we face is from looking too much in the rearview mirror and demanding that things don't change. I've lived long enough to know that those who embrace the future and keep their eyes on the road ahead are the ones who recognize and seize the opportunities as they come along. The response the GW will most certainly sing the death knell of many industries that are hugely profitable today, oil and coal being two of them. However, the industries, jobs, and wealth that will be created to supplant them will usher in a new prosperity that can make the old one look small. The Internet did that and renewable energy will make the Internet's wealth creation look small in comparison. This country needs to grab this tiger by the tail and not let go. 5. The change from GW to Climate Change is a classic attempt to dodge the harsh realities of failed predictions - eg the "hockey stick". Climate change is real and constant - no one can deny it. So - what a way to insure the movement. Both global warming and climate change are real. GW statistics prove without doubt that over the last 150 years the globe is warming and that trend is accelerating. Climate pattern variability is increasing as well, which means the process is moving out of control. It's a classic process problem with classic data irregularities. Anyone in statistics will tell you this. 6. The only possible hope to maintain the world's well being and seriously reduce CO2 is nuclear power. The GW alarmists are opposed to that. To me this shows they are not really serious about solutions. The world's only hope is nuclear power? That's too prescriptive. Nuclear power is certainly a good hope, but it's not any where near the only hope. Renewable energies are very close to grid-parity, and in some recent cases have proven to be more cost effective than traditional sources like nuclear, coal, oil. We've posted articles to that effect, which you deride or ignore. I haven't seen anyone on this thread opposed to nuclear power. In fact, I think almost everyone agrees it can be part of the solution, if it can compete. Finally, if GW is going to happen it is going to happen. Per the numbers of the alarmists the tipping point has come or is near. If it is near it is going to tip because the major growth areas of the world are not at all interested in the nonsense being required. So - above is my premise. Build all the wind mills you like. Build all of the solar farms you like. If that eliminates CO2 fine - but don't worry - it will be far little far to late to change the numbers cast in stone by the demographics of the world. Oh and BTW - spend a little time studying the correlation of sun spot activity with world temperature. Scientists have studied this effect and they have concluded that sunspot activity accounts for 20-30% of the climate change we are seeing, whereas human activity accounts for 30-50%. We've posted those articles as well, which you also ignored or derided, because it didn't fit in with your preconceptions. The best advice I can give to you is that you should bet with the probabilities. It is possible that the world's scientists are wrong. In statistics and science, there is never such a thing as a 100% probability, which means that by definition there is a possibility they are wrong. However, the science is now telling us that the probability is they are right. If you are a betting man, then you bet with the probabilities. Over the long run, you're more successful that way in any decisions that you make.