Error-riddled ‘Superfreakonomics’, Part 2: With takedown of Nathan Myhrvold
climateprogress.org
climateprogress.org
Look at China, coal is their answer because it is cheap and available. We could do more good in the world, if someone created a clean coal process and license / gave it to the Chinese.
We have the luxury of being greener with current technologies, much of the world is not in that position.
I'm not claiming such an alternative exists at the moment, but that doesn't mean we should stop researching renewables and conservation and put all our eggs in the clean coal basket. The nature of innovation is that we try many things before finding something that works. If clean coal really is the best answer, then it will happen.
I too believe that we need to work on a lot of methods. Backing any one horse is insanity. Wind is nice, but not a constant producer. Solar is nice, but also not a constant producer. We don't really do mass energy storage yet. Nuclear is great except for PR and waste (still irks me we spent all that tax money on a permanent solution and then we cannot use it). We need a whole list of sources that provide a secure blanket no matter what goes on.
Conservation will work for the first world, but not the growing economies. They want a first world life and know how we got there.
Also, the US needs to realize there is a large tax implication in switching from a liquid fuel economy for transportation. We need to work out these issues without killing the poor (GPS = big hit bills = poor with transport in large areas of country not serviced by mass transit) or messing up other areas of the economy.
we discover more oil => we burn more fossil fuels =>
=> global temperatures increase => poor people starve
Burning fossil fuels may cause global warming, or may not, or it may be easy to fix by adding some dust to the upper atmosphere. Most people seem to accept it as an article of faith either way.
Global temperature increases may cause a reduction in food supply, or an increase. Certainly much of northern China will increase food production with a longer growing season. It probably increases ocean fish yields too. So it's very debatable as to the net effect.
Anyway, a claim depending on 3 somewhat dubious claims is extremely dubious. Maybe you believe each has a 75% chance of being true, but then all 3 have only a 42% chance of being true, so I'm assuming it's false.
Let's see... equating global warming to a "religion", credulously repeating assertions from people with no expertise, quote-mining and misrepresenting the views of someone who does have expertise, seizing on superficially appealing answers with no firm foundation, and so on. Honestly, it reminds me the style of argumentation you get from the anti-evolution crowd.
Maybe we should get climate scientists to come up with some edgy, contrarian solutions to the current economic problems, since apparently established bodies of knowledge aren't as important as having catchy-sounding ideas.
I am really worried that we have lost all semblance and science and am truly glad that none of the "solutions" to global cooling in the 1970s were implemented (spread ash on the north pole). I really think no one has been served by the politicalizing of science. I worry that anti-corporation and anti-technology are so mixed into this stuff.
Sure, if you really want to view everything through a politicized perspective. Seems to me like a pretty sensible way to apply decentralized market principles to implement a reduction in emissions. What would you prefer, strict limits set by authoritarian fiat, regardless of economic costs? Turning the ability to produce CO2 into a tradable commodity and letting market forces find the most cost-effective means of reducing output seems like a very sound plan.
The cap-and-trade argument is amusing, though; it's pretty funny to hear people who are essentially socialists advocating a market-based solution, while supposed free market supporters complain bitterly. Ah, politics.
I am really worried that we have lost all semblance and science and am truly glad that none of the "solutions" to global cooling in the 1970s were implemented (spread ash on the north pole).
The difference being, of course, that "global cooling" was a briefly considered hypothesis that got sensationalized in the media, while the warming trends are backed by near unanimous scientific consensus over many years.
Not that anyone could tell by listening to how the issues are discussed, of course. Who cares what the actual scientists say?
I really think no one has been served by the politicalizing of science. I worry that anti-corporation and anti-technology are so mixed into this stuff.
Opposition to nuclear power is a good example; environmentally it's probably the best option we currently have, but supposed environmentalists oppose it for... reasons that I don't really understand. Again, apparently no one cares what the science says...
My personal biggest problem with cap-and-trade is that it doesn't address any issues of the third world. Also, after reading about the implementation, it seems to create a new class of people making money off a system and not a product.
Yes, which is all the more reason to call out the bullshit artists when they're trying to make things worse. Just throwing your hands up and ignoring it only enables the people who want to twist science to their own ends.
So even if we could "fix" global warming through geoengineering (and from all that I've read, signs point to no), there are still so many other problems that the only way not to mess up the planet completely is to change our habits and consume fewer resources.
You may now begin complaining about how the fact that the world is not infinitely bountiful impinges on your rights.
He basically starts off "I'm not a climatologist, I've a flight test engineer--but I look at data for a living. Here's my thoughts on all the data I've seen about this debate."
No, I'd say that kind of garbage is precisely related to the article.
I swear, if Al Gore were to go on television and tell everyone that the sky is blue, half the country would be lining up to insist that it must be green because blue skies are socialist or something (and if Rush Limbaugh said the sky was blue you'd have the other half denying it instead). Seriously, what is wrong with people that they would rather deny objective reality than compromise their political ideology?
[Edit] On second thoughts, sorry, too glib. I try to be a bit more thoughtful for the HN. The point I was getting at is that there's verifiable facts, data and arguments in the post. It would be a much more interesting discussion, one I could learn from, if people would tackle those.
I'd also just read Julian Sanchez's piece on what he calls the 'oppositional morality' cognitive bias, the tendency to disbelieve evidence that The Others are using to push their conclusions: http://www.juliansanchez.com/2009/10/12/oppositional-moralit...