Global Warming Debate

[RAGNAR]

Originally Posted by wind_magic

The problem isn't that there aren't any alternative energy sources, there are plenty. The problem is that none of them is cheaper to produce and use than oil. Where they are cheaper, windy areas for example, companies do create power generators to take advantage of it. There really are geothermal plants, large wind farms, etc, in places where it is economically advantageous to use them. But ethanol fuel simply isn't cheaper, it's probably never going to be cheaper, and that's why it has to be forced down sensible people's throats.

I'd add that our tax schemes and the lethal impact the union of Gov and education has had on research are huge obstacles in developing anything new.

[RAGNAR]

Originally Posted by sck5

For me, the evidence is pretty clear, but even if it isnt for you

But Reality isn't subjective. Further, it's causal. That means that an argument is or isn't valid. So no honest mind cares what you think is right, or what your opponent thinks is right. All an honest mind cares about is what can be proven.

The GW thing has been shown to be wrong any number of ways, yet people with the metaphysics and epistemology that dictate a Left political leaning continue to insist that what warming there is is, a) outside normal range, b) outside inherent thermodynamic traits of our physical reality, c) manmade.

most of the things we should do if we believe it (burn less oil, etc.) are all things that would be a good idea for other purely capitalistic reasons

But burning less oil isn't necessarily good economics, as the price of crude is held high by an adherence to an ethics that has nothing to do with facts (respecting thug ownership, not drilling for more, government involvement making refinement ridiculously complex and/or impossible)

(as well as national security ones - wouldnt you love not to NEED oil from the middle east if it were possible?)

I'd love not to fund thugs. Which is why those wells need to be taken away, and reassigned to rights-respecting concerns. It's also why Gov needs to get out of the energy field.

[sck5]

wind magic said

"The problem isn't that there aren't any alternative energy sources, there are plenty. The problem is that none of them is cheaper to produce and use than oil."

I think this nails exactly what will happen regardless of our arguments about what SHOULD happen. Until oil gets expensive enough or something else gets cheap enough we are going to keep on the way we are doing now whether or not it causes global warming or doesnt. It is also true, though, (I think chuckles says this) that we could do research into alternatives that might speed up the process. I would be all for this, I think the government could put some money in this and it would be well spent if something came out of it - In fact, if something DID come out of it we would have a whole new growth industry which would help in a lot of ways.

History confirms that we only switch fuels when relative costs make us do it. The world used to be fueled by wood and it wasnt until the Europeans cut down every forest they had that they switched over to coal. (That, by the way, was why they needed American trees for their masts by the early 1800's - they didnt have enough big ones to supply their navies) Then they burned up all the then-accessible coal (before strip mining) and it got expensive enough that we all switched to oil. It wont be until oil is expensive enough compared to whatever is next that we will phase it out. Google "Hubbert curve" to read about the guy who first described this (Full name is M King Hubbert). People argue about whether we are or are not past the peak of the oil Hubbert curve nowadays - that is something that is unknowable til after the fact - but he originally made his argument not just for oil but for other fuels as well.

[chucklesR]

Besides, it was hard putting a tree into the gas tank

[sck5]

ragnar

reality is subjective when we dont know what the truth really is. ex post it will be clear but right now we still dont know. For ex. there IS a causal mechanism that is well understood for global warming - more CO2, other things equal, will cause warming. The problem is that other things are NEVER equal so it ends up being a judgement call on incomplete evidence whether or not those other things do or dont outweigh the effects of CO2 per se. That is why people still argue about it. On the evidence we now have either side could end up proving correct in the end depending on what new data we get and what new understanding that helps us achieve as to what is really going on. As I have said, the existence of a known causal mechanism together with data supporting the correlations that mechanism would predict look to me like there is reason to worry. However, it is also possible that there is another explanation for those correlations (another mechanism, bad measurement, etc.) and if that is shown well then I will change my mind. But neither side of this argument is clearly in the wrong, and being on one side other other doesnt make anyone stupid - It is just a different reading of conflicting evidence where the real truth wont be known until later on.

[sck5]

well, they are putting used french fry oil in gas tanks so maybe anything is possible eh?

[chucklesR]

If I ever need a reason to eat french fries, I'll find another one. Until then my very uneconomical RX-8 will consume 1 gallon of high test gas for every 19 miles traveled, but do it with speed and style to offset my personal lack of concern re: global warming.

[camaraderie]

For ex. there IS a causal mechanism that is well understood for global warming - more CO2, other things equal, will cause warming.

NO NO NO...that is for a closed system which the earth is NOT!! I do not accept your FIRST underlying argument and neither do many scientists.

[chucklesR]

Okay, so the way to solve global warming is to use less carbon based fossil fuel, so to do that we are substituting ethanol. This saves the world how?

We are making ethanol by growing corn, rapeseed, whatever which of course uses CO2 and (clean) H20 as well as sunlight, converting it via a couple of semi-toxic processing steps to make a liquid which is then burned and releases the C02 back into the atmosphere, as well as the Nitrogen Oxide release, fertilizer drain off, land use issues, clean water diverted from other human use etc.. -
anyone have any statistics saying ethanol burning is less carbon spewing than oil?
I wonder, because I've got one that says different: http://news.mongabay.com/2007/0423-biodiesel.html

Save humanity, stop using biodiesel before it kills us all!

[RAGNAR]

Originally Posted by sck5

wind magic said

"The problem isn't that there aren't any alternative energy sources, there are plenty. The problem is that none of them is cheaper to produce and use than oil."

I think this nails exactly what will happen regardless of our arguments about what SHOULD happen.

First, that exactly what should happen. It's the market mechanism that assures resources aren't spent prematurely and/or wastefully.

Second, we can't keep accepting the status quo of our culture. things are as they are because individuals think as they think. That's what needs to be addressed -- all else is a band-aid on a cut jugular.

I would be all for this, I think the government could put some money in this and it would be well spent if something came out of it

If you want the least effective way to do something, Gov funding is it.

History confirms that we only switch fuels when relative costs make us do it.

As does logic and the market mechanism. This is proper.