[quote=Mark Cochrane]For what it is worth, my view of the issues goes as follows: 1) Economic upheaval - ongoing with worse imminent
2) Peak oil - inevitable and in process
3) Resource scarcity - links directly to peak oil
4) Climate change - a wild card, probably lowest priority for immediate preparation, ultimately the biggest problem we face[/quote]Given Chris’s science background, one would have thought he has a good grasp of the climate issues and could easily talk about them. There are emotional and political arguments all the time about all of the issues Chris chooses to address on his site, so it is rather peculiar that he shies away from climate change. I’m not sure that I’ve ever heard him provide his opinion about whether climate change is happening and being cause primarily by humans, which is also odd.
Regarding the priority list above, I would expand point 4 to include all non-resource environmental issues and put it right at the top, well above the others. Of course, given almost everyone else’s obsession with the economy, it’s not an issue that would go to the top of most people’s lists. However, I read an article somewhere recently (sorry can’t find the link right now) which showed that US people actually did put climate change top of the concern list when asked different questions about it. The economy gets the short term vote but the environment gets the long term vote (in a reversal of the short term outlook). Given that most people are actually in life for the long term, the environment should be the number one issue all the time, with no compromises. The environment is the basis for all life, all societies, all economies. We ignore it at our peril and I can’t, for the life of me, understand why Chris so resolutely refuses to address the subject. It is perhaps the biggest hole in this site and in his thinking.
Tony
Edit: Sorry, Mark, I misread your post a little. I can see that you are well on board, so far as seeing environmental issues (in particular climate change) as our biggest problem/predicament.
[quote=sofistek][quote=Mark Cochrane]For what it is worth, my view of the issues goes as follows:
1) Economic upheaval - ongoing with worse imminent
2) Peak oil - inevitable and in process
3) Resource scarcity - links directly to peak oil
4) Climate change - a wild card, probably lowest priority for immediate preparation, ultimately the biggest problem we face[/quote]Given Chris’s science background, one would have thought he has a good grasp of the climate issues and could easily talk about them. There are emotional and political arguments all the time about all of the issues Chris chooses to address on his site, so it is rather peculiar that he shies away from climate change. I’m not sure that I’ve ever heard him provide his opinion about whether climate change is happening and being cause primarily by humans, which is also odd.
Regarding the priority list above, I would expand point 4 to include all non-resource environmental issues and put it right at the top, well above the others. Of course, given almost everyone else’s obsession with the economy, it’s not an issue that would go to the top of most people’s lists. However, I read an article somewhere recently (sorry can’t find the link right now) which showed that US people actually did put climate change top of the concern list when asked different questions about it. The economy gets the short term vote but the environment gets the long term vote (in a reversal of the short term outlook). Given that most people are actually in life for the long term, the environment should be the number one issue all the time, with no compromises. The environment is the basis for all life, all societies, all economies. We ignore it at our peril and I can’t, for the life of me, understand why Chris so resolutely refuses to address the subject. It is perhaps the biggest hole in this site and in his thinking.
Tony
Edit: Sorry, Mark, I misread your post a little. I can see that you are well on board, so far as seeing environmental issues (in particular climate change) as our biggest problem/predicament.
[/quote]
Your relentless passive aggressive nitpicking of almost everything Chris writes and says devalues any positive contributions you might make.
Maybe you should lighten up and watch this.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eScDfYzMEEw
[quote=ao]Your relentless passive aggressive nitpicking of almost everything Chris writes and says devalues any positive contributions you might make.Maybe you should lighten up and watch this.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eScDfYzMEEw
[/quote]ao,
Thanks for posting my comment again. Carlin was quite funny but he obviously knew nothing about environmental issues. I’ll lighten up when enough people take our predicament seriously - all of it.
Tony
timeandtide’s comment was a bit wordy but I agree with him that "the government that governs least, governs best".
…I/we share all of your concerns, I’ll assume that we do anyways. I cannot speak for Chris, and won’t. So I’ll ask you a question: When not If a commercial sized battery that stores energy is developed doesn’t the issue of global warming take a turn for the better? Can you not visualize the importance of this futuristic technology? Can you not see that you/we/humanity wins? Do you not understand the set back that global warming has taken because of the fall out of those darn internal emails that were floated about on the Internet? The very ones that has set this global climate change debate back decades perhaps? Do you not understand that the billion dollar prize stands a better chance of being a reality before this climate change debate ever begins anew again? I understood this issue was dead the moment those emails were disclosed, whether they were true or not. So as an (common sense) environmentalist myself I looked for my next best hope. Battery Technology is not a distant hoped for technology. It will be developed so make it competitive, and rewarding, and some serious nerd will figure it out. Guaranteed. Time is a wasting so as president, that would be the first words spoken from my mouth. Here’s how it might sound as I stand at the inaugural podium: My fellow Americans, and to my brothers and sisters in the world, I challenge all of you, and as a motivation to this discovery will pay the sum of 1 billion dollars, to anyone who can provide the world a commercial sized battery to store the energy of the sun, wind ,and capture the waste energy that is now produced world wide (so forth and so on)…Tony, I get goose bumps at the thought of this discovery, and what it would mean, lead too.
Tony, I have no issues with your abrasive style. Your prejudice towards all Americans is quite apparent, and is your choice. Which of course makes your message less than appealing to many. If you want your message to resonate, and require everyone to take global warming seriously then unfortunately you may be hurting the cause. Is this about you, or about global warming? You seem like an intelligent person but frankly, for me, your over all message is a negative one. Don’t get me wrong, I am not bothered by you, your words, and frankly could easily tune you out (so your message ends up in the trash bin). I would reflect on this a bit Tony, and ask yourself, is my message a motivating one or are my words just words to be discarded because of a strong bias against Americans.
It’s your choice to be here, and I assume it is to spread the word. You have a captive audience here but I’ll let you in on something, I don’t remember really what the hell you said only that my impression of you is as a snob. Perhaps it is about you, and if determined so in future threads then I’ll just bypass you entirely. Now your message has truly been lost, at least on me. Perhaps I tune out all climate change debates, even go so far as to let others know that the climate change debate is for the radicals,.All because the scientific community that I relied on is just not trustworthy. So what else is new, everyone lies these days, even climatologists. Then like has happened on the Internet it goes viral, and hurts the cause just as those emails did. We are not the enemy Tony, perhaps that lies within. Regards
BOB
Hello Bob,I fail to see how someone so apparently well reasoned and obviously forward thinking as you can have bought a trumped up smear campaign so hook line and sinker that you could write off the entire scientific community forever "whether they were true or not". Regarding the true or not, it is noteworthy that all scientists have been cleared of wrongdoing by multiple investigations in multiple countries. If false accusations are now the same as truth then we are all truly lost. Someone could easily sift through the posts at this site, selectively misquote our statements or cherry pick a few inflammatory posts and label us all as a radical organization (or worse).
What I like about this site is that there are several points of view from many individuals who probably wouldn’t normally be in a room discussing serious issues (say you, me and Tony for example). And yet, here we are, reading each others points of view, sometimes castigating each other, but finding enough common ground to at least interact.
Incidentally, I agree with you about the importance of battery technology, as such technology is critical for forwarding any truly functional alternative energy grid. However, the battery technology you are advocating for will most likely arise from the same scientific community, working under the same rules, that you seem to have lost faith in.
The problem with the information age is that it is also the disinformation age. Opinion has taken on the same value as fact for many. We live in a world of fiat-ideas that have no backing but are circulated as if they did. Is there any hard currency of knowledge that we can work from?
Mark
[quote=Mark Cochrane]The problem with the information age is that it is also the disinformation age. Opinion has taken on the same value as fact for many. We live in a world of fiat-ideas that have no backing but are circulated as if they did. Is there any hard currency of knowledge that we can work from?
Mark
[/quote]
This phrase stood out for me as an important issue.
People I know (including me) do such odd things with information AND mis-information - avoid it, believe it, obsess about it, become emotionally reactive about it, dis-associate from it… Plus the more I learn the more it comes clear that we have been indoctrinated with mis-information quite expertly and systematically to forward the economic goals of others. We have been trained not to fully apply ourselves. I’m forming an opinion that a key opportunity/challenge of this age is for each of us to claim our own intelligence and use it fully as if it matters. My working class, non-academic background does not encourage this attitude, but life sure is more interesting with it.
BTW, for me human mental activity only becomes intelligent when the values of the heart are known and infuse the thinking. Information and analysis without values and love are not yet intelligent. So, Mark, there is as aspect of my "hard currrency of knowledge" - what does my heart see here? In the case of climate change, my heart is howling that it enjoys, marvels in, loves and needs this planet and its current biosphere with an intensity outside any box that was ever offered me by politics, economics, science or religion. That’s the baseline for all information and analysis to rest on. That’s the master currency for this lifetime. Now how to spend it…
I’ll take any further mention of climate change to the designated threads and just say that I really value discussions that help clear up misinformation and create clarity about it.
Trusting our own thinking is definitely encouraged by Chris on this website - a lovely feature, eh? (Yup. Canadian) I’m quite sure we don’t need to agree with each other to develope our mutual and aggregate intelligence. Thank you all for taking the time to share your (very valuable)knowledge and fascinations. Where we get on each other’s nerves might be growing pains - out-of-practice humans re-learning community in a much more complex world than has ever existed to challenge us.
The interviews/articles and ensuing discussions here are helping me re-define wealth, bit by bit, on my own terms. Maybe that makes you all part of my new hard currency of wealth - right up there with silver. (Oops - another sticky topic!)
Thanks
Susan
…looks around. What’s going on folks?
Perhaps it may be tempting to want CM to cover other important issues that some of us feel strongly about, if for no other reason because he’s shown his effectiveness as a communicator in the Crash Course and his interviews and speaking engagements. One of my own big concerns is the growing and entrenched systemic corruption and progression towards a police state in the US and other nations, and I admit I’d like to see CM really take on that subject. But when it comes right down to it his opinions and/or choice of focus should be his own and not mine, and whether he also feels strongly about this issue (or the climate change issue, or global agendas, or certain political movements etc. etc.) or not I think he’s probably making a good choice in keeping a more narrow focus. There is no shortage of people and platforms speaking out on these other issues, after all… this is not the only game in town.
Secondly , there is always that human habit of wanting to see leaders mirror all our priorities and concerns, and while that desire is understandable it is also unrealistic. Plus that mentality tends to create the crap-tacular leadership we currently see in the larger democracies, where most of the "leadership" we get consists of empty suits (or sociopaths) whose only real talent is telling people what they want to hear. It’d be a real shame to ruin the few real leaders left by demanding they cater to all our views and opinions. And IF one truly feels strongly enough about the issues that CM doesn’t take a strong public stance on, well then he isn’t the leader for you… time to find someone else who better represents you, or better yet become that leader you are looking for. But as for me, as long as CM or Joel Salatin or Damon Vrabel or Judge Napolitano or Ron Paul or any other real leader out there isn’t working at cross-purposes with my own goals, I’m happy to support them even if they don’t have all the same priorities as myself. I only wish my effectiveness as a leader or as an example to follow was anywhere close to that of those folks, so quite frankly I’m happy they’re around…
- Nick
…Remember, I am not the information/disinformation problem here. The powers that be took the climate change issue off the table not me. My point to Tony was, if he wants his (our) message heard, he can’t shut down his audience because of his obvious bias, and prejudice towards others that just may help. I hope this makes sense to you also.
I never implied or said what you are saying Mark. In fairness to me you have to re-read what I said, and if it still reads as you think it does then I have no idea how to change that.
It doesn’t matter Mark if we are totally right about climate change. The politics have swayed absolute science with an alternative point of view, unfortubately. Climate change is now left for sustained, and tragic events where powerful people move the issue forward again. It may take the Earth cracking in half I’m affraid.
I am a firm believer that global warming is ongoing, and pervasive. However, the reality is the climate change issue is dead until it’s not. It’s a political reality not mine. I will still be an advocate but time is short. Time to go to plan B. The Kyoto conference has long past its targeted audience. We lost because of a bogus smear campaign. Agreed?
So, our motivation is less CO2, YES? If so, then solar, wind, and wasted energy is best served with a commercial sized battery storage system. Right? If you agreed, then we have our foundation in which to build on. Right now this technology is the only real stumbling block to a future that we can touch, feel, and build on. What is so appealing is how it would blend so seamlessly into our complex system. It’s beautiful Man. Right now that future is still fossil fuels, and it’s finite! YIKES!!! Tic-Toc…Tic-Toc…Climate change is the removal of CO2 from the atmosphere, or actually the act of not putting anymore into the atmosphere, and is why a prize of 1 billion dollars for a commercial size battery storage system is the best path forward. True?
Mark, I believe if you re-read my thread you will see this was the message all along. I was supposing if this happened then that would happen or could happen. My intentions were to be direct, and helpful. If I’m abrasive, I want to be called out, I do. If I wasn’t or my words were misunderstood then clarity is in order. Hopefully you get clarity from my counter to your thread to me.
Mark, how is it logical for me to be a strong advocate of battery technology, and yet have (lost) faith in science. That is unfortunately your stretch on my words, and frankly is unfair. You can’t say to me that I am forward looking, and then suggest I have lost faith in science. I was creating a hypothetical example to Tony, for his benefit. Tony doesn’t have to sell me on climate change but maybe some American reader needs to hear the message on climate change but for Tony’s bias that person tunes him out , and heads for the Internet. He doesn’t know what to think. The smear campaign has made him indifferent as he researches. Yes? Again, you have to re-read my thread, and if you come to this conclusion again, then I don’t know how to change that.
If you seen the steps taken in my life towards being a part of the solution, and not the problem then the benefit of the doubt would be established. I am not defending myself at all, but you did misunderstand, and acknowledgement of this would be appreciated. Regards
BOB
I beg to differ. If we want less CO2, then the ONLY answer is living more simply so we may simply live.
Deploying huge numbers of renewables, and yes, your storage batteries, is simply more consumption, all of which will be fossil fuel driven (and the odd nuke).
I’ve proven beyond any doubt that it is possible to lead a perfectly "normal life" on a tiny percentage of the average energy consumption.
Replacing the current system, in its current gargantuan size, will only seal the fate of the planet’s climate. It would also mean ending doing EVERYTHING ELSE (building anything requiring concrete steel and copper among many other resources…)
I think people who promote the idea of simply changing over from this Matrix to a Renewables powered one have no idea of the size of the task at hand… I also recommend reading The Energy Trap | Do the Math and everything else Tom Murphy, a PhD in Physics, has written on his brilliant blog…
Mike
[Moderator’s note: This post is a violation of the forum guidelines. We have long said that we will not tolerate "drive-by" character attacks or mean-hearted speculation about Chris’ personal motives. Characterizing Chris’ motives as purely profit-driven is probably among the most common of these "drive-by insults." Such comments are not helpful (or true). Without any foundation, these sorts of comments are just naked, unproductive negativity.]
Susan,
I liked your observation:
Where we get on each other's nerves might be growing pains - out-of-practice humans re-learning community in a much more complex world than has ever existed to challenge us.I think we've been indoctrinated with a culture of learning sensitivity when we should instead be teaching tolerance. We all choose to spend valuable time here in this venue that Chris has established. I like that in here community doesn't necessarily mean group think. Mark
Bob,
Thanks for your comments.
Although I’d disagree that a commercial battery storage facility is a "when" rather than an "if", I agree that it would offer the potential to help mitigate global warming. (Human ingenuity is not guaranteed to solve any particular problem, no matter how much we desire it). However, that doesn’t mean it has the potential to improve the environment, unless accompanied by lifestyle changes and overall energy and resource consumption reduction. Science is only just now starting to look at just how much renewable energy can be diverted from its current use (as part of our current delicate environmental balance).
I have discussed similar arguments with others. To you, battery technology is the goal. To another guy, Cheap Access To Space should be the goal (and he has a good understanding of the technology involved) in order to place huge reflectors/shades in place, as the only way we’re going to start getting the temperature back down. Both of you have no doubt that your particular focus will work. But, unless we start living in a very different way, a sustainable way, success in either goal will simply delay catastrophe, at best.
On the question of those leaked emails, I agree that they set the human induced climate change position back, even though there was nothing in the emails that could have done that from a purely scientific stance (as shown by several enquiries into the matter). But should this site be swayed by what the mainstream media and a few denialist blogs say? There is also much disinformation on resource depletion, but Chris covers those things.
I’m sorry if I appear to have a prejudice against all Americans as it most certainly is not true. I have a prejudice against the "American Dream", but, as it has been exported across the global, Americans are no worse than others; they are simply further ahead in their impact on our only known habitat. I accept that this site focuses on the US, as that is where most or all of the main contributors are based and the US is the biggest consuming nation and economy, by far. Obviously, it can be a bit frustrating for other nationals but there is a dearth of non-US (or non-North American) sites dealing with these issues, so I guess I can’t grumble too much (but can grumble a bit).
I accept that I perhaps concentrate on certain issues to the detriment of my argument, because so many people have their own focus. However, from what I’ve learned about our deteriorating environment (not just warming, and all the things it brings, but almost every aspect of the environment that sustains all life is deteriorating), it is hard to consider positions that would be perfectly valid in a world where the environment isn’t deteriorating, but have much less importance in a world where we may well have gone beyond natural limits in so many areas, already (see "A Safe Operating Space for Humanity" [PDF]). I suppose a convert is the most passionate about a subject - I was a fervent AGW denier up until about 2001, and then only started to really consider its impact on me once I learned of peak oil, 3 years later, which led to reading a lot of stuff. I’m now convinced that any response to our predicament that doesn’t involve consideration of our only known habitat is just not enough to avert disaster, though some responses might delay disaster for a while. Consequently, I just can’t understand why a site that is attempting to correct the prevailing narrative that drives our reckless behaviour, and that covers just about all the other major parts of our predicament, can so completely ignore what is at least a hugely important aspect of the correct narrative (since it underpins absolutely everything on the planet). Tony
Hello Bob,I don’t consider you the font of information/disinformation problem but I was positing that you might be the victim of it. It wouldn’t be logical to both advocate and denigrate science at the same time. Obviously this was not your intent. The fact that we all muddle around in here says to me that we all sense we’ve been manipulated with misinformation (I liked Susan’s earlier post) for quite a while and are trying to wake up.
I understood your point to Tony, and I hope he takes it seriously. I was just taking issue with your making global statements about the scientific establishment that seemed (to me) to present a potential contradiction with your passionate advocation for battery technology. For example, in this post, you state that:
The powers that be took the climate change issue off the table not me.All I am saying that they (whoever they are) took it off your table, not necessarily mine or many others.
The politics have swayed absolute science with an alternative point of viewI know you don't intend it to be, but I find that sort of statement offensive because it impugns my personal integrity. Is there a basis for such a charge? This has been an active area of research for over 100 years. I would say that the problem more accurately stated is that science has failed to sway the politics despite their best attempts of providing warning, not the opposite. This is why many scientists, including myself, are speaking out in public. This is deadly serious. We probably agree on more than we disagree. Where we don't I am happy to agree to disagree without rancor. Kyoto isn't dead, it's likely to get extended life support (sort of like the Greek bailout drama) until the world can get its collective act together and replace it with another, most likely insufficient, Protocol. Note, you can be both helpful and abrasive, heck, I have obviously been abrasive to at least you and who knows how many others. I personally don't have a problem with strong opinions or large egos as I deal with them all the time. As long as we deal with each other respectfully and forthrightly we enrich the community. These discussions don't need to be either/or in nature. Take Mike's reduced energy consumption and your battery technology facilitated alternative energy and put them together. If we would all live more like Mike's example then we could get by with a lot fewer and smaller energy networks. Can we make those lines of thought cross somewhere? We need the batteries but the flip side of the challenge is to work out how few and/or small we can get by with. The question (or at least my version of it) is can we live within our resource budget while keeping at least some of the lights on after the cheap energy binge is over? Note, I am not 'judging' you, I was only pointing out how you could be (mis)perceived. No doubt, I would be surprised about how others might misconstrue my own words. Mark
[quote=Dogs_In_A_Pile]…looks around. What’s going on folks?
[/quote]
Long time…where you been hiding, the pepper patch? Good to have you back. Hope you stick around.
There’s a new website coming up soon that I think will be pretty cool.
Catch us up with what you’ve been up to.
Doug
Hey Doug -
I took a break to decompress, refresh and recharge. Joe Mancini came down from Connecticut to visit this weekend. Cat and I are trying to convince him to move down to Virginia to join our growing community. Last night we drove up to Richmond and had dinner with Davos and his wife in son. We sat for 4 1/2 hours talking about anything, everything and nothing - and we kept coming back to CM.com and how much we missed the camaraderie and spirited discussions. Long story short - I needed a break, I took it, I missed the interaction and discussions with the good people here and it was time to come back.
Joe can tell you about how he broke the gun range in a different thread…
So, have you some new lines of thought to share? We have missed you.Stan
…in the broadest sense we are fundamentally on the same page. I am very concerned with climate change. The scientific community has my deepest respect. When I spoke of politics with regards to the climate issue, and science in particular, I should have been bold and just called a spade a spade. That being, Big Oil had its influence, and the puppet politicians doing their bidding for them.
I am not so certain that the priority now is climate change either, I’m not. I am certain that energy that is affordable is. Now, I respect it is your focus of concern, and I respect that but it is not my reality as I see it. So I’ll apologize in advance if I touch a nerve but it isn’t intended to harm you or anyone intentionally.
While we may dream of being completely off the grid that reality is a fraction of the super majority though. No data to support this notion but I believe it’s true. Everything we own or will purchase, including the use of this lap top by all of us is Fossil fuel generated, and has a carbon foot print. We all require fiat money for everything outside of barter so frankly we are all hypocrites but we are trying to lesson our foot print the best we can. Maintaining this complex system is imperative or the chaos that will ensue will be a horror show. Certainly we are not that narrow minded or self righteous or jaded. I know I have limitations that prohibit me from doing all that I would like so I do what I can.
This issue , and all issues we deal with here are important, and Susan is right. All a warm up to what we will face in the world outside our front doors. Tony, I feel you have been unduly harsh towards Professor Martenson, and Americans in general. I mean it when I am not coming to his defence but many of your words obviously were to incite a negative response. So, counter productive to all the intelligence here. To your intelligence. You can say all that you wish, but be respectful at least.
My focus has been, and always will be on Peak Oil. An energy source that must be preserved to carve out whatever future we may have. I visualize a clean, and sustainable future of plenty. Not like the environment of today at all but a better future. I believe too that many more tons of CO2 will be dumped into our atmosphere to achieve a future balance in this world that is in more harmony with nature. I see utter and total calamity if we do not supplement Oil ,and preserve the awesome power this fuel provides us. If we fail, we fail but the Earth will still be here long after we are gone. I am focused on one piece of the puzzle, Mark on another, and Tony another. All motivated, all wanting to be a part of the solution, and who knows if we’ll make a difference. I know this, we must try.
The world is at a cross road, and all of us will play our parts. I hold no grudges, I respect communication that is fair, and pointed. Nothing has changed for me here. Fact is, this has been a good experience. Writing is a difficult way to project your true thoughts and intentions. The whole of what you/we say often comes down to one sentence, a word, and it carries on a life of its own, unintentionally. I am moving on now, done with this issue. Respectfully given
BOB
Glad you’re back! Hope your decompression was beneficial. I know I speak for many here- we missed you. Not to burden you on your first day back, but any thoughts on Fukushima? Aloha, Steve.