Global Warming Debate - Friendly

[TylerS]

I am a research scientist (computer science) with a mathematics background. Most of what I do is in and around the area of modeling. All serious modelers know that all models are flawed. Some are better than others and some might be good enough to be useful. By definition, a model is an approximation of a system. I have decades of experience working with research scientists who have attempted to model complex systems. Once the complexity of the system gets beyond a certain point, models tend to become useless. I can't prove it, but I think that is what is happening with climate models. There are simply too many variables with too many unknown interrelationships that prevent us from accurately modeling something as complex as our climate system on a planetary scale.

As an aside, I can create a computer model that shows CO2 is beneficial in under 1 minute, but it will be flawed. The structure and interpretation of every model reflects the mindset of the modeler. That is a kind of scientific bias and I see it in the interpretation of the climate models on an ongoing basis.

I also work with complex computer models on a daily basis. You should know that to deal with the inherent uncertainty in models it's very common to do a sensitivity analysis to see how sensitive the results are to variations in parameters and inputs. It's a way to gain confidence in your results. The climate scientists have done this, and shown that even with changes to the models they still predict the same overall conclusions, just the magnitudes of some of the results vary.

(The rest of this post isn't related to your post jgvergo)
I think everyone needs to step back and put themselves in the climate scientists shoes. As an engineer I would be furious if someone took my data and misrepresented it for political or monetary gain. The 1000's of guys or gals researching the climate at nasa or university xyz who have all reached similar conclusions aren't sitting there thinking "if I just modify my data to show whatever person xyz wants I'll get more research money" or anything along those lines. They care about the accuracy of their data and predictions, and bettering society with their information. People are insinuating that the scientists are blurring ethical lines on a massive scale, or are wrong, and neither is happening.

I would also be furious if some Joe Schmo off the street came in to my place of work with no training or knowledge on the subject and started telling me I was wrong, didn't know what I was doing, or politically motivated. Personally I feel disappointed in the lack of respect for the science and these professionals.

Overall I also think people and society as a whole are having a hard time fathoming what these predictions actually mean. They don't understand was a 3 to 12F average temperature increase in the U.S. by 2100, or a 3 foot increase in sea level means.

 

[Areseebee]

One of the most fascinating things about this debate is always how people who aren't in science think science works.

 

[jgvergo]

I also work with complex computer models on a daily basis. You should know that to deal with the inherent uncertainty in models it's very common to do a sensitivity analysis to see how sensitive the results are to variations in parameters and inputs. It's a way to gain confidence in your results. The climate scientists have done this, and shown that even with changes to the models they still predict the same overall conclusions, just the magnitudes of some of the results vary.

There is, in fact, quite a bit of debate about the sensitivity of CO2 in the models, but I disagree that they still predict the same overall conclusions. Much lower sensitivity to CO2 yields much less catastrophic results. The magnitude of the effect matters a lot.

 

[TheEngineer]

This conversation is very frustrating to me. I'm a "scientist" (two engineering degrees) and I work as the deputy chief scientist of a major multi-national corporation you've all heard of. My job is about pushing the boundaries of science and we are working on a lot of things that people in the scientific community call controversial. You know how controversial becomes mainstream? Scientists verify it!

People are insinuating that the scientists are blurring ethical lines on a massive scale, or are wrong, and neither is happening.

This speaks volumes to the source of my frustration. There are insinuations and accusations that scientists are somehow standing to gain a windfall from this research and that fudging their results is how they make money. There are also blatantly exaggerated statements about how much money is being spent in this space and a simple "if it doesn't affect me, it was money wasted" type of mentality.

Let's talk about scientists who are supposedly getting rich. Most of them are at universities around the world, some are at government labs and even fewer at private companies. Do you have any idea how terrible the pay is at most universities and government labs? Remember, these people spent decades in school and most have PhDs. If they break into the mid $100k's by the time they retire that's pretty darn good. Consider an attorney straight out of school makes $180k. Researchers are paid more based on the impact of their work. Impact is defined in a lot of ways, but most importantly it is about how well respected that person is in their field by their peers. If you put out garbage you will be called on it. That's why scientists are always trying to validate each others work and reproduce results.

Trillions of dollars are being spent on cleantech? Where? The number is actually $283B in 2015 for ALL clean tech projects around the world (source: http://fs-unep-centre.org/publications/global-trends-renewable-energy-investment-2016) Keep in mind, this includes projects like building hydro-electric dams. The amount spent on raw research is a fraction of that. It also strikes me as odd that we are taking issue with research that is intended to improve the world but no one has taken issue with subsidies to the oil companies. EDIT: The global world product in 2015 was $75T. That makes the global cleantech investment 0.3% (less than 1%) of global spending. Do you know much was spent on buying cars last year? 74M sold globally, let's assume an average of $10k USD. That's $740B USD. More than double the global cleantech spend.

To those who don't care if they aren't affected. I don't get it. I value my worth by the good I create for others. If I died today, I know I've done things that made the world a little bit better for other people and that makes me happy.

 

[jgvergo]

This conversation is very frustrating to me. I'm a "scientist" (two engineering degrees) and I work as the deputy chief scientist of a major multi-national corporation you've all heard of. My job is about pushing the boundaries of science and we are working on a lot of things that people in the scientific community call controversial. You know how controversial becomes mainstream? Scientists verify it!



This speaks volumes to the source of my frustration. There are insinuations and accusations that scientists are somehow standing to gain a windfall from this research and that fudging their results is how they make money. There are also blatantly exaggerated statements about how much money is being spent in this space and a simple "if it doesn't affect me, it was money wasted" type of mentality.

Let's talk about scientists who are supposedly getting rich. Most of them are at universities around the world, some are at government labs and even fewer at private companies. Do you have any idea how terrible the pay is at most universities and government labs? Remember, these people spent decades in school and most have PhDs. If they break into the mid $100k's by the time they retire that's pretty darn good. Consider an attorney straight out of school makes $180k. Researchers are paid more based on the impact of their work. Impact is defined in a lot of ways, but most importantly it is about how well respected that person is in their field by their peers. If you put out garbage you will be called on it. That's why scientists are always trying to validate each others work and reproduce results.

Trillions of dollars are being spent on cleantech? Where? The number is actually $283B in 2015 for ALL clean tech projects around the world (source: http://fs-unep-centre.org/publications/global-trends-renewable-energy-investment-2016) Keep in mind, this includes projects like building hydro-electric dams. The amount spent on raw research is a fraction of that. It also strikes me as odd that we are taking issue with research that is intended to improve the world but no one has taken issue with subsidies to the oil companies. EDIT: The global world product in 2015 was $75T. That makes the global cleantech investment 0.3% (less than 1%) of global spending. Do you know much was spent on buying cars last year? 74M sold globally, let's assume an average of $10k USD. That's $740B USD. More than double the global cleantech spend.

To those who don't care if they aren't affected. I don't get it. I value my worth by the good I create for others. If I died today, I know I've done things that made the world a little bit better for other people and that makes me happy.

@icecool2 Here is one source that puts the cost at $44T by 2050. Note that it is NOT simply the cost of developing clean tech, but the total economic burden of switching to clean technology. I have a lot of respect for the MIT Technology review. Even if this estimate is off by a full order of magnitude, it is still significant.
https://www.technologyreview.com/s/527196/how-much-will-it-cost-to-solve-climate-change/

 

[TheEngineer]

@icecool2 Here is one source that puts the cost at $44T by 2050. Note that it is NOT simply the cost of developing clean tech, but the total economic burden of switching to clean technology. I have a lot of respect for the MIT Technology review. Even if this estimate is off by a full order of magnitude, it is still significant.
https://www.technologyreview.com/s/527196/how-much-will-it-cost-to-solve-climate-change/

Another pet peeve of mine, cherry picking. You need to read the rest of the article or at least the rest of the paragraph you pulled that from.

From that article's first paragraph:

"Switching from fossil fuels to low-carbon sources of energy will cost $44 trillion between now and 2050, according to a report released this week by the International Energy Agency. That sounds like a lot of money, but the report also concludes that the switch to low-carbon technologies such as solar power—together with anticipated improvements in efficiency—will bring huge savings from reduced fossil-fuel consumption. As a result, the world actually comes out slightly ahead: the costs of switching will be paid for in fuel savings between now and 2050."

Emphasis added here is mine. The gist, the cost spent leads to savings.

 

[4FordFamily]

I also work with complex computer models on a daily basis. You should know that to deal with the inherent uncertainty in models it's very common to do a sensitivity analysis to see how sensitive the results are to variations in parameters and inputs. It's a way to gain confidence in your results. The climate scientists have done this, and shown that even with changes to the models they still predict the same overall conclusions, just the magnitudes of some of the results vary.

(The rest of this post isn't related to your post jgvergo)
I think everyone needs to step back and put themselves in the climate scientists shoes. As an engineer I would be furious if someone took my data and misrepresented it for political or monetary gain. The 1000's of guys or gals researching the climate at nasa or university xyz who have all reached similar conclusions aren't sitting there thinking "if I just modify my data to show whatever person xyz wants I'll get more research money" or anything along those lines. They care about the accuracy of their data and predictions, and bettering society with their information. People are insinuating that the scientists are blurring ethical lines on a massive scale, or are wrong, and neither is happening.

I would also be furious if some Joe Schmo off the street came in to my place of work with no training or knowledge on the subject and started telling me I was wrong, didn't know what I was doing, or politically motivated. Personally I feel disappointed in the lack of respect for the science and these professionals.

Overall I also think people and society as a whole are having a hard time fathoming what these predictions actually mean. They don't understand was a 3 to 12F average temperature increase in the U.S. by 2100, or a 3 foot increase in sea level means.

Tyler, the problem in this case unlike many other computer models is that exponentially more variables exist that may contribute to the end results that cannot all be controlled for. Each variable added also decreases the statistical significance of the results, and there are many variables we DO know about but don't know how or how much they impact the results. Too much going on. I think that's part of the point being made.

We DO know we are having a measurable and most obvious negative impact on the oceans, deforesting, and more. We can also probably solve some of those issues more easily or at least they're more predictable and less complex.

Also, thank you for your contribution. This debate is interesting to say the least!

 

[4FordFamily]

I also work with complex computer models on a daily basis. You should know that to deal with the inherent uncertainty in models it's very common to do a sensitivity analysis to see how sensitive the results are to variations in parameters and inputs. It's a way to gain confidence in your results. The climate scientists have done this, and shown that even with changes to the models they still predict the same overall conclusions, just the magnitudes of some of the results vary.

(The rest of this post isn't related to your post jgvergo)
I think everyone needs to step back and put themselves in the climate scientists shoes. As an engineer I would be furious if someone took my data and misrepresented it for political or monetary gain. The 1000's of guys or gals researching the climate at nasa or university xyz who have all reached similar conclusions aren't sitting there thinking "if I just modify my data to show whatever person xyz wants I'll get more research money" or anything along those lines. They care about the accuracy of their data and predictions, and bettering society with their information. People are insinuating that the scientists are blurring ethical lines on a massive scale, or are wrong, and neither is happening.

I would also be furious if some Joe Schmo off the street came in to my place of work with no training or knowledge on the subject and started telling me I was wrong, didn't know what I was doing, or politically motivated. Personally I feel disappointed in the lack of respect for the science and these professionals.

Overall I also think people and society as a whole are having a hard time fathoming what these predictions actually mean. They don't understand was a 3 to 12F average temperature increase in the U.S. by 2100, or a 3 foot increase in sea level means.

The other issue is that their predictions have been wrong, and by a large margin. Total Ice at the poles did the opposite as predicted, average temps are not increasing nearly as fast as predicted. Whether there are people paid off, groupthink is at play, or they just made mistakes really doesn't matter, IMO.

In fairness, it's only been ten years or so, more time will be needed to be more certain. But the wordsmithing from politicians from global warming to climate change is potentially suggestive.

I am not a nonbeliever necessarily, but I do look at results, have a good understanding of statistics, and I look at everything from a devils advocate viewpoint based on the history of such things, especially this complex.

I can tell you from experience from running regression analysis on the same data with many variables that two people can come to very different conclusions and further can interpret and present the same data in ways to support two different conclusions. These cases were significantly less complex than what we are discussing here.

Admittedly though I am NOT an expert, I can only look at predictions versus results and draw inferences.

 

[TylerS]

Tyler, the problem in this case unlike many other computer models is that exponentially more variables exist that may contribute to the end results that cannot all be controlled for. Each variable added also decreases the statistical significance of the results, and there are many variables we DO know about but don't know how or how much they impact the results. Too much going on. I think that's part of the point being made.

We DO know we are having a measurable and most obvious negative impact on the oceans, deforesting, and more. We can also probably solve some of those issues more easily or at least they're more predictable and less complex.

Also, thank you for your contribution. This debate is interesting to say the least!

I trust the scientific community and think if there was serious concerns about the statistical significance or validity of the results then the papers wouldn't get past peer review.

 

[4FordFamily]

This conversation is very frustrating to me. I'm a "scientist" (two engineering degrees) and I work as the deputy chief scientist of a major multi-national corporation you've all heard of. My job is about pushing the boundaries of science and we are working on a lot of things that people in the scientific community call controversial. You know how controversial becomes mainstream? Scientists verify it!



This speaks volumes to the source of my frustration. There are insinuations and accusations that scientists are somehow standing to gain a windfall from this research and that fudging their results is how they make money. There are also blatantly exaggerated statements about how much money is being spent in this space and a simple "if it doesn't affect me, it was money wasted" type of mentality.

Let's talk about scientists who are supposedly getting rich. Most of them are at universities around the world, some are at government labs and even fewer at private companies. Do you have any idea how terrible the pay is at most universities and government labs? Remember, these people spent decades in school and most have PhDs. If they break into the mid $100k's by the time they retire that's pretty darn good. Consider an attorney straight out of school makes $180k. Researchers are paid more based on the impact of their work. Impact is defined in a lot of ways, but most importantly it is about how well respected that person is in their field by their peers. If you put out garbage you will be called on it. That's why scientists are always trying to validate each others work and reproduce results.

Trillions of dollars are being spent on cleantech? Where? The number is actually $283B in 2015 for ALL clean tech projects around the world (source: http://fs-unep-centre.org/publications/global-trends-renewable-energy-investment-2016) Keep in mind, this includes projects like building hydro-electric dams. The amount spent on raw research is a fraction of that. It also strikes me as odd that we are taking issue with research that is intended to improve the world but no one has taken issue with subsidies to the oil companies. EDIT: The global world product in 2015 was $75T. That makes the global cleantech investment 0.3% (less than 1%) of global spending. Do you know much was spent on buying cars last year? 74M sold globally, let's assume an average of $10k USD. That's $740B USD. More than double the global cleantech spend.

To those who don't care if they aren't affected. I don't get it. I value my worth by the good I create for others. If I died today, I know I've done things that made the world a little bit better for other people and that makes me happy.

I think my concern (just speaking for me) is much more that the scientists are being played more than any of them getting rich and purposefully fudging anything. I have a world of respect for scientists, and I'm not even saying that global warming is not a real thing. Rather, I am simply making ovservations, many of which may be "worthless".

 

[4FordFamily]

Another pet peeve of mine, cherry picking. You need to read the rest of the article or at least the rest of the paragraph you pulled that from.

From that article's first paragraph:

"Switching from fossil fuels to low-carbon sources of energy will cost $44 trillion between now and 2050, according to a report released this week by the International Energy Agency. That sounds like a lot of money, but the report also concludes that the switch to low-carbon technologies such as solar power—together with anticipated improvements in efficiency—will bring huge savings from reduced fossil-fuel consumption. As a result, the world actually comes out slightly ahead: the costs of switching will be paid for in fuel savings between now and 2050."

Emphasis added here is mine. The gist, the cost spent leads to savings.

I would like to point out that the cost savings is very much theoretical and dependent on more going as planned. Of course, the cost is also to some degree theoretical.

I am all for green energy though and I'm even for paying for it to some degree. Each estimate of an expenditure we get is typically a fraction of what the total spend actually will be-- and savings are most often inflated by several orders of magnitude. Now that's MORE the case when Uncle Sam is making the predictions but also true to some degree in the private sector as well.

I would rather invest in green causes (well thought out) than many of the things we spend money on as a nation, personally. So don't take that to mean I'm expecting innovation without capital. I will contend that government innovation is largely an oxymoron and most if not all breakthroughs are done in the private sector -- in fairness though often subsidized or given breaks by the government. This has led to a lot of losers though as well but that's all a part of the R&D is one way to look at that.

 

[TheEngineer]

I think my concern (just speaking for me) is much more that the scientists are being played more than any of them getting rich and purposefully fudging anything. I have a world of respect for scientists, and I'm not even saying that global warming is not a real thing. Rather, I am simply making ovservations, many of which may be "worthless".

I don't know about them getting played. The thing about science (part of why I went into a scientific field) is that science is true whether someone agrees with it or not. I know that an object at rest will stay at rest unless it is acted upon by an outside force. Let's not get into quantum mechanics though, things are different at that level :) No one can play a scientist for a fool and tell them this isn't true. A scientist will test and verify that hypothesis.

I would like to point out that the cost savings is very much theoretical and dependent on more going as planned. Of course, the cost is also to some degree theoretical.

I am all for green energy though and I'm even for paying for it to some degree. Each estimate of an expenditure we get is typically a fraction of what the total spend actually will be-- and savings are most often inflated by several orders of magnitude. Now that's MORE the case when Uncle Sam is making the predictions but also true to some degree in the private sector as well.

I would rather invest in green causes (well thought out) than many of the things we spend money on as a nation, personally. So don't take that to mean I'm expecting innovation without capital. I will contend that government innovation is largely an oxymoron and most if not all breakthroughs are done in the private sector -- in fairness though often subsidized or given breaks by the government. This has led to a lot of losers though as well but that's all a part of the R&D is one way to look at that.

We largely agree here. In my office we refer to three types of numbers when making an estimate:

1. WAG - a wild [butt] guess
2. SWAG - a scientific wild [butt] guess
3. SWAGNER - a scientific wild [butt] guess not easily refuted

I would say that MIT article is somewhere between a SWAG and a SWAGNER. My point about the article was more to the use of one sentence from it to prove a point when the very next sentence unproves said point. I make no claims to the article's accuracy though. :)

I'll say that there are still amazing things coming from government research labs, but the pace has been hampered by red tape in all of its forms that it has slowed progress substantially. This includes the arguments over terrible support for our education system.

 

[ReeferBob]

Another pet peeve of mine, cherry picking. You need to read the rest of the article or at least the rest of the paragraph you pulled that from.

From that article's first paragraph:

"Switching from fossil fuels to low-carbon sources of energy will cost $44 trillion between now and 2050, according to a report released this week by the International Energy Agency. That sounds like a lot of money, but the report also concludes that the switch to low-carbon technologies such as solar power—together with anticipated improvements in efficiency—will bring huge savings from reduced fossil-fuel consumption. As a result, the world actually comes out slightly ahead: the costs of switching will be paid for in fuel savings between now and 2050."

Emphasis added here is mine. The gist, the cost spent leads to savings.

"Huge savings" for who?

This is actually a great example of stating something that the average person would simply accept that is not true now and very possibly may never be true. That solar (or other "low carbon sources") of energy can ever replace fossil fuel. This will not happen in our lifetime.

I worked in the power industry for almost 10 years including plants the produce via solar, wind and water.

Solar particularly cannot replace fossil. 1, you can't get enough power out of the panels, they would need an enormous increase in output to meet even the lowest demand and 2, they take a lot of space so need to be placed strategically (in the middle of no-where), 3 transmission losses would be huge do to 2, and 4, you can't (effectively) store power. In addition, solar power is still heavily subsidized. Once these subsidies end, you will also see an end to most roof-top installations and an increase in power costs/rates from solar producers.

Hydroelectric is a viable clean energy source but almost every dammable water source has been tapped. Other than the Hoover dam, Niagara Electric and a very few others, these are VERY small output plants.

Wind has the same issues as Solar. Power companies build windmills mostly for publicity. They are not cost effective.

Nuclear is probably the best alternative source but NIMBY's and permitting and deregulation have ensure no new nuclear plants will ever be built.

There really is no alternative to fossil fuels on a country-wide scale much, much less on a global scale. It is great pie in the sky to tout alternative energy sources but realistically, there are none.

How about unintended consequences of switching to non-fossil fuels?

1. Instant civil war in all of the Middle East (and some of the rest of the world). They have one product, oil.
2. Power plants cannot ramp down production very easily. They typically produce at full capacity and what is not sold, is wasted. At some point, and we are already starting to see this, it no longer becomes cost effective for a fossil plant to remain in production. This causes a ripple effect as less power is available and costs are increased and passed onto rate payers. You could see 2-3x higher electric bills. Power production actually has very thin margins. Many power producers make most of their profit via selling pollution credits.

Regulations also will not work. I worked for the 2 dirtiest power plants on the East coast. They are also 2 of the largest. If they stopped producing power, literally the East coast grid would collapse (a regional blackout). We were ordered by the EPA to spend $100 million to make the plants cleaner. We told the EPA, "f you, we're closing the doors". The EPA backed off and rescinded the order. A smaller plant would have just gone out of business, creating power shortages which would increase costs and rate-payers bills.

A lot of what we are hearing regarding global warming is from very short-sighted, single-issue activists with no plan (or care) as to what to actually do. Reality is reality. Come to me with a cure, not the symptoms.

 

[TheEngineer]

"Huge savings" for who?

This is actually a great example of stating something that the average person would simply accept that is not true now and very possibly may never be true. That solar (or other "low carbon sources") of energy can ever replace fossil fuel. This will not happen in our lifetime.

I worked in the power industry for almost 10 years including plants the produce via solar, wind and water.

Solar particularly cannot replace fossil. 1, you can't get enough power out of the panels, they would need an enormous increase in output to meet even the lowest demand and 2, they take a lot of space so need to be placed strategically (in the middle of no-where), 3 transmission losses would be huge do to 2, and 4, you can't (effectively) store power. In addition, solar power is still heavily subsidized. Once these subsidies end, you will also see an end to most roof-top installations and an increase in power costs/rates from solar producers.

Hydroelectric is a viable clean energy source but almost every dammable water source has been tapped. Other than the Hoover dam, Niagara Electric and a very few others, these are VERY small output plants.

Wind has the same issues as Solar. Power companies build windmills mostly for publicity. They are not cost effective.

Nuclear is probably the best alternative source but NIMBY's and permitting and deregulation have ensure no new nuclear plants will ever be built.

There really is no alternative to fossil fuels on a country-wide scale much, much less on a global scale. It is great pie in the sky to tout alternative energy sources but realistically, there are none.

How about unintended consequences of switching to non-fossil fuels?

1. Instant civil war in all of the Middle East (and some of the rest of the world). They have one product, oil.
2. Power plants cannot ramp down production very easily. They typically produce at full capacity and what is not sold, is wasted. At some point, and we are already starting to see this, it no longer becomes cost effective for a fossil plant to remain in production. This causes a ripple effect as less power is available and costs are increased and passed onto rate payers. You could see 2-3x higher electric bills. Power production actually has very thin margins. Many power producers make most of their profit via selling pollution credits.

Regulations also will not work. I worked for the 2 dirtiest power plants on the East coast. They are also 2 of the largest. If they stopped producing power, literally the East coast grid would collapse (a regional blackout). We were ordered by the EPA to spend $100 million to make the plants cleaner. We told the EPA, "f you, we're closing the doors". The EPA backed off and rescinded the order. A smaller plant would have just gone out of business, creating power shortages which would increase costs and rate-payers bills.

A lot of what we are hearing regarding global warming is from very short-sighted, single-issue activists with no plan (or care) as to what to actually do. Reality is reality. Come to me with a cure, not the symptoms.

Rome wasn't built in a day. Neither will the transition from one power source to another. Just because something isn't possible today doesn't mean it isn't possible tomorrow. Remember when people rode horses instead of driving cars? How about the only option to get across the ocean being a boat? How about before there were boats?

I'm not going to go line by line and address each of the areas you see as barriers. But I will instead share a quote that your statements remind me of. This quote is from Thomas J. Watson in 1943. He was then the president of IBM. He said, "I think there is a world market for maybe five computers." How did that prediction came to pass? He made his assumption based on the room sized mainframe computers of the day. Do you think he was right? I could give you a dozen more examples of shortsightedness.

 

[ReeferBob]

Rome wasn't built in a day. Neither will the transition from one power source to another. Just because something isn't possible today doesn't mean it isn't possible tomorrow. Remember when people rode horses instead of driving cars? How about the only option to get across the ocean being a boat? How about before there were boats?

I'm not going to go line by line and address each of the areas you see as barriers. But I will instead share a quote that your statements remind me of. This quote is from Thomas J. Watson in 1943. He was then the president of IBM. He said, "I think there is a world market for maybe five computers." How did that prediction came to pass? He made his assumption based on the room sized mainframe computers of the day. Do you think he was right? I could give you a dozen more examples of shortsightedness.

It's very easy to take this position. You quote a product where the market was misjudged. We are talking about a product that doesn't exist. Where was the government back then? It sure was a lot let intrusive. Very little good comes from government intervention. It isn't likely that this is going to change. Finding a product does not meet the needs of government. The quest for the product does, however. So the quest will be kept alive and no product will ever be produced by the effort.

Is it possible that one day we will no longer be dependent on fossil fuels? Probably. It will happen once the fossil fuels are gone, which is many hundreds, if not thousands of years off. Will the planet die in the meantime? Perhaps. Nothing that is in motion now will stop anything. The only certainty is that governments should not be allowed to influence the progression of the power industry - politically or materially. Meanwhile, citizens of the world continue to lose more rights and property to the black hole known as government.

 

[Areseebee]

It's very easy to take this position. You quote a product where the market was misjudged. We are talking about a product that doesn't exist. Where was the government back then? It sure was a lot let intrusive. Very little good comes from government intervention. It isn't likely that this is going to change. Finding a product does not meet the needs of government. The quest for the product does, however. So the quest will be kept alive and no product will ever be produced by the effort.

You are off on a weird anti-government tangent here, but the thing about not wanting to "find a product" is silly. A hugely important role in government is funding research that leads to breakthroughs which are then used by the free market, it does this in tons of industries like energy, science, medicine and defense. Go try to find a Nobel prize in physics/chemistry/medicine whose discovery was funded entirely by private capital. Most of these blossom into "products" of one kind or another.

 

[TheEngineer]

It's very easy to take this position. You quote a product where the market was misjudged. We are talking about a product that doesn't exist. Where was the government back then? It sure was a lot let intrusive. Very little good comes from government intervention. It isn't likely that this is going to change. Finding a product does not meet the needs of government. The quest for the product does, however. So the quest will be kept alive and no product will ever be produced by the effort.

Is it possible that one day we will no longer be dependent on fossil fuels? Probably. It will happen once the fossil fuels are gone, which is many hundreds, if not thousands of years off. Will the planet die in the meantime? Perhaps. Nothing that is in motion now will stop anything. The only certainty is that governments should not be allowed to influence the progression of the power industry - politically or materially. Meanwhile, citizens of the world continue to lose more rights and property to the black hole known as government.

Where was the government back then? Your claim is that the government was "less intrusive" in research? Well let's see, this was the 1940s... what important things were happening then....Oh right, we were drawn into WW2 when Pearl Harbor was bombed. Let's see what else. Oh right, nuclear power was realized by Enrico Fermi at Columbia University. Who funded Fermi's research to develop controlled nuclear processes? Roosevelt's S-1 Uranium Committee. AKA the government. Let's also not forget that ENIAC was invented in 1946 at University of Pennsylvania.

How is it that the search for a product is of greater benefit to a government than the actual use and sale of a product? I can't think of a single research project which provides a return to the government in any form other than tax revenue when a product exists as a result of that research. Do you know of an example to support your statement?

You also seem to not understand the remaining volume of fossil fuels. Think there are thousands of years left? I think the Saudi's would disagree with you and that's why they are diversifying their economy. BP would also disagree with you. As of 2013, they estimated there were 53.3 years of global production left. That's likely low and was based on available technology, but suffice to say they are not likely off by 20x.

You seem to have some sort of anti-government concerns and you're going off on a tangent. I'm not sure why you think the government is trying to destroy the power industry. You might be aware that energy is required for our country to run. We're also way off topic on climate change. Let's get back to that.

 

[4FordFamily]

Yes let's get back to climate change.

 

[jgvergo]

Yes co2 may be beneficial to plants and other organisms but excess co2 is also causing the ocean to become too acidic for corals to grow you still have to consider that a corals skeleton is made of CaCO3 (calcium carbonate) the same thing our teeth are made out of if you sit a corals skeleton in anything acidic it will slowly dissolve just like if we put our teeth in soda or something acidic they will dissolve the corals can only take so much so co2 can good for plants and other animals that it cannot harm but for the ocean all the excess co2 is making the water very acidic and soon it will destroy the reefs there are actually some parts of the ocean where the shells of hermits/snails/clams etc... Are actually clear because the rate of dissolving and growing are neck and neck and it's been slowly observed soon they will not be able to make their shells and soon reefs will not be able to grow and then they will die off but us humans by other means not just putting co2 in the air my main point is yes co2 can be good but oceanic acidification is a real thing and co2 is in fact causing it

@Nemguy123 , I agree that acidification due to dissolved CO2 (carbonic acic) could cause problems for reefs (our favorite topic!). Are there scientific articles that examine the topic?

 

[Nemguy123]

@Nemguy123 , I agree that acidification due to dissolved CO2 (carbonic acic) could cause problems for reefs (our favorite topic!). Are there scientific articles that examine the topic?

Plenty I've written 2 papers on it I'll link the articles I have to re find them I've been a bit busy classes started again.