Who Decides?
A Guest post by Evan Jones.
We are currently in the midst of a serious policy debate on the highly technical subject of world climate change. What is it happening? Why is it happening? What are we to do? And ultimately who is to decide what we will do? I attempt only to answer the last of these questions here.
The important decisions facing this world will, in the future as in the past, be decided not by experts but by laymen: the public at large and/or our elected officials. In a significant majority of important policy cases, the decision makers are not expert in the field. They are (usually) not scientists, economists, historians, or strategists.
It is notable that a technocratic, authoritarian “solution” has been advanced on many occasions, including, recently by David Shearman, Joseph Wayne Smith in The Climate Change Challenge and the Failure of Democracy, which seriously recommends rule “by experts and not by those who seek power”.
http://www.greenwood.com/catalog/C34504.aspx
Seeking power but not in the name of seeking power is, however, an inherently self-contradictory proposition. The free citizen and his elected representatives alone have the right, and wherewithal to make these decisions.
Yes, experts must inform us. In fact, their advice is indispensable. Without expert advice, many of our decisions would be made in a fog of ignorance and uncertainty. The expert has a special status and a deserved esteem. However, it is the role of the expert to inform, not to decide. This is as it should be. The alternative is a technocracy which not only excludes the common citizen from the decision making process, but results in intramural conflict between the technocrats themselves.
A courtroom operates along the same lines. In many cases, the advice of the expert is essential. Only the expert can inform us about a DNA match, a bullet grooving, or even mundane details of, say, phone records. It may be fairly said that in many if not most cases, both the decision and the remedy hinge on expert testimony.
Yet it is not up to the expert either to reach a verdict or to pass sentence. And it up to the judge to act as “gatekeeper”, not the experts. It is very poor form for an expert to refuse to divulge data or methods. It is at the very least an anti-scientific attitude and should be regarded by the layman as such.
Experts are excluded from the jury, deliberately separated from the decision process. In the realm of politics, the unelected expert plays much the same role as in a trial: Decision makers may well call upon expert testimony and advice. But when it comes down to the hanging chads, the expert has only his vote as an expression of power, a vote with no more absolute weight than that of Joe Shmoe.
In the role of advisor, the expert has a considerable obligation. He is expected to be truthful and objective. He is expected to limit his advice to his realm of expertise. He is expected to tell the story straight and not exaggerate for effect or to ensure a particular course of action.
He is expected to be responsible. He is, in a sense, our shepherd. He must not cry wolf for “amusement” nor in response to every passing shadow. This is important. There are real wolves out there, and there are times when only the shepherds can provide us with warning. The obligation of the shepherd is not only to cry wolf when there is a real potential danger but also not to cry wolf when there is not. The decision whether or not to cry wolf is up to the shepherd, not the public at large.
This leaves the layman in a difficult position, for the public, as decision makers must pay heed to a cry of wolf. They are not experts on wolves. And the solution to a false crying of wolf is not to ban shepherds. Nonetheless, in terms of climate as well as wolves, the layman can and must play the role of arbiter, and play it well. If the public at large were not capable of deciding basic issues of policy, democracy itself would long since have proven an unworkable farce.
However if the individual expert or decision maker is found to be acting deliberately in bad faith, he may be held accountable. For example, as Steve McIntyre has pointed out, it is against the law to promote a mining enterprise using only the richest ore samples.
But where to draw the line between outright fraud, mere intellectual dishonesty, or irresponsibility becomes moot. What then of the infamous email reported by David Denning, saying, “We have to get rid of the Medieval Warm Period,” in order to “pervert science in the service of social and political causes”.
http://www.climatechangeissues.com/files/PDF/conf05mckitrick.pdf
This, if true, is clearly dishonest, but it is not at all clear that it is actionable.
In the climate debate, three examples of legal though clearly deplorable advocacy spring readily to mind.
1.) Heidi Cullen’s suggestion that the AMS should withhold certification from weathermen who did not, “truly educate themselves on the science of global warming,” leaving no doubt as to what the conclusion of said education should be.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heidi_Cullen
Note, however, that it would be perfectly acceptable to decertify (or even prosecute) a weatherman who deliberately misreported an approaching storm in order to make a killing by short-selling the stock of the local insurance company.
2.) David Suzuki’s challenge, “to find a way to put a lot of effort into trying to see whether there’s a legal way of throwing our so-called leaders into jail because what they’re doing is a criminal act,” i.e., those who stood in the way global warming legislation. (This is especially unseemly, coming as it does from an official of a human rights group.)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Suzuki
Yet it would be perfectly appropriate to do so in the case of an MP who accepted a bribe from an oil company in return for a vote against GW measures.
3.) David Roberts’ deplorable comment that, “When we’ve finally gotten serious about global warming, when the impacts are really hitting us and we’re in a full worldwide scramble to minimize the damage, we should have war crimes trials for these bastards — some sort of climate Nuremberg.”
http://gristmill.grist.org/print/2006/9/19/11408/1106
It is the responsibility of the layman to recognize such statements, whatever their source, for what they are: advocacy of the suppression of free and open debate. He must consider only the legitimate points from both sides of the controversy and come to a rational policy decision.
No matter how complicated an issue may be, it can generally be broken down into basic questions and decision points that can be expressed on the side of a postcard. But in order to do that, the layman requires unbiased advice, or at least the advice of both sides. For the expert to rebuke him with a patronizing “read a book” is an abrogation of responsibility on the part of the expert. It is not the layman’s responsibility to become an expert on every subject requiring a decision. Furthermore, it is a practical impossibility. It is up to the expert to explain his position simply, plainly, and in layman’s terms.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
All we see on very important scientific issues is the rise of a particularly nasty media priest class with an obvious promotion of ugly `scientism’. This is a formula that holds scientists above criticism and unaccountable to anyone. It is an anti-democratic view of the world.
That’s what I see, too. Partly. But if that were not true we would not be here formulating methods to combat it. Those postcards are a first step to breaking the cult.
As I attempt to dial down my cynicism, I think that there is a strong undercurrent of rational people who a starting to smell a rat in the conventional wisdom on AGW and may be receptive to a cohesive message. The challenge will be getting the information into their hands.
Yes. The information needs to be well formatted. It has to be fair; I admit the chance that AGW theory may be valid to a greater degree than I believe. Any rational argument must admit falsifiability.
Conventional wisdom has been wrong before on issues like this (e.g., population, resources). When the argument was put simply, squarely, but without polemics, the “movement” fell apart.
I’ve been concerned for some time that if we believe in the importance of the human desire to communicate, then we have to believe in reason and that requires open public debate. . . . Here with the hot topic of climate we see a similar anthropic mindset with its priest class and afraid to grasp the big picture.
Therefore a simple yet comprehensive pov covering the “Big Picture” points of both sides needs to be made available.
I’m prime evidence to the truth of what Dr. Carter says. Most of the math, physics and statistics goes right over my head, but I understand the basics.
In order to accomplish what you suggest, you need only possess two qualities: a basic understanding of the topic and the ability to put it into words that even a dummy can understand. “CLIMATE FLASH CARDS FOR DUMMIES — I like it! There are a number of regular visitors (including yourself) to this blog that possess both of those qualities. As I stated near the end of a previous thread, one of the first post cards has to describe what normal is, how it’s measured (and whether or not the measurements can be trusted). And that’s what this blog is really all about — right?
Yes, yes, yes, yes (and yes).
I found your post on “postcard knowledge” very interesting. Up until Jan. ‘07 I believed the hype about AGW, simply because that was all I heard, and I am (or was – I don’t know where I stand now politically) a Democrat. . . .
If you want a good exercise in distilling the argument against AGW, try doing so in 250 words max. It really boils down to; it’s not C02, it’s the sun that drives climate. With only 250 words you can do some drill-down into the second set of cards, but not much.
One day we shall retake liberalism and restore it to its true meaning. Until then, I am kindly offered a (GOP) Big Tent, under which I gratefully shelter.
As for the scientific controversy, yes, it is an issue of boiling it down. First into a tiered selection of “titles”. Those titles then expand into brief explanations. And so on. One can get a lot of info into very few, easy to understand words.
Better you than me.
Okay.
As for the post topic, you know who I think should decide – the Free Market! People operate in their own best interest and use their dollars to their advantage.
Agreed. And I think mankind is in a position to plain old outrun this crisis–if it IS a crisis–but only so long as we do not self-mutilate our economy. That’s MY take on Pascal.
The government subsidies of ethanol have wreaked havoc on food prices.
True liberals ought to consider how this (and cutting back on ANY development) devastates the poor of this world.
One problem overall is that there are at least two classes of skeptic.
Both kinds of skepticism (and acceptance) get their “card”. An important part of the decisionmaking process involves the, “How often are these guys RIGHT on issues like this?” and the “How much does it REALLY cost?” questions. We are a republic and, as you say, we need to USE that.
“One problem overall is that there are at least two classes of skeptic. The most prevalent is the political skeptic who is suspicious of the abuse of science by what can only be described as environmental fascists. This suspicion is exacerbated by the continuing and mounting evidence that these environmentalists have an agenda and will stop at nothing to promote it”
The other class, I guess would be the science-based skeptic, except that once you know about the science it seems it would be nearly impossible to ignore the political side. So, I see myself as both. However, when trying to convince people who are ignorant of the science it is crucial to leave the political side out.
Bruce — (The other class, I guess would be the science-based skeptic, except that once you know about the science it seems it would be nearly impossible to ignore the political side.)
The problem is that it’s nigh impossible to be a science skeptic re climate simply because it’s nigh impossible to be a climatologist, and you have to have a great deal more than rudimentary knowledge in order to form a reasonable opinion. I mean really, do you know enough about statistics to have a truly valid opinion on Mann’s use of PCA? (Even the statisticians don’t all agree on this stuff…) This is why despite tons of research and reading and immersion in this stuff I would still regard myself as more political skeptic than otherwise — I simply don’t know enough to have a valid opinion on the science itself. The secretiveness (Mann’s data, Hansen’s algorithms, etc.) just frustratingly adds more of “I don’t know.”
I think the pro AGW side people (esp. Tamino et al) use this to their advantage; their approach is that you can’t even qualify for scientific skepticism if you can’t read and understand the peer reviewed papers. Therefore if you’re a skeptic then you’re usually relegated to political argument, and you just lost the exhange. Certainly I’m taking some license here, but I doubt that I’m incorrect overall: that’s their schtick. It’s little wonder so many people visit (e.g.) RC and come away awed at the science and contemptuous of the skeptics. They don’t know any more than the skeptics do — and usually less! — and they ain’t about to admit it.
I would like to see some science that’s accessible to the public, stuff that can easily be digested and you don’t have to have a PhD in atmospheric physics to simply fathom the arguments. This is among the reasons why I champion this site to those I know; I think what goes on here is generally understandable to the public at large and gives them a feel for things. And ultimately this place is about is real science.
Davison is just another fatalist which comes from all that indoctrination and rote learning. There is no determinism here when he says ….. “If my stance is unacceptable there is nothing I can do about it. We are all victims in a sequence ……. “. We can observe, however, how particular virus writers have maliciously hacked in on this vulnerable individual with great success and penetrated all bases by disabling mechanisms essential to human functioning. Some may call this funny but it is quite tragic and a lesson in life. i.e. Don’t become a worshipper. Never worship. It is love that always maintains the critical functions of the mind and does not cripple life but worship certainly does a pretty good job with various degrees of destructiveness and depression where we see it can only create false versions of the world that clash with the reality.
On another thread at Anthony’s here I followed up Jim Arndt’s post to Cloud_temp_tropo.pdf and found the quite remarkable Erland Happ. For an inspirational person go to Erl’s place at ….
http://www.happs.com.au/pages/research.html#anchor
Strikes me that Erl is highly motivated, humble and quite perceptive when it comes to climate matters. Rather that seek and ye shall find NOTHING he best exemplifies the opposite ……. FIND and Ye SHALL SEEK.
randomengineer
“I would like to see some science that’s accessible to the public, stuff that can easily be digested and you don’t have to have a PhD in atmospheric physics to simply fathom the arguments.”
We are back to Evan’s last paragraph:
“For the expert to rebuke him with a patronizing “read a book” is an abrogation of responsibility on the part of the expert. It is not the layman’s responsibility to become an expert on every subject requiring a decision. Furthermore, it is a practical impossibility. It is up to the expert to explain his position simply, plainly, and in layman’s terms.” (that last requires true intellect)
Roy Spencer does a good job, so does Anthony. I can’t name a team member off hand who does. You mainly get snark.
I can’t name a team member off hand who does. You mainly get snark.
Bob, I assume by “team” you mean the hockey team. Is that at all surprising considering who founded RC.Org? Hint, she’s not a scientist.
Yes, they do.
You mainly get snark.
Yes, and what we need is noblesse oblige. They never stop to consider that if everyone was an expert in their field, THEY wouldn’t be anything extraordinary.
This is an age of incredible specialization and an unprecedented degree of knowledge. The Information Age. It’s not ust computers, it’s information, itself.
In order to coordinate it, we need to catalogue and organize it better.
When superagriculture came along, mankind beat the Malthus equation. But it also led to the dustbowl. We must avoid an “information dustbowl”.
The best way to avoid that is to get the general population up on the very gross basics. Once that is done, knowledge can be accessed as needed and catalogued as acquired.
BTW, I am very grateful to the Rev for this forum–and for this opportunity.
THANK YOU, REV! So say we all.
In order to move on to more knowledge, we, the laymen, the PEOPLE, must first reassert our authority, and, with the willing help and cooperation of the experts, assemble the basic building blocks on the immensely complicated issues of public policy that face us.
John A. Davison,
Can you support your ad hominem attack claiming that “Fred Singer is the biggest charlatan of all time.” Please advise.
I personally think that Al Gore is a charlatan and huckster as well. Follow the money!
Randomengineer.
“StevenMosher — I defer to your superior skills in Pascal-Fu.”\
Pffft.
don’t play Eiron to my Alazon:
I am a sandbagger from way back. I have no skills.
Figure me for Strepsiades
Does he mean S. Fred Singer, colleague of Dennis Avery? If so, I must disagree with him. I do not regard him as a charlatan at all.
I am indeed working on that set of postcards (filecards, if you prefer). The above essay was, in effect, based on around a dozen headings. I intend to cover the entire Global Warming ground in the same manner. (Including a “history of the debate”.) That is to say, you may regard all this as part one of a larger work.
Evan Jones and Stephen Mosher.
I am no longer allowed to comment on this blog because my views are at odds with those of Anthony Watts. He has smade that impossible. That is the same reason I cannot comment on Uncommon Descent, EvC, ARN, RichardDawkins.net, Panda’s Thumb, After The Bar Closes, Pharyngula and other “groupthinktanks” each of which is dominated by a personality incapable of unbiased discourse.
You may ask about S. Fred Singer on my blog or by private email and I will document that the man is a charlatan. I obviously will not be able to answer your question here. That is something that you should be very concerned about.
However, if you are able to view this message, you will find ample documentation on pages 244 nd 245 of Tim Flannery’s book, “The Weather Makers.”
Good luck!
“Mankind fiddles while earth burns.”
REPLY: Your views don’t concern me, but your behaviour here does. For example, the blanket name calling, the ad hominem attacks. You ask people to apologize to you, but you’ve not issued one simple apology for your unprovoked name calling (drooling, snotbags for example) here. Why is that?
‘I am no longer allowed to comment on this blog’ ~ jd
*blink* so… I imagined reading that just now?
(sorry Anthony, could not resist)
Well, my frontal exposure worked didn’t it? Watts does not want to be identified as an ideologue, so he let me speak for a change. The important thing is that he never presented my most significant message.
[REPLY: No I did that to illustrate that you are doing exactly what you accuse me of, being a “blog bully” By posting such things then saying “well it worked” you clearly admit to employing that tactic.]
When I first submitted a message here I was greeted with a barrage of insults, mostly from anonymous sources. That is the way I have been greeted at most forums. I may even have cast the first rock. I can’t remember. I believe that an impartial, quantitative appraisal will reveal that, insult for insult, mine stand in a miniscule minority here as in every other forum where I have been able to speak. I collect insults. Others should do the same. It is very revealing.
[REPLY: ” I may even have cast the first rock. I can’t remember.” yes you did, and several. ]
While I am a Roman Catholic, my temperament is primarily Old Testament in nature. Besides, as I have made very clear, I am a convinced determinist who, contrary to Catholic dogma, has rejected Free Will. In short, I am a sinner. My daughter has promised that I will have a priest at my bedside to take my confession and to prepare me for the hereafter. So I am also a hypocrite don’t you know. The important thing to remember is that no scientist worth a nickel has ever let his religion influence his science and some have gone to the stake for it. Galileo got off lightly considering the fact that he hadn’t proved his point. He had plenty of goofy ideas as the Jesuits pointed out and his treatment of Kepler was scandalous. Neverthless, he will always be honored as the inventor of the scientific method.
[REPLY: Then apply this passage “What you sow so shall you reap”. So don’t sow insults anymore any you won’t get any in return.]
It is interesting how there is a clear correlation between godless Darwinism and congenital atheism and I suspect the same may be true between denial of global warming and atheisim as well. Certainly the vast majority of academics are atheists for what that is worth. Both have obvious political affiliations as well and I detect a definite liberal tendency here as in most internet forums and weblogs. I’ll bet most of the clients here are Bush haters. Someone already denigrated Margaret Thatcher and Tony Blair.
If it will help any, I humbly apologize for my insults.
[REPLY: Thank you, now here is what I’m going to do, I’m going to offer you a clean slate. You can post a comment, on topic, without insults, without repeating it over and over again on multiple threads. However, if you stoop to name calling again, such as calling the other participants “snotbags, droolers, etc” you will be banned for good.
I recommend that you examine the policy page. If you can’t abide by it, let me know now.
Use your second chance wisely.]
“The devil made me do it.”
“Mankind fiddles while earth burns.”
http://www.iscid.org/boards/ubb-get_topic-f-6-t-000370-p-81.html
Let’s try this one again. It didn’t survive the last time.
REPLY: I think you are referring to the post you made in this thread, which is there.
http://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com/2008/03/10/feb-2008-rss-global-temperature-anomaly-near-zero-and-in-good-agreement-with-uah/#comments
“if we apologize (those whom he named, such as me) our names would be removed from his hate list.” Reminds me of Nixon’s blacklist, which it was an honor to be on.
“I simply don’t know enough to have a valid opinion on the science itself.” I just don’t agree with that. The layman can understand enough of the basics to know that AGW is pure unadulterated baloney. To a large extent, in fact, we may be better able to see the forest, not just the trees.
There is one scientist who recently did boil down the info into laymen’s terms – I imagine at least some here have seen it:
http://middlebury.net/op-ed/global-warming-01.html
If only Davison would read THAT instead of trash like “The Weather Makers”. Oh well. There’s no hope for him.
steven mosher — It’s wierd that for most calls for implementation of the precautionary principle around the blogosphere there appears to be few if any voices (like yours) who can correctly place this notion in the proper context. And when they do point this out, they are roundly booed for the trouble, or worse, castigated as being an imbecile or tool of BigOil. It’s as if there’s a built-in blockage of fathoming Pascal’s implications. Surely this is indicative of an understanding limited to the sound bite level. Whether this is by choice, by ignorance, or the result of genetics is unknown (although I have my suspicions…)
Evan — Regarding a potential “who decides” series there’s a sidebar I’d like to see you explore, which is the unholy marriage of the PeakOil and AGW. I find it odd that there’s a huge overlap between AGW belief and the feelings of certainty re oil depletion.
What I don’t really quite get is the concern for AGW; if oil is running out as claimed, then isn’t this a plus for AGW? (Less carbon will be emitted because we ran out of oil.)
Clearly these concepts are at odds, not complementary. My take is that the AGW crowd being wedded to the PeakOil crowd suggests that what’s happening has more to do with Doom Du Jour rather than a solid understanding of the arguments: it seems they don’t think it through.
The other aspect of PeakOil that’s interesting is the constant claims that Exxon et al are financing AGW “disinformation.” It seems then that the claim is that a crew of ultra bright ivy league grads running a highly profitable business are plotting to use up all the dwindling oil as fast as possible so they they can go out of business (and be reviled by the government and public) as soon as is feasible. Maybe it’s just me but this simply doesn’t make sense.
Yes I know PeakOil in and of itself doesn’t really have a great deal of relevance… EXCEPT that the same crowd who natters about this is also the same crowd who is the most ardent about the perils of AGW. In terms of relevance to any future essays, it may be helpful to look at the commonalties of beliefs prevalent in the AGW crowd and what we can look forward to regarding future argument(s).
No Anthony Watts.
I am referring to the link I provided, specifically to the comment March 11, 11:28 and the one that followed. Thank you for allowing the link to stand.
As for Bruce Cobb, to label “The Weather Makers” as trash labels Bruce Cobb as an intellectual disaster. His “Oh well. There’s no hope for him.” will make the list along with some of his other nasty commentary. The internet teems with such blowhards. They never contribute anything of substance. The remarkable thing is the way they insist on using their real name or so I must presume! I wonder what else he has to offer.
“Mankind fiddles while earth burns.”
REPLY: Ok folks, lets get back to business, leave Mr. Davison alone. He’s apologized, let’s move on.
I promise. Not another insult. In return I expect not to be edited or deleted. I accept all the insults others heap on me and my sources. I relish them and wouldn’t know what to do without them. I regard an insult to a source as an insult to me. Tim Flannery is not trash. Like myself he is an alarmist and that is not a cardinal sin, at least not yet.
I repeat my prediction that by the end of this decade and probably sooner, those who deny a human cause for the melting of polar and continental ice, the retreat of glaciers, an increase in global precipitation, violent weather, and dramatic world wide climate alterations will be as scarce as hen’s teeth.
“As Pogo said ‘We have met the enemy and he is us.'”
Patrick J. Buchanan, Day of Reckoning, page 160
“Mankind fiddles while earth burns.”
REPLY: Fair enough, no more insults, we all have better things to do. But in the case of not believing a source, that is the right of the commenter to believe it or not. That is their choice such as is yours to believe in the writings of zoologist Tim Flannery. Let us not equate the beliefs of commenters here about the veracity of third party works to personal insult, lets stick to the science.
“In return I expect not to be edited or deleted.” I can’t make a blanket promise, if your posts fall outside of the posted policy, I reserve the right to edit or delete them as I do with some other comments. Just play fair, don’t toss insults, and don’t repeat the same post over and over again and you should be fine.
I may even have cast the first rock. I can’t remember.
I’m afraid you did. And when you throw a rock at a beehive, it is typical that more than one bee responds, you know.
I believe that an impartial, quantitative appraisal will reveal that, insult for insult, mine stand in a miniscule minority here as in every other forum where I have been able to speak.
Well, arguably Germany and Japan, in absolute terms, wound up more on the receiving end than, say, the US or Britain. Nonetheless . . .
FWIW, I agree with you on determinism. (I accept all this as fate.) But I live my life as an emulation of free choice. I don’t really believe a die roll is truly random. But I live my life exactly as if it were random. Same goes for free will.
I’ll bet most of the clients here are Bush haters. Someone already denigrated Margaret Thatcher and Tony Blair.
To tell you the truth I like all of them. But for strictly and exclusively liberal reasons, I assure you! #B^1 But we have stayed away from party politics; I like to think we come from all sides of the political spectrum but are here to discuss the science. Yes, what i wrote about was political, but it was political theory writ large, and not intended to be on the partisan domestic level.
The layman can understand enough of the basics to know that AGW is pure unadulterated baloney.
I prefer to think of it as adulterated baloney.
I also consider that there is a (what I consider to be slim) chance I am wrong, and I think that the baloney factor is in the assessment of the degree and the proposed response.
Let me put it this way: I am about as sure of this as I was that we would not be running out of ANY vital resource, including the Amazon rainforest by the year 2000. Back in the late ’70s that was considered to be an ignorant and sinful notion.
(I admit we WERE in danger of running out of math and spelling. But we learned how to manufacture that.)
“As for Bruce Cobb, to label “The Weather Makers” as trash labels Bruce Cobb as an intellectual disaster.”
Actually, I was being kind. It is climate porn. Pure Gaia-worshipping speudoscientific nonsense. And, apparently, Davison’s bible, since he likes to reference and quote from it so much. Guess we know what that makes HIM.
“His “Oh well. There’s no hope for him.” will make the list along with some of his other nasty commentary.”
As in Nixon’s blacklist, I am honored.
Evan — Regarding a potential “who decides” series there’s a sidebar I’d like to see you explore, which is the unholy marriage of the PeakOil and AGW. I find it odd that there’s a huge overlap between AGW belief and the feelings of certainty re oil depletion.
The short answer is “stuff and nonsense”. Oil may be the snot of the devil himself, but whatever it is or is not, we are NOT running out of it.
We have been through this “peak oil” silliness before (but going by a different tag). Ever since “Pennsylvania 1859”, there has been someone insisting that oil is done for.
By 1975, there were c. 3.4 tbls potential reserve of oil (including bitumens, shale, tar sands, etc., etc.). Today, a quick scan of wikipedia (a generally pessimistic venue) will reveal figures that add up to 6.5 tbls. That, after all the intervening use. We more or less consistently locate two metric tons of oil for every one we use. Nearly always “estimates” turn out to be lowballed. Now demand is up, exploration (and techniques) continue to improve.
Yes, there is a finite amount of oil down there. But we probably have only begun to scratch the surface of it. The skinny is that we will eventually move on from oil. But we will run away from it LONG before we run out of it.
What I don’t really quite get is the concern for AGW; if oil is running out as claimed, then isn’t this a plus for AGW? (Less carbon will be emitted because we ran out of oil.)
Think “response”. It’s the dialectic. If even those “addicted to oil” can be “brought on board”, then forcible restriction of use and conversion will be more palatable.
I think we will convert. But it is vital that we do so in such a way that the glorious economic/technological/affluence expansion not be imperiled or restricted. Wealth = Power. Power to physically sculpt the planet and its ecosystems. Power to adjust as needed and/or desirable. As I have said before, if there is a climate crisis (which I doubt), our odds of dodging it are much lower than our odds of simply outrunning it.
It is Dr. Davison and has been for 54 years.
“I get no respect.”
Rodney Dangerfield
Fatalists as worshippers often promote this myth of exceptionalism and thus are not equipped to love which is a tragedy in itself. In the real world we don’t need to believe that, with the advent of consciousness, we can now step outside evolution, go under it, rise above it, or stop it…. for all our actions are evolutionary. We are all artists, we are all scientists and we are all philosophers with a love that cannot ignore evolution as this process occurring at all times with respect to each electron, atom, cell, organ, organism, species, ecosystem, planet, and galaxy?
I must confess that I just LOVE CO2 because it grows better roses, bigger tomatoes, greens the environment and even leads to stronger, healthy people. As long as plants have three basic things, water, energy and CO2, and enough of the nutrients they need, they will keep growing, and pumping out oxygen. Boy, am i appreciative that plants discovered the trick of turning water, energy and CO2 from the environment long ago, into complex carbohydates and with that extra special spare bit of oxygen. Alternatively, if i was even some obnoxious little weed with this neat little trick to offer, i’d be appreciative of any extra free CO2 fertilizer that would allow me to grow healthier, bigger, stronger and greeener.
Evan, the glaring problem it that there are numerous well meaning individuals who have allowed a weak media and propagandists to convince them that in accepting the alarmist view of carbon guilt, that they are in fact displaying intelligence and virtue.
In postcard one we should expose the monstrous lie that CO2 is a dangerous pollutant that religiously stamps all people as carbon sinners. There is no moral purpose here because all we see are shonks like Flannery, Algorithms, etc filled with fake self-righteousness where facts can be bent or ignored to fit an hypothesis. These charlatans are on a mission to return to pre-Copernican times by pronouncing guilt on everyone in order to extract money from their supposed carbon sinfulness. i.e. a new swindle to make money out of thin air.
The point about CO2 is that it is not really anything much of a greenhouse gas for planet earth once it gets the early work done and above 0 degrees Celsius. So far every last scrap of existing scientific evidence confirms overwhelmingly that industrial CO2 release is good for people and enhances the biosphere/environment. If anyone can find any plausible evidence please let everyone know.