Tim Lambert (deltoidblog AT gmail.com) is a computer scientist at the University of New South Wales.
John Cook has the details on a TV show on SBS tonight where the late Stephen Schneider answered questions from a room full of skeptics, followed by a live chat with David Karoly.
One of the skeptics was blogger Legal Eagle who writes about it here. I don't think she was correct about the science and the coverage of skeptics as I put in this comment to her post. Also worth a read are Roger Jones' comments here and here.
Robert Merkel argues that Legal Eagle was being intellectually lazy while Sinclair Davidson cranks the rhetoric up to 11, accusing those that disagree with Legal Eagle of being "Climate Fascists" and asserting that environmentalists are not being "truthful". Of course, it is Davidson who is not being truthful. He repeats a falsehood from 2007, claiming that the IPCC does not have any testable models for attribution of climate change. Not only is this false, it easily seen to be false if you so much as glance at the SPM as I pointed out at the time.
Politics
Comments
It's strange how people confuse inability to understand science (or just not trying) with genuine skepticism. Hmmmm... It's not a very good. Why doesn't she just try and understand the basic principles? It is sheer laziness on her part.
Posted by: Nathan | September 7, 2010 6:20 AM
Tim,
Minor quibble: it's Stephen, not Steven.
[Oops, fixed]
Posted by: TrueSceptic | September 7, 2010 6:24 AM
I thought Schneider did a brilliant job of not talking down to people who had little understanding of science.
Interesting to see the spread of sceptics though. You had the quite genuine "I don't know enough about this to believe one way or the other" and the "I don't want to be abused just for being uncertain", then you had the Tim Curtains: "I don't give a stuff what you say - it's all crap anyway!"
I note some "Tim Curtain" equivalents emerging on the SBS live chat though.
Posted by: Mike | September 7, 2010 6:52 AM
I've just watched the Insight programme featuring Stephen Schneider on SBS, and it was rivetting viewing, of a sort not often seen in these meeja-saturated times.
Two things struck me quite forcefully:
Schneider's stupendous breadth and depth of knowledge on such a complex field of disciplines and
How utterly genuine a character he was, especially in such a potentially hostile setting.
I've read in many places how much he will be missed - having seen this programme I can only now begin to see how much of a loss his passing is.
His death is not just a loss to climate science, it's a loss to all humanity.
Posted by: SteveC | September 7, 2010 6:54 AM
SteveC, I agree.
Posted by: jakerman | September 7, 2010 7:11 AM
As for the term "skeptics", I think it's well past time that we insist on putting a time constraint on the application of that word to any given individual. We all should be appropriately skeptical of anything that's new to us, so there should always be some number of true and sincere skeptics regarding climate change. But after some minimal period of time -- a few weeks or months? -- there is no excuse for anyone involved in such discussions to continue to be "skeptical". There's simply too much high quality material that's freely available online (John Cook's SkepticalScience and RealClimate both leap to mind) for anyone to have an excuse to remain skeptical. Beyond a reasonable time frame for self-education it's no longer true skepticism but garden variety denialism driven by a mix of financial incentives and ideological leanings.
As for Schneider, I agree wholeheartedly with the other comments about the magnitude of loss to all of us due to his passing. He had that all-too-rare combination of mastery of domain knowledge, presentation skills, and a burning passion to teach people.
Posted by: Lou Grinzo | September 7, 2010 10:20 AM
Ah, yes - "Legal Eagle"...
It seemed to me that in her opposition, on the program, to the best understanding of climatology she uses a legalistic approach to constructing her world view, and not a scientific one. This might work to arrive at a result in the courtroom, but it is inadequate for garnering objective knowledge.
If it were otherwise, lawyers would determine the content of human knowledge through adversarial contest in court, rather than scientists doing so by objective experimentation in the laboratory and in the real world.
On the matter of modes of understanding, it was quite apparent that many of the studio 'sceptics' were basing their opinions on a background of inadequate methematical or scientific knowledge. The general practitioner who couldn't grasp the concept of what is nothing more than the simple accumulation of simple interest was staggering, and I wonder who organises the man's finances...
And then there was the chemist who, following up on the SBS website's live chat forum, seems to think that carbon sinks should instantaneously absorb any human-emitted CO2, in spite of the evidence that they do not do so. I'm flabbergasted that a person could style themselves as a 'chemist' (although I suspect that in this case it means 'pharmacist') and not be aware of dynamic equilibria, of saturation states, and of the temporal rates of absorption and saturation processes.
I used to think that science was rather simple, once one had a few basics under the belt, but more and more I am realising that for many people not only are many scientific concepts alien territory, but that an understanding of the actual processes that underpin scientific inquiry is a nebulous thing at best.
"Left-brain/right brain", poor education, or an underlying ideological prejudice?
Hard to say, but looking at the most recent (to date) post on the comments page at SBS, which is (sadly) typical of many posters' understanding, one has to mourn the forlorn thought that maybe one day science will be accessible to everyone:
Posted by: Bernard J. | September 7, 2010 10:30 AM
From LE's post: "The main thing that worries me about the science is not the science itself, it’s the tenor of the debate. It’s so polarised. It seems to have become politicised in an ugly way."
Apart from any points about the state of climate science, the relative probabilities and possible impacts of different climate scenarios and how science deals with uncertainty, this comment seems astonishingly naive and uninformed.
While I find Roger's contributions excellent the fact that people are amazed by them suggests to me that perhaps people haven't really done that much reading on the issue, despite their protestations otherwise.
Posted by: dj | September 7, 2010 11:00 AM
Come on Bernard. It's always been true. Firstly, being clever is not enough to engage in science discussions, you actually need some knowledge and you may have to do some work. Secondly, not being clever.
Regardless of quibbles about the meaning or value of IQ scores, we know one thing for certain. By definition, half of the population has an IQ less than (or equal to) 100. And being smack in the middle of the normal range is not generally a feature of cleverness - though it is no barrier to knowledge acquisition.
Scientists bear a dual responsibility. One, to do the work. Two, to recognise and support people like Schneider, Rockstrom, (Sagan......), the communicators, who have a gift for conveying complex ideas to people who rarely deal with them and would normally ignore them.
Posted by: adelady | September 7, 2010 11:07 AM
I have just watched the first 20 minutes of the show, and it has reinforced my view of how hopeless the AGW denial movement is. When you have a GP, you would assume this is a reasonably intelligent man, yet he fails to understand that if you add extra CO2 to a system that is in balance it will accumulate? Worse yet, he completely unjustifiably assumes that the Earth has a homeostatic mechanism to deal with this? Most of these people are playing pure politics, not science, and this show has reassured me of that.
Posted by: FJM | September 7, 2010 11:10 AM
I'm one of LE's co-bloggers, and I'm not a climate change sceptic (the skeptic in my handle is thanks to my long-term membership of the Australian Skeptics). I like to think I'm a sympathetic fellow traveller for science and scientists (I provided legal advice for Pro-Test in Oxford for a while, so I've dealt with some pretty mad anti-science in the form of animal libbers).
I got very cranky in that thread because I watched people blithely assume that their particular 'value' (in this case, climate change mitigation) should trump all other values (particularly those progressive values a leftie like LE holds dear). Robert Merkel's egregious sexism fell into that category (outing yourself as a sexist pig is not going to win you many friends on a blog run by three women). Roger's excellent point that scientists often take rationalist positions that do not work at all when adopted in public policy is entirely accurate and represents my experience as a policy advisor for the Tory Party over here in the UK. Many people, however, do not appreciate this. They think their value (to use Ronald Dworkin's phrase) is a 'trump' (okay, I've played too much Contract Bridge), when it isn't.
You have to negotiate. You may find people have equally compelling reasons for rejecting your 'trump' and inserting one of their own. You will have to compromise. This is not because the ALP (or the Tory Party, or the Lib Dems, or whoever) are filled with evil minions, but because they have to govern for all of us.
If nothing else, the universal franchise ensures that lots of different values are taken seriously. Proving the science is one thing. Pretending that some sort of top-down centrally planned intervention will work is another. Drafting workable laws (that's my job, and LE's) is another again.
If you want climate change mitigation (in whatever form) to work, then you will have to work with us lawyers and parliamentary draftsmen. One of the great life lessons of law is that bad laws have unintended consequences. Often, they make the problem they were designed to correct even worse. I'm not a climate change sceptic. I don't want that to happen. So if a skilled and experienced lawyer queries how you're going to achieve what you want to achieve, listen to him.
Posted by: skepticlawyer | September 7, 2010 1:00 PM
9 adelady,
I disagree with your use of "clever", regardless of whether we are talking about science or anything else.
A clever person, regardless of lack of scientific knowledge, would not simply say that all the CO2 "falls back to sea level once cooled". Only an idiot would say that and then fail to wonder what that means, which is that anywhere on the Earth's surface within several metres of sea level would be uninhabitable for animals and that anywhere much above that would be uninhabitable for plants.
Of course, I'm allowing this person to be ignorant of the fact that we know that CO2 is well mixed, although he pretends to be sciency by mentioning specific gravity.
Posted by: TrueSceptic | September 7, 2010 1:12 PM
Skepticlawyer,
Thanks for your thoughts, you make some reasonable points. Maybe it was a simple typo, but you say:
"If you want climate change mitigation (in whatever form) to work, then you will have to work with us lawyers and parliamentary draftsmen"
Actually, we "need" the mitigation to work; and, I and other scientists certainly don't want this (AGW/ACC) to be happening in the first place. Also, every time scientists try and make a foray into advocacy, they get their hands slapped by 'skeptics' and others. It is my understanding that 'skeptics' especially, have told climate scientists not to work on policy or advocacy (e.g., Pileke Jnr); see also the recent IAC review of the IPCC.....so the ball is in your court on that one.
Specifically, what we need is for politicians and policy makers to stop kowtowing to the 'skeptics' and implement policy to reduce GHG net emissions (not intensity) with time, and that really means tackling coal. Now you try and negotiate with coal barons in the USA and Oz or wherever to deal with that very real problem. If you know of any tricks or strategy, then please do share.
We have had, oh, since Rio (1992; almost 20 years ago now) to come with a good plan on how to mitigate AGW/ACC. In that time the scientists and science has been unwavering and even more sure/certain on how serious ACC/AGW is. In my opinion, the only diddling has been by policy makers, lawyers and politicians. Politicians have to make unpopular decisions from time-to-time, addressing AGW/ACC is going to require unpopular decisions, the sooner the electorate learn and understand this the better. But we have the slight problem of the likes of Legal Eagle et al. muddying the waters and confusing lay people. If people are confused, or uncertain they will not act, and the 'skeptics' and those in denial about ACC/AGW know that unfortunate fact all too well.
We have a clear problem (identified by over 100 years of science), and clear solutions (again from the science)...now the politicians, naysayers, 'skeptics' and others need to either be constructive and responsible global citizens or get out the way and stop pontificating on the science. That or go and find another planet to play with.
Posted by: MapleLeaf | September 7, 2010 1:40 PM
MapleLeaf:
If you want to beat the coal barons (disclosure, Tory here), then advocate nuclear. And to head progressives off at the pass, point to France. They can give Putin the single digit rampant while the rest of the EU is grovelling for Russia's gas.
That means, of course, unpicking lots of silly scaremongering about nuclear power and also asking scientists to do lots of really nasty grunt work. I hate the thought of that, but I can't see any other way. I think it's good that scientists try to stay above policy advocacy, although as several people pointed out on Insight, some of the sillier Greenies are as silly as Monckton.
And always remember that getting what you want may involve serious compromise. China may flip you the bird, and with good reason (they want to be rich).
Posted by: skepticlawyer | September 7, 2010 2:03 PM
What I meant is that staying above policy advocacy is hard when scientists have to fight fires on two fronts: sceptics and the loopier greenies. I wish I knew a way around that, but I don't.
Expression fail; easy to do.
Posted by: skepticlawyer | September 7, 2010 2:10 PM
Stephen Schneider [Oct 1989],..."we need to capture the public's imagination.That,ofcourse,entails getting loads of media coverage.So we have to offer up scary scenarios,make simplified,dramatic statements,and make little mention of any doubts we might have."
Posted by: warren | September 7, 2010 2:12 PM
Sceptical Lawyer,
I'm, not sure what you meant by saying "Tory here"? Does that mean by default you support coal? Please clarify.
Anyhow, nuclear is not the holy grail. I'm still undecided how I feel about nuclear. Yes, France is a great example, but do not assume a priori that everyone is going to be as responsible as France (let us ignore the testing they did on atolls, and them sinking a ship for a moment), or that they have the kind of cash that they have access to. Also, making a nuclear plant requires huge amounts of cement, the production of which has a huge carbon footprint. I'd like to read some more about the full cycle carbon and economics analysis of nuclear-- if anyone knows of a good study please let me know.
Anyhow, if governments decide to go the nuclear route, people are going to have to pay for that....mitigation and adaption do not come cheap.
The short of it is that either coal burning technology has to advance significantly (e.g., syngas, which is really expensive right now), or it simply has to be essentially replaced.
Yes, and scientists are caught in the middle....not pretty.
Posted by: MapleLeaf | September 7, 2010 2:21 PM
Warren @ 16 1) Did you do the cherry-pick on purpose? Is that your practice?
2) Or are you sufficiently ill-informed to not know that is a very famous cherry-pick of Stephen's full quote, extracted from a nuanced longer discussion? I mean, this is in Wikipedia, and it's actually accurate (I've read the longer discussion).
The quote is: "On the one hand, as scientists we are ethically bound to the scientific method, in effect promising to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but — which means that we must include all the doubts, the caveats, the ifs, ands, and buts. On the other hand, we are not just scientists but human beings as well. And like most people we'd like to see the world a better place, which in this context translates into our working to reduce the risk of potentially disastrous climatic change. To do that we need to get some broadbased support, to capture the public's imagination. That, of course, entails getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have. This 'double ethical bind' we frequently find ourselves in cannot be solved by any formula. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest. I hope that means being both."
Posted by: John Mashey | September 7, 2010 2:35 PM
By 'Tory here' I meant 'interested in pragmatic policy solutions that will maintain current living standards'. I'm a 'modern Tory'; interested in preserving the best of the past but also in long term economic prosperity. One point to bear in mind is that the moment a few pensioners are cooked or turned into popsicles by a climate change mitigation policy, that policy and what it rode in on will be a political failure. We all have to prepare for this, which will almost certainly mean overcoming opposition to nuclear power (and the reflex dislike many greenies have for France).
Posted by: skepticlawyer | September 7, 2010 2:41 PM
Ah thank-you JM. Saw the egregious misquote, but had to put the babe to bed. This timewasting sockpuppet "warren" might like to go to SS's own website to read all about the various misquotations of this piece, and what a lawyer friend told him:
Boy, was he correct in that assertion on the difficulty of correction. And then toerags like warren pop out of the woodwork every now and again to propagate the misquote again and again.
Posted by: P. Lewis | September 7, 2010 2:49 PM
John Mashey:So you think that a sentence like..."each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest.",makes it sounds oh so much better??
Posted by: warren | September 7, 2010 2:51 PM
It's a little baffling how some people seem to need to make so much noise about the fact they haven't made up their mind yet. A climate "agnostic"? Dump them in the delayer box, it's the same silly delaying arguments. The only relevant question is, "Why haven't you made up your mind?". And when someone brings up Wegener in the old Galileo argument, they instantly lose credibility.
All this noise about left/right is just that - noise. Climate isn't political, and the simple fact that the US GOP has backed the wrong horse doesn't mean that all Republicans feel the same way, or that all right-wing parties around the world hold the same view. There is also no shortage of left wing deniers.
Call them how you see them, and don't waste time on some know-nothing talking head. And in the unlikely event that Legal Eagle reads this: be aware that ignorance is a temporary condition. Learn, then make your mind up already.
Posted by: Didactylos | September 7, 2010 2:53 PM
As a bleeding-heart liberal myself, I really wish more of my fellow environmentalists could separate valid concerns about cold war nuclear proliferation from the present reality of a pressing need for every kind of clean energy.
And if they are going to lie about Chernobyl to push their 1980s agenda, then they lose all my respect. We don't put up with blatant lies from deniers. Why should we apply a different standard to anyone else?
Posted by: Didactylos | September 7, 2010 3:04 PM
PLewis:I did not mis-quote SS.I excised the important piece.The telling piece.
Posted by: warren | September 7, 2010 3:09 PM
Warren, what you call 'the telling piece' is the piece that tells you're a cherry picking distortionist who wilfully misrepresents. Which of course is to lie.
But then it's just another lie to go along with your junketing scientific gravy train meme you're also attempting to spin. That nonsense may work on truck drivers or joe-plumbers who know no better, but bear in mind where you're posting.
Posted by: chek | September 7, 2010 3:30 PM
What chek said @25, except I would not assume that all plumbers and truck drivers are ignorant of the science surrounding AGW.
"Warren" is clearly deluding himself....sounds like he is in serious denial.
Posted by: MapleLeaf | September 7, 2010 3:36 PM
You guys are extremely defensive about what I[accurately] quoted.Why so?I did not even venture to add an opinion to my quote,but here you are getting into a lather.Me thinks ye protest too much.
Posted by: warren | September 7, 2010 3:44 PM
"Warren" said: "I did ... protest too much".
Right, well that's you accurately quoted according to your own rules m'lad.
Perhaps you can now move onto a topic of far greater interest, and about which you have some relevant experience: why is there no such thing as an honest denier?
Posted by: chek | September 7, 2010 4:07 PM
Warren, please, think this through. You misrepresenting what Schneider said and is actually an ad hominem attack-- Schneider said "X", so he cannot be trusted on climate science, or has ulterior motives....the insinuation is clear.
So what IS your opinion on the scientific theory (not hypothesis) of ACC/AGW, and on Schneider? I'm curious how your misrepresentation of what he said (and context IS everything) jives with your answer to my question/s.
Posted by: MapleLeaf | September 7, 2010 4:09 PM
I counted two, full-on Gish Gallopers in the crowd. The rancher woman and the chap with the longish white hair.
Posted by: Nacreous | September 7, 2010 5:04 PM
LE said
Certainly, having a scientist quote all these facts and figures didn’t change my position. I am a lay person, not a scientist. I can’t make any effective judgments about the science behind Professor Schneider’s figures and projections. I don’t have the scientific or the statistical capacity to judge the various accounts as to what is going to happen with our climate. I don’t know who is right or wrong about the ‘hockey stick graph‘. I accord all due respect to Professor Schneider for coming and talking to us, and respect him for treating us respectfully, but his facts and figures didn’t change my mind.
If I’m not a scientist, why am I a sceptic, then? Well, there are two reasons why I’m sceptical. First, I believe that a level of scepticism is essential to proper, rigorous scientific method, and thus people ought to maintain scepticism about any scientific hypotheses. Einstein himself said, ‘No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong.’ A hypothesis is strengthened by the failure of ardent attempts to disprove it. And I don’t really see the kind of mentality in climate change which allows for someone to attempt to disprove them.
What scepticism is LE bringing to the debate? None at all. Doubt is not scepticism. Scepticism means evaluating the evidence. She quite explicity states she can't do that.
Posted by: snide | September 7, 2010 5:20 PM
As it happens, Schneider addresses that particular quote-mine attack directly in the show, gives the full quote, and points out how taking it out of context reverses the meaning.
Posted by: trrll | September 7, 2010 5:24 PM
I think that trivialising the case of the sceptic case serves no purpose - there is genuine emotional and psychological distress in coming to terms with climate change. Nanny terms like "saving the planet" and images such as flooded cities are going to have to be tossed out for more persuasive arguments such as cost savings and energy efficiencies - benefit not detriment.
The image of polar bears floating on scraps of ice is just as emotive as the 'red under the bed' arguments used by the right
Posted by: rog | September 7, 2010 5:47 PM
My main point of scepticism is that I am not totally convinced about various IPCC forecast predictions. Yes, I have doubts about forecasting (which I explained on the blog, to which Tim L has politely presented an opposing view).
Someone tells me I have to totally change my society on the basis of this, and possibly have a more unequal society as a result. For me, equality and freedom of speech are incredibly important. And then someone tells me that I shouldn't have doubts, and that if I do express them, I will be told I'm stupid repeatedly and ostracised. Do you think that's a healthy society?
Snide, as I said over at my place, I would hope that any person I represented in court would question my advice and ask me lots of questions if they were worried or concerned. I wouldn’t expect them to sit back and just “defer to the expert”. I’m not that arrogant.
If you represent someone, you should listen to them. In fact, that’s a common complaint about lawyers – that they just expect the client to defer to their expertise and that they don’t listen. Personally I abhor that kind of approach. Being heard and feeling like you have been listened to is very important.
A point I was trying to make in the post is that an expert looks more expert and will be regarded as a lot more trustworthy if he or she can deal with questioning. Look how well Roger comes across in our thread, or how well Professor Schneider came across. I have immense respect for both.
I think those who seek to close down any debate are making a grave mistake which fuels conspiracy theories. And I commend Tim for his politeness too.
Posted by: Legal Eagle | September 7, 2010 6:04 PM
Here you go Warren. I can pick cherries too:
So that's the last line of Schneider's full quote, and I'm not certain that even you could misconstrue that to mean that he advocates lying, Warren!
Posted by: Mike | September 7, 2010 6:07 PM
I should say also that I abhor the approach of some who just abuse climate change scientists, or who won't enter into reasonable dialogue with them. It is horrible that Professor Schneider and his family members had to put up with hate mail.
Posted by: Legal Eagle | September 7, 2010 6:09 PM
19# - Sceptical Lawyer - I'm always surprised that nuclear is the cry whenever a 'pragmatic' solution to climate change comes up, particularly from those who support the free-market. The French experience is the least market based solution I've ever seen, yet its the example that even Tories quote.
This is an electricity supplier which is the monopoly distributor in France, which produces most of its power (around three-quarters of which is nuclear), and which is owned largely by the French state. And the nuclear plants builders, Areva, is also majority owned by the French state. This is not a free market.
EDF may charge low rates for its power, but French tax payers may pay twice. EDF apparently has a large hole in its pension fund, a large bill (which has been put off until now) to deal with its nuclear waste (some of the dumps are starting to leak, much to the locals concern) and shipping off part of it to Russia may not be popular with the Russians for much longer, and of course the huge liabilities for decommissioning 58 nuclear power plants. The 28 billion euros they put aside for this apparently got blown on buying the EDF their British assets . The money has to come from somewhere, and its not difficult to see who has the deepest pockets.
Even when EDF came to the UK, they held out the begging bowl, when they asked Gordon Brown to keep electricity prices at a level where they could be sure of making a profit, no matter what the actual market price could be. Gordo had to say no, but all sorts of other help has crept in.
As for building the things, in neither Finland or France have they managed to got the plants completed on time or budget. Of course the plants have subsidies coming out of their ears, so the plants owners cannot lose money, but as business cases, both are losers.
If you thinks its any better in the UK, read http://www.mng.org.uk/gh/resources/voodoo_economics.pdf - money down the drain, promises unkept, and faith in a technology over experience.
The nuclear lobby seems to have won, despite what both coalition parties said before the election. They will spend huge amounts of our money that will be too little and too late to do any good, and will rob us of the money that we could use better. As for those unworldly hippies, the only people to get right the dire financial case for Thorpe was - the greens.
I don't care about nuclear as a technology (although the security aspects should frighten any sane person), but I do care about getting the most for my money. Denial comes in many forms, and how to combat climate change brings some of them to the fore.
Posted by: MikeB | September 7, 2010 6:16 PM
Some context of Warrens, misquoting via editing out the crux meaning of Stephen Schneider comment.
This is a pattern of Warren's.
Posted by: jakerman | September 7, 2010 6:19 PM
Legal Eagle, with respect, what you are saying amounts to this:
"Doctor you are telling me that I have cancer, but I am not convinced by your facts".
And yes, please do expose and openly condemn those "skeptics" encouraging violence and making threats of violence. That includes Morano, Limbaugh, Beck and probably some Australian libertarian shock jocks as well.
I think if you delve deeper you will be shocked at the vitriol and hatred directed at climate scientists.
Posted by: MapleLeaf | September 7, 2010 6:26 PM
LE, you argue that science must be separate from policy. Putting policy ahead of science was what the IPCC were recently criticised for. Policy must be based on science ie evidence based.
Posted by: rog | September 7, 2010 6:29 PM
So, Legal Eagle, do you think that scientists should be constantly debating joe sixpack types on whether the earth is flat or roughly spherical, or is it OK for us to move on and just accept reality?
Some debates just aren't worth having.
The effect on the planet of dumping vast amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere is one of them, unless you want to argue over whether sensitivity to a doubling of CO2 is high enough to screw us in 50 years, or low enough so that it will take a century.
Which is akin to arguing over just how oblate the earth is, not whether or not it is flat.
That debate is worth having - within science.
Posted by: dhogaza | September 7, 2010 6:45 PM
For the record, I absolutely abhor the likes of Morano, Limbaugh and Beck. I cannot stand shock jocks generally. They thrive on the politics of fear, and seek to stoke the fires of fear at any opportunity. I have written posts at my blog to this effect.
Posted by: Legal Eagle | September 7, 2010 6:48 PM
Legal Eagle
The problem is that you are not clear about exactly what you are skeptical about. AGW and climate science is not a 'thing' to be skeptical of. You need to be more specific. For example, are you skeptical that the source of the extra CO2 is Anthropogenic? Are you skeptical about the Greenhouse effect? Are you skeptical about climate sensitivity?
At the moment you are trying to debate a science issue by using a political debate. You can't do that, it doesn't work and quite rightly people will dismiss your opinion. You say you think scientists will have to work with people like you to get any sort of mitigation or policy on climate change, and that is quite true. But you have to separate the two issues as they are different. WHAT we do about climate change is completely different to whether or not it is happening. See? You can't say it's not happening because you don't want to have to change your lifestyle. That's what is known as 'stupid logic'.
Posted by: Nathan | September 7, 2010 7:06 PM
Legal Eagle, so you're saying that you don't condone threats of violence from shock jocks, so you simply filter away the threats of violence, and believe 100% in their remaining talking points that happen to sound reasonable?
All this while refusing 100% to read the literature produced by actual climate scientists?
Posted by: frank -- Decoding SwiftHack | September 7, 2010 7:09 PM
Legal Eagle You say above: "I think those who seek to close down any debate are making a grave mistake which fuels conspiracy theories. "
The problem is that this debate has been going on since 1896, and has played out in the scientific literature. No one is closing down any debate. The debate is vigorous in the literature. But there are some points that we have moved beyond and are no longer debated in the literature. No one needs to debate the physical properties of CO2 as a gas. Scientists have done their best to explain these properties. Why do we have to discuss and debate the same things over and over again with people who don't bother trying to understand the science.
You seem to be an intelligent person, why not take the time to investigate the points you are skeptical of?
Posted by: Nathan | September 7, 2010 7:11 PM
I really enjoyed Schneider's appearance on Insight, he certainly will be missed.
I think the show was a good example how these kind of 'debates' are not overly productive to turning the 'skeptics' opinion around. Schneider was immensely knowledgeable about the topic, and he was very patient with a hostile audience, not talking down at them. However, it was obvious that many of the people present were not truly skeptical, but rather had firmly made up their minds already, which is where the term denier is appropriate. 'Debating' with them is like debating Creationists or 911 Conspiracists - no amount of evidence will sway them. Scientists get accused all the time that they don't debate creationism enough, and it must be a sign of fear, and it means creation has won, blahblah blah - see any parallels?
The worst example was the guy who ranted about human carbon inputs being swamped by natural inputs, and who could not see that he totally misunderstood the factoid, while accusing Schneider of not understanding and prevaricating. Schneider almost lost his temper - I would have.
Admittedly there was a wide range of stances in the audience, from serious skepticism about certain aspects, to the flat out fringe lunatic tinfoil hats. Queries from the former will actually be useful in progressing scientific knowledge, while the latter are best ignored.
Posted by: ginckgo | September 7, 2010 7:19 PM
Bernard; regarding your statement that a lawyer will "determine the content of human knowledge through adversarial contest in court": this may be different in a non-anglo-saxon court, such as most mainland Europe, where an inquisitorial system exists. So rather than just trying to get what's best for yourself, the truth be damned, there's a tendency by the court to get to the reall bottom of the matter. (I simplify of course, but I do believe it can lead to a different world view; add to that the fact we also have an adversarial government system, which has mutated into the Opposition thinking the must oppose everything the government wants, not matter how good it may be)
Posted by: ginckgo | September 7, 2010 7:28 PM
Skepticlawyer:
i'm not sure that's a purely [cC]onservative feature. i'm fairly left-wing in most frames of reference, and that's an idea i can well and truly get behind :-)
anyway, thanks to both you and LE for popping over and explaining your positions. it's been an interesting read!
regards,
another oxford-based sceptic (the real kind).
warren:
ah, so you admit it! i catched you red-handed!!
but more seriously,
yes. yes you did. and John Mashey called you on it. care to explain yourself?
Posted by: ligne | September 7, 2010 7:42 PM
LE's response to Schnieders efforts (posted @31) are exasperating.
What can anyone do in response to such a proposition?? 'I don't understand the science therefore I'm a sceptic' - Come off it!
At some point a person claiming genuine engagement needs to prove that - either that they accept that there are areas of expert knowledge that they can never fully understand (true for all of us), or undertake reasonable efforts to develop a basic understanding.
Continuing to insert oneself into the debate as a 'sceptic' on the basis of not understanding the science and refusing to make any efforts to do so, has a very, very short shelf life.
Posted by: Michael | September 7, 2010 8:26 PM
Legal Eagle (#34)
No-one says anyone has to "totally change" society. For goodness sake, we're talking about generating energy using different technology and using it more efficiently. Totally change society? What balderdash. A silly straw man argument.
Since when did using different sources of energy and increasing effiency imply less equality?
Equality is incredibly important? But you said you were a Tory?!?! WTF?!?!
And please, enough of this "freedom of speech" nonsense. Another silly straw man. Pointing out to people that they're talking inane drivel isn't the same as denying their freedom of speech.
It is if you repeatedly express those doubts but do nothing to resolve them. Although "stupid" is probably not the right term.
"Wilfully ignorant" might be more appropriate.
The chain of pseudo-logic that goes "I don't understand you therefore I will assume an entire field of science, all the accumulated data, all the contributions of thousands of scientists, is meaningless" really really pisses people off.
Perhaps a legal analogy is appropriate. As I understand it, ignorance of the law is usually not a valid defence. The law stands even though you might be ignorant of it. Yes? Similarly, ignorance of the science does not make the science wrong - nor does it give anyone a legitimate reason to suppose it is.
Posted by: Gaz | September 7, 2010 8:45 PM
Warren said:
Obviously.
Posted by: Bernard J. | September 7, 2010 9:03 PM
I AM NOT A TORY. NEVER WAS, NEVER WILL BE! Sorry for caps, but I just thought I should make that clear. I'm the one who's concerned about inequality. I blog with a woman who is a Tory. We have very different political approaches, but you know what? we like it that way.
To those who said - go read the material - I intend to do so in detail. I intended to after the Insight show, but as it happened I had a PhD to finish, a job to do and two small children to look after as well. I handed in the PhD a week ago (hurrah!) so hopefully I will now have more time to do that now.
I do think scepticism of the policy needed to combat climate change is very different to scepticism of the science itself. But the two are inextricably linked in people's minds. If you want to explore why some of the people featured on the show were so implacable, I think it is directly linked to fear of the consequences. And if you want to convince people, you really have to understand the psychological drivers behind that scepticism. I'm not a scientist, I'm a professional arguer whose job it is to convince people. Shouting at people and calling them stupid doesn't convince them. Reasoned argument is far more likely to do so. Of course, some people will never be convinced, but all you need is to convince the majority.
To those who said that I should stand up against death threats against climate scientists - I would gaol people who made such threats with no compunction whatsoever. There are clear limits to freedom of speech, and that's one of the limits. I was totally freaked out by some of the "sceptic" sites: they were so toxic. Some of the pro-climate change sites are similar. I was talking about with Professor Schneider afterwards, and he said, "avoid anyone who says they're certain one way or the other, they're not a scientist." But the whole point is to have civil dialogue and discussion. And it's no excuse to say, "The other side is worse." You can't control other people, but you can control is the way in which you react to them.
Posted by: Legal Eagle | September 7, 2010 9:19 PM
And my main problems with the science are this:
As I explained in the thread at my place, I was worried about tribalism in science. We have it in my field as well, and my concern was that people in the field might close their minds to reasonable rebuttals, because I've seen it happen in my field. Then people start accusing each other of being Nazis yaddah yaddah (yes, this happens in law too) and it's all very unedifying. Roger in my thread has explained his view as a climate scientist of the whole Climategate thing.
My other worry is the forecasting, as I also said in my post. I worry that backcasting doesn't actually prove the accuracy or otherwise of the model. Tim L has explained to me why he believes this is wrong, and when I get 5 seconds to watch his video, I will.
Posted by: Legal Eagle | September 7, 2010 9:24 PM
Gincgko.
Yours is a good point, and as a (dual) European citizen myself I should have made the distinction between the USAdian/Australian adversarial system, and the inquisatorial European one. I especially appreciate your comparison with our political system, and by implication what that entails...
This point actually reinforces what I said above about the epistemology of knowledge. I have been preparing a bit more of a response about this matter since Skepticlawyer first posted here, but I am very busy at the moment, and anyway I think others have covered the matters very well in the interim. Perhaps I will address it later today.
Posted by: Bernard J. | September 7, 2010 9:28 PM
Congrats on the PhD, and good luck with the reading.
Posted by: Michael | September 7, 2010 9:28 PM
Legal Egal:
To advance this discussion LE, could you specify what you mean by this unspecific claim?
There is strong evidence to the contrary, i.e.natinally with CPRS rebates, or models of per capita dividend, and internationally via pricing the value of carbon in ecosytems in Africa, Asia, and South America. What evdience is there that mitigation will result in a more unequal society?
Than we share these values, and I suggest an import step is to look at the evidence of the potential and likely results of decent mitigation vs token/non mitigation.
I agree that is not healthy. I also recognise that this unhealthy situation is to a large part an unfortuate reaction to two things: a) the scale of risk and b) the dishonest ideological campagin of disinformation waged by the likes of Morano et al.
So you are experiencing some regretable flack that is misdirected, but is fired up by the actions of the Warrens of our world.
Posted by: jakerman | September 7, 2010 9:43 PM
LE, back casting climate models does not prove they are correct but it is strong evidence. This is different from financial models constructed by fitting the model to past data. There, the fact that the model fits the past data is not strong evidence for the correctness of the model since you can always find a model that fits the data.
Posted by: Tim Lambert | September 7, 2010 10:16 PM
Second bite:
On second thoughs rather than asking you to defend a position you may or may not hold; Can I ask, would you support action that would promote jobs, improve health and and would likely result in a more equitable society.
Posted by: jakerman | September 7, 2010 10:44 PM
I'd hate to be treated by the GP that didn't understand how an additional 3% per year can't add up to a large amount of man-made CO2.
Posted by: Brendon | September 7, 2010 11:00 PM
Snide, as I said over at my place, I would hope that any person I represented in court would question my advice and ask me lots of questions if they were worried or concerned. I wouldn’t expect them to sit back and just “defer to the expert”. I’m not that arrogant.
I would too. But do they then tell you that someone at work said you were wrong on a complex point of law, that they couldn't understand, and go against your advice?
I am also wondering if Stephen was the first climate scientist you actually aired your doubts to? Who were you listening to before then? On what basis do you actually exercise informed decision making, or are you just doubting because you don't understand?
Posted by: snide | September 7, 2010 11:05 PM
Brendon @59,
Surely you jest?
Posted by: MapleLeaf | September 7, 2010 11:17 PM
Which of course is an error - but one that is actively encouraged by certain parties who can't robustly argue against the science itself, but wish to prevent it from driving policies they don't like.
You also have to understand the other drivers, some of which are mentioned below - and in my paragraph above.
True, that.
Not so broadly true, at least in this case.
Firstly, the vast majority of the public simply does NOT have the skills to assess the validity (or otherwise) of scientific arguments, so they can't reliably participate in the argument on that level - even though it is oft asserted that they can. From a very brief and no doubt too-limited exposure to your reasoning, you appear to be doing precisely that, e.g. with your "worries about forecasting" - at least thus far. You seem to have taken a tentative position (or at least assumed a bias or a concern) that is unwarranted by your own lack of domain knowledge, and that goes against the position of the majority of the professionals. There is no apparent reasoned basis for this position. You are, however, further investigating the matter and appear amenable to reasoned argument about the science - but these traits are not clearly in evidence in most of the population.
Secondly, reasoned argument against the science is (by and large) NOT what is happening in the public sphere. If it were, then on the key scientific points the argument would have been over some time ago and we would now be discussing only the less major points.
Thirdly, reasoned argument about policy depends on having a decent grasp of the scientific findings, which is not a trait that is clearly in abundance. And expanding on the second point, there's a lot of professional propaganda out there that is quite effective at misrepresenting the science, spreading unwarranted doubt, sowing fear, and leading people to conflate arguments about (say) policy and impacts with arguments about the science.
Furthermore there is research that shows that it is rather difficult to overcome erroneous beliefs in many people by using reasoned argument - and in fact, reasoned argument can lead to reinforcing the false beliefs that they have. (And this seems to apply to really simple facts such as whether Saddam Hussein had a hand in 9/11, and whether Obama is a Muslim. It gets a lot harder when there's genuine complexity in the mix.)
Fourthly, I'm not sure that I have any answers to these issues either...
Posted by: Lotharsson
| September 7, 2010 11:21 PM
Can I ask, would you support action that would promote jobs, improve health and and would likely result in a more equitable society.
Absolutely. But I don't see that happening with any of the present schemes. It seems to me that too many of the responses are ill-thought out and panicked (another one I mention in the post is cutting down rainforests to plant "bio-fuel"). Look at the ETS in Europe, for example - riddled with corruption, and not having an appreciable effect on emissions.
Personally, as a severe asthmatic, I'd be delighted to get away from petrol-fuelled cars, for example. My husband did a good deal of research into making fuel cells a viable alternative. It's possible that one of the reasons I get annoyed at the green movement is the total lack of interest anyone had in taking him up on that research. >:-(
But I don't think it's going to happen overnight, and I think we have to move in small increments (well I am a common lawyer, after all!)
Posted by: Legal Eagle | September 7, 2010 11:55 PM
LE
skepticism about what approachcto take to combat AGW is not the same as Skepticism about AGW.
people may link them in their heads, but they are different beasts.
AGW needs to be addressed, science tends not to discuss how other than to say we should stop producing CO2.
Posted by: Nathan | September 8, 2010 12:15 AM
Once scientists move to advocacy for taking action on AGW they risk profound reputational damage (as professional scientists) that may cripple (the value of) any future scientific work they undertake. Scientists understand this and it takes a huge leap into the abyss - a leap of faith - with much to lose.
The Deniers - to define them - are a merry band of professional cynics for hire. Their job is to provide as much smoke and short term damage to the public's perceptions surrounding AGW and climate science as possible; their paymasters may or may not share the motives of the Deniers for undertaking such action. These Deniers routinely resort to the use of bullsh#t, as it is known in philosophical circles. That is, they don't care whether what they are saying is true or false: they only care about the effectiveness of their bullsh*t in achieving their objectives, such as persuading an audience.
Other people who fundamentally disagree with the IPCC, climate scientists, and the empirical data, fall into the amateur sceptics category, or the distrustful of scientists category, or the confused and overwhelmed category, or any or all of those categories: the important thing is that they are not deliberately debasing AGW and climate science in order to progress an ulterior agenda - typically, a political one. There are still other people who make a basic logic error: they start from a position/value/conclusion that they want/need to be true, and because the possibility of AGW is in conflict with that, they conclude that AGW must be false. Still others take their cue from whatever TV sources they are most comfortable with, and some just follow their friends' opinions without honestly having an opinion of their own.
By a basic reversal, the same may be said for the people that hold the view that AGW/HICC (human-induced climate change) is a reality. Except for one thing: a group equivalent to the Deniers is almost entirely absent from the "pro-HICC" side of the equation.
The reasons for the absence of such a group are not entirely clear, although a few significant ones present themselves: 1) climate scientists cannot afford to risk advocacy, for the reasons I outlined at the start of this post; 2) climate scientists do care about the truth or falsity of their statements to the public, unlike the Deniers; 3) climate scientists have received death threats, intimidating letters, FOI orders bordering on the vexatious, and other strong hints that they should keep quiet; 4) some climate scientists are subject to "gag" orders by their employers - media releases and outreach are subject to the employer's wishes, not the employee's; 5) being a climate scientist, or someone who thinks HICC is true (in today's circumstance), does not necessarily imply anything about their political leanings, or the strength with which they hold their political views. Deniers, on the other hand, have a very strong right wing orientation, for example.
Plenty of other reasons abound, and the ones I've listed are not even the most likely ones as far as I'm aware.
Finally, if AGW/HICC are true, and if the trajectory humanity follows is in the worst of the IPCC projections, then a profound and awesome resculpting of the global ecosystem and physical environment is guaranteed. And probably unstoppable by humanity. So far, the evidence is pointing to the upper range of the IPCC projections, and so naturally enough most scientists prefer to see prompt action while there is still time to avoid even worse scenarios from developing. On the other hand, Deniers benefit from anything that creates delay; they do not necessarily need to convince anyone for long, just for long enough.
I've watched this in Australia for 25 years or so and the pattern of Denier behaviour is quite apparent now. Scuppering something at the eleventh hour is a typical trick, because it prevents a coordinated response, and it provokes a shocked reaction from the proponents of taking action on AGW/HICC - governments too often push any "courageous" decisions off to a future government's term. The hacking of the East Anglia Climate Research Unit machines, and selective sampling of a thousand emails out of who knows how many from the previous 13 years, is a case in point. That really put the kibbosh on the Copenhagen summit.
Posted by: Donald Oats | September 8, 2010 12:38 AM
@59, Brendon
As much as I was exasperated by the GP's failure to understand what Schneider was saying (I personally didn't think it was that difficult), you probably need to separate innumeracy from incompetency in his profession. He may well be a fine GP - who knows?
I've heard some astonishingly bad anti-AGW arguments from people whom I know to be otherwise quite professional. It's a sort of infective intellectual laziness, and is prominent when they have strong political views, yet little interest in the details of the topic itself (thus they latch onto arguments which appear to support their view and sound good but do little research to determine whether they actually are good).
It's a really hard trend to fight against. Pseudo-scepticism, really.
Posted by: Mike | September 8, 2010 12:43 AM
I've debated allies here on that very issue. You'll quite likey hear comendable defenses of EU styled ETS , but its not my prefered solution. I prefer as simple a Carbon tax as possible, depending on import export conditions and global pricing, at worste this may require something as complex as a GST like Carbon tax.
None the less credible evidence supports the agument that a price on carbon will promote jobs. But how that is done is important to the outcomes. For instance we'd need to ensure that internal investments is promoted by limiting import of carbon permits and making import-export ajustment on a carbon price (like with the GST) so as to not perversly export our pollution.
If you'd like to know more about equity impliactions (in addition to growth of good jobs) you can google "carbon dividend" or seach for the governments plan to compensated consumers for the price rise due to a carbon price.
Put simply, we should apply different tax rates to consumption that have different impacts on sustanability. We can gain the same net revenue with a carbon tax as we do with the GST, We could also democratically choose to adjusts the carbon tax to afford us the chocie to reduce the tax on sustanable services such as design, music, labour.
This of course should be applied with a democratically redistributive framwork as are current taxes.
Posted by: jakerman | September 8, 2010 12:50 AM
skepticlawyer,
But that is also largely because France have their own source of gas from Algeria, you cannot build that argument based solely on nuclear.
LE,
I hear what youre saying, and I get your point that the science can say one thing, but translating it into policy when the policy is hurtful is a hard sell. I have worked at a science organisation that also happened to be part of a government department, and one of our roles was providing the department with policy advice.
You can supply the best evidence-based scientific advice, the politicians will take this under consideration, then listen, for example, to the Archbishop's moral views on the matter, and then give equal weight to both views in the decision-making process. Alas this is the system we have to work with.
Posted by: MFS | September 8, 2010 1:01 AM
The influence of the green movement is dwarfed by our dependence on the market. Put a price signal on carbon and given a propotional transition time you'll see the power of the market shift in favour of innovation aligned with our longer term interests.
Posted by: jakerman | September 8, 2010 2:06 AM
In favour on a price of carbon: in cross national studies a price on carbon actually improved competativness. In Europe higher petro taxes have driven efficiency innovation:
This needs to be integrated with increasing provision of low carbon alternative options (improved rail, broadband, community development), funded via carbon revenue.
Posted by: jakerman | September 8, 2010 2:30 AM
Its not just AGW where this crops up. The fact that they have qualifications in one area actually makes it more difficult for them to accept scientific reality in another.
The ultimate examples of this regarding AGW are Dyson, Bellamy, etc (although Stott may simply like the sound of his own voice). If you want to go further back, then Immanuel Velikovsky would be a good example - respected doctor, but terrible astronomer and historian. Just as some people will believe that they have the answer, no matter what the evidence or their lack of expertise says, there are others who believe that no one has the answer, for much the same reasons. They don't need to know the details, they just know...
LE - There are excellent websites which people on this thread have pointed you to, such as Skeptical Science, but also look at your own experience.
As an Australian, you've experienced 7 years of drought (plus some flooding in the north), which is pretty much the kind of pattern climate scientists have been projecting for Australia. When models accord with your own reality, its time to do something.
Posted by: MikeB | September 8, 2010 2:53 AM
Legal Eagle
The argument that you put that an ETS or a carbon tax might increase inequality is very odd.
Governments can compensate for the effects of higher energy prices in exactly the same way as there was a compensation package for the introduction of the GST in Australia in 2000.
In fact,the proposed Australian ETS included a compensation package which was actually redistributive, so that most low income households would have been better off financially.
This was actually criticised by the Opposition at the time as being too pro-poor!
Posted by: Peter Whiteford | September 8, 2010 3:36 AM
Didactylos at #23
I am with you on this one.
Nuclear power production does not automatically include a risk of nuclear proliferation as is made crystal clear in:
Nuclear Renaissance: Technologies and Policies for the Future of Nuclear Power: Technologies and Policies from the Future of Nuclear Power by William J Nuttal:
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Nuclear-Renaissance-Technologies-Policies-Future/dp/B002C1B3J2/ref=sr113?ie=UTF8&s=digital-text&qid=1283941836&sr=8-13
now also available in a Kindle edition.
Sadly I cannot afford my own copy ATM and the attitude of my by local library about costs when my reservation required an Inter Library loan was unbelievable.
Public libraries in the UK seem to be deteriorating as places for serious study and seem to be more interested in competing with the likes of Blockbuster Video. I guess there is more money in that and central government would now prefer to not have a too informed proletariat.
PS. How does one ensure links split across lines work. Using a source view as example I have tried putting < with a =href and then 'backslash a' within more-than/greater-than char's and including the opening and closing double quotes to bound the address string without success.
Posted by: Lionel A Smith | September 8, 2010 7:10 AM
You can often shortn URLs to Amazon considerably, in this case http://www.amazon.co.uk/Nuclear-Renaissance-Technologies-Policies-Future/dp/B002C1B3J2. Simply putting it into < > brackets marks it as an URL. Another way is to use markdown syntax as described in the link directly above the comment box. Syntax:
[descritpion](URL)
Posted by: bluegrue | September 8, 2010 7:40 AM
There's something wrong with your HTML then Lionel (I use the HTML form mostly and without problems -- bluegrue's methods also work of course).
You said "with a =href", but the correct form is |a href = "link"|Text description|/a|, where the | are replaced by you know what. E.g. Nuclear Renaissance
BTW, where can I get one of these "copy ATM"s from? Sounds like a licence to print money :-)
Posted by: P. Lewis | September 8, 2010 8:11 AM
@52 "To those who said - go read the material - I intend to do so in detail."
I commend your intention. There are people here who can give you pointers for your reading list, but it'd be useful to know what sort of level of technical discussion you're comfortable with before we make recommendations.
Regards Luke
Posted by: silburnl | September 8, 2010 10:49 AM
Legal Eagle -- the tribalism you think you see is not between competing camps of scientists. If anything, it is between scientists following evidence on one side, and political activists following money on the other side (either explicitly being paid or more generally "don't raise my taxes".) As someone said above, if your doctor tells you that you have cancer, not liking the diagnosis will not change the facts.
If you want to avoid this mess, go look for the facts yourself. You've earned a Ph.D. (congrats by the way!) so you should know how to do some research and how to tell if someone if full of hot air. Instead of going to blogs, go to the NASA, NOAA or UK Met Office sites. You can see papers by real scientists, see data collected by real instruments and understand how and why the science has ended up where it is at. Once you see the diagnosis and accept it you can start thinking about treatment.
Posted by: Gator | September 8, 2010 11:46 AM
OK Lets try this again.
Nuclear Renaissance: Technologies and Policies for the Future of Nuclear Power: Technologies and Policies from the Future of Nuclear Power by William J Nuttal
I see what was causing the glitch now, I had left out the nofollow bit and also a text string befor the final not a tag.
I started html in the days before tables and using a text editor and have not done much for some time (OS change) and so some of the later constructs are of uncertain behaviour here.
Having mentioned Nuttal it looks like I will have to buy a copy now so as to counter some of MikeB's arguments at #37.
MikeB you should look over it too. Future nuclear plants do not necessarily have to generate loads of high level wastes, Nuttal describes the different levels at some length, he also covers the variety of technologies being persued many where proliferation is a non-issue.
As for html, some places use [] others <>, then some use e for emphasis others use i then there is the strong/bold dichotomy. By process of elimination I have sorted it now. Thank you for your patience.
Posted by: Lionel A Smith | September 8, 2010 12:00 PM
Legal Eagle:
The problem LE, is that one can initially go into the whole arena of climate change and come across people that are very positive. As you discuss the subject, eventually you discover people that are absolutely against it and call you abusive names because they believe you are going to put them out of business with your views and environmental groups campaigning.
I watched the Insight program and there were people there that believed that the changes from fossil fuels to green technology are equivalent to sending us back to caves. I'm guessing you were the lawyer in the audience??
I have to say that I think half the problem we have is that many people are far to busy to get to grips with the subject, yet at the same time want their opinion to be heard. I think some of your comments probably reflect that. This is generally why we have scientists to advise us!
I think there are so many indicators that point to us as being the cause, that it is obvious that our presence and activities will change the planet. I think the term denial is highly appropriate for most of humanity. We will damage the planet as a part of our growing activities, any species would. So CO2 is another change we are making.
The other point of course is that we have responsibility for OUR actions and OUR waste, emissions etc. We aren't responsible for naturally occurring events that might alter climate. We should take responsibility for what we do.
Posted by: Warmcast | September 8, 2010 12:27 PM
"I'm not a scientist, I'm a professional arguer whose job it is to convince people. "
This is what scares us silly. Lawyers do not have a reputation for fighting for the truth - they fight for whoever is paying them. In fact, the legal process requires lawyers to advocate for their client, guilty or not.
And science just doesn't work like that.
Good luck with your research. Please pay close attention to the impacts of climate change, and who is likely to pay the heaviest price. Also, remember that IPCC models have been wrong in some respects. Arctic sea ice, for example, is melting far more quickly than projected. Uncertainty cuts both ways.
Posted by: Didactylos | September 8, 2010 12:34 PM
Lionel, well sorted, but you don't have to add the "no follow". That gets done automatically.
Posted by: P. Lewis | September 8, 2010 12:37 PM
Did the show's host survey the audience members a week or two later, to see whose minds had changed? (at the end of the show, they hadn't, but it takes time.)
Posted by: Anna Haynes | September 8, 2010 1:11 PM
Legal Eagle @#53
I am curious to know if you have seen any rebuttals of global warming that you consider to be reasonable. If so, what were they? The ones I have seen have been based almost entirely on wishful thinking.Posted by: Richard Simons | September 8, 2010 1:38 PM
Why is a "Legal Eagle" even commenting on science? I was scientifically trained, not legally trained (except in communication law in J-School). So I don't talk about lawyer and judge tribalism or dispute their interpretation of the law, usually.
Posted by: Marion Delgado | September 8, 2010 3:34 PM
SkepticLawyer is concern-trolling like crazy. There's nothing progressive about bashing scientists or playing the Pielke, Lomborg, Kloor, etc. role.
Posted by: Marion Delgado | September 8, 2010 3:39 PM
Let me add to the excellent comment(s) MikeB made - where's the acknowledgement that the argument for nuclear power (as a sign of "seriousness") is, first, mainly a demand by the same people that were previously AGW deniers, beaten into submission by a massive accumulation of evidence, and second, a controversial and unproven case? No acknowledgement of arguments from, e.g., Amory Lovins and the RMI along with many others?
Also, people like Hansen have said if we can get the so-called 4th-generation nuclear plants built, that would probably be helpful. The problem is, the nuclear industry always promises reactors that are much higher-tech than they build, and a generation or two past what they build, because even with the endless and outrageous subsidizies they always demand and get, the inherent cost/benefit flaws in the industry mean that to make the kind of profits they want (comparable to the oil industry), they have to go with the cheapest design that will roughly fulfill their contracts.
Also, pace what was said above in comments, yes, I am saying "you" will have to "change your way of life." One way or another. If a car is about to hit you, and I say, get out of the way, I do very much mean you'll have to change your course, and again, one way or another. Either you'll step out of the way, changing your course slightly, or the car will set you on a new course going the other way.
There is an element of lag, so, yeah, if you want to say "Apres moi, le Deluge," fine. But don't insult anyone by pretending that's a progressive position. Also, the ball is not in the scientists' court - they did their job, and are doing their job. The ball is in the court of the lawyers, media professionals and politicians, actually. They've done virtually nothing for more than 20 years (at least since the leading climate change scientist addressed the main legislative body in the largest economy on Earth and the main per-capita polluter in 1988).
Posted by: Marion Delgado | September 8, 2010 3:58 PM
skepticlawyer:
Meaningless waffle. From Marxists to libertarians, who doesn't agree with those things?
Next you'll be telling us you're a "compassionate conservative"...
Legal Eagle:
You're not telling us anything we don't already know. For instance:
http://scienceblogs.com/denialism/about.php
Nice strawman. Who do you think you are, Chris Mooney?
I don't know what corruption you're talking about, but it has too had an appreciable impact on emissions.
The economics of emissions trading schemes are simple, and there are no major differences in impact between them and pollution taxes. There may be some minor differences but these are largely irrelevant in the grand scheme of things. All that matters is getting either a cap and trade scheme or a carbon tax implemented. You can favour one over the other, but there's no reason not to be happy if either come in.
And we also know emissions trading works in practice. Acid rain is much less of a problem because of it.
Anyway, Krugman is good on the economic side of things if you want a layman's explanation:
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/11/magazine/11Economy-t.html?_r=1&pagewanted=all
Posted by: Alex | September 8, 2010 4:50 PM
By the way, Tim, thanks for yet again a good example of why Stephen Schneider was, at least, a role model. As the above-mentioned Chris Mooney has pointed out.
Indeed, shouting at people and calling them stupid doesn't work. Then again, complaining about science advocates lacking passion doesn't mix well with the above if it's used as a critique. Even Stephen Jay Gould's NOMA paradigm was not about dividing the world into Vulcans and Normals.
Posted by: Marion Delgado | September 8, 2010 5:40 PM
"Legal Egal:
Someone tells me I have to totally change my society on the basis of this"
As for "fundamentally changing society", reducing CO2 emissions won't fundamentally change society. Not doing anything will fundamentally change society, and not in a good way. Read the National Defense University's studies on climate change just for the security effects. Never mind the economic effects of changes in precipitation patterns, etc.
If we address CO2 emissions, we'll still source most of our energy from fossil fuels, but a smaller proportion, using a different balance of fuels (more natural gas, less coal) and probably sequestering a large portion of the resultant CO2.
Costs of CO2 sequestration are $50-100/tonne CO2, and that was five years ago. Works out to about $0.50-1.00/gallon gasoline. You might have noticed that gas fluctuated by more than that over the past 3 years and yet we didn't have to revert to flint axes and stone tools. And CO2 sequestration is one of the more expensive options to be considered.
Costs get more expensive the longer we delay because we'll have to cut emissions more sharply and scrap already installed generation capacity, as power plants have a 30-40 year lifetime: so the capacity we'll be using in 2050 is being built today. Retrofitting plants to be less CO2 emitting is a fuck of a lot more expensive than designing them that way in the first place.
Further, energy technologies don't follow Moore's law. The length of time for development, pilot studies, etc. mean a decade or more of R&D before the first commercial application rolls out. And R&D stalls at the lab scale unless there's a specific economic commercial application: which, as long as the price of carbon is zero, there is none, so technology development for new energy technologies stalls. This isn't like rolling out a new cellphone.
The problem I have is that I don't think lawyers or policy types really understand how much warming is already baked in, how much the ocean as a heat and CO2 sink has spared us the full impact, and how long CO2 emitted now will haunt us for the future. Without an understanding of the science, you don't understand the urgency of the issue, or how costs are going to accelerate with time, or that instead of just paying to cut emissions, we end up paying for both emissions abatement and mitigation of the effects of climate change.
Posted by: Sock Puppet of the Great Satan | September 8, 2010 5:42 PM
" The problem is, the nuclear industry always promises reactors that are much higher-tech than they build, and a generation or two past what they build"
I had the reverse impression. I thought the issue with nuclear power was not needing new designs, but standardizing around a few designs that we know work and running them in a boring, reliable way so you get both the economic and safety benefits of a high uptime.
Posted by: Sock Puppet of the Great Satan | September 8, 2010 5:46 PM
I'd just like to note, that I've commented a bit at SL's and LE's site. I found them to be sincere, even if I do have difficulties comprehending their value system and reasoning at times. I'd ask to grant them a bit of patience. SL intends to look a bit into SkepticalScience and Spencer Weart, I hope those sources can sway her better than was able to do.
Posted by: bluegrue | September 8, 2010 6:23 PM
Last sentence should have read:
I hope those sources can sway her better than I was able to do.
Posted by: bluegrue | September 8, 2010 6:25 PM
I notice that the defenders of nuclear power mentioned a book which spoke about future possibilities of nuclear power (apparently its going to be great and we will finally get jetpacks), rather than the current situation.
The poliferation argument is actually not one I'm interested in, since I was referring to the security issues regarding nuclear plants themselves. The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists had a story a couple of years ago about how US Special Forces were involved in security training for plants by trying to infiltrate them. They were then told to tell the guards when they were coming, to use certain routes into the plants, and to have only a very small number of troops - in that way the plant security could win, and the plant could continue to operate. Bin Laden had plans to hit a plant in up-state New York. Do you think that Sellafield is safe from attack? I'm not convinced.
Getting back to nuclear waste, reprocessing is a tough one to sell since THORPE, and we are still no closer to finding a long-term dump for nuclear waste in the UK. And as for Yucca Mountain...
I don't mind if the nuclear industry does build more plants, but only with certain ground rules.
1) No subsidies. No subsides of any kind. No caps on disposal costs, no waste dumps paid for by the state, no government insurance, no special deals on electricity prices, and no indemnity against future leaks (like Sellafield has) etc. Its yours, you pay for it.
2)No bailouts - like British Energy some years ago. You live by the market, and you die by the market.
3)No attempt to kill off competing technologies. You've been around for 50 years or more. Wind and solar are relatively new technologies, so they still need subsidy, you do not. No bad mouthing them.
4)Deal with your own waste first, before producing more.
If you can put a business case together, good luck. But as both Amery Lovins and Walt Patterson http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walt_Patterson have constantly pointed out, there has never been a nuke built on time, on budget and without subsidy. If the city thought the numbers added up, why having they been waiting so long?
Nukes are a technofix, like geoengineering. We have the technology already. We just lack the will to do something.
Posted by: MikeB | September 8, 2010 6:50 PM
@89 "...standardizing around a few designs that we know work and running them in a boring, reliable way so you get both the economic and safety benefits of a high uptime."
That will be a (perhaps the) key issue going forward with nukes I think. We have existence proofs (France, Rickover's naval programme etc) that you can adopt such a strategy and be effective. Contrariwise we also have an existence proof (the Gen II AGRs that the CEGB went for in the 60s) that you can adopt such a strategy and fall flat on your face.
Soft factors such as legal/financial frameworks and organisational culture are as important as the hard factors and I'm not very confident that, in the UK at least, we have the correct soft factors in place to make nukes a winning proposition.
Regards Luke
Posted by: silburnl | September 8, 2010 7:26 PM
MarkB's points number 1 & 2 combine with the logical conclusion that setup costs require a preserved trust account to pay for decommissioning, something never paid for yet.
It also makes a dessert full of solar thermal seem much more competative.
Posted by: jakerman | September 8, 2010 8:32 PM
The show really did highlight the disparity in scientific knowledge between the average climate skeptic and a person that is a scientist in the field.
Posted by: Nigel | September 8, 2010 8:47 PM
@92 "If the city thought the numbers added up, why having they been waiting so long?"
In a spot energy market (such as we have in the UK and the US) baseload units such as nukes are price takers, not price makers. If the spot price drops below what they need to pay off the costs of building and operating the unit then the operator has little choice but to eat the loss now and then hope to recoup the loss through higher prices when other generators aren't able to despatch power. That sort of market weakness gives project financiers in the city hives.
Gas plants are the mirror reverse of nukes. They are very flexible to operate, which means they are price makers in a spot market - the operator can idle them most of the time and then cherry pick those demand segments when they can command a premium price. They are also cheap to build (comparitively) so the cost base of these units is dominated by their fuel inputs; this means that even if fuel prices are projected to go up to crazily high levels (which any idiot can see that they are for gas) then it still makes it a rational choice for the city boys to fund. Market power translates directly into a low risk profile (for the financiers) with lots of potential upside - thus huge bundles of boodle are made available for the 'dash for gas'. If hydro dams were as cheap to build as gas turbines then there would have been a 'dash for water' as well.
I think this market strength/market weakness story also explains why the nuclear industry is so surprisingly (to me at least) anti-renewable. Large scale penetration of renewables into an energy grid has the effect of driving down price levels across the board, because when the wind is blowing or the sun is shining then the marginal cost of the power being despatched into the grid by renewable operators is near as damnit zero - the grid stuffs it's face at the cheapo renewables buffet and then just tops off with what it needs from the non-renewable a la carte.
I suspect that this factor is giving the corporate strategy people at all the incumbent generators conniptions (to say the least), but nuclear generators are the most vulnerable to this market threat, since their up front costs are so much higher than their direct competitor for the baseload segment of the market (coal). Now in theory that up front weakness that nuclear generators have should be balanced (perhaps more than balanced) by the fuel cost weakness that coal has since coal hasn't had to pay for a whole bunch of market externalities that it imposes on the rest of us. I suspect that the strategy people at the nuclear generators don't think that coal generators will be made to bear those costs however (I also suspect that they are right on this) and thus they fear that they will be driven into unprofitability quicker than coal generators by the renewables surge.
Tl/dr version: Like I wrote in my previous, soft factors (in which I include market structures and relative lobby muscle in the political sphere) are key.
Regards Luke
Posted by: silburnl | September 8, 2010 9:08 PM
OT, but I think Pielke Snr is losing it, well his credibility at least:
"There does not need to be years of record to obtain statistically significant measures of upper ocean heat content. This is the point of using heat. We just need time slices with sufficient spatial data. A trend is unnecessary, and indeed can be misleading when the signal is substantially nonlinear. Moreover, if global annual average cooling occurs, such as from a major volcanic eruption, the global warming "clock" is reset regardless of the long term trend."
More delightful/bizarre revelations by Pielke Snr can be found over on the OHC thread at John Cook's place.
Posted by: MapleLeaf | September 8, 2010 10:22 PM
Sock Puppet:
As far as I know, no. The big case being made is always for, e.g., thorium salt reactors and other "4th gen." etc. stuff. But the nuke industry has always promised much and delivered little - this is power that they've consistently claimed would be too cheap to meter any day now. And again, the reactors they keep building are inefficient and old designs.
What you said is the case for those societies like France already deeply economically committed to nuclear energy, but is not a good scenario for those nations not already so committed to commit. In France the saving grace has been a surprisingly good refurbishing program.
I will say, and say, and say again that the money wasted by taxpayers on R&D and insurance and so on for nuclear power, which is privately profitable because it's publicly socialized, would better be spent on renewables.
If the situation had been reversed all along and renewables had had nuclear power's subsidies and nuclear power had had their neglect, we would NOT be talking about nuclear power at all now, except for the ideologues who would mostly not be AGW accepters anyway.
Posted by: Marion Delgado | September 9, 2010 1:39 AM
A lot of excellent analytical comments here putting the dishonest Nuke-industry PR into perspective.
The Nuclear Industry is bad enough without the taxpayer subsidising their secretive, dishonest, dirty and dangerous operations.
Our subsidies and R&D investment should be directed at clean, renewable technologies - not just for us, but also to drop the cost of deploying these technologies for the poorer countries who cannot afford to pay for the R&D themselves. As a result of nuke-industry activism, we now have our northern neighbour - an overpopulated 3rd-world military dictatorship situated in a highly-active tectonic zone and teetering on the brink of islamicism - now embarking on a large-scale construction program of nuclear power plants. This should be a cause for concern for the global community, never mind just Australia.
Posted by: Vince Whirlwind | September 9, 2010 2:06 AM
It's nice to see a less one-sided discussion on nuclear energy than the last time this came up on Deltoid.
One of the things I think will have to be built is a few breeders or nth generation reactors, not for profit but to burn up spent fuel. I agree with the high-high-tech nuke proponents that that's generally better than the current disposal process.
Posted by: Marion Delgado | September 9, 2010 2:14 AM
I actually thought the good professor downplayed the seriousness of climate change both to avoid hammering the participants with too much and to avoid complicating his explanations. And I thought his explanations of risk assessment lacked clarity - rather than percentages perhaps he could have talked in terms of odds like a one in ten chance of worst case scenarios by century's end, a one in ten chance of not much impact and four in five chance of some place between. An idea of how serious those worst cases could be was lacking. Even the percentages and his bell curve explanations probably didn't reflect the lopsided shape of that curve and that the uncertainty at the worst case end makes for some quite scary possibilities. Still, it was a hard place to be in, especially whilst quite ill and overall I had to applaud his efforts given that the hostility of some of the 'sceptics' was palpable; no winning them over with reason and truth.
Posted by: Ken Fabos | September 9, 2010 3:07 AM
Schneider was talking about deception,plain and simple. "..we have to offer up scary scenarios.." Why??Why not just tell the unembellished truth? "each of has has to decide the right balance between being effective and being honest".Why the need to be "effective?Isn't the truth 'effective' enough? So,as such,he sets up 'being effective' on one end and 'being honest' on the other.That means that 'being dishonest' is the same as 'being effective'.To extrapolate further,if 'being honest' means telling the truth,does 'being effective' mean telling lies??
Posted by: warren | September 9, 2010 3:22 AM
Warren writes:
Exactly the opposite is true. Schneider was talkng about not being deceptive, a fact which you would have to face if you didn't edit out the crux of his comment to reverse its meaning.
He sets it up as a false dichotomy, and knocks that false dochotomy over in the sentance you edited out, you know the sentance you needed to erase so as to reverse the meaning Schneider was conveying:
Warren continues:
As I've pointd out, Warren self delution in the face of overwheling evidence, and his willingness to argue black is white is revealing as a pattern.
Posted by: jakerman | September 9, 2010 3:50 AM
Warren I must thank you for being a reliable example of denial. You provide a useful case study.
Posted by: jakerman | September 9, 2010 3:55 AM
Legal Eagle: "Someone tells me I have to totally change my society on the basis of this, and possibly have a more unequal society as a result. For me, equality and freedom of speech are incredibly important. And then someone tells me that I shouldn't have doubts, and that if I do express them, I will be told I'm stupid repeatedly and ostracised. Do you think that's a healthy society?"
In what way would society be changed? Society is going to have to change anyway because fossil fuels WILL run out. What you really are suggesting is that you don't want to see those changes in your life time and you think future generations should handle that burden! This links to my next observation.
Equality and freedom of speech are completely separate issues. Freedom of speech does not equate to freedom to do what you want. Everyone can be entitled to say what they want, but that doesn't equate to allowing them to do waht they want. There is of course overlap, so the reality is, freedom of speech is inevitably compromised.
Equality usually only applies to the human domain, hence without any restraint on growth and freedoms, equality can mean destruction to humanity and the surrounding environment. The other point is that I doubt if you assess equality of future generations when you apply the word equality. I suspect your views about equality only takes into account current generations, hence if everyone has access to electricity produced by fossil fuels, then today all those people have equality. However, that may mean that some people are going to loose there homes in the future.
Another point is that equality doesn't mean that everyone has to be equally wealthy. Equality can mean that we all equally live without electricity, instead of everyone having access to electricity. I don't say that in a literal sense, only as an example of the mis-use of the word 'equality'. More often than not it is used in the context that developed nations are the standard by which we judge who is equal and who isn't.
What you really demonstrate is that like many people in developed countries you fear the possibility of living like the vast majority of the human race, who do not have access to the same resources.
Posted by: Paul UK | September 9, 2010 4:19 AM
Arrrgh, my last post formatting, went all over the place hopefully this is better:
Legal Eagle:
In what way would society be changed? Society is going to have to change anyway because fossil fuels WILL run out. What you really are suggesting is that you don't want to see those changes in your life time and you think future generations should handle that burden! This links to my next observation.
Equality and freedom of speech are completely separate issues. Freedom of speech does not equate to freedom to do what you want. Everyone can be entitled to say what they want, but that doesn't equate to allowing them to do waht they want. There is of course overlap, so the reality is, freedom of speech is inevitably compromised.
Equality usually only applies to the human domain, hence without any restraint on growth and freedoms, equality can mean destruction to humanity and the surrounding environment. The other point is that I doubt if you assess equality of future generations when you apply the word equality. I suspect your views about equality only takes into account current generations, hence if everyone has access to electricity produced by fossil fuels, then today all those people have equality. However, that may mean that some people are going to loose there homes in the future.
Another point is that equality doesn't mean that everyone has to be equally wealthy. Equality can mean that we all equally live without electricity, instead of everyone having access to electricity. I don't say that in a literal sense, only as an example of the mis-use of the word 'equality'. More often than not it is used in the context that developed nations are the standard by which we judge who is equal and who isn't.
What you really demonstrate is that like many people in developed countries you fear the possibility of living like the vast majority of the human race, who do not have access to the same resources.
Posted by: Paul UK | September 9, 2010 4:21 AM
warren is up to the task:
Sigh. Comprehension fail.
Most school kids could tell you why that's wrong. Schneider continues - as you have been told, and probably saw when you snipped his quote at the crucial point - "I hope that means being both."
Why do you pretend he meant something he clearly did not? Perhaps because your argument falls in a sad little heap without falsely attributing to Schneider the concept that effectiveness and honesty are mutually exclusive?
If you read the full quote, Schneider was decrying the sad truth that humanity en masse will not act to head off bad consequences until after very bad things have eventuated. That seems to be well borne out by subsequent events. The alternative ("offering up scary scenarios") is warning about scientifically valid scary outcomes before they happen so that humanity acts to prevent them happening.
You assert that Schneider must have meant creating false "scary scenarios", but there's no evidence for that. One can describe scientifically based scary scenarios (that may or may not eventuate, relating the best-known measure of certainty and uncertainty of occurring) - and thereby be telling the unembellished truth...
...and yet still be ineffective at getting humanity to understand the seriousness and act in time. There is plenty of evidence at hand for this effect, and you provide a rich illustration of it on Deltoid.
Scientists when communicating by default tend to include all the uncertainties and caveats in their results when talking to each other in order to better tell the whole truth, but research shows that when non-scientists hear those things most interpret it as "scientists aren't sure so disregard what they're saying".
In other words being scrupulously scientifically honest in communication often means being ineffective at communicating to non-scientists because they get the wrong message about the science. Simplifying the details of caveats and uncertainties can improve effectiveness at the expense of full fidelity accuracy.
It's ironic that Schneider's hope to both be scrupulously honest and effective at communicating the scientific concern, you've interpreted him as advocating dishonesty. Why, it's almost like an illustrated example of the difficulty of communicating scrupulously honestly to non-scientists because they often misinterpret what the scientists are saying...
Posted by: Lotharsson
| September 9, 2010 4:26 AM
Lotharsson: "Why do you pretend he meant something he clearly did not?"
Erm because Warren is just interested in upsetting the apple cart. He also enjoys dissing the dead.
Posted by: Paul UK | September 9, 2010 4:46 AM
Lotharsson:So I get it,scientists are now meant to be snake-oil salesmen.They are not meant to present their findings in an objective manner,no they also have tell everyone what their crystal ball tells them as well.How about we have some findings from a few of Madame Halch's seances in the next IPCC report too? Just to spice it up a bit. "scientifically valid scary outcomes.." This is not science my friend,it is fortune telling.Some famous 'scientifically valid scary outcomes' would therfore obviously include,A]Ehrlich's prophecy of world starvationin the 60's,B]A coming ice-age in the 70's,C]A massive world-wide AIDS super-pandemic in the 80's,D]A world-wide millennium bug meltdown in the 90's,bird-flu,and on and on the horror movie goes.
Posted by: warren | September 9, 2010 5:05 AM
No, you don't get it. That's not what I was saying, and it's the very opposite of what Schneider was saying.
Either you're not equipped to understand this point, or you're not interested in telling the truth.
So, you hear objective scientific pronouncements about the future - complete with what is known and not yet known and what may transpire if we're unlucky no action is taken - and presume they are fr@udulent crystal ball gazing.
You're the perfect illustration of Schneider's point.
Posted by: Lotharsson
| September 9, 2010 5:13 AM
Lotharsson:No matter how you paint it my friend,it is still little more than tea leaves and tarot cards.
Posted by: warren | September 9, 2010 5:42 AM
warren:
You're nothing more than a pathetic bullshitter warren.
Posted by: Chris O'Neill | September 9, 2010 6:01 AM
No warren, that's the role you've adopted by clipping quotes to reverse their meaning.
Posted by: jakerman | September 9, 2010 6:02 AM
So there we have a classic example of denialism at work. And this from someone who claims to be a "science teacher".
I pity his students.
Posted by: Lotharsson
| September 9, 2010 6:13 AM
Chris Oneill:Are you saying that there was not a "scary outcome" thing about an impending ice-age in the 70's?I remember reading about it in the newspaper,and seeing a BBC documentary about it on ABC Australia.And who was it that wrote "The Genesis Strategy" which toyed with the idea of an iceage? Who was Rasool's co-author in the 1971 paper that speculated about a coming ice-age? And who was the 'other guy',the graduate student who developed the clever computer program for their fantastic voyage?The answer is the usual suspects.Dont re-write history Chris-it isn't manly.
about it in 1971 that the media quickly pyked up on?
Posted by: warren | September 9, 2010 6:42 AM
Isn't it time pathetic little warren had his own thread?
Posted by: zoot | September 9, 2010 7:05 AM
There is one person trying to rewrite history here. And that the same person who need to be dishonest in so many ways in order to fabricate a case.
I'm with zoot, while we own Warren a debt for illustrating how bad denialist arguments are, it is getting a little repetative.
Posted by: jakerman | September 9, 2010 7:22 AM
I suppose it might be just about possible that Warren is a "science teacher" using a loose Oregon Institute-style definition. In which case he's likely unaware of most developments since 1911.
Posted by: chek | September 9, 2010 7:23 AM
In discussion of nuclear power, cost is always raised as an issue. But why? If it wasn't profitable, it wouldn't happen. That's what happened in the US: prohibitive regulation, lack of funding and competition from ludicrously cheap coal. But the existing nuclear power stations remain profitable, and likewise in other countries.
If we compare costs of nuclear power with other energy sources (making sure to include waste management costs, decommissioning costs, and other expenses unique to nuclear power) then it still works out as reasonably priced: similar to coal on the global average, with some regional variation.
If we take coal out of the picture, then nuclear becomes very attractive financially speaking.
Remember, this isn't a choice between "the evil nuclear" and the "green, green wind and solar". We need all the energy sources we can get, and the exact mix is going to depend on local factors such as how much wind and sun is available.
This is the point at which someone trucks out some statistics claiming that nuclear is over-subsidised. Can anyone instead find an unbiased source that compares like with like, and does so globally? Nuclear has high build costs, so it is perfectly reasonable that governments should guarantee loans and so on. Wind has different problems, such as dealing with the hypocritical NIMBYs.
Posted by: Didactylos | September 9, 2010 7:37 AM
Chris Oneill:Are you saying that there was not a "scary outcome" thing about an impending ice-age in the 70's?I remember reading about it in the newspaper,and seeing a BBC documentary about it on ABC Australia.And who was it that wrote "The Genesis Strategy" which toyed with the idea of an iceage?
You are correct, Warren, the idea of an ice age was played around with, as scientists are inclined to do. The idea was dismissed. AGW has been around for about 40 years now, and has been the subject of four intensive reports, with the next one being worked on now.
Apples <> Oranges.
Posted by: snide | September 9, 2010 7:44 AM
Fair point, however where we allocate resources and priorities becomes an important question.
Regions like Australia have huge scales of renewable sources of energy to exploit, yet that could be set aside if nuclear power is prioritized ahead of it. That would be doubley perverse if it also cost consumers/tax payers more than upscaling renewables.
Posted by: jakerman | September 9, 2010 7:59 AM
Dear Warren: you said "some famous 'scientifically valid scary outcomes' would therfore obviously include,A]Ehrlich's prophecy of world starvationin the 60's,B]A coming ice-age in the 70's,C]A massive world-wide AIDS super-pandemic in the 80's,D]A world-wide millennium bug meltdown in the 90's,bird-flu,and on"
Let's have a closer look, shall we? World starvation? Thanks to the work of Norman Borlaug, and the development of dwarf wheat and introduction of modern agricultural techniques, he may have saved a billion people from starvation. That's billion with a B. Crisis averted (or postponed, at least). Malnutrition is still a leading cause of death around the world.
A coming ice age? Well, that's not going to happen for thousands of years, so nobody was really worried about it then or now. If you got a different impression, then you weren't paying enough attention.
AIDS pandemic? Well, that's here, and killing millions of people every year. Didn't you notice? However, thanks to health education and other initiatives, the problem is a lot less severe in many countries such as the US.
Millennium bug? The efforts of thousands of programmers around the world ensured that nothing bad happened. If we ignored the problem, can you imagine what chaos could have occurred? The problem was real, and the fix was real.
Swine flu? The efforts of health professionals around the world prevented the situation from getting out of hand. A false alarm, or a success story?
You failed to mention the ozone hole, another "scare story" where the problem was real, and concerted global action limited the consequences successfully.
Now, are you going to apologise to the 2 million people who died of AIDS last year, and the 33 million people living with AIDS today, or are you going to turn your head away and pretend there is no pandemic?
Posted by: Didactylos | September 9, 2010 8:03 AM
Warren, why don't you put spaces after punctuation marks?
Posted by: Stu | September 9, 2010 8:10 AM
Warren #116
Wrote WRT the global cooling myth,
Yes that that is the extent of the story, the media got hold of someones thinking aloud and trumpeted it all over, just as they did the various outbreaks of 'gates. The trouble is that once these messages are out there, no matter how flawed the arguments or how many plain untruths are spread any apologies and retractions by the various organs are muted and barely noticed.
This is why we saw many of the familiar delayer/denier (skeptic is a term that should be reserved for those having true skepticism), familiar to those of us who have bothered to study around this vast topic, arguments such as warmer in the past, no significant cooling, glacier advance etc.
Back to that 1970s cooling meme, for that is what it is a read of this should help:
The global cooling myth
Whilst you are over there at RealClimate have a look around at many of the topics, as a science teacher you should be able to cope with some of it. Note also the book cover 'Global Warming Understanding the Forecast' in the right side panel of the Home page there. Also the links to other sites for information rather than the WUWT disinformation.
You will also learn much from David Archer's (University of Chicago) series of science lectures where amongst other things you will have light ('scuse pun) shed on how a rise in atmospheric CO2 levels alters the earth's radiative balance. Be aware also that CO2 caused by burning fossil fuels can be differentiated from that from natural (geological) sources by isotopic analysis.
These lectures are now available on YouTube:
PHSC 13400: Global Warming
If that is too tough for you have a look at John Cook's excellent SkepticalScience site. Reading the comments at these sites is insightful.
I also recommend in particular RabettRun where can be found more links to such sites and also to Ray Pierrehumbert's excellent essays on the physics of climate.
If you are happy with stat's then DeepClimate and Tamino's Open Mind are worth looking at for discussions on the skewed thinking of others here.
Joe Romms Climate Progress is also good with a mix of science but mostly policy and countering ideological driven propaganda such as that funded through think tanks such as CATO, George C Marshall, AEI, Heartland etc., by the likes of Koch Industries.
Desmogblog is a Canadian site good for policy issues and revealing the dirty tricks of the fossil fuel industry, dirty tricks honed by some of the same players during tobacco industry anti-science propaganda spewing. Climate Cover Up is an excellent expose of the tactics including those of the likes of Christopher Monkton. Another book worth looking out is Naomi Oreskes 'Merchants of Doubt'
It is as a direct result of the merchants of doubt and their abetters, e.g. Monckton, Plimer and Bob Carter, that so many people in that audience had doubts.
Remember also the difference between theory in the scientific sense and that from common parlance. One member of that audience spoke of the hypothesis of (not in her words) anthropogenic climate change without realising that this field has passed the stage of mere hypothesis. I feel that if Steve Schneider had been well he would have picked her up on that.
As it was, Steve sick as he was, produced a bravura performance against such a hostile audience. I salute his memory, and you should too.
If you are a scientist you should be aware of the scientific method.
Posted by: Lionel A Smith | September 9, 2010 8:28 AM
Re. 121 Didactylos
Possibly the greatest problem with nuclear being so difficult to build in the US is there is no time limit for objections to be raised (or it may be 6 years, I forget right now). In the UK the government has placed a one year limit for objections to be submitted. This was deliberately done to avoid the situation the US finds itself in where nuclear plant approval can be held up for an interminable amount of time. When Generation IV reactors are a reality then I don't see how there could be much objection to nuclear at all, except for security issues and concerns about human error.
Posted by: J Bowers | September 9, 2010 8:32 AM
jakerman, I'm not asking for special treatment for nuclear power. However, I feel strongly that campaigns against nuclear power in countries with no urgent need for it badly hurts the case for nuclear power in other countries that do need it.
Countries with high population densities often find it difficult to simply find the space to fit in renewables in sufficient quantity. We don't all have spaces like Death Valley sitting there empty.
J Bowers: exactly. Human factors will always be with us, and constant oversight and regulation will always be needed. But we accept risks in other matters merely as routine. Why can't we treat the risk of a nuclear disaster the same way we would treat the risk of a hydroelectric disaster? Dam failures have killed more people than nuclear power ever did. By some orders of magnitude....
Posted by: Didactylos | September 9, 2010 9:01 AM
yeah, more nooks and more of this
http://www.tinyurl.com.au/qoq
some people watch too much of the Simpsons, mind control by proxy
Posted by: sunspot | September 9, 2010 9:31 AM
Is that a joke, sunspot? It's certainly a good example of why HuffPo fails science reporting forever.
But the actual story illustrates my point perfectly. Industrial accidents happen all the time, all over the world. In this case, it wasn't a nuclear accident, and nobody was hurt. It's only a "story" because someone saw the word "uranium" and got overexcited.
Posted by: Didactylos | September 9, 2010 9:49 AM
Marion and MarkB
I am sure you are both aware that fossil fuel industries are heavily subsidised in some countrys and also have other financial perks from taxation relaxations.
These same fossil fuel industries, coal with its huge slurry pits from mountain top removal and oil from the dreadful oil-shale or oil-sands extractions have huge quantiries of tailings. And then there is fracking, of which Exxon recently in the UK aired a TV commercial with a smug Exxon spokesman who's demeanor suggested what a clever thing they were at, which threatens the safety and even security of drinking water.
Sock Puppet of the Great Satan #90 wrote:
Indeed, and if commentators would take some time to read Nuttal then they would discover that is what is being, no has been developed.
Did the locomotive engineers and travelers of nineteenth century give up on railways after boiler explosions, collisions, runaways and other general mayhem give up on the job. No. Likewise lessons have been learned from the earlier generations of nuclear power and science and technology have both advanced somewhat since the early 1950s. Yeah as a boy I recall the excitement of Calder Hall being commissioned but then it was a different country back then.
Vince Whirlwind, abrogating the possibility of nuclear power in Australia will have absolutely no impact on North Korean nuclear ambitions. Of course Australia, like the US, has vast areas of sunbaked little occupied territory suitable for solar. Then there is also wind. Both of these options may become more problematic in a warmer world with higher levels of atmospheric water vapour and altered wind patters. Nuclear too could have issues with temperature of effluent waters. I read that one such occurrence happened recently where the river water rose above a previously specified maximum temperature.
Ironically it wasn't the nuclear plant that caused the warming, it was due to an increase in environmental temperatures because of the unusually high temperatures this last summer, but regulations are regulations sometimes. With lawyers involved. ;-)
I figure that we need to roll out a mix of alternative energy depending on locational needs and conditions, which could change and that needs to be factored in. Wind, tidal, solar and nuclear all have their places - the latter because of the need to cover the base-load. That is until viable forms of electrical storage have been produced.
Alternatively we could always shackle Ian and Bob to a tread-wheel and keep them going on a diet of pulped 'Heaven & Earth'.
Posted by: Lionel A Smith | September 9, 2010 11:25 AM
That would be software engineering not science.
Actually, a perfectly good example of science. Of course all the positive predictions that science is responsible for go un-noticed, as they should do. The times when vaccines are stocked up and an epidemic is averted wouldn't make the news.
I think Warrens abusive attitude towards science and technology, makes him well qualified to live in caves. But people like Warren are all to happy to use technology that they do not understand. They think that technology grows on trees and they can just buy it at a shop.
I suspect Warren is layman and a tabloid reader. Thank goodness profession engineers and scientists are more aware of risk analysis than Warren.
Posted by: Paul UK | September 9, 2010 12:07 PM
Warren:
You answered your own question...
You remember reading it in a paper and watched it in a documentary!
How many science papers did you read?
Posted by: Paul UK | September 9, 2010 12:10 PM
Re: #59 Brendon,
When I recall that pompous Dunning-Kruger challenged GP making foolish and disrespectful comments to Prof. Schneider, and Schneider's patient response. I wonder if that GP would respond as patiently to a fan of the healing power of crystals disputing the value of modern medical practice.
Posted by: ScaredAmoeba
| September 9, 2010 1:56 PM
It could be combined with the brent thread, giving rise to the ...
barren thread.
Intellectually barren, that is...
Posted by: dhogaza | September 9, 2010 2:07 PM
Didactylos - cost is an issue when discussing any power source, but nuclear has the weakness that it always has to be subsidised in some way (see Romm for just some of the subsidies the US nuclear industry has had http://climateprogress.org/2008/05/09/nuclear-subsidies-enough-is-enough/).
Nuclear is profitable for some, but not in a way which makes sense as an ordinary business. Take out the subsidy, and it all falls apart.
Build the things? yes, you can make money, unless you are building one for the Finns, which means your losing it http://climateprogress.org/2009/05/29/gop-wants-100-new-nukes-by-2030-while-areva-has-acknowledged-that-the-cost-of-a-new-reactor-today-would-be-as-much-as-6-billion-euros-or-8-billion-double-the-price-offered-to-the-finns/.
That's OK, because your owned by the French state, and its a loss leader anyway. Fuel for the things - yes (although where you get it is possibly another matter). Once you start paying for the plant to be built though, your in trouble. High construction costs, expensive equipment built to high standards, and safety reviews and backup systems all add up.
And can we not get too hung up on 'over regulation'. Nuclear safety brings to mind a phrase from the magazine 'Flying' from about 1908. 'Flying is not in itself an especially dangerous activity, but it is one which is peculiarly unforgiving of any error'.
By the time its online, the market might have changed. Taking the spot price can mean a loss (this problem led to the privatised British Energy being bailed out by the UK taxpayer) especially if your paying high interest rates on your initial and very long term investment (which is what happened in the seventies to a a number of never completed plants in the US).
Its interesting to note that part of the reason for the 'reform' of the energy market in California, which ultimately massively raised prices, was the need to dump the stranded costs of a number of nuclear plants completed in the seventies.
Then maintaining your asset becomes more expensive as the years go by, and you have to pay for the disposal of waste, security, etc. And then of course there is the black hole of decommissioning...
Warren Buffett did try to make the figures work on new build, but in the end he gave up, because it wasn't possible, even with the subsidies on offer (which might have been as much as 85% on the construction costs) .
The best way of making money out of nuclear is to buy old plants where the costs have long since been written off, and where you get a good price for your baseload, while sweating the assets.
Its not profitable without the taxpayer. Which is fine if you can get them to pay for it, which is where lobbying comes in.
Lional - I agree that other fuel sources are also subsidised, but its mainly the bad ones. Lets end the gravy train to coal and oil, since they hardly need the money, and instead try what works. Energy efficiency, a smart grid, devolved energy production (such as micro generation), heat capture (Sam Carsten on Grist has loads of stuff about it), and renewables. If nuclear wants to get in the mix, then do it under their own steam.
Increase the price of carbon, and we all win, but some technologies will sprint faster than others. Solar could reach grid parity in cost in about 4-5 years, and wind is quicker to build than nuclear.
Nuclear knows this, and that's why its so negative about them. They are competition, and given a level playing field, they will probably win.
Posted by: MikeB | September 9, 2010 7:03 PM
Shorter warren #1: when a potential disaster doesn't eventuate, any warnings that it might occur unless measures are taken must have been bogus.
Shorter warren #2: if you brake to avoid a crash - and succeed - there was no need to brake in the first place.
Posted by: Lotharsson
| September 9, 2010 7:16 PM
Didaktylos and Lionel Smith: On Earth II, where you live, nuclear sounds like a good bet.
In the world I've lived in it hasn't had the history and doesn't have the present you've described. Plus, we don't need to power our sky-cars and ESP-helmets, so our power requirements are more modest.
J Bowers: I have addressed the whole Generation IV chimera repeatedly. It's pretty misleading to keep trading on it without addressing the history of nuclear plants so far, and in particular, the history the industry has of pushing the chimeras and building the same old same old.
Posted by: Marion Delgado | September 9, 2010 7:42 PM
J Bowers: "When Generation IV reactors are a reality then I don't see how there could be much objection to nuclear at all"
Yes, because Gen IV reactors "so safe they do not need containment buildings" and cooled with liquid sodium will be able to get insurance without any government subsidy - won't they?
Posted by: Vince Whirlwind | September 9, 2010 7:58 PM
Shorter MikeB:
"I can spit out gas-money lies quicker than you losers with lives can spike them."
Posted by: G.R.L. Cowan, H2 energy fan 'til ~1996 | September 9, 2010 8:43 PM
Even Shorter GRL Cowan:
Comment by G.R.L. Cowan, H2 energy fan 'til ~1996 blocked. [unkill] [show comment]
Posted by: Marion Delgado | September 9, 2010 10:33 PM
Vince: It's at least possible (re insurance without subsidy).
I'm not so much disputing the safety or efficiency of the various new proposed reactor designs, not all of which are labeled 4th generation. I'm more disputing whether the nuclear industry will really build them in a meaningful time frame. I'm absolutely and without any waffling disputing their intent. They want to make money, and they want the taxpayers dunned for it like a bunch of serfs. And they have no incentives to do anything but what they have done, either, because nearly all the people who want 4th generation reactors built and really advocate for it doff their caps and touch their forelocks to the nuclear industry.
The ironic fact is, only anti-nuclear activism would ever get the existing players to change. And as for new players, the barriers to entry are staggering.
But honestly, as far as I can discern, the technology that J Bowers here, et al., are excited by is exciting, and it doesn't make sense to be fanatical about insisting on only a narrow range of solutions to such a pressing problem.
But that cuts both ways. Anyone insisting that we shouldn't do anything about global warming UNLESS it's nuclear power, is a denialist, a scientific ignoramus, and a delayer. They're attempting to hijack global warming science and use it as blackmail to browbeat people into accepting their agenda - an agenda that has usually overlapped the fossil industry and the science denialism movement, and is explicitly anti-environmentalist in the most crude and fact-deprived fashion.
Posted by: Marion Delgado | September 9, 2010 10:41 PM
I realise most of you are younger than me, but I find all the nuclear stuff very 1960s. This is the brave new world! we get to burn different stuff in a really, really exciting very big thing - made of concrete- , and there are 'pooters 'n everything, 'n it's centralised 'n only a few people will be anywhere near it. And people in suits get to cut opening ribbons and have their names on plaques. We should have lots and lots of it.
Well, no. Systems analysis doesn't just apply to computer systems. I think there's a place for nuclear. It just happens to be "not everywhere you think you can do it". For advanced economies with suitable terrain, solar, wind, solar-thermal all look to be a better bargain. Especially if we're looking for big hits, early, on emissions. Tidal and geothermal are lagging behind, but nowhere nearly as far as nuclear in terms of time.
For developing nations, distributed power generation from solar and wind looks not just desirable but equitable.
Nuclear is an option to be used judiciously - with an alert eye over the shoulder on water temperatures and water availability during the life of the reactor.
It's about priorities. When you take on a mortgage you know that $1000 extra you pay off in the early years has a huge impact compared to $5000 paid in later years. Quick rollout and implementation is the issue just now.
And for the Catastrophic Global Finance Meltdown alarmists, large investment and employment opportunities will soothe the fevered brows.
Posted by: adelady | September 9, 2010 11:09 PM
This debate needs more numbers:
http://www.withouthotair.com/
Posted by: Alex | September 9, 2010 11:14 PM
Marion, "They want to make money, and they want the taxpayers dunned for it like a bunch of serfs."
Absolutely. And the opaque and secretive nature of the nuclear industry allows them to procure huge subsidies with very little public disclosure. People working in the industry know full well that the number of safety incidents that become public is a fraction of the incidents that actually occur. And the nuke industry finds especially threatening the idea of an energy sector based on infrastructure projects only (no fuel required) with very short lead-time from startup to production. Here is a report we should all read: https://www.ga.gov.au/image_cache/GA17049.pdf (nice graphic at #1.4)
Posted by: Vince Whirlwind | September 10, 2010 12:46 AM
Some more discussion on the merits or otherwise of considering nuclear energy as aprt of the mix in Open Thread 53.
Warning: It gets ugly after my comment.
Posted by: MFS | September 10, 2010 1:46 AM
MikeB, you need to look deeper. The Finnish reactors, for example, are a new design. New designs cost a lot more, subsequent identical installations will be cheaper.
And, as others have pointed out, if you start down the subsidy rabbit-hole, then you need to look at subsidies for all the other power sources, too. And they get subsidised a lot!
I find it rather insulting that you failed to notice that I have already commented that the lifetime costs of nuclear power ALREADY INCLUDE decommissioning and waste management costs. If you want to argue otherwise, then you will have to do better than anecdotes.
The global picture isn't uniform, either. Regional differences make different power sources financially viable in different areas.
I find it amusing that Marion Delgado and MikeB are arguing at cross-purposes, one claiming that nuclear reactor design isn't advancing because they always go for the cheap option, and the other claiming that nuclear power is too expensive because of these experimental reactor designs. Get your stories straight, people!
The truth is the US has old reactor designs because they have old reactors. Countries with active nuclear design and build programs are the countries where you will find the new reactor designs.
adelady, you touch on the subject of build time. This is one important reason for not delaying nuclear right now. It takes time to build the things. By the time people have figured out that renewables alone aren't enough in some places, and coal still rules - it will be too late to add the nuclear option. You are, of course, right that renewables are preferable. But it's very rarely a binary choice.
Marion Delgado says "Anyone insisting that we shouldn't do anything about global warming UNLESS it's nuclear power" - this is a straw-man. I have never seen anyone take this position. (I'm sure you can scrape up a nutball or two who will agree with it, but it's not a position that has any support.)
Posted by: Didactylos | September 10, 2010 6:11 AM
Marion Delgardo # 137
Well thank you for the patronising tone. I once respected your opinions so don't spoil things now.
I note from Didactylos at 146, which post touches most of the bases that I would so I need not enlarge unless you continue to misrepresent my position, that you have resorted to a straw man. Now we both know which side of the debate is fond of using those, don't we.
And in that vein, I do take exception to being equated with a delayer/denier considering that I have made it clear that I support a mix of alternative power sources to fossil fuel. After all there are more important uses for fossil resources than burning the stuff, although the world could do with much less plastic being manufactured until we have learned how to dispose of it without fouling our own nest – i.e. impacting the ecosystem and causing mayhem with other organisms.
My Earth is a small part of the UK a country renowned for its changeable, often overcast, weather and in places dense population. Hence as an alternative to fossil fuel nuclear is about the only option to cover the base-load. Why do you think we import so much power from nuclear in France?
Yes of course we should explore fuel efficiency but it is all hands to the pumps with all options, except fossil before much longer, open.
It seems that both you and MikeB could learn much from looking up Nuttal.
Posted by: Lionel A Smith | September 10, 2010 7:46 AM
MikeB #135
I often visit Grist and Sam Carsten was unknown to me as it is to GRIST when a search is run over there.
Maybe you mean Sean Casten.
I agree, somewhat, with that last statement in the quote above, but the playing field has been so long tilted in fossil fuel directions that I think a little slack will have to be cut.
Posted by: Lionel A Smith | September 10, 2010 8:18 AM
Regarding the whole nuclear/renewable thing..
It has to be noted that Coal consumption is up 50% over the past decade, globally. In the face of that, the idea that renewables and nuclear are somehow going to squeeze one another out is laughable.
Ultimately, the best we can hope for is to keep as much coal in the ground as possible; I honestly don't see how are going to stop all known conventional oil and gas from being burnt. Replacing as much coal generation with nuclear as possible should be a no brainer.
Posted by: Andrew Dodds | September 10, 2010 10:26 AM
There's actually only one new Finnish reactor, and it's mostly based on 20 years old N4 construction, with added security features from likewise old Konvoi reactor. From the modern designs, it's the most conventional and standardized, which is why it was selected (that, and the subsidies from French government). And it's 4 year schedule will be 4 years overdue, at the moment, with almost twice the original budget.
But that's not the main problem I see with nuclear power. And it's not the fact that it's good for only about half the demand, the base load.
It's the return of energy investment -- currently it takes about 12-15 years, I think, for a nuclear plant to produce energy it took to build, run and decommission it.
If you add 5 to 10 years for building it, we're talking about 10-20 years before they really start cutting into the emissions.
I don't think we have 20 years. Unless the wind and solar buy us those years, in which case the point is moot...
Posted by: Cryptolemur | September 10, 2010 12:25 PM
No numerate person believes that. I suppose the more upmarket of local antinuclear casuists are falling all over themselves to point this out, some arguments being beneath them? Heh.
(How fire can be domesticated)
Posted by: G.R.L. Cowan, H2 energy fan 'til ~1996 | September 10, 2010 12:37 PM
My apologies, Cryptolemur. One EPR reactor is in Finland, the other in France. I knew there were two, but my memory didn't supply all the fine detail.
EPR is listed as the first generation III+ reactor, so I think it is fair to categorise it as a new design. The fact that improvements are incremental should be a positive thing. Entirely new technologies have entirely new problems - and that makes safety and risk harder to analyse.
"If you add 5 to 10 years for building it, we're talking about 10-20 years before they really start cutting into the emissions."
So why delay? Unless you are one of those doomsday people who expect world economies to collapse, energy use to plummet, and the dark ages to arrive, then you should be preparing for a future with increased energy demands. Building coal power instead is simply far, far worse. I'm not imagining things. This is what is actually happening, right now. More and more coal, when we need less and less.
Coal has traditionally provided baseload power. Nuclear energy is in an ideal position to replace it. It's worth remembering, too, that renewables on their own cannot meet demand load. They will require major investment in pumped storage and similar schemes. Energy planning is not trivial, and dismissing an entire technology for faulty reasons just doesn't help one bit.
Posted by: Didactylos | September 10, 2010 4:24 PM
LE has closed down the thread - more to protect JC one would think.
Posted by: rog | September 10, 2010 5:57 PM
"And if they are going to lie about Chernobyl to push their 1980s agenda, then they lose all my respect."
I don't need it.
Especially from someone who ignores the argument in favour of unthinking knee-jerk reaction as opposed to consideration.
Chernobyl is an excellent example of the problem with "engineers have a good solid safe design now".
Because the chernobyl design was likewise a good safe design. Except the engineers who understood it were more expensive and were swapped out for turnkey operators.
But that isn't the reason for nuclear being off the table. It's that we have a 50 year lag for nuclear AS IT CURRENTLY OPERATES to get up to the levels projected to be needed by the nuclear proponents. But the current range are not safe enough and are not a long term solution.
Posted by: Wow | September 11, 2010 1:04 PM
"In discussion of nuclear power, cost is always raised as an issue. But why? If it wasn't profitable, it wouldn't happen"
It will if you're guaranteed a ROI and never to have to pay for a failure.
Failing to keep a profit is entirely possible, even worthwhile:
Here's one
And france pays for it (for much the same reason why the US and UK do) so that they have their military nuclear option.
It is why all these countries are afraid of ANY nuclear power in "dangerous" countries.
Posted by: Wow | September 11, 2010 2:16 PM
"But honestly, as far as I can discern, the technology that J Bowers here, et al., are excited by is exciting, and it doesn't make sense to be fanatical about insisting on only a narrow range of solutions to such a pressing problem."
And this is why some government investment for R&D in nuclear is still very much warranted and wanted.
What's assinine is insisting that taking nuclear as an option WE SHOULD TAKE NOW.
It isn't.
It's one that still needs development.
Rather like space elevators will be THE necessary space transport and insisting that we ignore space elevators would be short sighted and wrong.
But nowhere near as wrong as saying that we should use space elevators NOW for the problem of lifting stuff into space.
Invest in 4thGen and 5thGen nuclear is fine.
But they aren't here now and therefore are no more an option than space elevators are.
Posted by: Wow | September 11, 2010 2:28 PM
... the current range are not safe enough
They have never harmed any of their neighbours, very few of their operators compared to other energy sources, and Greenpeace associates act as if they were safe enough.
It is as if profiteers from the deaths that nuclear energy has tended to prevent were flooding net fora with people willing to suggest this net lifesaving is not happening. What would be a suitable, poetically just fate for such a person, do you think, 'Wow'?
Posted by: G.R.L. Cowan, H2 energy fan 'til ~1996 | September 11, 2010 3:06 PM
""... the current range are not safe enough"
"They have never harmed any of their neighbours, very few of their operators compared to other energy source"
Wind power?
Hrmmm.
And if it's so safe, why can't Iran have it? If it's so safe, why are plans secret? If it's so safe, why can't I make one?
Oh, new designs will be that safe?
Well, until then, lets not roll out nuclear or consider it as an option for power NOW and get on with
a) reduction
b) renewable build-out
M'kay?
Posted by: Wow | September 12, 2010 5:21 AM
"flooding net fora with people willing to suggest this net lifesaving is not happening."
WHAT LIFE SAVING????
It's like there is a well-heeled industry with huge guaranteed profits and guaranteed bail-outs are flooding the interwebs with people willing to suggest that nuclear is all rose water and butterflies...
Posted by: Wow | September 12, 2010 5:24 AM
Wow #155
As I have written before nuclear power generation does not have to risk proliferation of nuclear arms. If you don't believe me then look up Nuttal, full ref' up-thread.
PS. Just got hold of a copy of Stephen Scheider's 'Science as a Contact Sport', now got about twelve books to read.
Posted by: Lionel A Smith | September 12, 2010 2:39 PM
"As I have written before nuclear power generation does not have to risk proliferation of nuclear arms."
Nope, it doesn't. And neither have I said it. Go check for yourself.
However, the US, the UK and France among others believe otherwise.
Now, since I'm not a spook or MI guy, nor am I a nuclear safety engineer (neither are you), I would absent some other issue decide that they would know better.
Or conclude that there is another military or industrial threat that will ensure that nuclear WILL NOT be an option for global power replacement.
Neither does this statement, weak as it is, make nuclear safe. You don't need weapons-grade material, all you need are spend hot fuel rods.
Instant panic.
Heck, an explosive that couldn't cause the guys knickers to explode caused panic for months.
Neither does that statement make nuclear power quick to deploy or safe. If it is safe, then let the free market insure them.
Again, the market for insurance (who know a bad risk when they see it) know more about their business than either of us and they don't believe nuclear is safe.
Posted by: Wow | September 12, 2010 3:25 PM
I also notice that when Steven said about the death threats he received, NOT ONE PERSON said this was terrible and was a problem with the "skeptical position".
Isn't that odd...
Posted by: Wow | September 12, 2010 3:46 PM
I also found it odd that not one person noted the fact that the bloke who put his hand up to the query "has anyone changed their feelings about climate change now?" but merely answered with questions and statements that indicate he still didn't believe AGW when asked what changed his mind.
Surely there aren't "skeptics" out there who will LIE about their thoughts, are there?
Posted by: Wow | September 12, 2010 3:50 PM
Wow So why did you make this point in your #155?
Posted by: Lionel A Smith | September 12, 2010 5:25 PM
Because it's correct.
Why are you asking why?
France and the US, Russia, the UK and France keep their nuclear power plant up so that they can aid their military nuclear industry and ensure their technical expertise.
Knowledge, expertise and materials that they insist Iran CAN NOT HAVE.
Why did you bring up nuclear power not killing their neigbours much when your "issue" is why I made that statement? Did you think that "nuclear weapons" means "build a nuclear power plant in a foreign country you are at war with and then let it blow up"?
Posted by: Wow | September 12, 2010 5:35 PM
And, again lionel, if nuclear power is safe, let the free market insurance system insure it.
Risk is their job.
That they don't rather puts the lie to your insistence.
Posted by: Wow | September 12, 2010 5:38 PM
Stephen Schneider deserves a (posthumous) medal for patience. I've just watched the Insight program online. Dealing with the familiar raft of denialist talking points he showed great forbearance. What was surprising, and depressing, was the level of scientific ignorance in the audience - and I don't mean the people who said "I'm not a scientist, I don't understand". They at least were open about their ignorance and prepared to learn. The depressing ignorance was in the questioners who clearly had an agenda, probably ideological, and were not interested in learning anything from a man who was well-known as a top scientist and a top communicator.
Posted by: nico | September 12, 2010 8:32 PM
What, you mean like ow they knew so much more than the rest of us about Iraq and WMD?
Posted by: Alex | September 12, 2010 9:06 PM
Such arrogance. "I can't be arsed to pick up a first year undergrad text on atmospheric physics but I'll take a gig on a TV show to argue the science. In my made up world physics is anything I want it to be." Good money in being such slime I guess.
I'm thinking of Dara O'Briain's comment on balance between a professor of dentistry and some idjit who removes teeth with string and a door.
Why aren't they called idjits? Why is their bloody useless illinformed opinion sought? Ever? Why not give the vegetable an egg-beater and encourage it to take on neurosurgery. The competence level would be the same.
Posted by: DaveMcRae | September 13, 2010 1:43 AM
And I think it's a terrible loss we've copped with the death of Schneider.
I sadly feel he wasted that portion of his life debating that 3rd rate shit TV show Insight and the vegetables on it. He took that time talking to deniers, answering their mongrel questions knowing that no answer will ever be good enough. And yet they call themselves skeptical. He was wasted on all of them.
Posted by: DaveMcRae | September 13, 2010 3:36 AM
But not on all who listened in.
How shall the car gain nuclear cachet?
Posted by: G.R.L. Cowan, H2 energy fan 'til ~1996 | September 13, 2010 3:59 AM
Yup, they knew that Iraq wasn't the source for 11/9 and they knew that there were WMD's there once and that the paper concluding they were still there was a postgrad's work.
So, yes, they did know much more than the rest of us on Iraq and the WMDs.
You are also making the fallacious point of conflating the specific with the general.
I.e. that statement doesn't disprove mine.
Posted by: Wow | September 13, 2010 4:12 AM
They were open about their ignorance, yes.
But how many were prepared to learn?
One.
One other said they had learned, but used it as a vehicle to get in another "skeptical" question.
TBH, that was one more than I thought would happen, and the reason that woman gave was eminently believable (if you hear 3% without context, you think that that 3% is all there is, therefore insignificant. When someone says it accumulates, then you realise that 150 years later, that 3% can add up...).
Posted by: Wow | September 13, 2010 4:29 AM
Sigh!
Wow and #165
Wow in #155 you wrote:
Which, because, as I had pointed out earlier, nuclear power generation does not necessarily involve risks of nuclear weapons proliferation, is an irrational statement. Your statement implies that the nuclear powers are afraid of frowned upon nation states obtaining the ability to generate electricity using nuclear power because of the risk of such proliferation.
That is why I called you on it.
But then reading this from your #165:
I can now understand how your logic becomes flawed for that is utter nonsense especially as I didn't, '... bring up nuclear power not killing their neigbours much...'. Difficult to make sense of that bit alone.
Now as this particular topic is a little off topic and this conversation certainly is I will write no more in reply to you. Talk to yourself if you must.
Posted by: Lionel A Smith | September 13, 2010 7:17 AM
After watching that flick I'm still dark.
How many people do we have of the calibre of Schneider?
Compare this estimate with the number of dumbshits, big persecution complexes only matched by a sense of entitlement, willfully ignorant who believe they can make up shit and it's evidence and are dumbstruck they're not given a Nobel Prize every brain fart they pickup in a right wing blog. There seems to be an endless supply of this stupid. I think we're rooted.
It was great to hear Schneider though.
Posted by: DaveMcRae | September 13, 2010 9:45 AM
DaveMcR. I tend to agree with you about being rooted....but.
Think of it like a footy match. It's one thing to lose. It's another thing entirely to be absolutely, totally defeated so badly that you're the laughing stock of the whole league and of all the players that follow you in your club.
I really think that it will take another and worse NH summer with worse, and simultaneous, events that include the USA. It will get worse before it gets better. I have to think that my grandchildren, as yet unborn, may live long enough to see things start to improve. I hope I may live long enough that I will have seen glimmerings of hope before I die.
I fear that those grandchildren's idea of "what's better" will have to be less easy and comfortable than they've been for me.
Posted by: adelady | September 13, 2010 10:14 AM
Uh, confused and wrong.
If it doesn't necessarily involve nuclear weapon proliferation, then there's a risk of it. If there was no risk then there would be no need for the "necessarily" in your sentence.
No it doesn't.
What it SAYS is that nuclear powers spend money on their nuclear power program because of the benefits to their military nuclear uses.
Let me ask you: what do you think a nuclear sub(non boomer) uses for its motive power plant?
Hint: it's not diesel engined.
OK, that was someone else
But maybe you can answer it.
Posted by: Wow | September 13, 2010 11:18 AM