[extropy-chat] Climate skepticism patterns

[Martin Striz]

On 6/6/06, Damien Sullivan <phoenix at ugcs.caltech.edu> wrote:

>  I invite people still wondering about anthropogenic global
> warming to draw analogies, and also to link to Bayesian agreement, e.g.
> "if the mass of peer-reviewed scientists say X, and you want to believe
> Y, how likely is it that you are smarter or less biased than they,
> especially in light of the ozone hole history, and the human
> predilection to underestimate one's own bias?"

There are three factors that are connected by the oil problem: energy,
environment, and security.  Even if you don't buy the idea that
renewable energy will lead to a cleaner environment (and lower social
and economic costs) down the line, or that removing the military from
the Middle East and cutting off business ties with despots like Chavez
will make you safer, the fact remains that the oil reserves are
finite.  There is no debate.  The transition must be made.

Oil prices will start skyrocketing about 10-15 years after Peak Oil,
while the cost per unit energy of extraction from renewable resources
continues to drop.  If these lines cross low on the graph, then a
smooth energy transition can be made.  Whether they will is unknown.
If you factor in the defense budget costs for maintaining oil
security, the lines are closer than you think (btw, thanks to the
American military, the rest of the world gets the insurance without
paying the premium).

Going back to Chavez, some pundits have made the observation that "our
oil" tends to be under the ground of people who hate us.  But I think
that's putting the cart before the horse.  Despots can thrive in
places where they have natural resources that force us to do business
with them.  Chavez, the Saudi family, the Mullahs in Iran, would
crumble without their oil reserves.  So renewable energy is good for
spreading democracy, too. :)

Martin