Bill Gates and the Quest for Sustainable Energy

[MachineGhost]

He's a Democrat.  Don't hold your breath.

Although I think hes conflating CO2 with the alleged causes of global warming.  Pollution causes global cooling, not warming.  CO2 is a pollutant, yes?

It never ceases to amaze me the power of Bullshit to motivate humanity when its sold as a Big Idea.

[Mountaineer]

He's a Democrat.  Don't hold your breath.

Although I think hes conflating CO2 with the alleged causes of global warming.  Pollution causes global cooling, not warming.  CO2 is a pollutant, yes?

It never ceases to amaze me the power of Bullshit to motivate humanity when its sold as a Big Idea.

1. No.  CO2 is essential for almost all life forms.

2. Yep!

But, it of course all depends through whose lens one looks. 

... M

[Greg]

This seems like an interesting prospect for this cause:

http://billionsinchange.com/solutions/free-electric

http://billionsinchange.com/solutions/limitless-energy

[Pet Hog]

Although I think hes conflating CO2 with the alleged causes of global warming.  Pollution causes global cooling, not warming.  CO2 is a pollutant, yes?

Well, there are pollutants and there are pollutants.  Atmospheric dust from a volcanic eruption, a forest fire, a nuclear explosion, or an asteroid impact will physically block light and heat from reaching the surface of the planet, and, therefore, have a shading effect, which is cooling --- like the shade from a tree cooling the soil.  Atmospheric CO2 operates through a different mechanism: absorbing infrared radiation --- heat --- and then re-emitting it in all directions, thereby trapping some of the heat that would have otherwise been reflected back into space.  Therefore, increased levels of CO2 will have a warming effect. Other pollutants might have cooling effects, but not CO2.

It never ceases to amaze me the power of Bullshit to motivate humanity when its sold as a Big Idea.

Have you heard of Yuval Noah Harari?  He's a historian who believes it is exactly our power to be motivated by bullshit that has led to our rise as the dominant species on the planet.  So continue to be amazed by the power of bullshit!  See his TED talk below.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nzj7Wg4DAbs

Have you heard of Yuval Noah Harari? He's a historian who believes it is exactly our power to be motivated by bullshit that has led to our rise as the dominant species on the planet. So continue to be amazed by the power of bullshit! See his TED talk below.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nzj7Wg4DAbs

+1

I watched a few lectures of his Coursera course a couple of years ago. Fascinating stuff.

another +1 good ted talk

[Greg]

Tenn, I also wanted to do the stationary bike generator a few years ago.  I wanted to connect it to our home TV, to require someone to be pedaling at all times the TV was on.  Sort of a sadistic, motivational tool for the whole family. 

Actually, my idea was to open a fitness center where all kinetic energy was converted into electrical energy, saving the owner money on his electric bill.  Lose weight *and* save the environment!

http://www.ecopedia.com/lifestyle/human ... r-workout/

[MachineGhost]

What bullshit exactly are you speaking of?

I was referring to the current Kool Aid drinking fad of a anthropogenic "cause" for global warming with contrary evidence ignored.  Bullshit or not, its a powerful Big Idea.

[moda0306]

What bullshit exactly are you speaking of?

I was referring to the current Kool Aid drinking fad of a anthropogenic "cause" for global warming with contrary evidence ignored.  Bullshit or not, its a powerful Big Idea.

MG,

I don't feel like scouring through old conversations, but I'm quite sure you've fallen squarely on the pro-AGW (if we can term it that way) side of the argument over the last several months or more.

Do you not believe in AGW anymore? 

If not, what made you change your mind?

I don't mean any of this snarkily.  Just curious how/why you changed opinions (assuming you did).

[MachineGhost]

Have you heard of Yuval Noah Harari?  He's a historian who believes it is exactly our power to be motivated by bullshit that has led to our rise as the dominant species on the planet.  So continue to be amazed by the power of bullshit!  See his TED talk below.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nzj7Wg4DAbs

That was pretty cool!

Almost gets me to believe in the random mutation theory of evolution again.

[MachineGhost]

If not, what made you change your mind?

I don't mean any of this snarkily.  Just curious how/why you changed opinions (assuming you did).

There is a 300-year sun cycle that corresponds with global warming and cooling periods and we just happen to be at or just past the peak of the latest one right now.  The influence of humanity is but a pipsqueak compared to the sun, so I have moved back to being skeptical.  Just as in finance, humans seem to have a problem with believing in a Big Idea that cycles are an objective nature of our everyday reality.  "Settled science" just means that the "facts" used for consideration of a conclusion is biased if you leave out all the contrary evidence by cherry picking what studies you include or even bias the studies themselves, which is the case for 95% of all research nowadays.

I think there was even a Big Idea that global cooling was going to doom us in the early 1970's, although I'm not familiar with what "evidence" that was based upon.  I suspect the reversal to global warming fearmongering must have occured with the hullabaloo about the hole in the ozone layer.  Funny how you never hear anything about that anymore, huh?

[moda0306]

MG,

You didn't answer my question (unless it's buried in your post). You just went on a tangent against AGW's "Big Idea." 

You were recently very pro-AGW.  You now seem to have a very different opinion.  Can you explain what drove your recent opinion, as well as such a drastic change?


I realize you're making certain arguments in your post, but before I attempt to debunk them if I disagree with them, I'd be interested to know why these weren't part of your narrative a few months ago when you were very pro-AGW.

[MachineGhost]

I realize you're making certain arguments in your post, but before I attempt to debunk them if I disagree with them, I'd be interested to know why these weren't part of your narrative a few months ago when you were very pro-AGW.

Huh, I gave you the reason, i.e. the sun cycle.  All I can say is I change my mind when the facts change or new evidence comes to light (and sore experience has taught me to be very careful about believing in a consensus Big Idea because almost more often than not, such is almost always wrong).  I simply wasn't aware of it those few months ago.

P.S.  My change in position isn't "drastic" unless you believe that GW is all human driven as opposed to GW actually existing.  One does not beget the other.

[moda0306]

The whole "sun cycle" argument has been around for a lot longer than you had been posting about AGW. 

And has been debunked...

http://www.skepticalscience.com/solar-a ... arming.htm

Where did you learn about sun cycles?  Perhaps I can find something that contradicts some of the so-called truths I've established in my mind about AGW.



My view is that it's ridiculous to think that mass burning of fossil fuels isn't going to have affects on the environment, and if the burden of proof is on anyone, it's those who want to drill for more oil and the ridiculous bunch of idiots (including myself) in this world that are perfectly happy burning a f*ckton of it.

[MachineGhost]

http://www.skepticalscience.com/solar-a ... arming.htm

I read that, but all that "evidence" is showing is that the last few decades have amplified the current sun cycle without the sun being a factor.  And they didn't go past 300 years at most to see if it is a cycle.  If all you do is look at just the past few decades or just the last 300 years, how do you even know that you're not dealing with short-term random variation or volatility?

Let me put it this way.  If the cycle is 300-years long and it has peaked already but humans have been propping it up the last few decades, what do you think will happen when the global cooling downturn actually starts in earnest?  We're talking about 300-years here, so a "slight cooling trend" over a couple of decades is insignificant noise to the Big Idea.  We're not even at the midpoint yet, nevermind the trough.  Do you think humans will emit enough greeenhouse gases to offset the global cooling trough in 300 years or so?  That's pretty arrogant as I recall all the fearmongering is about a measly 1 celsius degree increase in temperature by 2050 or 2100 or something like that.  Contrast that against the sheer danger of what sudden global cooling has done in history.

At what point do we recognize "global warming" is bogus?  They've already changed the term to "climate change" because it wasn't getting warmer (or warm enough).   http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/201 ... opean-sci/

And I originally learned about the sun cycle from Armstrong as only he has a database going back far enough in history to test for any effects on humanity:

These cycles in climate were originally discovered through analyzing ice core samples from the North Pole that revealed a 300-year cycle in climate defined as the energy output of the sun. When I saw the presentation presented by Harvard scientists back in the 1980s, I immediate saw their chart was close to the 309.6-year cycle in the ECM. We have documentation on the sun now, which is a thermodynamic system that beats like your heart. The cycle defines the maximum and minimum over a 300-year period and explains migrations and the rise and fall of civilization.

Maybe we are in a global cooling period as claimed in the 1970's after all, but human activity has propped it up before the fall.  Just like a low volume rally in the stock market.  Look out below!