Will Wilkinson - Latest Comments in I Am a Dysonite II

Re: I Am a Dysonite II

forkthis — Wed, 01 Apr 2009 21:55:45 -0000

To me, the alternative to "lots of people die" is "lots of people are never born." I guess I'd rather bet the chips on humanity figuring it out than let Malthusian academics pick who gets to breed and how often.

I also question your facts. Many industrialized nations are experiencing flat or negative population growth. Take Japan for example:

http://www.indexmundi.com/j...

Re: I Am a Dysonite II

lyca — Mon, 30 Mar 2009 21:37:37 -0000

That's true. I guess I was oversimplifying. I hear enough about the grant process to know there's a fair amount of ideology going into it. And yes, there's overlap between the oil business and the alternative-energy business.

I was making a rough sort of point. When you're not in a position to judge the merits of a piece of scientific research, you may still want to have some way to distinguish a reliable scientist from a hack. Peer review and affiliation with elite universities is the best way we know to pick out the reliable people. Academia, while definitely influenced by biases in government and business, has some structures in place to prevent fudging, and those structures are loosened in industry. (Not that there hasn't been great industry-funded research: information theory was invented at Bell Labs, and one of its major theorems was proven by the founder of Qualcomm.)

If somebody thinks most university scholars are in a conspiracy against the truth, I'm inclined to call him a hack until proven otherwise. Science is, of course, not done by consensus. But a non-expert's best guess at the truth is to look at the scientific consensus, and I think that means academic scientists. It's sort of a way of managing ignorance.

Re: I Am a Dysonite II

Will Wilkinson — Mon, 30 Mar 2009 20:55:48 -0000

lyca, I think your point could use some refinement. University research is largely funded by government grants, and those grants go predominantly to those whose biases reflect those in charge of choosing what research will get funding. For example, try getting funding to study to the medical value of illegal drugs in the university. The funding process is incredibly ideological. Second, corporations often help finance university research. Many of the world's largest corporations, such as GE, and many of the "oil" companies, are now heavily in the alternative energy business, and actively seeking subsidies. That "solar-power company funding a scientist who believed in AGW" may well be a company like Shell.

Re: I Am a Dysonite II

lyca — Mon, 30 Mar 2009 16:53:07 -0000

The difference between academic research and industry-funded research is that while a university may have a vague leftish bias, a corporation has an explicit bias in favor of staying in business. The counterpart to Exxon funding a climate skeptic would be, say, a solar-power company funding a scientist who believed in AGW. Not Princeton funding Michael Oppenheimer. A university does not have a direct conflict of interest with the outcome of the research in the way that an oil company does.

Re: I Am a Dysonite II

Paul_G_Brown — Mon, 30 Mar 2009 15:46:48 -0000

/sigh

The amount of solar energy that reaches the planet each day has some fixed upper bound. Combine this upper bound with weather, and seasonal variation, and it means you have enormous variability in how much energy will reach those panels. There is a notion, in power generation, of something called "baseline", which is the amount of energy that can be generated 'reliably' (on a dark, cold, still, desert night).

In midwinter, you get about 1/4 the upper bound dailly solar energy. Consequently you will need to over-provision by a factor of 8-10, relative to mid-summer needs.

But when ideology trumps science ....

Re: I Am a Dysonite II

alphie — Mon, 30 Mar 2009 11:41:06 -0000

Exxon & Co. freely admit they fund "scientists" who are willing to take the pro climate change position, Craig.

Consider whether anyone would care what Freeman Dyson had to say if he'd come out against climate change?

I don't think so.

Re: I Am a Dysonite II

Craig — Mon, 30 Mar 2009 03:06:02 -0000

This is total nonsense. Have you any idea how much government and foundation money there is for studies which support AGW? And how hard it is for sceptics to get funding from those sources.
The idea that industry research $$, which lacks credibility, is somehow an incentive to tow the line is just silly.

Re: I Am a Dysonite II

alphie — Sun, 29 Mar 2009 20:38:24 -0000

True, Uknow.

The magical invisible hand.

Re: I Am a Dysonite II

uknowbetter — Sun, 29 Mar 2009 19:26:50 -0000

Whereas alphie is pro-magic-wand and waving it around to make magic things happen.

Re: I Am a Dysonite II

uknowbetter — Sun, 29 Mar 2009 18:49:24 -0000

That's just a rationalization.

Even they don't believe in their cause.

Re: I Am a Dysonite II

H. — Sun, 29 Mar 2009 16:02:07 -0000

"Kill yourselves."

If radical environmentalists killed themselves, then they couldn't spread knowledge and consciousness anymore. If I thought that killing all humans was best for the Earth, I would want to make sure that the last ones were environmentalists. You know, just to make sure that they wouldn't start multiplying and restart the cancer.

Re: I Am a Dysonite II

newshutz — Sun, 29 Mar 2009 15:44:30 -0000

Solar cells seem to be on the same curve as integrated circuits. (Moore's Law)

At some point, the exponential growth will make electricity generation from solar cells be the most efficient.

Re: I Am a Dysonite II

alphie — Sun, 29 Mar 2009 15:34:22 -0000

Dr Ray Stantz: Personally, I liked the university. They gave us money and facilities, we didn't have to produce anything! You've never been out of college! You don't know what it's like out there! I've *worked* in the private sector. They expect *results*.

If you're a talented scientist, maybe, H.

If you're a hack, though, pro-dirty energy is the way to make money.

Re: I Am a Dysonite II

H. — Sun, 29 Mar 2009 15:31:00 -0000

alphie, there is way more money to be made on the pro-side. Mainstream climate research gets billions of dollars and euros in funding. If I was a biologist, say, and I wanted to maximize my funding and get mentioned in the science pages of newspapers, I would make sure to somehow include evidence for climate change or its catastrophic consequences in my studies, even if I was studying squirrels' mating habits.

Re: I Am a Dysonite II

alphie — Sun, 29 Mar 2009 14:48:55 -0000

"Politically motivated studies serve one purpose, and that is to justify policy."

What to make of all the "scientific" research funded by the oil and coal companies.

Whenever I see an anti-climate change scientist or pundit discussing the topic, I just assume they're getting a monthly check from Exxon.

In such an overwhelming pro-climate change scientific environment, it sure pays to be a contrarian.

Re: I Am a Dysonite II

John — Thu, 26 Mar 2009 08:51:59 -0000

If there's one thing I've learned from working in software, it's that what the customer wants and what they ask for can be completely different things.
It's my opinion that these computer generated climate models that the alarmist love to tout are a result not of giving the customer what they asked for, but rather what they want.
Politically motivated studies serve one purpose, and that is to justify policy.
Handing politicians complete control over our energy supplies is giving them absolute power over our lives.

Re: I Am a Dysonite II

jeppen — Thu, 26 Mar 2009 04:52:20 -0000

Wind and solar might optimistically give us 25% of a grid's electricity. These sources are unreliable and can't be integrated at higher percentages, and will probably always be too expensive. Thus, the only real alternative to coal is nuclear energy, but I guess this realization still is a few decades away in most countries, which is a pity b/c of coal's environmental impact.

Re: I Am a Dysonite II

Paul G. Brown — Thu, 26 Mar 2009 01:50:02 -0000

For 2 months of a year, in late spring/early summer - a hummungus high pressure system typically parks itself over the northern 1/2 of the Unites States and southern Canada.

Let's hold that "typically" for a moment.

Let's say it does it once every 10 years. Like El Nino. No power, or almost no electricity, for 2 months.

Anyone want to bet their manufacturing business? Their internet server farm? On that basis?

Re: I Am a Dysonite II

WilsonF — Thu, 26 Mar 2009 01:30:01 -0000

If there is one thing we have learned about regulation, is that it is not very good at achieving its ends. This is what Will's piece is all about, but it's going to be even worse in other countries, especially when we start putting pressure on developing countries to cut back more. Those programs are likely to be a real mess. Even if we reduce the pace of our greenhouse gas output, we will do so in far less than an efficient fashion. In doing so we will destroy a lot of wealth, and I worry that we'll find ourselves with the same problems but we'll be a whole lot poorer and thus less prepared to deal with them.

Re: I Am a Dysonite II

uknowbetter — Thu, 26 Mar 2009 01:22:10 -0000

The 'massive flooding' is going to take awhile.

I'm less concerned about what happens 50-100 years and beyond; I'm more concerned we don't kill each other long before that happens. Full-scale nuclear war, bio weapons, nano-tech, etc. pose more of a medium-term threat than climate change.

Re: I Am a Dysonite II

uknowbetter — Thu, 26 Mar 2009 01:19:39 -0000

Energy from the sun is so abundant. Materials science is advancing at quite a clip these days thanks to nano-technology. Solar is getting cheaper each year as we devise better cells for absorption, better storage technologies, and better ways to transit the energy. I expect some sizable breakthroughs in the next 3-5 years.

Re: I Am a Dysonite II

uknowbetter — Thu, 26 Mar 2009 01:16:42 -0000

I have to give the French credit. At least they didn't let stupid hippies stop them from building nuclear power plants.

Re: I Am a Dysonite II

uknowbetter — Thu, 26 Mar 2009 01:13:41 -0000

I just hope environmentalists will do the right thing.

1. Don' t have children.

2. Kill yourselves.

You are asking others to sacrifice so lead by example.

Re: I Am a Dysonite II

Paul G. Brown — Thu, 26 Mar 2009 00:16:39 -0000

"How can one be skeptical of solar power in the long run? "

Because:

1. For practical purposes, the earth's tilt and seasonal variation makes reliable power generation in China and over much of the northern parts of Europe and America problematic.

2. Because waiting 250 million years for today's algae blooms and swamps to turn into coal is not really an option I'm going to take seriously. We are burning 5,000 years worth of solar energy inefficiently trapped in oil & coal every day (Note: I've not done this math in detail, but back of the envelope has us taking 200 years to burn 500,000,000 years of oil & coal, and the math is taught in 4th grade.)

Solar is useful for peak summer power generation - air conditioners. fridges, harvesters. Winter? Heating? Spring? Ammonia for fertilizer? Less obvious.

How confident are you in the short term vs. long term cost and benifits[sic]?

Utterly lacking in confidence. Which brings me to my ultimate quarrel with the broader thrust of libertarian thought. . . .

There are too many of us. Already. Yet our biology is hard-wired to Make More People. Now! He/She Looks cute!

Such "externalities" are real. Call them "lemming truths". The evidence we can learn from biology suggests no marginal cost tinkering will overcome them. Just one more rut. One more litter. Lust is the ultimate animal spirit.

The only way for a culture, and more broadly a species, to deal with these biological realities -- fucking is fun and food is finite -- is to impose collective limits. Want to phrase it another way? Guvment, our super-ego, must say "No!", or lots of people die.

At this point, I become uncharitable. Forgive me.

Our benighted blog host has committed himself, his life, to ideas which hold individual humanity as the point and purpose of it all. I personally share his prejudices. But I'm not, in my immediate circumstances, wedded to his institution, to his collective. I can champion his ideals but not his tribe.

This makes me more pragmatic. Doubtless, he would see that as a flaw.

Re: I Am a Dysonite II

Notadenialist — Wed, 25 Mar 2009 23:18:36 -0000

How can one be skeptical of solar power in the long run? The point was made earlier but all our power essentially comes from it. As I understand it only the rate of technological progress is in question when it comes to solar power.

As for the biosphere we are wether we like or not very much a part of it. How confident are you in the short term vs. long term cost and benifits. Most of our wealth lies in coastal cities would the short term gain from burning coal merit the later cost of massive flooding? This certainly needs to enter the calculation.