This site is a reference point for those with a cool head for climate science, arguably the most political science ever. When the government and most of the media concentrate on alarmism, this site is the antidote for those who don't believe the scare stories - YOU ARE NOT ALONE! (blog started on 7/11/07) We have over 1.8 million hits and blog is updated regularly most weeks.
Sunday 29 March 2009
UK COURT RULES ENVIRONMENTALISM IS A "RELIGION"
This Telegraph report explains how an employee has won the right to sue his employer for unfair dismissal on the grounds that his "belief" in environmentalism was not being taken sufficient account of. So there we have it - a new religion!
You need to go back to school and relearn reading comprehension. The article never claims that environmentalism is a religion. Once again you are guilty of sensational and inaccurate headlines and commentary. All you can claim is that this particular individual has a deep "philosophical belief".
The same could be said about your belief that mankind will perpetually maintain a similar or better standard of living through technical innovation.
In fact, your belief is more accurately labelled religious because such an outcome would be likely to violate the laws of thermodynamics, requiring the intervention of a supernatural force (human brilliance?).
A "philosophical belief" is one requirement of religion. It certainly isn't science! As for my belief in continuous improvement in living standards for man - that has nothing to do with thermodynamics, but is simply based on observation of the past. Of course man could easily succumb to some unforeseen catastrophe. But there is no evidence that reducing CO2 emissions will make ant difference.
That doesn't make it a religion. A true religion requires some kind of supernatural belief. No such belief is mentioned by the article.
Your belief has everything to do with thermodynamics. 1st law: Energy can't be created or destroyed. 2nd law: Some energy is always diffused and made unrecoverable during conversion (entropy increases). The consequence of these laws is that the quality of an energy source, over time, tends to be inversely proportional to its concentration. That makes it increasingly unlikely that we'll find an energy source better and more abundant than oil, and we'll lack the energy to harvest and exploit lower grades to make up the deficit.
Again with the unforeseen rubbish! It's already started and you choose not to see it. I suppose you will conclude that no-one has foreseen it when it becomes too obvious to shrug off!
You claim that "it's unlikely that we'll find an energy source more abundant than oil", but only today we see that nuclear fusion is one major step nearer - see this article. You are a pessimist, a descendent of the plackard carrying "end of the world is nigh brigade".
While it is true that energy cannot be created or destroyed, there is abundant energy out there, once we develop the technology. Fossil fuels are an important stop gap and there is no good reason not to use them.
Actually, I said "_better_ and more abundant than oil". The qualification is important to profitability, complexity, versatility and side-effects. Call me skeptical until the technology is proven, with all costs and side effects taken into consideration. Humans have the habit of being optimistic and overlooking things, so I do not take such claims at face value. Remember the claims that fission will be clean and too cheap to meter? The people who are making these claims are the same ones being paid to develop and promote it; of course they are going to be optimistic.
"To work, it must show that more energy can be extracted from the process than is required to initiate it."
If the energy profit is not sufficient then it is not worthwhile. In addition, such complex technology hinges on many things going right [1]. So, don't count your chickens.
In any case, it may not be to our long term benefit to find a replacement. It will just mean the continued exploitation and destruction of the natural environment and continued population overshoot until a crash of even greater magnitude.
I agree that fossil fuels are important and useful, but your assumption that they are only a stop gap may dangerously under value them. If you are wrong then we will have blown an incredible gift on drive-through restaurants, disposable plastic packaging, and infrastructure without a future use.
You are a sceptical pessimist, whereas I am a sceptical optimist. I still think nuclear fission has an important part to play, along with fossil fuels. If you didn't burn them, or make plastics with them, what would you do with them?
"You are a sceptical pessimist, whereas I am a sceptical optimist."
You believe failing to replace fossil fuels is a disastrous outcome (which you are not planning for). Yet, I believe we are able to enjoy good lives without it. In another thread, you say it's impossible for a population to willingly adopt water rationing and change its culture, while I demonstrated that it has already been done. So who's the real pessimist? I'd rather be considered a pragmatist, thank you.
"If you didn't burn them, or make plastics with them, what would you do with them?"
Reading comprehension, Derek. I didn't suggest not burning them or making plastics. What I would suggest is setting up systems that work with nature and do not require daily fossil fuel input to power and maintain. Earth works such as dams and swales to harvest rainwater. Establishing almost self-maintaining food forests. Ecological based farming with integrated animal systems - e.g. aquaponics, chicken tractors, ducks, geese. Durable passive solar dwellings. Rainwater tanks, compost bins, grey water treatment systems and composting toilets. Solar hot water and ovens. Human centric towns with modest transit systems that can run on small volumes of biofuels or renewable sourced electricity and integrated food production. Sail boats. These examples will continue being valuable when fossil fuels are short.
I am glad to read that you accept that burning fossil fuels is ok. At least we agree on something. On the point about not replacing fossil fuels being a disaster - I am very optimistic that we will be able in the medium term to replace them as I have said previously. The simple life you advocate will not suit most modern civilisations. Once people have tasted a western life-style most do not want to go back.
While some people say they want to live a simple life in the country, they still want to drive their car and fly off on holiday, visit the supermarket etc.1
I am not apologising for them; I am explaining the reality of the situation. People will not voluntarily give up a modern life-style and live a simple life. As for the consequences - I see no adverse consequences. You believe that we are about to run out of the necessities of life and meet with catastrophe, but I do not share that view.
I would like to see the population start to go down, but I think it will do as the third world begins to get more affluent.
Apologist: systematically promoting causes, justifying orthodoxies, or denying certain events, even of crimes. Apologists have been characterized as being deceptive, or "whitewashing" their cause, primarily through omission of negative facts (selective perception) and exaggeration of positive ones [1].
Yours is only a partial reality. The full reality is that people are a product of their environments, genetics and free will. They can be encouraged and chose to reduce consumption and live sustainable lives, while recognising the benefits. It's a natural outcome when people around them behave in that way. Society moves forward when the old guard - those unwilling to adapt to new realities - with their obsolete ideas lose influence and die out.
You will find it impossible to ignore the consequences soon enough.
You need to go back to school and relearn reading comprehension. The article never claims that environmentalism is a religion. Once again you are guilty of sensational and inaccurate headlines and commentary. All you can claim is that this particular individual has a deep "philosophical belief".
ReplyDeleteThe same could be said about your belief that mankind will perpetually maintain a similar or better standard of living through technical innovation.
In fact, your belief is more accurately labelled religious because such an outcome would be likely to violate the laws of thermodynamics, requiring the intervention of a supernatural force (human brilliance?).
ReplyDeleteA "philosophical belief" is one requirement of religion. It certainly isn't science! As for my belief in continuous improvement in living standards for man - that has nothing to do with thermodynamics, but is simply based on observation of the past. Of course man could easily succumb to some unforeseen catastrophe. But there is no evidence that reducing CO2 emissions will make ant difference.
ReplyDeleteThat doesn't make it a religion. A true religion requires some kind of supernatural belief. No such belief is mentioned by the article.
ReplyDeleteYour belief has everything to do with thermodynamics. 1st law: Energy can't be created or destroyed. 2nd law: Some energy is always diffused and made unrecoverable during conversion (entropy increases). The consequence of these laws is that the quality of an energy source, over time, tends to be inversely proportional to its concentration. That makes it increasingly unlikely that we'll find an energy source better and more abundant than oil, and we'll lack the energy to harvest and exploit lower grades to make up the deficit.
Again with the unforeseen rubbish! It's already started and you choose not to see it. I suppose you will conclude that no-one has foreseen it when it becomes too obvious to shrug off!
You claim that "it's unlikely that we'll find an energy source more abundant than oil", but only today we see that nuclear fusion is one major step nearer - see this article. You are a pessimist, a descendent of the plackard carrying "end of the world is nigh brigade".
ReplyDeleteWhile it is true that energy cannot be created or destroyed, there is abundant energy out there, once we develop the technology. Fossil fuels are an important stop gap and there is no good reason not to use them.
Actually, I said "_better_ and more abundant than oil". The qualification is important to profitability, complexity, versatility and side-effects. Call me skeptical until the technology is proven, with all costs and side effects taken into consideration. Humans have the habit of being optimistic and overlooking things, so I do not take such claims at face value. Remember the claims that fission will be clean and too cheap to meter? The people who are making these claims are the same ones being paid to develop and promote it; of course they are going to be optimistic.
ReplyDelete"To work, it must show that more energy can be extracted from the process than is required to initiate it."
If the energy profit is not sufficient then it is not worthwhile. In addition, such complex technology hinges on many things going right [1]. So, don't count your chickens.
In any case, it may not be to our long term benefit to find a replacement. It will just mean the continued exploitation and destruction of the natural environment and continued population overshoot until a crash of even greater magnitude.
I agree that fossil fuels are important and useful, but your assumption that they are only a stop gap may dangerously under value them. If you are wrong then we will have blown an incredible gift on drive-through restaurants, disposable plastic packaging, and infrastructure without a future use.
[1] http://cluborlov.blogspot.com/2009/02/of-swans-and-turkeys.html
You are a sceptical pessimist, whereas I am a sceptical optimist. I still think nuclear fission has an important part to play, along with fossil fuels. If you didn't burn them, or make plastics with them, what would you do with them?
ReplyDelete"You are a sceptical pessimist, whereas I am a sceptical optimist."
ReplyDeleteYou believe failing to replace fossil fuels is a disastrous outcome (which you are not planning for). Yet, I believe we are able to enjoy good lives without it. In another thread, you say it's impossible for a population to willingly adopt water rationing and change its culture, while I demonstrated that it has already been done. So who's the real pessimist? I'd rather be considered a pragmatist, thank you.
"If you didn't burn them, or make plastics with them, what would you do with them?"
Reading comprehension, Derek. I didn't suggest not burning them or making plastics. What I would suggest is setting up systems that work with nature and do not require daily fossil fuel input to power and maintain. Earth works such as dams and swales to harvest rainwater. Establishing almost self-maintaining food forests. Ecological based farming with integrated animal systems - e.g. aquaponics, chicken tractors, ducks, geese. Durable passive solar dwellings. Rainwater tanks, compost bins, grey water treatment systems and composting toilets. Solar hot water and ovens. Human centric towns with modest transit systems that can run on small volumes of biofuels or renewable sourced electricity and integrated food production. Sail boats. These examples will continue being valuable when fossil fuels are short.
I am glad to read that you accept that burning fossil fuels is ok. At least we agree on something. On the point about not replacing fossil fuels being a disaster - I am very optimistic that we will be able in the medium term to replace them as I have said previously. The simple life you advocate will not suit most modern civilisations. Once people have tasted a western life-style most do not want to go back.
ReplyDeleteWhile some people say they want to live a simple life in the country, they still want to drive their car and fly off on holiday, visit the supermarket etc.1
Exactly. People are generally reckless and lazy. How about you help them understand the consequences of their actions instead of apologising for them?
ReplyDeleteI am not apologising for them; I am explaining the reality of the situation. People will not voluntarily give up a modern life-style and live a simple life. As for the consequences - I see no adverse consequences. You believe that we are about to run out of the necessities of life and meet with catastrophe, but I do not share that view.
ReplyDeleteI would like to see the population start to go down, but I think it will do as the third world begins to get more affluent.
Apologist: systematically promoting causes, justifying orthodoxies, or denying certain events, even of crimes. Apologists have been characterized as being deceptive, or "whitewashing" their cause, primarily through omission of negative facts (selective perception) and exaggeration of positive ones [1].
ReplyDeleteYours is only a partial reality. The full reality is that people are a product of their environments, genetics and free will. They can be encouraged and chose to reduce consumption and live sustainable lives, while recognising the benefits. It's a natural outcome when people around them behave in that way. Society moves forward when the old guard - those unwilling to adapt to new realities - with their obsolete ideas lose influence and die out.
You will find it impossible to ignore the consequences soon enough.
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apologist
We'll see! I don't expect to see it in the next 30 years.
ReplyDelete