Read it by all means – http://www.mdpi.com/1099-4300/16/3/1515
But this is utter madness.
Read it by all means – http://www.mdpi.com/1099-4300/16/3/1515
But this is utter madness.
Thanks, Kim.
My conclusions [1] are based largely on information from the autobiographies of two great scientists that died in 2001:
1. The British astronomer, astrophysicist and cosmologist, Sir Fred Hoyle
2. The Japanese-American nuclear geo-, cosmo-chemist, Kazuo Kuroda (aka Paul K. Kuroda)
1. “Solar energy,” Advances in Astronomy (submitted 1 Sept 2014) https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/10640850/Solar_Energy.pdf
did you approve of the process in this post?
do you think this process makes good decisions?
simple questions.
Justin Wonder: Thanks for your comment. We began using the work of Tversky and Kahneman in 1984 to help detect cognitive bias in decisions made under uncertainty, and also to remain objective when dealing with characteristic biases that pop up when dealing with Risk Aversion. John Cozzolino’s work also helped here. Pete
Stephen Segrest: As discussed in previous blogs (including criticism of the Obama Administration on coal use), the template of building low carbon markets is pretty straight forward:
Developing countries would commit (with verifiable standards) to building low carbon intensity economies by purchasing high technology/energy efficient American products.
In exchange, the U.S. would give Developing Countries unpreceded access into U.S. markets for their products.
Simply stated, this Policy approach accentuates stuff we’re good at (high technology products) and stuff that Developing Countries are good at (low labor cost products).
An example of this would be current U.S. efforts to create a large free-trade zone encompassing 11 other Pacific Rim countries (excluding China) — called the Trans-Pacific Partnership. A good first-step would be for the U.S. to create some global “Enterprise Zones” with friendly developing nations (e.g., Philippines) to test the effectiveness of using trade to reduce greenhouse gas emissions:
Specific Industries would be targeted to develop and implement “Low Carbon Standards” (LCS) using U.S. high energy efficient technology.
In return, the U.S. would give special access into U.S. markets for these LCS products.
Whatever else that plan might be, it is not fast-acting. You would have to start (after all of the diplomacy and financing arrangements) by building a large scale LCS energy infrastructure, and how to do that rapidly without nuclear power is the very question we are investigating. The US could do better (cheaper and quicker) by building a few hundred new nuclear power plants.
Stephen Segrest: I believe your paradigm/model is incorrect comparing today’s Renewables (especially solar) to today’s Base Load nuclear units. I believe today’s decisions on Renewables should be looking for today’s “Right Fits” and always be driven by engineering economics (not locked-in-concrete mandates like a Federal REPS).
That looks to me like a “slow” program which does not treat fossil fuel use as an “urgent” problem. The rest of that post comes down strongly in favor of nuclear power in the near term — 16 new nuclear power plants. Not that that is wrong — it would be an improvement, imo, over what California is doing.
muse, so Mies van der Rohe said 30+ years ago and Youngblood defined the notion. We are limited by what bias?
If you’re asking me:
– did I have the opportunity to “condone” this process
– did I have the opportunity to decide the intent by design
No and No yet it is a Mosh Pit ; )
Tonyb
tried to read through the Hansen interview
I try to keep an open mind, but I find the “planet in peril” stuff to be absolutely absurd
I become interested in climate science through my love of history
I think history tells us that NASA is not just a friendly scientific organization
of course, I would never imply that any of their fine representatives might have anything other than noble purpose
In addition to the 5 cognitive biases mentioned I think with global warming we have the attractiveness of simplicity which has more to do with how sellable the message will be to the public — sort of a “Belief” bias but of a mendacious character — i.e., its believability with an eye as to, ‘how will this play with the rubes’ –e.g., its utility as a political tool like the ‘war on women’ meme of the Democrat party.
However, my personal hope is that we will return to normative science, and try to understand how the climate actually behaves. Our present approach of dealing with climate as completely specified by a single number, globally averaged surface temperature anomaly, that is forced by another single number, atmospheric CO2 levels, for example, clearly limits real understanding. ~R. S. Lindzen
Institutional bias rains in climate science. Flawed projections …
that IPCC temperature graph, dire predictions of no more snow
and metres high sea rise are presented with no criticism within
the coterie.
As Dr Rose says the climate scientist industry needs to clean up
its act but what does it offer as critical feedback? Pal / peer review
and publication in receptive journals.That old Hammurabi code of
‘sleep under yer own bridge’ is sadly lacking in tenured guvuhmint professions like academic climate sci research and other ‘dismal’
professions where wrong calls, by Ehrlich, Stiglits et Al, are made
at no cost to themselves, but at great cost to the public.
Matthew R Marler
+1
But they need to be SMR’s to be a suitable fit for most grids and to be economically and financially viable.
No John
Do you think this process is good
Do you think it leads to good decisions
Or point me at your criticisms
I keep waiting for some establishment climate big shot to get an attack of conscience. I keep thinking it’s inevitable. Maybe somebody gets a terminal diagnosis and wants to go out clean, or less melodramatically someone just wakes up and realizes he/she can no longer look in the mirror without wincing. Or maybe more pragmatically, someone sees the handwriting on the wall and decides to abandon ship while there’s still time (how’s that for mixing my metaphors?).
What we desperately need is another heavy weight apostate. It’s why they hate Judith so much. She was one of their own. Nothing more damaging than a respected apostate.
FOMBS…I think your true calling is emerging…comic book author. And your artwork just about sums up your cognitive work…bland, cliched, trite, superficial with a heaping of self-righteousness.
Will you be coming out with Captain Climate as a new superhero to fight the evil oil industry? Will Captain Climate do shows with children and oiled birds to show the evils of unbridled capitalism? Will you do a three minute catechism on why government control and regulation makes all things possible and better? Will Captain Climate fly like superman or like Wonder Woman? Will his plane be solar powered? Will there be a fiendish Fossil Fuel Foe to fight? Are you excited about getting to the five to ten year old crowd before anyone else does?
No – the new and quite silly *thought experiment* was that a helium balloon would fall to the bottom in container in which molecules dispersed randomly.
What an ass you are. Who are you? Why are you here? Go away.