Northman's Fury

David Brin has a nice post up where he doesn't exactly refute climate change deniers, leaving that to the mounds of scientific evidence, but sheds light on their manipulation of facts to keep the status quo. The whole post is worth the read for those interested, but it is the last point that really hits home.

Still, ponder this -- it has already been proved repeatedly, that humanity is capable of affecting ecosystems, atmospheric systems (I grew up in LA) and even (in the case of the ozone hole) planetary systems. Thus, it is simply mind-boggling that a concerned majority of world scientists should have to prove their worries valid, beyond all doubt...

...before humanity decides to take simple precautions THAT MAKE SENSE ANYWAY.


10) And that is the final kibosh. The devastator. The ultimate eviscerator of this horrific mass-cult.

Because they never make clear exactly what it is that they are afraid of!

What? Efficiency?

Let me reiterate.
That is what it boils down to. Fear and loathing of... efficiency.

It is what Al Gore, the world’s scientific “consensus” community, the community of nations and all the sensibly worried folks out here are talking about.

Simply putting efficiency at or near the top of our civilization’s urgent agenda.

Investing in research, tweaking some incentives, adjusting some market parameters (that were already meddle-skewed anyway, in wrong directions)...

... all with the goal that we should ...
...get... more... from... less!

And that last part is the real mind-boggler, when you stop to think about it. That all of these polemical maneuvers and illogical arguments and contradictions and hypocrisies should be aimed at diverting us from becoming more productive while depending on fewer resources.

Oh, what has happened to conservatism?

I've used this argument myself, though not so eloquently put. In simple terms, what you believe about Climate Change or Global Warming is irrelevant. Efficiency is an end in itself. Good for business, and good for the environment. So much a win-win situation that I'm sure our governments are going to have be dragged into realizing it, kicking and screaming.

Happiness is paying your taxes, study suggests

Using magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) technology, the researchers observed the brain activity of 19 women who were given a balance of $100 each. The researchers created the effect of taxation by making mandatory withdrawals from their account. The withdrawn money was actually sent to a food bank's account.

. . .

"The fact that mandatory transfers to a charity elicit activity in reward-related areas suggests that even mandatory taxation can produce satisfaction for taxpayers," the study said.

Now I suppose you could make the argument that government is a charity case, but it seems pretty unlikely that most folks think that way when paying taxes. Sure, a good chunk of our tax dollars goes to health care, education and so forth, but there's a not inconsiderable amount that goes for causes less altruistic in nature.

Using the fact that some women, (what, would men have skewed the result?) don't mind having some of their money given to a food bank to claim that people in general actually like paying taxes is quite a stretch, one even the authors get around to noting:

Mayr said the findings show people are willing to pay their taxes as long as they support good causes. The authors noted, however, that the results may have differed if people had been presented with a tax that seemed less fair or benevolent.

No shit.

BP's Statistical Review of World Energy, published yesterday, appears to show that the world still has enough "proven" reserves to provide 40 years of consumption at current rates. The assessment, based on officially reported figures, has once again pushed back the estimate of when the world will run dry.

However, scientists led by the London-based Oil Depletion Analysis Centre, say that global production of oil is set to peak in the next four years before entering a steepening decline which will have massive consequences for the world economy and the way that we live our lives.

According to "peak oil" theory our consumption of oil will catch, then outstrip our discovery of new reserves and we will begin to deplete known reserves.

Colin Campbell, the head of the depletion centre, said: "It's quite a simple theory and one that any beer drinker understands. The glass starts full and ends empty and the faster you drink it the quicker it's gone."[LINK]

The article is somewhat badly worded. Peak Oil doesn't mean we run out of oil, only that production will start to slow down due to the fact that the easiest to extract oil gets pumped out first and the oil remaining gets harder and more expensive to recover. The peak hits when the beer glass is half-empty. We won't run out of oil, but the amount that can be brought to market will begin to decline. Since there will increasingly be a constraint on the supply, if there isn't a corresponding decrease in demand, it's going to get very expensive.

The smart thing to do would be to start investing serious money in alternative energy sources about ten years ago. As it stands, the transition from cheap energy to the next phase is going to be painful.