Reader Posts
« previous | TPM CAFÉ READER POSTS HOME | next »
God Damn America!
God damn this country. And for good measure, god damn the electorate.
This past week both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama went to a “Compassion Forum” – to climb over each other to show how “religious” they are.
So they end up answering the usual litany of questions on abortion and gay marriage.
If the church and state are separate, so should faith and
politicians be. We keep insisting otherwise.
Should the candidates use their faith to determine weighty issues? After all, politicians routinely violate the “though shalt not kill” and “bear false witness” commandments, anyway. The candidates are no more theologians than scientists – but when it comes to religion, everyone can be an expert. Science is another matter.
You see, both Hillary and Barack turned down the opportunity to debate real issues, science issues. See
http://www.sciencedebate2008.com/www/index.php?id=29
for the second invitation. Here is a real campaign issue that hasn’t been picked up by the MSM… or TPM for that matter.
Here are just some topics that all the prayer in the world won’t get you out of, but science might:
a) the impending
energy crisis (we are past peak oil)
b) the impending
water shortage crisis (we are draining our aquifers and global climate change
is preventing winter storage in the form of snowpacks)
c) the impending
super-bug crisis (many of our antibiotics no longer work)
The answers that the candidates give speak to an utter lack of knowledge of the basics. For example, Hillary talks about how unfair $4 / gal gasoline is. It’s not unfair – it’s still very cheap. It will go a lot higher – whether Congress successfully investigates the oil companies or not.
Both Hillary and Obama have energy programs that are a joke: for example, they both have auto efficiency initiatives that must kick in by 2030. That’s 22 years from now. Because we hit peak oil production in 2006, in 2030, at best, the world will be producing oil at the same rate as it did in 1982. However, according to the US Census Bureau, the world population in 2030 will be double that of 1982.
Does this mathemagic make sense to you?
What do you think the price of oil will be when the same amount of stuff has to be stretched to accommodate twice as many people?
Or how about this one: It’s been less than a year since the GA Governor officially prayed for rain to end the drought in that state.
Whatever happened to “God helps those who help themselves”?
The real problem is that you actually have to have an education to discuss scientific issues, but anyone can weigh in on a religious or faith debate equally.
As a result, there is no premium for any of the candidates, Hillary, Obama, or McCain, to frame any of their comments in terms of scientific principles. The general electorate (even that latte drinking portion) tends not to know much about science while “faith” is a great hot button issue where points can be scored for the election. Especially from that half of the population whose intelligence is below average (but whose votes count the same as those with above average intelligence).
Of course, the entire country suffers for this, because key problems are not being addressed or if they are addressed, they are being addressed with ignorance not too dissimilar than that of 15th century monks.
Well, I know if you can’t beat’em, join’em. Okay, so we want religion to be part of this campaign?
Then god damn this electorate for refusing to help itself. And god damn this country for not valuing
rational thought above mythology and children’s stories. I pray that this country gets its collective
head screwed on straight before it's too late.
How’s that?
Comments (91)
CT! Keeping the class on task as usual, I see. I didn't bother to watch last night's debate, but from what I've read it doesn't seem that anyone touched on energy issues. Or the water and health issues you've mentioned for that matter. I wish I had something to add, but I'm in complete agreement with you. Maybe I'll come up with something when I sleep on it.
On a side note, have you seen the new ads done by We Can Solve It?
http://www.wecansolveit.org/page/s/unlikelyalliance
Apparently this is a project by Al Gore's Alliance for Climate Protection. It's really some vague stuff about "acting on climate change", but I thought you might be interested in the zeitgeist nonetheless.
April 18, 2008 4:07 AM | Reply | Permalink
Hi DF: I fear that this post is too controversial to make it to the recommended list, but I feel better knowing that you at least saw it.
I haven't seen TPM cover the ScienceDebate story and that is too bad, but typical.
Why worry about heat, food, and water when you can talk endlessly about universal health care? (Psst: the best universal health care is to stay warm, well-fed, and hydrated.)
Al Gore is another one: net carbon neutral? It's too late for that, you need to be net carbon negative. No one wants to say *that* however.
Nevertheless, the Deity has provided us with a cruel irony: we will very soon stop putting CO2 back into the atmosphere whether we like it or not for we will have run out of things to burn to get it!
April 18, 2008 4:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
To true. It's also the best way to stop violence and war.
Just last week or the week before I was trying to make the point about currently elevated CO2 levels and the half-life of CO2 in a thread by another_reader (aka NG). I didn't have enough time to rebut the quick dismissal. The fact is that if carbon is really contributing to global warming then we've already screwed the pooch. The warming trend is basically irrefutable. That carbon dioxide is the sole culprit isn't quite as clear, but it almost doesn't matter because current carbon levels won't return to the long-standing equilibrium levels for 60-100 years, give or take (apologies if I'm telling you things that you already know). Actually, one of my favorite physics professors just did a brief lecture on the evidence for global warming and it's possible causes. I managed to get a copy of his PowerPoint. If you'd be interested I can upload it somewhere for you.
Incidentally, even though he remains cautiously skeptical on drawing the causal relationship based on the current evidence, he's of the mind that peak oil and energy concerns are a mighty fine reason to change our ways.
April 18, 2008 4:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
I should have been more clear here: The currently elevated levels in of CO2 in the atmosphere will not return to the long-standing (read: going back hundreds of thousands of years) equilibrium levels for 60-100 assuming that we stop all carbon dioxide emissions right now.
April 18, 2008 4:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
Sixty to a hundred years isn't really that long. Atmospheric nitrogen has a mean residence time of about 30 million years; oxygen takes about 4000 years to cycle. My reference ( Biogeochemistry by William Schlesinger) says that carbon dioxide's mean residence time is 12.5 years, so your prof's 60-100 years is about 5-8 cycles. Such a small number of cycles might be a little optimistic, but 100 years is long enough for a trillion trees (let's plant 'em) to become 100 years old, so I'm not going to quibble about his figure. Five to eight cycles for oxygen is 20,000 to 32,000 years. Five to eight cycles for nitrogen is 150 million to 240 million years. It could be much worse.
So I'll take a century on carbon dioxide any day of the week. That's short enough to begin to see significant changes within 2 or 3 decades after carbon neutrality, if it were to happen right now.
Getting there is the problem. Can we please cut defense and war spending now, so that we can spend that $ on saving US industry by retooling our economy to service our (and the world's) carbon neutral energy needs?
April 20, 2008 10:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
Let's not forget the hole in the ozone layer over the poles. Of course, that was so 90's.
There's something very valuable in this point of view:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7W33HRc1A6c
April 18, 2008 4:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
Classic. And, to push a cliche, it's funny because it's true. It's also funny (as in unusual) that Carlin seems to have a relatively decent grasp on science.
Incidentally, the thread I was referring to drew me in because it was all about making an argument for what a dedicated environmental activist Hillary Clinton is. For some reason I didn't remember seeing you comment on it as well:
http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/2008/04/hillarys-environmental-revolut.php
Like I said, I was in a rush and left the first comment on the way out of the house and the second on the way out of the house again.
April 18, 2008 4:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
a) George Carlin (like John Updike) does go through pains to understand what he is talking about scientifically before he talks about it. I know this because Carlin will stop and ask lots and lots of questions if he finds out that you know something scientifically. He is a bright guy.
b) People confuse the green movement with the energy crisis in a large part because (a) they are ignorant and (b) the politicians want to conflate the two.
Given the past behavior of humans in general and Americans in particular, *no one* will give a damn about the environment once they need heat in their homes, etc. Of course, the solutions to those problems (denuded forests, for example for wood to burn or strip mining to grab as much coal as possible) that will only exacerbate the broader problems.
But as Carlin said so succinctly: The planet is fine... it's the *people* that are...
April 18, 2008 11:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
Okay. I like both you guys and always recommend your posts. But I wish you could make them a little shorter. Maybe break them into 4 or 5 shorter posts. One topic each. The mind can only entertain so many ideas in one post. I think I'm correct in saying that.
But seriously, when you have a candidate who sees an opportunity in the fact that more Americans believe in angels than believe in evolution, what can you expect?
April 18, 2008 6:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is a bit of a meta-post, but it drives right at an issue that I think has been front and center: The prevalence of manufactured distractions over very real, very complex problems that cannot be avoided and are being ignored.
It sounds like you might be riding on Bill O'Reilly's "Keep it pithy" hook. Kidding.
As for the angels, the cynic in me expects them to pander, but the human being in me expects them to be better than that. It's the duplicitous edge on which I live.
Seriously though, there are many issues that we face that are complex and can't just be broken into 250 words or less. Frankly, the ADHD approach is what's killing our so-called "national dialogue".
April 18, 2008 6:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
We cannot continue to hope that the people will find new opinions once facts become more visibly dire. Their opinions are Manufactured, they are bought. A corporation puts a quarter in the machine, and an opinion comes out. You and clearthinker point out so clearly: you have, on your side, scientific fact, on a host of issues. Some of these issues could amount to genocide. But, on the other side, is lies. Lies make an appearance every day in our politics, but scientific fact is but a mute witness.
April 19, 2008 1:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'm in complete agreement with you. AFAIK Chomsky coined the term, but he got it from Bernays, who called it engineering consent. Chomsky, an accomplished linguist, merely updated the term to reflect the industrial revolution, if you will, of the application of Bernays' ideas.
That merely displaying fact against this behemoth does little to change the tide isn't something that is lost on me. What to do about it is far more perplexing, but I do know this: I didn't watch the debate from this week, but even from watching some highlights and in observing the reaction I can tell you that the problem exists even here.
It has nothing to do with candidates and everything to do with what that moron Brooks was talking about today on the New Hour. He nearly told the truth that you speak, but in a very backwards way. He said that the questions were valid because this is what people actually care about. This is true in way, but only because they have been made to care about them and not because these things are intuitively important to them.
April 19, 2008 2:06 AM | Reply | Permalink
I have seen you mention Bernays a few times in these forums, and I didn't appreciate before how very critical he is to this topic. Thanks.
April 19, 2008 4:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
Someone's been reading their Chomsky again, eh?
It all reminds me of ZELIG... a forgotten gem of a Woody Allen film where the title character would take on the characteristics of those around him. Truly a man of no opinion of his own -- and very eager to please everyone around him.
Many people in small rural town have the luxury of never being challenged because everyone is often just like them... which is sort of it's own consent.
April 19, 2008 2:09 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks to both of you for taking time to respond to my mind-numbing rant.
Obviously Chomsky to both of you, and I'd like to include myself in this, is not some kind of revelation... it's very old news. But I like to keep bringing up in caps, so that it might get drilled into a few more skulls, and it is definitely a famous enough phrase to crossover into the pop charts (like "karma," or "green"). Here's my point: the Manufacture Of Consent is the starting point for all of our political debate (especially in the blogosphere)-- not the work itself, but the idea. We live in a time that is unique perhpas only in this respect: that what is good is generally known and can be demonstrated empirically. But every fucking day, Glen Greenwald gets out of bed, and does the Same. Damn. Thing. Joe Klein is a liar: here is the proof. He was paid by The Foundation For X, and here is the proof. The Foundation For X is a front group for Y, and here is the proof. Y harms the public and profits billions by it, and here is the proof. We have enough proof to (insert vulgar hyperbole). We don't need any more proof. We need to storm the Bastille.
April 19, 2008 4:04 AM | Reply | Permalink
So how do we figure out exactly what the modern day Bastille is? It seems to me that in this sense our problem is more complicated because the institutions of control are more complex, more numerous and more interwoven into all aspects of our society and infrastructure.
April 19, 2008 5:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hmmm.... how about:
2008 Election.
Faith: Doesn't Matter.
Science: Matters.
I like it!
Maybe we could have a TPM Haiku blog contest.
Thanks for the kind thoughts, Billy.
April 18, 2008 8:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
I do disagree with the dramatic "god damn america" parts... More like America, stop damning yourself.
Otherwise, I think it's an excellent post, and emphasizes one of the most important issues for me personally. I recommended this.
April 18, 2008 4:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
I guess you were wrong about the title!
April 18, 2008 8:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
Good post, though I agree the title is a little over the top. ;-)
BTW, the God helps those who help themselves" is attributed to Franklin, though many think (wrongly) it's in the Bible somewhere. IOW, it's not really a religious incantation.
Although what Bush and his cronies have done to Science in America is criminal, I'm not upset that Hillary and Barack haven't committed to attend a forum on it. I suspect their positions aren't too different. Unless McCain were there, it would be either a meeting of a mutual admiration society or a pandering competition. In neither case would the important differences between the parties on the subject be illuminated.
They should hold that forum in the fall, after the candidates' conventions.
April 18, 2008 7:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
My kingdom for a Preview and an Edit routine...!
April 18, 2008 7:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
'commended, and for good reason.
I signed the petition the first time around, and I'm surprised it didn't go anywhere. It would be a great opportunity for both of the remaining Democratic candidates to show how different they are from the GOP nominee (and let's be serious; McCain has admitted that he doesn't know anything about economics, and I can only imagine how badly he would fare in a hard science debate).
In addition, it would be a great moment to get actual, life-changing issues into the political discourse.
Politicians of all colors have been pandering to Bible bangers for a whole generation. I think it's our turn now to get some political love.
April 18, 2008 11:13 AM | Reply | Permalink
Issues? We don't need no stinking issues! We were doing just fine bitching about how ABC ignored the issues. And science is for elitist sissies.
April 18, 2008 11:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
We are in decline, economically, culturally, and scientifically.
I've lost heart on America doing anything useful in regards to energy or climate. I used to post constantly here, on those issues. Even in between elections it doesn't round up many comments. It is either obvious, and no comment needed, or the readers are uninterested.
Occasionally I would get some troublemaker yammering about methane or water vapor, both of which are not issues because they react quickly and reach equilibrium. Or someone would say crashingly obvious stuff like "wind and sun are intermittent" and make that the agument in favor of dumbly continuing to burn fossil fuels.
I tried hard to get Dean, and then Kerry's campaigns, to emphasize the economic and national-security advantages of getting past fossil fuels. Nada.
I'm voting for Obama, of course, if he is the nominee, or Clinton, but I expect little action. We will be buying power systems from Europe or Asia soon. I read that a substantial solar power setup was being installed in the southwest somewhere, and the hardware was from Spain. We're screwed.
April 18, 2008 12:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Tom,
With all due respect the issues with solar and wind are not that they are intermittent. It's possible to store energy (batteries, for example).
It's a much larger issue: solar and wind cannot provide for the energy needs of the country. They simply aren't enough.
What's worse is that oil, really hydrocarbons, is very valuable stuff for more than just fuel. The method we presently farm, for example, requires massive amount of fertilizers that require, in turn, massive amounts of hydrocarbons. The whole industrial science of organic chemistry comes from the production of oil and natural gas.
People in this country do not realize that the tide is slowly turning away from America. America's science prowess hits a peak around the 1940's-1950's primarily as a result of European scientists fleeing Europe (escaping the label of "Jewish science").
By the early 1970's - a mere generation later - American science grad schools had seen a tremendous drop off in enrollment from US students. The slack was taken up by foreign students.
Now many of those foreign students have returned to their home countries (at around the time that the US has made it near impossible to hire foreign nationals of any kind) and there is less and less reason for sending their students abroad for a quality science education.
As a result, the US has *never* nurtured a native culture of technology and respected technologically educated people to the degree that other countries do. We are much more inclined to respect our celebrities and sports figures.
As a result, media attention gets paid to technological issues when celebrities and sports figures testify to Congress -- rather than the experts.
Go figure.
April 18, 2008 1:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
I want to make a point here. the hydrocarbon inputs needed for manufacturing fertilizers in modern US agriculture are needed for their energy. the hydrocarbons aren't an actual feedstock or anything, they are just burned for their energy. they are needed to separate nitrogen and phosphorus from mineral/other inputs, and to fix them so they can be properly uptaken in biological systems.
We could replace that energy with any other type of energy.
Of the 3 problems that CT elaborates (energy, water, superbugs), I think the first 2 could be really taken care of by solving the energy problem alone. The US spends 30 billion per year on healthcare, but only 3 billion per year on alternative energy. If we ramped up and spent 3-5% of GDP on this like we did on the Apollo Project, I'm optimistic about the possibility of breakthroughs. I know CT doubts that any Holy Grails will be discovered any time soon, but I'm more hopeful about humanity's resourcefulness. The candidates need to be talking about our manufacturing sector and how energy technology investment is sound industrial policy when they discuss the economy - and how we need to build an alternative energy industry from the ground up.
If clean energy were cheap and plentiful, you could just desalinate all the water you needed. The main input to cleaning contaminated water supplies is also energy. The main input to moving water around is energy. So manufacturing fertilizer, purifying water, and moving that water around to where it's needed can all be taken care of if we find the Holy Grail. Too bad we're spending 3 billion/yr on the search and 100 billion/yr on the war.
April 18, 2008 4:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
If you want to see someone's *real* priorities, always watch their spending.
Sadly, your comments on spending are our reality.
April 19, 2008 12:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
Absolutely wrong to say sun can't provide enough energy. (Correct on batteries--lots of opportunities there.)
Ratio to remember: 1,000:1---this is the approximate ratio of the total solar flux, and the total energy use by humans. Subtract 10% for photosynthesis and there is still lots of room to grow.
April 18, 2008 5:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oil is concentrated, liquid sunshine. That's how your cars can go even 40 mph.
The earth receives lots of solar -- but we burn it at a tremendous rate to do the things we need to do.
April 18, 2008 7:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm starting to object to this description of oil - we've seen you make it elsewhere. I know perfectly well what you mean by it, but it's simply not accurrate enough for me. Obviously, it fails a basic chemistry standard, as sunlight is massless photons, and oil is composed of a variety of organic chemicals, mainly hydrocarbon in nature. For another thing, there are plenty of biological systems that generate carbon-based life forms on this planet that DO NOT require sunlight. I'm thinking of geothermal/hydrothermal vents here, and the heavy sour type of crude oil. I'm sure we could come up with more possibilities - thermophiles, halophiles, giant underground fungus colonies, and the like.
Research would be required for me to flesh this out completely. I dunno how long there was life on this planet before the first photosynthetic plantlife (phytoplankton) evolved, and how long after that before plants, herbivores, and their predators became the dominant form of biomass. But I'm willing to wager that a small but significant fraction of the energy that created the world's oil supply ISN'T from the sun.
April 20, 2008 9:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
Solar energy should be the goal. There are really only a few fundamental categories of energy: Solar and its byproducts, of which petroleum is one (it's basically a chemical battery for solar energy), gravitational potential, rotational kinetic and nuclear. If you wanted to make a distinction for geothermal you could, but it's arguable that this is an affect of rotational kinetic energy of the Earth and/or gravitational forces. Every large-scale source of energy available to us essentially falls into one of these categories. For instance, hydro-electric energy comes from exploiting gravitational potential energy. Wind is an effect of either temperature differentials (solar) or the Earth's rotation (rotational kinetic).
Everyone is becoming aware that hydrocarbon energy has limitations. First, it is finite as far as we are concerned because it requires an unrealistic time-scale to create (not to mention inputs that we simply don't have). We also know that it puts carbon dioxide into the atmosphere.
Nuclear technology makes this an available option, but it has some potentially devastating side-effects if not managed properly. I don't want Strontium ending up in my corn flakes, thank you very much. I see this as a potentially viable way to get away from hydrocarbon energy in the short term. However, if we use fission (which is all we've really got right now) we will ultimately face the same problem with fissible U-235 (or even U-238 in the longer term if we used breeder reactors) just as we face with hydrocarbon energy.
So-called "renewables", like wind or tidal energy can and should be used, but the numbers show us that they quickly become tapped out. They face a variety of problems rising from being intermittent and localized phenomena in many cases. These hurdles can be surmounted with technology, but the current numbers will not allow all the current renewables combined to come near replacing coal. This is what we need to figure out how to do: Fire the grid sans coal.
Solar really should be the goal. The sun is a giant fusion reactor and it's shining on this mutha 24/7.. somewhere. Obviously, we need technology here, too, but this is a better bet because the payoffs far surpass what the other renewable options can offer. Also, it's good to bank on the sun because when it goes, we go. As the Dalai Lama might say, our destinies are intertwined.
I haven't checked on it recently, but there was a project in Japan recently using microwaves to relay energy. The idea being that you set up a satellite nexus of solar collectors and you use microwaves to relay the energy around and down to Earth where it's needed. I don't believe they'd gotten to the orbit-to-Earth testing phase yet, but prototypes and models indicated that they might be able to get above 90% efficiency on the ground.
April 18, 2008 7:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
And, I forgot to add, NONE of this stuff is ready right now. Yes, we should be investing in better technology. We shouldn't have allowed the brain drain of the post-war era to occur. However, we have problems at our doorstep now. What to do?
April 18, 2008 7:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree with DF and Tom. The potential for harnessing solar energy is virtually untapped. True, the technology is not there yet for reasonably priced solar cells, but then again, we haven't been making it a priority. Look at how Silicon Valley was able to lower the cost of chips over the course of the past two decades, when there was a financial incentive to do so. And think about where we might be even today if the trillion dollars we've pumped into this war had been spent of research and development.
If every roof on this planet had efficient and cheap solar cells, what would that do to our energy production? If on top of that you add solar farms in the desert, on the ocean, etc., you are also starting to cool the planet down ever so slightly.
And with an overabundance of solar energy, it becomes cheap and convenient to convert water into hydrogen and oxygen, each of which can be used as a clean energy source.
Solar is where it is at.
April 18, 2008 8:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
And nuclear power is too cheap to meter.
See my comments on efficiencies below, Allsburg.
The best hope for solar is, in fact, *not* photovoltaic, but old-fashioned heating of water in circulating tubes in a home. This will help those in the sunbelts... but don't live in Buffalo -- where you will need heating the most.
April 18, 2008 8:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well I can't add anything to what you have said. Its the depressing truth. Patriotism and God won't bring more oil or make less people. Nature will take care of all of us, one way or the other.
Reality does not play politics or nationalism.
April 18, 2008 1:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
April 18, 2008 1:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
Obama did make these statements to construct belief and science at the Compassion Forum.
OBAMA: So, look, the -- one of the things I draw from the Genesis story is the importance of us being good stewards of the land, of this incredible gift. And I think there have been times where we haven't been and this is one of those times where we've got to take the warning seriously.
I know that Al Gore was mentioned earlier. By the way, I have to say, I think Al Gore won. And...
(APPLAUSE)
OBAMA: And has done terrific work since. But I think that we are seeing enough warning signs for us to take this seriously. And part of what my religious faith teaches me is to take an intergenerational view, to recognize that we are borrowing this planet from our children and our grandchildren.
And so we've got this obligation to them, which means that we've got to make some uncomfortable choices. And where I think potentially religious faith and the science of global warming converge is precisely because it's going to be hard to deal with.
We have to find resources in ourselves that allow us to make those sacrifices where we say, you know what? We're not going to leave it to the next generation. We're not going to wait.
OBAMA: We are going to put in place a cap-and-trade system that controls the amount of greenhouse gases that are going into the atmosphere. And we know that that requires us to make adjustments in terms of how we use energy. We've got to be less wasteful, both as a society and in our own individual lives.
And having faith, believing that this planet and this world extends beyond us, it's not just here for us, but it's here for, you know, more generations to come. I think religion can actually bolster our desire to make those sacrifices now. And that's why, as president, I hope to be able to rally the entire world around the importance of us being good stewards of the land.
April 18, 2008 1:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
Read the ScienceDebate 2008 invitation again (it's the link in the blog).
They will broadcast the debate even if *just one* of the 3 candidates says they will come on.
That's free coverage -- potentially by holding the stage by yourself.
It's great that Obama made some comments at the "Compassion Forum"... but what does it tell you that he agreed to take part of that and not the ScienceDebate?
April 18, 2008 1:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Neither candidate is a technocrat.
Hell,
I don't know why he turn down Tavis Smiley. It sounds like this science "debate" is just another opportunity for the science community to "educate" the candidates. Tell them what they aren't doing right. Obama talks to Gore every two or three days. What does that tell you?
You've made the statement that many people are "ignorant" because they don't understand the problems that we face because we don't have the "education".
Sorry.
I guess to have a native religion that has taken the earth as it's source of life makes us "too native". I guess we have failed to get generations to understand intuitively what only the sciences can put on paper with probability factors and calculation.
April 18, 2008 1:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
What does it tell you?
Do you go to your lawyer to fix your car?
I can appreciate the spiritual and the philosophical. I can appreciate the wonders of the universe. I can accept the mystery and the excitement of discovery.
I just don't expect a Deity to come down to Earth and help me sort things out.
However, if you are so beholden to faith, I suggest you talk to your clergy the next time you are ill. And I suggest you talk to your clergy the next time you feel cold in your home.
Faith is not a substitute for dealing with reality.
After all, why is your belief so much superior than the Gods of the Greeks and Romans? They, too, were explaining the natural world to overcome their ignorance.
April 18, 2008 2:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
Good for you.
April 18, 2008 2:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yep. Full of faith. A cute, peaceful avatar. And it hides a lot of hostility!
April 18, 2008 7:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Remember this one? Can't vouch for the source.
http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles/comment/menckengods.htm
April 18, 2008 6:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
Talk is overrated.
It doesn't take a consensus to produce a result. Just look athe guy that was a radio tech that invented the Kanzian machine. Here's a guy that produce the best replacement for current cancer treatment with some pots and pans, gold and hot dogs.
My daughter is a theoretical physicist. She can make it rain in a lab chamber. But she still looks at the world holistically.
April 18, 2008 2:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Someone watched 60 MINUTES last week.
Here's some other comments on that "machine":
http://www.healthnewsreview.org/review/review.php?rid=1236
April 18, 2008 2:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
no
I didn't watch 60 minutes.
Like I said, but daughter is a physicist. She likes to mess around with wave theory.
She may understand the future possibilities better than you do.
It's like this...you can use radio waves (and the particle to heat in this example gold with it appropriate wave)which are a lower frequency than gamma which heat the entire mass (the body).
Too bad the comments at the site you linked didn't use the experimental model.
April 18, 2008 2:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Again, the guy was a radio tech!
Pots, pans and hot dogs.
I bet you woulda told Madame Currie to wash the dishes. And Thomas Edison's assistant to rewired that instrument so it wouldn't echo. William Potts to outlaw horse carriages. Or Einstein to stop looking at the formation of geese flying.
April 18, 2008 4:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, Quasar (great name considering the topic), I will say this: you are consistent.
You have absolute faith in your daughter and none in me.
That's the problem. If you were truly trained in science, you'd be able to put a bit more meat on your argument. A scientific background would have you argue a position from testable observations rather than opinion.
As usual, I won't argue credentials as this is the Internet where anyone can be anything they want to be.
April 18, 2008 7:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
My avatar is cute. Isn't it? It's a Picasso. Take a look at Guernica. Picasso could float too.
You could be a better researcher and look at my profile to see how long I've had the name quasar.
And yeah I think I would value a scientist opinions over yours.
I'm a visual artist. Not someone "trained" in the sciences though she and I are working on the relationship between art and physics, (Leonard Shalins theory of the relationship of space and time in visuals) just like Obama is able to conceptualize the relationship of Constitutional Law and time into a science/political paper.
k?thnx.
Other than that you can continue with the discussion of centralized energy sources without looking at Microgenerational grid supply.
April 18, 2008 11:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
regarding peak oil, I have a deep book to recommend to you.
"Energy Non-Crises", By Lindsey Williams.
Research that.
April 18, 2008 5:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
Seriously, dude? A baptist minister went to Alaska in 1971 (when people were still laughing at Dr. M. King Hubbert) and declared that the energy crisis is a hoax? Have you ever bothered to look and see that Hubbert was right and America has never produced more oil than it did that year? And that the rate of production has decreased every year henceforth? I'm severely disappointed. No wonder this took excessive googling to find.
Sorry, but I'm going to go with geo-science and the actual data of the last 37 years instead of a crank minister if it's all the same to you.
April 18, 2008 7:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
there's a province in India that fuels it's vehicles on sacred cow dung.
No bullshit.
April 18, 2008 5:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
Comment of the day!
April 18, 2008 6:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
Unless wind, solar and tidal energy technologies improve dramatically we will be forced to consider nuclear if we truly want to reduce CO2.
I know saying this will stir up a fire storm among liberals, but it is the truth.
Don't get me wrong, I would rather see the other forms take center stage, but if they are not ready for prime time, then we must consider alternatives. There are newer nuclear technologies that greatly reduce the amount of waste and also drastically lower risks of a runaway reaction.
Thoughts?
April 18, 2008 5:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree. What most people do not realize is that renewables are already tapped out in many cases. Start adding up megawatt-hours and you'll quickly see that the only technology that can replace coal is nuclear.
People have been made afraid of nuclear by alarmists who don't understand nuclear energy and conflate it with nuclear weaponry. More people die in the coal mining industry in a single year than have ever died in nuclear accidents.
April 18, 2008 7:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
1,000 times the human need for energy falls as sunlight. Therefore solar is not tapped out, it is barely tapped at all. Google terms like total energy usage, total solar flux, to find this number. Another way of thinking about is that more energy the human race uses in a year falls as sunlight in one day.
The complications are the time needed to manufacture solar-based systems, and the challenge of delivering it to its place of use. A very conservative plan was recently detailed in Scientific American (hardly a venue for pie-in-the-sky planning).
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=a-solar-grand-plan&page=1
The authors avoid factoring in home power generation, not because it is unfeasible, but because it isn't easy to force. The large-scale plans, by contrast, could be mandated. However, even without including home power, or technological advances after 2010, we can do it with photovoltaics alone.
Now bring in home power, wind, energy transport by use of storage chemicals for flow batteries, the large increases in efficiency possible for typical homeowners, and we do not need an energy system dependent on dangerous substances, found in contentious locales, and run by centralized big business, wasting energy by pushing down the wires.
Most houses in the US could be absolutely self-sufficient. Most commuters could generate enough power to charge their electric cars, or digest enough trash to fill the tank with alcohol, likely using a mix of the two.
April 18, 2008 7:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's a zero sum game, Tom. There are several thermodynamic issues you are missing in this argument:
a) You are assuming something like 100% conversion efficiency -- in other words, everything that falls on Earth is converted for human use with excellent efficiency.
This is just plain bad estimation and with photovoltaic cells, it's even worse. (Current best PV efficiencies are 40%, which is a great improvement over 30 years ago, but still very low -- and it gets exponentially harder to increase the efficiency linearly.)
b) If you take energy away from the Earth and put it to use for humans, you are seriously affecting the biosphere. Everything from plant growth to jet stream production, to the thermohaline circulation in the ocean. As I'm sure you know, we humans like the Earth in it's particular current equilibrium and that is why global warming of a just a few degrees will cause such grief.
Same goes for global cooling.
c) The storage and transport of energy take energy itself. We are used to natural gas pipes and oil tankers. In fact, the gift of fossil fuels becomes even more apparent in how easy (low cost) it is to move them around and how quickly re-fueling can be.
The same will not be true of the renewable sources. Batteries, for example, are very heavy, and not a particularly cost-effective way to transport energy generated elsewhere.
That said, I do appreciate your willingness to bring some of these issues in the open.
April 18, 2008 8:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
Photosynthesis accounts for 10% of total solar energy budget.
Worth reading the SciAm article.
Energy storage is not a mature technology, and there is lots of room for improvement. It has not been needed, except for small-battery versions, since one could always use a liquid fuel for compact and convenient energy recovery. The flow battery is an appealing system for large-scale use, as well as at home. It is not compact, so either ultra-capacitors or lithium-ion solid-state batteries are best for cars.
A generation-storage concept I'd like explored would be wind farms in upper latitudes, which are windy but poor for sun. We have lots of those tankers, and they are very efficient delivery systems. I see wind farms charging the chemicals for the flow batteries, shipping them to depots where the users are, and refilling with uncharged chemicals. The flow battery is like a fuel cell, and is totally rechargeable. It does not exhaust its chemicals or membranes. Of course nothing is forever, but unlike solid-state batteries or lead-acid, it does not inherently degrade, and can be maximally cycled.
There is a wind/flow battery system on King Island, Tasmania, that stores 750 Kw/hrs, enough to run the town of a few thousand for several hours if the wind slows.
The upper limit for PV efficiency is uncertain, but if you have enough area and the stuff is cheap enough you don't need high efficiency.
And with the right enzymes and such, the typical small household would yield about 5 gallons of ethanol per week from paper trash (assuming 60% conversion efficiency with distillation afterward). The Tesla car (expensive for now) would offer a 50-mile roundtrip commute with a 6'x9' 20% efficient solar panel charging for 8 hours.
Solar farms floating on the ocean would shadow the water, yes, but if arranged as a checkerboard
it's pretty much like partial cloud cover. A possible side benefit of shadowing ocean water with PV would be the lower temperatures mean higher CO2 absorption capacity.
In the southwest there is enough sun for individual houses, obviously. In the temperate regions, there is less, but also less need, since those usually have copious groundwater. This allows reducing the energy need for heating and cooling by roughly 50%. Add high-efficiency DC appliances and lighting, and my house in Chicago could be self-sufficient. Too bad I can't afford it, and I'm renting anyway.
April 18, 2008 8:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
Tom,
I did read it. It's a bit self-serving as the lead author has been pushing photovoltaic for the past 27 years, so it's not surprising he is bullish -- it's been his career!
But how much progress has been made?
Also, we get to complete this energy infrastructure when? 2050? that's *42* years from now! Using my little quick calculation, that will put us at the same oil production rate as 1962 but with a global population *three times* that of 1962.
Think we can catch up to all that energy usage?
Now here's an article for you:
http://www.physicstoday.org/vol-57/iss-7/p47.html
Enjoy!
April 18, 2008 9:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think the plan is way too conservative. I offer it as an example of how even very cautious projections show we can make dramatic changes.
They pointedly do not factor in various technology improvements, and ignore home installations.
What I would argue for right now is larger incentives for home power, and any application that requires improved storage. Boosting that market will solve a lot of problems.
April 18, 2008 10:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
To clarify, I first refer to my linked article as being too conservative.
I read the projection you linked, and it uses, as far as I could tell, projections of existing usage practices. Obviously these will change. Most US houses can reduce their energy needs while maintaining same results by something like 75%.
It also assumes steady population growth, which can change. Industrial countries are nearly flat growth. And the fastest-growing demand right now, China, has been setting efficiency goals. They're not stupid, and they do have money.
That said, I am not optimistic that we can avoid some seriously ugly times ahead. I only suggest that it is implementation, not technology, that is the hurdle. And all we can do is try. I would support mandates of various sorts---I'm no market fundamentalist.
April 18, 2008 10:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think that's pretty key. Not being a market fundamentalist I mean. The people who suggest that we just wait until the invisible makes this stuff a reality are ignoring the possibility that any of these problems can grow too fast for the market to handle. It's not like this hasn't happened before. Damn you, economic ideologues!
April 19, 2008 1:00 AM | Reply | Permalink
Invisible hand I meant to say.
April 19, 2008 2:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
See my response above. Also, I don't include solar when I talk about renewables, but I didn't make that clear here. While I would agree with you in part, the bottom line is that the technology is not there right now. Look at the annual breakdowns for the megawatt-hour output for renewables. It doesn't add up. We need solutions now. What are they going to be?
April 18, 2008 8:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
Carter is a much maligned figure in US Politics -- but he did have the only long-range energy policy for the US (much as Nixon had the only long-range foreign policy).
Reagan trashed it -- and therefore most of the energy issues stood still for 30 years while we continued to waste the miraculous liquid sunshine being pumped.
So now we have a race: can we develop what we need to keep at least part of the world working?
Still, judging by most of these posts, there is a general feeling that we can invent our way to maintain our current lifestyle.
I find 2 things distressing about this:
a) people haven't come to grips with the fact that we won't be able to maintain our current lifestyle
b) the people who are the most sober in their views seem to be the ones with the most information
April 18, 2008 8:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
Read the SciAm article I linked, for conservative production/installation projections of existing-design PV.
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=a-solar-grand-plan&page=1
April 18, 2008 8:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
Once again, it's a great vision, but it's nothing more than that. What do we do about today's problems and the problems of the next ten years? How do we get to 2050?
April 18, 2008 8:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
DF: Don't forget that MRI machines (Magnetic Resonance Imaging) were named because the public didn't like them called NMR machines (Nuclear Magnetic Resonance).
Just another reason why scientific literacy is so important. People are afraid of the unfamiliar...
...which brings us back to religion.
April 18, 2008 8:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
Although there are some hospitals and facilities where you can find these machines the "Nuclear Medicine" wing.
April 18, 2008 11:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
We are already involved in a nuclear crisis. First, for the past several decades, nearly all the grad students in nuclear engineering have been foreigners. Our native nuclear engineering base is old and gray at best.
Second, Yucca Mountain, the supposed final resting place for nuclear material for the nation has been effectively shut down. Thank Harry Reid for that. In the time that Yucca Mountain was chosen for geological stability, etc., Las Vegas has grown immensely and now has the political clout to complain about all those truck hauling nuclear material on the freeways by Vegas.
Third, at present, the nuclear waste material generated is stored locally.
In temporary containers that were designed for 40-50 years of use. This process was started in the 1950's.
You do the math.
Interestingly, once again, we have a problem that requires political will to solve (at least in the near term). But that requires an scientifically literate and critical thinking public.
Neither of which we have. We are too busy buying lapel pins from the Chinese.
April 18, 2008 7:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
Clearthinker, you are assuming that the candidates are not aware of the problems, don't understand the problems, or are willfully ignoring the problems. I don't agree that any of that is true.
What may be true is that they have to get elected before they can do anything and attending "compassion forums" will get them there faster than participating in science forums. They have to parcel out their time where it will do the most good at this point.
As for their energy programs, it is probably true that the high price of gasoline will do more to expedite fuel efficiency and new technology in cars than mandates and that it will be accomplished through the private sector if car manufacturers want to stay in business.
New technologies will require infrastructure investments which Obama has thought about...no, I haven't heard proposals for new auto technology infrastructure, but I imagine he has thought about it and will proceed with it when the time comes.
Neither Clinton nor Obama would be the ones who prescribe the solution to the other problems you mention. You're right, they're not scientists and they may or may not understand quantum physics, but they are certainly smart enough to recognize that there is a problem and to find the people who can fix it. And they can do this without attending a science forum themselves, and they can do more good if one of them is elected President than if neither is elected President. Which brings us back to the "compassion forum".
April 18, 2008 5:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
Gettex,
If you read my post carefully, you'll see I place the blame at the American Electorate.
And this is precisely the problem. Because, apparently, the public needs them at a "Compassion Forum" where they can talk about ancient beliefs as if they were facts.
If you look, the Science Forum isn't a science quiz; it's about presenting a technologically sound policy to solve the immediately pressing problems of society.
I can appreciate the confusion, however. After all, the whole idea of a "Compassion Forum" is nebulous at best -- and it's this sort of fuzzy thinking that will prevent us from addressing the real issues in real ways before it is too late.
April 18, 2008 7:48 PM |