AGW Climate Change CO2 Emissions Culture Global Warming Omniclimate Policy Politics Science

Sustainable Energy Is The Way Forward (To Oblivion)

Gabriel Calzada Alvarez PhD. and others’ by-now-famous “Study of the effects on employment of public aid to renewable energy sources” has been hailed as a “blunt and devastating [examination], labeling [green] investments to be ‘terribly economically counterproductive’“. And it has been debunked” as having “numerous flaws.

I think too many people are missing the point…”sustainable energy” is sustainable in the sense that in the medium if not short term it will make all of us poor and jobless, therefore drastically reducing our greenhouse emissions.

As a bonus, it will also make most of the Western world wretched enough to be wholly unattractive to Third World workers, thereby resolving the immigration issues as well.

Here’s a couple of signs of what bright-minded greenies are preparing for us…

0 replies on “Sustainable Energy Is The Way Forward (To Oblivion)”

This seems to be a very lazy attempt at supporting the Alvarez, et al study. As I read that you believed, “most people are missing the point,” I anticipated a rational, fact-based thesis summary of the report that extracted meaning overlooked by most readers. Instead you clarified the meaning of “sustainable energy” for us all (really, thank you) with a hyperbole definition that you present with incredible authority. Was that really the point that critics of the report missed? I dont think so; in fact the meaning of sustainability has nothing to do with the the general criticism out there.

What critics of the report take issue with is primarily the methods that Alvarez and his team used to make their conclusions (misuse of economic terms and concepts; calculations based on inaccurate statistics; lack of citation of statistics used, ect).

In another of your posts you reproduced an article about a conference of European oceanographers using new equipment to study the Mediterranean. Your headline declares that “no warming” is taking place in Mediterranean Sea. Reading the full article however reveals that in fact very, very little data has been collected, and that the lead researcher quoted there says himself that more data must be collected and analyzed in order to reach a conclusion. Well, of course so! As any climatologist will tell you, using a small handful of select years as a data sample cannot be deemed sufficient enough to make any conclusions on trending climate change (or non-change, if it were actually the case). The article expressly details that the life span of the instruments being used are 3-4 years. Do you really think that is enough of a time frame on which to make judgments? You clearly feel passionate about the issue- dont you want to take the effort needed to analyze a longer stretch of time in order to observe “trends” over time? Instead you take one out-of-context quote and use it as a headline to declare victory for your argument.

Basically, I want to know how you believe using hyperbole, exaggeration, omission, and indirect arguments helps your cause? The issues are serious enough that they are worthy of a serious debate, if you’d like to have one. I whole heartedly disagree with your arguments, however I came to this site to read what people of differing opinion are thinking about and reading. Its a bit sad to discover that while there are many people in the world engaged in strong, intellectual debate, this venue is not. Your lazy argument style really doesn’t help move the debate forward, it simply riles those who disagree with you. And perhaps thats your point-to infuriate those climate change advocates who have gone the extra mile, put in the work to study the issue seriously using proven scientific and economic research methods that have helped them arrive at the conclusion that climate change is real; and then, pointing out that those advocates are “hysterics ” claim that their conclusions must be false too.

So, if you want to have a serious debate, please use serious tactics. If not then please evaluate what worth your forum has in these important discussions. Thank you.

GFQ – reading a blog is usually not mandatory or ordered by a doctor. Feel free to find worthier places where you can find food for your hungry, judgmental quest.

I am sure it will help to stick to what people actually write, though, so that a blog that is the almost verbatim translation of a press agency’s release will not be mistaken by you as “declaring victory for one’s argument”.

(I find the “not enough years” criticism particularly weak…if there is no sign of warming processes in the Mediterranean for the past 3-4 years, that is a fact that should be taken into consideration. If we could only talk of multidecadal trends we’d have to stick today to understanding the climate trends of the 1970’s. The 30-year weather/climate distinction is conventional)

ps something else that will be of help is a sense of humor. Do I really have to insert smileys to make a reader like you understand the irony in “it will make most of the Western world wretched enough to be wholly unattractive to Third World workers, thereby resolving the immigration issues as well.“?

I say, whoever doesn’t get the joke, won’t get the smiley either.

Leave a Reply - Lascia un commento

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.