Comments on: An Annie Hall Moment for the Global Warming Denialists http://www.frankodwyer.com/blog/?p=247 Frank O'Dwyer's blog Fri, 04 Jun 2010 03:45:17 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2 hourly 1 By: daytripper http://www.frankodwyer.com/blog/?p=247&cpage=1#comment-11077 daytripper Thu, 31 Jan 2008 18:53:24 +0000 http://www.frankodwyer.com/blog/?p=247#comment-11077 henry, you state a case up to a point and with clear ommision. i can see the argument for politics and ideology pervading the issue. but lets be balanced about it. north american refusal to increase fuel mileage of cars can also be seen as an ideological decision as its almost soley based on reasons of pure profit. innefficient engines burn fuel at a collosal rate and i doubt the oil companies and the car manufacturers have any reason to change that status quo. a status quo that was decided (conspired) many decades ago, as a means to enhance profit. we can argue about mass transit and SUVs, but lets not pretend that the ideology factor is uni-directional. global warming and global peak oil production look set to be epoch defining problems for us all and i personally think there will have to a large shift in ideological thinking on both sides of the divide. almost all the major oil production regions (eg Iran, Venezuela, North Sea) in the world bar saudi arabia have already peaked. many speculate Saudi Arabia has too. then weve got the prospecting on canadas tar sands and alaskas shale, two source "you dont go near" unless there are no other sources out there. add all this to the fact the more of the worlds population is now consuming oil and its derivitives (china, india especially) and you have an amazing convergance of two major issues. both inextricably linked i might add. on a personal note i have faith in the endeavours of man. i have no faith in the endeavours of politicians, governments and a system of big business that is invested in the status quo. Check out The Association for the Study of Peak Oil and Gas at http://www.peakoil.net/ and also check out their monthly newsletter: http://www.aspo-ireland.org/index.cfm/page/newsletter henry, you state a case up to a point and with clear ommision. i can see the argument for politics and ideology pervading the issue. but lets be balanced about it. north american refusal to increase fuel mileage of cars can also be seen as an ideological decision as its almost soley based on reasons of pure profit. innefficient engines burn fuel at a collosal rate and i doubt the oil companies and the car manufacturers have any reason to change that status quo. a status quo that was decided (conspired) many decades ago, as a means to enhance profit.
we can argue about mass transit and SUVs, but lets not pretend that the ideology factor is uni-directional.

global warming and global peak oil production look set to be epoch defining problems for us all and i personally think there will have to a large shift in ideological thinking on both sides of the divide. almost all the major oil production regions (eg Iran, Venezuela, North Sea) in the world bar saudi arabia have already peaked. many speculate Saudi Arabia has too. then weve got the prospecting on canadas tar sands and alaskas shale, two source “you dont go near” unless there are no other sources out there. add all this to the fact the more of the worlds population is now consuming oil and its derivitives (china, india especially) and you have an amazing convergance of two major issues. both inextricably linked i might add.

on a personal note i have faith in the endeavours of man. i have no faith in the endeavours of politicians, governments and a system of big business that is invested in the status quo.

Check out The Association for the Study of Peak Oil and Gas at http://www.peakoil.net/

and also check out their monthly newsletter: http://www.aspo-ireland.org/index.cfm/page/newsletter

]]> By: Frank http://www.frankodwyer.com/blog/?p=247&cpage=1#comment-11074 Frank Thu, 31 Jan 2008 18:42:41 +0000 http://www.frankodwyer.com/blog/?p=247#comment-11074 Henry, "It is impressive that someone who supports the AGW view is willing to point out where evidence that supports that view is flawed." It's a mischaracterisation of this study to act like it somehow undermines AGW. "Suppose you did in fact implement the measures proposed and suppose they worked. One would assume that worldwide demand for oil would fall. So what happens next? The price of oil plummets. Oil the becomes viable for use in so many more ways." Or less wasteful uses become cheaper. Indeed I think if the free market made the price of oil go down you'd say it was a good thing. I'm not saying the measures proposed are good or that there wouldn't be unintended consequences but I don't buy that argument. "Of course the reaction of conservatives is possibly inadequate too." To put it mildly. "We see the socialist proposals and attack the science of AGW rather than the socialists. We should come up with our own plan based on incentive and choice with price mechanisms rater than diktat as the way forward." But it seems you can't. And you object to the solutions that do use markets (carbon trading etc). What price mechanism will ever consider an externality? Henry,

“It is impressive that someone who supports the AGW view is willing to point out where evidence that supports that view is flawed.”

It’s a mischaracterisation of this study to act like it somehow undermines AGW.

“Suppose you did in fact implement the measures proposed and suppose they worked. One would assume that worldwide demand for oil would fall. So what happens next? The price of oil plummets.

Oil the becomes viable for use in so many more ways.”

Or less wasteful uses become cheaper. Indeed I think if the free market made the price of oil go down you’d say it was a good thing.

I’m not saying the measures proposed are good or that there wouldn’t be unintended consequences but I don’t buy that argument.

“Of course the reaction of conservatives is possibly inadequate too.”

To put it mildly.

“We see the socialist proposals and attack the science of AGW rather than the socialists. We should come up with our own plan based on incentive and choice with price mechanisms rater than diktat as the way forward.”

But it seems you can’t. And you object to the solutions that do use markets (carbon trading etc). What price mechanism will ever consider an externality?

]]> By: Henry94 http://www.frankodwyer.com/blog/?p=247&cpage=1#comment-11050 Henry94 Thu, 31 Jan 2008 09:22:22 +0000 http://www.frankodwyer.com/blog/?p=247#comment-11050 It is impressive that someone who supports the AGW view is willing to point out where evidence that supports that view is flawed. It enhances his credibility as a scientist. Of course being a credible scientist does not make you a credible economist or lend anything to your political opinions. "We should be banning SUV vehicles, increasing fuel mileage standards to 50 miles per gallon within a decade, investing in mass transit systems etc. etc." That is the kind of thinking that provokes so much resistance in the whole debate. It is essentially 70's style socialism with an environmental face and will be rejected by any sensible electorate. Suppose you did in fact implement the measures proposed and suppose they worked. One would assume that worldwide demand for oil would fall. So what happens next? The price of oil plummets. Oil the becomes viable for use in so many more ways. It will still be used and carbon will still be released but we will all be going to work on state run (in other words badly run) transport systems. Demanding that we invest in mass-transit systems is ludicrous when in many European states it is actually illegal or very difficult to set up and run a bus service. The reason for this is to protect state-monopolies and the Green parties all go along with it. The hypocrisy is breath-taking and the dishonesty is palpable. They are simply leftists proposing leftist solutions. Why should anyone listen to them? Why don't they accept that the market can deliver what they claim to want without compulsion, centralisation and communism. Of course the reaction of conservatives is possibly inadequate too. We see the socialist proposals and attack the science of AGW rather than the socialists. We should come up with our own plan based on incentive and choice with price mechanisms rater than diktat as the way forward. It is impressive that someone who supports the AGW view is willing to point out where evidence that supports that view is flawed. It enhances his credibility as a scientist.

Of course being a credible scientist does not make you a credible economist or lend anything to your political opinions.

“We should be banning SUV vehicles, increasing fuel mileage standards to 50 miles per gallon within a decade, investing in mass transit systems etc. etc.”

That is the kind of thinking that provokes so much resistance in the whole debate. It is essentially 70’s style socialism with an environmental face and will be rejected by any sensible electorate.

Suppose you did in fact implement the measures proposed and suppose they worked. One would assume that worldwide demand for oil would fall. So what happens next? The price of oil plummets.

Oil the becomes viable for use in so many more ways. It will still be used and carbon will still be released but we will all be going to work on state run (in other words badly run) transport systems.

Demanding that we invest in mass-transit systems is ludicrous when in many European states it is actually illegal or very difficult to set up and run a bus service.

The reason for this is to protect state-monopolies and the Green parties all go along with it. The hypocrisy is breath-taking and the dishonesty is palpable. They are simply leftists proposing leftist solutions. Why should anyone listen to them? Why don’t they accept that the market can deliver what they claim to want without compulsion, centralisation and communism.

Of course the reaction of conservatives is possibly inadequate too. We see the socialist proposals and attack the science of AGW rather than the socialists. We should come up with our own plan based on incentive and choice with price mechanisms rater than diktat as the way forward.

]]>