[Graeme]

Nobel laureates say sustainability needs more than science

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'T')he United States has the technology -- or at least the brains to build it -- to make significant progress in the fight against global warming. However, without widespread public and government support of energy conservation, technology can only go so far, say some of the brightest minds in Berkeley.

"Adoption of currently feasible energy-efficiency standards would go two-thirds of the way to energy independence," McFadden said. "It should be feasible for us to achieve energy sustainability by 2050 using primarily existing standards. Then we support research into new technologies, which we will need in the last half of the century."

[frankthetank]

I think they call them bicycles.

[Windmills]

Yes, sustainability does need more than science. It needs cultural change. Talk of technology is merely talk of postponement of the inevitable when one doesn't consider population control. We need a major change in attitude away from an infite consumerist model. The only science we need for sustainability is applied sociology.

[thor]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Windmills', 'Y')es, sustainability does need more than science. It needs cultural change. Talk of technology is merely talk of postponement of the inevitable when one doesn't consider population control. We need a major change in attitude away from an infite consumerist model. The only science we need for sustainability is applied sociology.

[PeakOiler]

PO.com readers should see the movie Nobelity which is a documentary consisting of interviews with nine Nobel laureates:
Steven Weinberg, Jody Williams, Ahmed Zewail, Rick Smalley, Wangari Maathai, Sir Joseph Rotblat, Dr. Harold Varmus, Desmond Tutu, Amartya Sen

Nobelity

Check the trailer at the website.

Excerpt:

"All of us are searching for solutions and ways to take personal actions to affect change, especially for our children' s future& An Inconvenient Truth raises compelling questions, Nobelity offers compelling answers."
- Christopher Gavigan, CEO / Executive Director,
CHEC, Children' s Health Environmental Coalition

"The fact is - it is absolutely brilliant. This is one of the absolute most important films of this year or any year."
- Aint It Cool News

"Inspiring. This film could have a huge impact."
- Governor Ann Richards

“4 Stars. My advice would be to find a copy of this fantastic documentary, settle down for a 80-minute piece of enlightenment, and then use their lessons to help make the world a better place.”
- efilmcritic.com

"Pipkin's remarkable new film, Nobelity... leaves you wanting more and thinking that if Pipkin's nine were in charge, we would leave a better world indeed."
- Esquire Magazine

“This is a documentary you don’t want to miss… an inspirational film to watch.”
- themoviechicks.com

“Enlightening. A thoroughly engaging, provocative and insightful film. It'll wake you up and ultimately shake you up to the realities of this world.”
- The NYC Movie Guru

“The most inspiring hour and a half you can spend...I just found it to be stunning.”
- Randi Rhodes, Air America

“Pipkin's obvious sincerity, and the high-profile roster of interviewees make this a title worth picking up.”
- Video Librarian"

[peaker_2005]

Struth, even Nobel prize winners have been reduced to stating the obvious...

This braindrain is worse than I thought!



All I wonder is why people say they want to see something different happen and go ahead doing the same things they've been doing... Duh!

Perhaps some people take the "equal and opposite reaction" part of Newton's laws TOO seriously...

(Had a momentary blank with regard to which one it was... )

[joewp]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'A')nd even with widespread conservation efforts, eventually the country and the world are going to need cleaner, more sustainable forms of energy, the scientists said. But there is no clear agreement on where that energy should come from.

George Smoot, a UC Berkeley professor of physics who won his Nobel Prize last year, pitched nuclear power as one of the fields with the most potential for clean, sustainable energy. But convincing the public is going to be tough, he admitted.

[grabby]

So the Low-re-ates actully got their calculators out eh?
(Eh is Canadian)

Don't be fooled! Some of the stupidest selfishly morally decrepit psycopaths with no respect for human life are Low-re-ates, and some are not.

Take Teller, for example. (Please). He was really good at figuring how much metal to put in a lump, how to tickle it just right so it would do perverse ugly horrible things. He spent years trying to build a bigger and bigger A-tom bomba weapon and then fought with his partner about who really came up with the idea and began months of bitter back stabbing about wether to put the Teller in front of the ULLAM in the H bum weapon, and because he was LEADER OF THE GROUP he forced the TELLER/ULAM name presentlynattached. In reality, every one of his ideas fizzled untill Ullam, a young engineer told him the reason why they werent working, and gave him the theoretical idea for the real Mckoy. Ullam invented the darn thing. Teller took most credit. Low-re-ate winner, big deal. How does this qualify him for determining social interactions? So he woulde be a person to help with peak oil? Actually I think he single handedly will be the one to solve the peak oil problem, basically, remove all the people off the planet, simple solution.

If anything, Low-re-ate status disqualifies him for reality, he spent far to much time locked up in a desert trying to melt people down to ashes...
But what would you call a person who works on a project that will allow insane people to destroy humnankind using the excuse
"If I don't do it, somebody else will" argument?
I don't think they are fit as leaders of anything.

Oppenhimer? Werner von braun? Worked for the German military to destroy England, and because he joined with US he is some hero now?

Einstein? He wrote a letter telling the president to
"built a bik bomba" so ve can destroy ze germans be fore zay destroy us! Bright moral light, no?

Nobel laureateas are usually very ignorant of things outside of their specialty. Kind of like idiot savants.

Ever see the movie Rain man?

I'm just sure yo would put Raymond Babbit in charch of a leadership committe for the planet?
That is why that meeting about Low-RE-Ates getting together to SOLVE THE ENERGY CRISS is so hilarious.
Most people can be easily marketed with a little glam.

Low-Re-Ates pee, poo eat and fight like any one else and they have more divorces than the average. Don't look to them for answers, they are type A and really don't have answers.

I'll bet 9/10 laureattes will vote for ETHANOL.
Shows how ignorant they really are.


__________
\BACK TO THE THREAD the meeting of the laureates...

P.S. the HEAD of this committe was a allegedly honorable
Danial Mcfadden - know what he got his acclaim is for?

MARKETING! THAS RIGHT! In economics, discrete choice problems involve choices between two or more discrete alternatives, such as entering or not entering the labor market, or choosing between modes of transport. Such choices contrast with standard consumption models in which the quantity of each good consumed is assumed to be continuously variable. In the continuous case, calculus methods can be used to determine the theoretical optimum, and demand can be modelled using regression analysis.

Modelling discrete choice is commonly undertaken using logit and probit models. The theoretical basis for this analysis was developed by Daniel McFadden.

In other words, he made it possible for WALLLY MART TO EXHIST and by computer analysis absolutely waste the mom and pop shops!

Tell me this is a moral and good for humanity science?

(Loud guffaws and snorts as the sun sets.)

Y'all been marketed! YEE HAW!

[joe1347]

Sorry, but Doomer policies aren't going to gain much traction even with our current San Francisco values Congress. What do you think would happen to any US politician telling the American public to get rid of their cars and start riding a bike?

The challenge - instead of pushing Doomer policy - will be to somehow convince the American public that a couple of corn cobs isn't going to end our dependence on oil and that reasonable conservation - such as raising the CAFE standards significantly - along with meaningful and agressive alternative energy technology research - such as Photovoltaic technology - needs to be started as soon as possible.

Another Nobel Prize winner - Prof. Smalley - who recently passed away - advocated what he called the nickel/dime solution, which involved a 5 or 10 cents federal tax on gas to be used for alternative energy research and development.

http://smalley.rice.edu/smalley.cfm?doc_id=4862

[joewp]

What makes you think any of that is going to help in the long run? What you call "Doomer" is just what regular old human beings did 150 years ago before there was all this cheap energy. They walked or rode horses.

Someone on this board said it first and I apologize that I forget who, but "if they really were alternatives, we'd be using them already".

People need to get a handle on energy physics.

[Tanada]

Surprizing nominee for 2007, Nominee

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', ' ') February 1, 2007
Professor Ole Danbolt Mjos
Chairman,
Norwegian Nobel Institute
Henrik Ibsens Gate 51
NO-0255
Oslo, Norway

Dear Dr. Mjos:
Landmark Legal Foundation herewith submits the name of Rush Limbaugh as
an unsolicited nomination for the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize.
We are offering this nomination for Mr. Limbaugh's nearly two decades
of tireless efforts to promote liberty, equality and opportunity for all
mankind, regardless of race, creed, economic stratum or national origin. We
fervently believe that these are the only real cornerstones of just and
lasting peace throughout the world.
Rush Limbaugh is a nationally syndicated radio talk show host in the
United States and one of the most popular broadcasters in the world. His
daily radio show is heard on more than 600 radio stations in the United
States and around the world. For 18 years he has used his show to become
the foremost advocate for freedom and democracy in the world today.
Everyday he gives voice to the values of democratic governance, individual
opportunity and the just, equal application of the rule of law -- and it is
fitting the Nobel Committee recognize the power of these ideals to build a
truly peaceful world for future generations.
Thank you for your thoughtful and serious consideration of this
nomination. Should you require additional information, please don't
hesitate to contact me.
Sincerely,



Mark R. Levin
President



SOURCE Landmark Legal Foundation

[eclipse]

Dear all, I thought this would be an interesting development but never dreamed things would move so quickly! Now Greenpeace and a Nobel Peace prize-winner are backing "Dr Evil's" suggestion.

link $this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'I')NTERVIEW-Scientist says new data backs sulphur climate plan15 Dec 2006 11:38:26 GMT Source: Reuters By Ari Rabinovitch:
TEL AVIV, Dec 15 (Reuters) - Nobel Prize laureate Paul Crutzen says he has new data supporting his controversial theory that injecting the common pollutant sulphur into the atmosphere would cancel out the greenhouse effect. Though such a project could not be implemented for at least 10 years, the data is aimed at appeasing critics of the idea he first championed in the scientific journal Climatic Change in August.

The Dutch meteorologist showed what he calls the positive cooling effect of adding a layer of sulphates to the atmosphere at a global warming conference at the Porter School for Environmental Studies in Tel Aviv. He said new, detailed calculations carried out since August showed the project would indeed lower global temperatures. "Our calculations using the best models available have shown that injecting 1 million tonnes of sulphur a year would cool down the climate so the greenhouse effect is wiped out," Crutzen told Reuters.

An added layer of sulphates in the stratosphere, some 10 miles (16 km) above the earth, would reflect sunlight into space and reduce solar radiation reaching the earth's surface, Crutzen said. He said he envisioned giant cannons or balloons dispersing the sulphur to offset the build-up of greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide, largely released by burning fossil fuels in power plants, factories and vehicles.

The world has struggled for decades to reduce sulphur pollution, a component of acid rain that kills forests and fish, mainly through tighter controls on burning coal. "We are now entering a very intensive period of model calculations and following that we will conduct small experiments to test the sulphur oxidation mechanisms that we calculated," Crutzen said.
NO LONGER TABOO:Crutzen said he planned to publish the new findings in a few months' time in one of the major scientific journals.

The idea of using sulphur to combat global warming -- which most scientists say will bring more floods, desertification, heatwaves and rising sea levels -- is not new. Scientists noticed that large volcanic eruptions had similar effects and the 1991 eruption on Mount Pinatubo in the Philippines lowered temperatures around the world for two years.

For decades the theory was dismissed as dangerous until Crutzen, who won the 1995 Nobel Prize in Chemistry for research on ozone, published his paper. "Until August this was a taboo issue. But the paper I published really set off some movement in this area. It never hit the level of seriousness which it has taken in the past months. It may have had to do with the Nobel Prize, but I hope that's not all," Crutzen said.

Some critics say the project is too risky and will have negative effects on the earth's water supply and increase acid rain. Crutzen said it was necessary to study the negative consequences, but he did not expect a rise in acid rain because the amount of sulphur injected would be a small percentage of the sulphates polluting the lower atmosphere today. Some environmental groups, wary of geo-engineering projects, say the idea should at least be looked at.

"The fact that the top experts in the field are saying it's necessary shows it's a sad state of affairs," said Steve Sawyer, a policy adviser for Greenpeace International. "This idea should be examined and as a last resort it can buy us a few decades," Sawyer said.

[EnergyUnlimited]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Shannymara', 'E')very time I read about one of these schemes to "fix" the atmosphere by messing with it more I think about that scene in The Matrix where Morpheus tells Neo "it was us who scorched the sky." I just have this bad feeling about it. The earth, including the atmosphere, is a very complex thing, and these massive sledgehammer "solutions" are bound to cause unexpected problems.

[eclipse]

Wow, that one's triggered my pre-peak oil hobby, terraforming Mars!

Is that stuff really that cheap? Was a "million times more powerful" a figure of speech?

[EnergyUnlimited]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('eclipse', 'W')ow, that one's triggered my pre-peak oil hobby, terraforming Mars!

Is that stuff really that cheap? Was a "million times more powerful" a figure of speech?

[joewp]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '
')Eric Sevareid's Law:

The chief cause of problems is solutions.

[eclipse]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', ' ')Gideon wrote:
The net projected effect over the next 100 years of global warming is not that significant, per the recent paper of 1,200 scientists.

[edpeak]

eclipse, I completely agree about feedback loops,methane hydrates, etc, but I also completely agree about sledgehammer solutions being more folly..if we were really wise we'd change out behavior...sledgehammer 'solutions' not only risk massive unexpected side effects, but even if you assume the best about them (assume they work, and work fast enough, and work well enough, and have little/no side effects) it will only give us time to
make things worse in fisheries collapse, soil erotion, water crises, ocean ocean acidification (we are going to continue CO2 after all..) and more... if you really want to buy time, help us change our economic model from perpetual growth to steady state and let's cut emissions by 80%... the furst 50% cut only means taking US to the emissions per capita of europe, which isn't asking much given our children's future is at stake.

[edpeak]

you subscribe to organized religion, too? I don't, but, it seems to me that, your Christianity should make you even more skeptical
of big sledgehammer solutions by humankind "controlling and fixing" the world we barely understand. we need to work WITH and not to try to work against, nature and this complex system, otherwise we just trade one problem for another,

otherwise our "this new big sledgehammer'll fix things" approach will have us behaving this this fellow, recognize him? link

[eclipse]

Hey, I'm all for the Powerdown and Viridian Green solutions on all these blogs as well. I was just indicating that serious climatologists that disagree with the solution think it could work. They disagree because of values systems and the potential side effects you have all picked — but think it could still work. And now Greenpeace are on board?

I'm just for every possible solution to the combined challenges we face being on the table — this one as an emergency backup only. But remember: it could work, and the Rolling Stone article thinks it would be cheaper than the cost of ONE wind farm a year.