The climate change consensus extends beyond climate scientists

[freebeard]

Someone tried... claiming less drag and all.
A true Ecomodder, or don't we want to associate with that guy?

Remember the Shoe Bomber and Underpants Bomber? There was some movement in that direction at that time as well.

The real problem is people who think it's a good idea to throw a few coins into the jet engine intake 'for good luck'.

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by sendler

Complicated creatures we are. I have repeatedly presented the link to the Hagens lecture to at least 200 people. It is seemingly complex at first so most people that actually do start to view it get uptight and switch to something else more immediately entertaining.
.
The few solar advocates or university professors that I approached won't even click on it. They already "know everything" they need to know and there is nothing that a person like me ( 40 year auto mechanic ) could ever find out about that would be of any relevance to them.
.
Out of all of that, I have had 3 people report back that they viewed the lecture. One seems to be a self educated expert on new energy and found it necessary to find a way to dismiss a few statements on nitpicks so as to discredit the whole thing and start calling Hagens (and me) foul names. Too dissonant to their embedded view. Another, from a new economy group, said he watched it twice and took notes.
.
This is a concise distillation of Hagens' 1,200 pages of classroom material. Viewed on 1.5 speed it will be less than an hour. Mind blowing stuff that explains the relationship of how everything fits together. Energy, economy, ecology/ resources, evolutionary human behavior. And is unknown to most people including the world scientists and economists that council our leaders.
.
I am driven to keep trying. I'm going out next week in two different cities to table and hand out flyers. Please take 1 hour in honor of Earth Day this year to watch this lecture.
.
https://youtu.be/YUSpsT6Oqrg
.
.

.
.

I watched his entire lecture.Some thoughts:
*some of what he said is contextual/conditional-negotiable
*He appears out of his depth with respect to certain historical precedent
*He appears out of his depth with respect to engineering
*He appears out of his depth with respect to physics
*He appears out of his depth with respect to technology
*I would argue that needs can be met with much less energy as is currently consumed for needs and wants.

[sendler]

Originally Posted by aerohead

I watched his entire lecture.Some thoughts:
.

Well, at least you are not calling him names today. Do you have any links to anything that you feel explains things better?
.
I also highly recommend the "Our Renewable Future" book that is available free online.
.
Our Renewable Future
.

[sendler]

Keep in mind also that the Hagens lecture I linked was just an off the cuff local Earth day presentation he threw together not even intending it to be any kind of Magnum Opus. Not a rehearsed and produced Tedx. And seeks to condense an 80 hour, 1,200 page class into 1 hour. Maybe it is just much easier for me to understand what he is getting at since I have taken the whole class?
.
There is a more thorough short video series available now which he just finished and that all incoming freshmen to the Honors College at U of Minnesota are required to view. The production is still slap dash but the information is excellent as usual. Again, he speaks deliberately when narrating so the videos can be watched at 1.5 speed to save time. Watch each group in order. 1, 2, 3. The last few in #3 I find very insightful.
.
There is no one else that I have ever read that has put together such a complete understanding. And I have read a lot.
.
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCLL...pLsA/playlists
.

[freebeard]

Originally Posted by aerohead

*I would argue that needs can be met with much less energy as is currently consumed for needs and wants.

It seem obvious on it's face, but probably not to people who can't distinguish the two.

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by sendler

Well, at least you are not calling him names today. Do you have any links to anything that you feel explains things better?
.
I also highly recommend the "Our Renewable Future" book that is available free online.
.
Our Renewable Future
.

I don't.And my notes are at home.Sorry!
What I recall though,is that through the lecture,things he said triggered a realization that Nate was exhibiting what Donald Rumsfeld referred to as 'unknown-unknowns,' leaving the impression that he didn't know what he didn't know,but spoke with an authority,as if he did.
This is not a criticism,just an observation.(I'm in the middle of watching a 2016,24-lecture series on energy,by The GREAT COURSES,and am also experiencing the same thing with Michael Wysession, PhD,Petroleum Seismology,Washington University,St. Louis, doing that series).
The world is so complex that it's hard to be a Renaissance Man,with total command of all topics.
I'm okay with most of what he presented,but there were a few things that are critical for the viewers to understand, that he could have done a better job with,had he known.

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by freebeard

It seem obvious on it's face, but probably not to people who can't distinguish the two.

I agree,and also am apprehensive about,in that in a worse-case-scenario,any 'haircut' our economy is required to take,is going to impact millions who derive their incomes from pure commercial consumption,as Henry Ford referred to as,products whose sole purpose is to be sold.
We're an 85% service-sector economy.There's a lot of 'fluff' out there.Millions of potential pink-slips if it came down to it.

[Vman455]

Originally Posted by freebeard

It seem obvious on it's face, but probably not to people who can't distinguish the two.

I would argue that none of us can distinguish between the two, hence why it's fine to talk about a future in which we all voluntarily reduce our consumption, but this future is not likely to happen. I don't need HVAC--I could just put on more layers of clothing when it's cold and minimize my exertions and stay in the shade when it's hot. I don't need a car--everywhere I need to go is within a few mile radius, so I could walk everywhere. I don't need to eat a banana every morning for breakfast (a banana which, it should be noted, traveled halfway around the world at great expense of energy to get to me).

Especially in our Western lifestyle, there are a thousand little contrivances we indulge in daily and never give a second thought to the huge amounts of energy that make them possible. Now expand that to the rest of the world, with huge swaths of people aspiring and moving up to a middle-class Western lifestyle (and the moral conundrum of us, who have indulged in this overly-consumptive lifestyle for generations now, telling them they can't because we need to protect our habitat--a habitat which, up to now, we have largely been responsible for altering). As a whole, we are not moving in the direction of lower consumption, and as long as human nature remains the same, I think this will continue in future.

[Frank Lee]

Nothing to worry about.

The market will determine the most efficient responses.

Right now, the market says barn-sized SUVs, extravagant reproduction, etc., etc., are the most efficient responses.

Who am I to doubt it?

[freebeard]

Originally Posted by Vman455

I would argue that none of us can distinguish between the two, hence why it's fine to talk about a future in which we all voluntarily reduce our consumption, but this future is not likely to happen.

I think it's Joe Rogan who likes to say his baseline is naked and alone in the wilderness, because that's a step above naked in the wilderness, alone and wounded. Anything more is a plus. Remember, cars replaced horses on the streets of New York in [five?] years. Cell phones came out of nowhere. Those are wants not needs, but applying the same type of disruption to needs could happen quickly.

Ad Argumentum, pod houses made from a spiral print using aircrete, from a rotating arm.


https://www.designboom.com/wp-conten...boom-600-1.jpg