Distributed Solar: The Democratizaton of Energy
Blogroll
- American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS)
- Earle Wilson
- John Cook's reasons to use Bayesian inference
- Ted Dunning
- Lenny Smith's CHAOS: A VERY SHORT INTRODUCTION
- What If
- BioPython
- Awkward Botany
- AP Statistics: Sampling, by Michael Porinchak
- John Kruschke's "Dong Bayesian data analysis" blog
climate change
- US$165/tonne CO2: Sweden
- Climate Change Denying Organizations
- Andy Zucker's "Climate Change and Psychology"
- Jacobson WWS literature index
- AIP's history of global warming science: impacts
- SolarLove
- Bloomberg interactive graph on “What's warming the world''
- The great Michael Osborne's latest opinions
- Steve Easterbrook's excellent climate blog: See his "The Internet: Saving Civilization or Trashing the Planet?" for example
- Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature
Archives
I wonder how much articles like this, and the current “Losing Earth”, will affect the further evisceration of whatever might be possible relative to a political coalition to address the “fine mess YOU’VE(!) gotten us into”? Systemically the mess is a matter of motivated reasoning regarding a trusted irrational economic paradigm. In this go[]d we trust.
Thanks for linking back to this article from last year. The current one will likely be similarly lost to memory soon enough. Such is the power [and curse] of motivated reasoning.
https://mobile.twitter.com/OpenToInfo/status/1026926017003315201
BTW, for now, the decision to install more PV seems well considered compared to the battery option.
sNAILmALEnotHAIL …but pace’n myself
https://m.youtube.com/channel/UCeDkezgoyyZAlN7nW1tlfeA
life is for learning so all my failures must mean that I’m wicked smart
>
Thank you for your comment.
The public and the U.S. government has been repeatedly warned of the consequences of uncontrolled release of greenhouse gases into atmosphere since 1965, when President LBJ was the first President briefed. Whatever one might think of the present national mood on the matter, there was a time when that mood was largely absent. That the situation has gotten worse because of collective inaction is hardly a surprise: That’s how these things usually go.
The problem is basically that the U.S. public does not want to embrace its responsibility of educating itself to where it can understand the risks. And, no, this is not entirely the fault of fossil fuel companies, although they have been very opportunistic. The U.S. public does not want to contemplate, let alone implement the reduction in standard of living, however temporary, needed to make the transition from fossil fuels to zero Carbon. This includes building much smaller homes.
I have every confidence that, as Dr Tyson observes, when the wealthy begin to lose their wealth, there will be action. Alas, that’s likely to take a while and, by that time, as the science shows, a bunch of change will be committed and will last for a thousand years. That’s not forever, but it’s long. And we can still work together to keep things from getting worse.
But I see no will for it, and, with every year of delay, the amount of effort and the corresponding economic hurt casades:
But it can hardly be dropped at the feet of scientists.
Moreover, progressives, in my opinion, complicate matters when they try to marry things like climate justice, jobs, and immigration policy to energy and climate reform, mitigation, adaptation, and actions. They do not understand conditional probability. If
is the probability of action on climate change or adaptation or energy, and 
is the probability of action on something else, such as climate justice, jobs, and immigration policy, all which on their own are worthy causes, then it is mathematically true that 
and 
. In other words, lashing another issue onto climate reduces its likelihood. It by no means increases it.