Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 Next
Comments 6751 to 6800:
-
Preston Urka at 04:51 AM on 23 July 2020Is Nuclear Energy the Answer?
First, let me publically thank Baerbel (who sent me a very nice note via email). Let me also note Eclectic's kind advice on continuing to press ahead.
I appreciate the challenge MA_Rodger has thrown down. True debate!
Sadly, this makes the tone of michael_sweet all the more glaring in its contrast.
MA Rodger's Pudding Argument
#1 Nuclear has achieved the second-largest contribution to low-carbon electricity (I will confine myself pretty much to electricity vs. total energy) for over 60 years, let alone the last 30. Yes, renewables (when you include hydro) have done more. However, the expansion of renewables over the last several decades has not been in hydro, and hydro has problems:
- hydro tends to be environmentally destructive
- hydro has limited scope for expansion
- most of the best places for hydro are already taken
However, when comparing the areas of Nuclear vs. other Renewables (Wind/Solar), we might ask just what other renewables are doing for us - not much apparently! I do not subscribe to that view - clearly they have made a low-carbon juice difference in the last few years - just as obviously as Nuclear has.
https://ourworldindata.org/#2 Let us not conflate the (lack of) addition of Nuclear with its contribution. The US is a more obvious example.
https://ourworldindata.org/Think about it. Over the last 20 years (closer to 30), the only real addition to the nuclear fleet is Watts Bar 2 in Tennessee. With just 100-odd NPPs, mostly 30 years old, Nuclear is still equal to the renewables (including Hydro! truly astonishing!) industry in provision of low-carbon electricity in the US. And compared to the Wind-Solar industry, crushing it. Crushing it. Wow!
If we had kept on building NPPs at the rate of the 70's and 80's, it is quite obvious (peer-reviewed citation or not) that doubling the amount of low-carbon electricity was possible.
Alternatively, I suggest to you, MA Rodger, why hasn't the Wind-Solar industry caught up to infrastructure that has stood in stasis (excepting Watts Bar) over the last 20-30 years?
Moral: Never bet against the energy density of nuclear power.
#3 However, MA Rodger, if you want to take your argument to its logical conclusion: Why hasn't any low-carbon (hydro, nuclear, wind, solar, etc) generation source managed to win your Pudding Argument against Natural Gas?
It is rather clear that over the last 20-30 years Natural Gas has been the main (new source) reducer of GHG emissions (by displacing coal) rather than any other generation source, renewable or nuclear.
Don't get me wrong, I think Natural Gas is only half as bad as coal. Which is to say, bad. But I view the goal as reducing GHG emissions, and so I will take the non-growth (due to politics) of nuclear, the mini-growth of wind and solar (due to intermittency and lack of installed capacity) and even the only-half-as-bad-as-coal-growth of natural gas in lowering GHG emissions.
michael sweet's argument? polemic? something like that
#1 I never stated Jacobson 2009 was inaccurate or bad science. Let me be more clear: Jacobson 2009, publishing a year prior to the retraction of Spitzley and Keoleian 2005 in 2010, did their due diligence. Jacobson et al appear to be careful researchers. In contrast, Abbot 2011 and 2012 are not. It was Abbot's responsibility to follow this stuff up. It was also the responsibility of his journal, Bull. Atomic Scientists to follow this stuff up.
#2 I never stated Jacobson 2009's main or significant point was land area. I did state this was one of the main and significant points of Abbot 2011 and 2012. I was questioning the quality of the Abbott papers, not the Jacobson paper.
#3 to address your comment "I have never seen a nuclear opponent argue that area is a problem with nuclear" - I suggest you read Abbott 2011 or 2012 again. Abbott is clearly a nuclear opponent and Abbott is clearly listing area as a problem.
Abbott's 2011 section title is "II. THE LAND AREA PROBLEM". An entire section is devoted to arguing that area is a problem, but you have never seen it?
Abbott's 2011 section "CONCLUSION ... There are fundamental limits imposed by ... land resources ...". I believe most readers would view this statement as referring to section II and interpret it as meaning 'area is a problem with nuclear'. In any case, that is how I have.
If I take you at your word, should I conclude you did not read Abbott's paper. (I have, tip: not worth it - there are much better anti-nuclear papers, Jacobson (not 2009) springs to mind).
Heaven's to Betsy! I haven't included any (not a single one) peer-reviewed citations in this post. Call the gendarmes out!
Moderator Response:[DB] "Nuclear is still equal to the renewables (including Hydro! truly astonishing!) industry in provision of low-carbon electricity in the US. And compared to the Wind-Solar industry, crushing it."
And yet:And
The unsubsidised levelised cost of energy (LCOE) of large scale wind and solar is at a fraction of the cost of new coal or nuclear generators, even if the cost of decommissioning or the ongoing maintenance for nuclear is excluded.
https://www.lazard.com/perspective/lcoe2019
Inflammatory snipped. You do yourself no favors by baiting others.
-
BaerbelW at 04:31 AM on 23 July 2020The Conspiracy Theory Handbook: Downloads and translations
The Conspiracy Theory Handbook is now also available in French!
-
michael sweet at 04:13 AM on 23 July 2020Is Nuclear Energy the Answer?
Eclectic,
I am sorry, I intended my comments about MA Rodger to be very strong praise. His posts have a lot of data and graphs that are good presentations and take a long time to find and put in a post.
I at post 127 in this thread I respond to an article (linked by a nuclear advocate) by a proponent of molten salt reactors where they proposed using "unobtainium" for the valves that control the salt (Doug C's original post is here). Apparently no known alloys can sustain the heat and radiation field. In addition, they require 5 tons of bomb grade uranium to start up the reactor. Since no molten salt reactor designs currently exist, and the materials required are unknown, it seems like a risky bet to make.
Renewable energy is currently much cheaper than the projected costs of small reactor proponents. Given the very long record of nuclear proponents promising cheap power and delivering expensive power way behind schedule I think the decision is easy to make.
-
Philippe Chantreau at 02:45 AM on 23 July 2020Is Nuclear Energy the Answer?
I personally think that the molten salt reactor idea has merit as another wedge to tackle the climate problem, provided that the issues enumerated by Eclectic are appropriately addressed.
There are, however, good news on the renewable front:
https://ember-climate.org/project/renewables-beat-fossil-fuels/
-
Eclectic at 23:32 PM on 22 July 2020Is Nuclear Energy the Answer?
Ah, Michael, you are bordering on faint praise there! I would say that MA Rodger has a multi-year track record of excellent posts on several forums** , not just at SkS. A slightly different style of writing, compared with the outstanding (but now retired) Tom Curtis. [ ** Forum, like Octopus, should always take the English plural, no?]
Back on topic ~ and it will be interesting to see if Preston Urka (above) can make a good case. Since many strongly-pro-nuclear advocates have rather fallen flat in the past, it might be prudent for Preston to first "run the gauntlet" in the comments columns here, before undertaking the work of a formal article.
I can see the attractions of using numerous small Molten Salt Reactors : partly for redundancy of electric power, especially in sub-arctic regions and/or on smaller islands. One particular advocate projects a [levelised?] cost of 4 cents per Kwh ~ but he never substantiates this claim. And I very much fear that such low-cost claims are carefully ignoring the "external" cost of security. (Guarding against a commando-style terrorist raid intended to explode, or worse abduct, fissionable materiel. And strengthening the containing vessels against a 911-style plane attack.)
But, as MA Rodger says, there is the Pudding problem. And the same can be said of fusion reactors, only more so. Admittedly, the science-deniers use the same Pudding argument against wind/solar Renewable Energy . . . but they steadfastly turn a blind eye to the demonstrated efficacy & plummeting cost of renewables ~ and to the fact that private financiers are putting up money for RE installations, even as subsidies fade out.
Yet for fission reactors, private financiers are running scared. AFAIK only Rossatom and other governmental money is actually being used for building new reactors at scale. (Not that I myself am opposed to a modicum of governmental money being diverted into a measure of nuclear building ~ but governmental money is a question that will likely stick in the craw of those Libertarian extremists, whenever they pause in their efforts to denigrate RE. And the same Oily Interests which oppose RE, are probably quietly undermining Nuclear.)
-
michael sweet at 21:27 PM on 22 July 2020Is Nuclear Energy the Answer?
MA Rodger,
I liked your description of a pudding. I thought it was a good comparison.
I have noticed that you are making a lot of well written posts lately. Thank you for your informed commentary.
-
michael sweet at 21:26 PM on 22 July 2020Is Nuclear Energy the Answer?
Preston Urka:
The question of the area used by a nuclear plant was discussed at great length by poster Barry earlier in this thread. Reading your link to Jacobson 2009 (which I linked upthread during the discussion with Barry). I see that the area of a nuclear plant is not important in Jacobson's evaluation of nuclear plants. He argues that biofuels are impractical because of area used but for nuclear area is not a concern. I have never seen a nuclear opponent argue that area is a problem with nuclear, only nuclear supporters are concerned about area. You are wasting our time by pursuing an issue that is not significant.
Jacobson 2009 currently has 1405 citations (!!!) according to Google Scholar. Perhaps you might want to pick a more obscure article to claim is inaccurate.
I recommend that you write an article with peer reviewed citations and then send it to contact us at Skeptical Science. Since your posts above do not contain references to argue against Abbott you need to raise your game a lot or the article will be rejected.
Abbott 2012 was published by invitation in the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists. The editors read Abbott 2011 and thought it was important for nuclear scientists to read so they republished it. The fact that it was published by invitation means that the editors peer reviewed the article and thought it was worthy of publication.
-
MA Rodger at 20:36 PM on 22 July 2020Is Nuclear Energy the Answer?
When it comes to the ability of nuclear power to provide a significant contribution towards AGW mitigation, there is one argument that is perhaps more powerful than any other because it is a fundamental argument which cannot be refuted. That argument is what I will call the 'Pudding Argument - "The proof of the pudding is in the eating."
The nuclear industry has had certainly thirty years to demonstrate its potential as a contributor to AGW mitigation. And what has it achieved? Through this time, the advocates of nuclear have continually waxed lyrically about nuclear being the answer to our prayers (here quoted the World Nuclear Association):-
"To combat climate change, the world must rapidly reduce its dependency on fossil fuels to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Nuclear energy is low-carbon and can be deployed on a large scale in the time frame required, supplying the world with clean and affordable electricity."
However, by the 'Pudding Test', in three decades nuclear has achieved absolutely nothing whatever, this despite many billions of investment (which has solely managed to replace ageing nuclear capacity). The figure below is from World Energy Data showing global primary energy supply 1990-2018 (based on BP data).
-
sauerj at 13:11 PM on 22 July 2020A conundrum: our continued presence on Facebook
A recent "Living on Earth" radio show talked about some climate action groups dropping their advertising on FB. I can only wonder if there are many, many other groups, scientist leaders and businesses that SkS could team up with, who are disgusted with FB abetting climate denialism and conspiracies, and targeting users via fear and outrage manipulation (boggeyman politics), resulting in unhealthy polarization of society, all for the sake of a buck.
http://www.loe.org/shows/segments.html?programID=20-P13-00029&segmentID=1Moderator Response:[DB] URL breaking page formatting shortened.
-
Eclectic at 11:49 AM on 22 July 2020Is Nuclear Energy the Answer?
Preston Urka @ 159/160 ,
thank you for your comments. And as you say, you would not want to be "locked into the Abbott paradigm".
The question of 20 Km2 of land per nuclear plant is a dubious matter. To me it seems quite inappropriate to "burden" each nuclear plant with the background support structure of land area involved in mining / ore processing / waste storage. Even more so, with regard to [future] small-scale plants. Here, whatever the size, the major concern is that plants be air-cooled, and not requiring lake/river or ocean-front access. (Just as it is quite feasible for solar farms' panels to be "thinned out" to permit mixed agriculture & pasture usage.)
I hope you will press ahead with your comments, and disregard the Abbott land-area aspects. The real heart of the nuclear question is economics & timeliness. Timeliness is the developmental problem, in view of the current rapidity of global warming and the rising CO2 load. And the basic economics: resource allocation and costings of delivered Kwh ~ levelised costing including the short-term and long-term security costings (anti-terrorist, particularly).
If you can make a good case, then it would certainly be worth your composing a concise article. Sorry, I am not in a position to comment on [lack of] response from the SkS "head office" ~ but please remember that SkS is a shoestring operation run by volunteers, who are stretched thin for time. Perhaps they don't have time for "a pig in a poke", yet I am confident that a well-argued presentation would be welcome . . . even if it takes some weeks of time for the wheels to turn over.
-
Postkey at 07:15 AM on 22 July 2020Book review: Bad science and bad arguments abound in 'Apocalypse Never' by Michael Shellenberger
" . . . economic growth has been on a falling trajectory in America . . . "
Due to a rising ECoE (the Energy Cost of Energy)?
'The first principle is that all forms of economic output – literally all of the goods and services which comprise the ‘real’ economy – are products of energy.
Nothing of any economic value or utility can be supplied without using energy. . . .If you want a succinct answer to this question, it is that ECoE (the Energy Cost of Energy) is rising, relentlessly and exponentially. The exponential rate of increase in ECoE means that this cannot be cancelled out by linear increases in the aggregate amount of total or gross (pre-ECoE) energy that we can access. The resultant squeeze on surplus energy has been compounded by increasing numbers of people seeking to share the prosperity that this surplus provides.
As a result, prior growth in prosperity per person has gone into reverse. People have been getting poorer in most Western advanced economies (AEs) since the early 2000s. With the same fate now starting to overtake emerging market (EM) countries too, global prosperity has turned down. One way of describing this process is “de-growth”. ' -
william5331 at 06:57 AM on 22 July 20202020 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #29
Forest plantations with pyrolysis can be a great contributor to solving our Carbon dioxide emission problem
You build the wood into laminated beams, ply wood and so forth for the construction of multi story buildings and pyrolize the waste. This results in multi levels of benefit.
1/ The wooden buildings represent a sequestering of Carbon in a long lasting form (and these buildings are natuarally earthquake resistant)
2/ The alkanes produced by the pyrolysis displaces some of the oil we have to extract from the ground
3/ The charcoal produced is beneficial for agricultural lands and sequesters more carbon - long term.
4/ Wooden buildings displace Concrete which is also a source of C pollution.
5/ Tne new trees we plant take up carbon at a rapid rate due to the vigorous growth of young trees.
Not the whole solution but one more string for our bow.
-
nigelj at 06:53 AM on 22 July 2020Book review: Bad science and bad arguments abound in 'Apocalypse Never' by Michael Shellenberger
"Shellenberger... seeks to promote the Cornucopian view that environmental problems can be eliminated if we’d just pursue aggressive economic growth"
This is nonsensical, because developed countries already clearly have enough wealth to spare to mitigate environmental problems without significant compromises to living standards. Just wasing less resources would go a long way to helping. They dont need more economic growth, instead they need to re-prioritise. The argument has more validity for poor countries.
And like Ubrew says economic growth has been on a falling trajectory in America (you can get trends on this on tradingeconomics.com). Realists understand this is likely to be permanent, so we have to deal with the situation we have.
-
BaerbelW at 05:00 AM on 22 July 2020The Debunking Handbook: now freely available for download
Barış C. Kaştaş created a Turkish translation of The Debunking Handbook which has been added to the list of available translations.
-
ubrew12 at 03:46 AM on 22 July 2020Book review: Bad science and bad arguments abound in 'Apocalypse Never' by Michael Shellenberger
"Shellenberger... seeks to promote the Cornucopian view that environmental problems can be eliminated if we’d just pursue aggressive economic growth" America has pursued such growth since WWII ended, with no regard to its central environmental consequence: climate change. Yet, in that 70 year interval, America's annual GDP growth rate has fallen, from 3.5% in 1948 to 2% in the last decade (see 2nd graph in this article). The pursuit of 'aggressive economic growth' has led in a straight line to moribund growth together with absolutely no progress on climate change. After 70 years of this, it's worthwhile questioning Shellenberger's central thesis, that the pursuit of economic growth alone will solve all our problems. Indeed, it appears it can't even solve the problem of economic growth.
The Fed will make up $10 trillion this year, and the deficit will hit $5 trillion, all to deal with a pandemic that Science warned was coming since 1918 (with potent reminders at least once a decade). So we see, in the pandemic, that ignoring Science can be horribly expensive, and can push economic growth into negative territory. 'Negative externalities' can have real consequences, despite their not being visible to our Market-based economy. In fact, because they are not visible. It's our job to make them visible, not the markets. And it's Shellenbergers job to bid us keep the blinders on.
-
Preston Urka at 02:48 AM on 22 July 2020Is Nuclear Energy the Answer?
One consistent current running through this blog topic is the wonderful peer-reviewed Abbott 2011 and 2012 papers. But they just are not of a high quality.
First, the two articles are pretty much the same.
Second, as sauerj's post at Should a Green New Deal include nuclear power? 00:29 AM on 24 April, 2019 points out, Abbott 2012 is an opinion piece, published in their Point of View features, which "The scope of this section ranges from opinions on the importance of particular new concepts or discoveries to discussion of educational and professional trends to personal positions and predictions on various technical topics." - opinions, discussion, personal positions - not peer reviewed science.
Third, lets go thru the underlying references of Abbott:
- "It can also be argued that nuclear power has a key role to play in meeting emissions targets (Brook, 2012) for mitigating climate change."
- Ok, so the first citation is 'here is an opinion, and here is the citation to that opinion'.
- It can be argued. Fine. Seems fairly innocuous.
- "A nuclear utopian goes much further and suggests that nuclear power can potentially supply the bulk of the world’s energy needs for many thousands of years to come and that perhaps a mix of renewables with nuclear power as the backbone supply is the long-term energy future (Manheimer, 2006)."
- Ok, so the second citation is 'here is an definition, and here is the citation to that definition'.
Now we know what a nuclear utopian is. Seems fairly innocuous. - "Currently, the total global power consumption is about 15 terawatts (EIA, 2011)."
- Ok, the third citation is data. Global power is .... Seems fairly innocuous.
- "Today there are about 430 commercial nuclear reactors worldwide (Schneider et al., 2012)."
- Ok, the fourth citation is more data. There are X number reactors. Seems fairly innocuous.
- "Taking into account not just the footprint of a nuclear power station but also its exclusion zone, associated enrichment plant, ore processing, and supporting infrastructure, Stanford's Mark Z. Jacobson (2009) has shown that each nuclear power plant draws upon a total land area of as much as 20.5 square kilometers."
- Ok, the fifth citation is more data. Seems fairly .... wait a minute, 20.5 km2? That is a lot of land. Nuclear is very dense, so the cognoscenti are immediately suspicious. Better check this citation.
In Abbott 2012, "Jacobson (2009)" refers to "Jacobson, MZ (2009) Review of solutions to global warming, air pollution, and energy security. Energy & Environmental Science 2: 148–173." I believe this is an electronic copy of that very paper: Jacobson (2009)
And let us see what Jacobson writes, section 6.4: "Estimates of the lands required for uranium mining and nuclear facility with a buffer zone are 0.06 ha yr GWh1 and 0.26 ha yr GWh1, respectively, and that for waste for a single sample facility is about 0.08 km2 [footnote] 31. For the average plant worldwide, this translates into a total land requirement per nuclear facility plus mining and storage of about 20.5 km2."
Let's look at footnote 31: D. V. Spitzley, and G. A. Keoleian, Life cycle environmental and economic assessment of willow biomass electricity: A comparison with other renewable and non-renewable sources, Report No. CSS04–05R, 2005, http://css.snre.umich.edu/css_doc/CSS04-05R.pdf. The link has changed, but this is where the report cannot be found CSS04-05R.pdf
What do you mean, cannot be found??? Why are you posting a link then?
Well, as the Univ. of Michigan states (in 2010, a year (and 5 days) before the first Abbott paper)
"LIFE CYCLE ENVIRONMENTAL AND ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT OF WILLOW BIOMASS ELECTRICITY: A COMPARISON WITH OTHER RENEWABLE AND NON-RENEWABLE SOURCES
CSS PUBLICATION NUMBER: CSS04-05R
AUTHOR(S): David V. Spitzley Gregory A. Keoleian
ABSTRACT:
EDITOR's NOTE: This report is temporarily unavailable and will be posted again once a correction on a metric pertaining to the nuclear fuel cycle is made. - October 25, 2010."Naturally, I sent a note to the Univ. of Michigan, and they still haven't gotten around to their, um, shall we say retraction? and subsequent repost yet.
Basically, in Abbott's first claim, versus uncontested data, he starts lowering the paper's quality with a dodgy reference. Does this mean that all of Abbott 2011 or 2012 (where he repeats the claim at the beginning of the paper) is garbage? Or just that section?
Well, it certainly means that Abbott is not the most careful of researchers, and that at least one of his paper's major claims is suspect.
Also, my life is too short to go through the rest of Abbott pointing out the other opinions, poor research and sketchy logic. Maybe Abbott should write a proper paper which has less opinion-stated-as-fact, and more fact. Of course, it is fine if in his conclusion he states his opinion, but conflating the two really reduces the quality of this paper.
-
Preston Urka at 02:03 AM on 22 July 2020Is Nuclear Energy the Answer?
The introduction for this blog topic states: "We have repeatedly asked for nuclear proponents to provide an article for this site which puts the case based on published science but so far we haven't had a taker."
I am a taker.
Using the Contact Us form, I submitted a request to provide a nuclear proponent's case for nuclear. On 21 June, 2020. Well, a month later, SkepticalScience hasn't even bothered with the courtesy of a reply - denial or acceptance.
One thing I mentioned in my note, is that I would not be locked into the Abbott paradigm - as I will explain in my next post.
-
BaerbelW at 03:51 AM on 21 July 2020The Conspiracy Theory Handbook: Downloads and translations
The Last Week Tonight with John Oliver episode on July 19, 2020 was about COVID conspiracy theories and it briefly featured the Conspiracy Theory Handbook at the 10:40 mark!
-
sauerj at 00:45 AM on 21 July 2020A conundrum: our continued presence on Facebook
There is another major typo blunder in my post above, which totally screws up the sentence's meaning:
#2 in the Reasons to Stay section: "Certainly the self-amplification of this misinformation within MeWe FB will be stunted ..."Also: I think gerontocrat (@27) made an extremely astute point. Since the US election is only a short 3-1/2 months away, it makes total logical sense, before the election, to follow a path of evaluating and talking this over (including talking with other climate action groups), but to hold off any action until after the election.
-
gerontocrat at 21:59 PM on 20 July 2020A conundrum: our continued presence on Facebook
You may consider this post is political. My advice to Skeptical Science to continue doing what you are doing until November 5th. Then have another think abot it. Why?
Mark Zuckerberg is Facebook. What drives Zuckerberg is the search for revenue. Political influence is one of the tools in his toolbox, as it is with all big business wherever it is. So he leans towards Tump & the Republicans.
But Bloomberg News (& others) have commented on how Wall Street is looking more & more at Biden & the Democrats as the polls move in that direction.
If Biden wins, and especially if the Democrats get the Senate as well, then watch big business switch horses pdq. I believe so will Facebook. Perhaps it has started already (see comment on complaints by WUWT) ?
-
prove we are smart at 20:23 PM on 20 July 20202020 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #29
I found this story about Greta and her fathers travel diary to be quite informative and interesting. I came across her travel story by accident and wondered why mainstream media hasn't reproduced it somewhere (maybe it has? ). I think this would wake up any fence sitters about many things, including the wonderful Miss Thunbergs motivations.
The mention of the United Nations Production Gap Report in the final chapter,( I believe an update for 2020 is due.) was an insight to the two faced nature of the fossil fuel industry..
https://time.com/5863684/greta-thunberg-diary-climate-crisis/
-
nigelj at 19:05 PM on 20 July 2020Book review: Bad science and bad arguments abound in 'Apocalypse Never' by Michael Shellenberger
Skellenburgers wikipedia profile says hes a Mennonite ( a Christian Sect) and was an environmentalist, peace activist, has a diploma in peace studies. He also supported Hugo Chavez the socialist ruler of Venezuela. Nothing necessarilly wrong with any of that, but it suggests to me he may have a genuine concern for the plight of workers and the poor, and that he might be afraid of what the alleged costs of renewables, and decreases in carbon footprints might do to working classes and poor people. A bit like Lomberg, another delusional luke warmer. As far as Im aware he hasn't expressed this motivation but it fits.
This in turn may have lead Shellenburger to diminish the climate problem, attack renewables, and latch onto nuclear power as a simple solution that has allegedly low costs and no problems. The climate denialist rhetoric on climate science and renewables is clearly seductive for some people.
Of course Shellenburger is wrong about all of this. The climate problem is severe, and will hurt the poor in particular, renewables are now lower cost than coal and nuclear power, (according to the Lazard international energy analysis) and nobody is suggesting poor people go cold in winter or we heap all the problem on them. Not that I'm personally against nuclear power, there is room for a range of zero carbon solutions.
The people that promote renewables do not all promote endless growth. Another of Shellenburgers delusions.
-
nigelj at 07:04 AM on 20 July 2020A conundrum: our continued presence on Facebook
My take in a bit more detail and having read the comments: There appear to be a couple of main issues with facebook. 1)Micro targetting of ads and information that can reinforce climate denialism, and 2) facebooks poor fact checking, because facebook claim climate denialism articles are not news articles, they are opinion so they dont need fact checking.
Facebook show no signs of changing this behaviour, despite these issues being raised on various websites. Im assuming people have also lobbied facebook directly. The government hasn't intervened very much, presumably because its afraid of being seen to censor free speech and excessively interfering in how facebook do business in relation to micro targetting.
Fact checking opinion articles or dealing with complaints about them would be very time consuming for governments. Even if the public lobbied governments, it looks to me like they might be reluctant to act. Governmnets usually only get tough if its a question of safety, blatantly inaccurate news articles, and so on. I guess we could argue lies about climate change threaten the safety of humanity. Would that have potential, or is it too tenuous?
So things might only change if users leave facebook and thus start hurting their bottom line. However the problem is if only a few users leave it wont make a difference. You would need quite a big exodus. People like facebook, and the issues we see as a problem might not bother enough people, or they might not be smart enough to understand them. So the risk is a few leave, but 99% stay and so what would we have achieved?
I did leave facebook some time ago for a combination of reasons.
-
bbrowett at 04:44 AM on 20 July 2020A conundrum: our continued presence on Facebook
Perhaps I have a simple take on social media and Facebook involvement specifically. Mine take in the context of activism and influencing ... You need to make noise, you need supporters to make noise with you, most importantly, you need to build trust in your messaging and communicate with people who do not agree with you.
I use Facebook and other social media plateforms to connecct with people who need to hear the messages. Clearly, is activists leave social media we will be leaving the systems open to only those who have messages of denial, missinformation, and manipulation, i.e., propaganda of those who deny the problems or greenwash the problems.
I repost Skeptical Science content not because I need to content, but because many of the people who are connected to my profile do need to be nudged in the Skeptical Science direction.
There are too few good scientific resources already on Facebook. We need more ... We need more people reposting to counter the huge volume of misinfomation that is out there ...
Yes, Facebook needs reforming ... but just like the streets that we march down with placards ... We need those streets ... We need the public arenas to communicate. Those who would like to silence us would be more than happy to have Facebook for their own. -
John Mason at 04:39 AM on 20 July 2020A conundrum: our continued presence on Facebook
Re: #19:
There are some workarounds that address some of your points, namely the browser plug-in, Facebook Purity. You can customise it to not show a whole stack of different post-types (including ads) from appearing in newsfeed. It has improved my experience. FB of course hate it but every time they find a way of disabling the thing the guy behind it comes up with a fix. -
John Hartz at 04:08 AM on 20 July 2020A conundrum: our continued presence on Facebook
Another comment posted on the SkS Facebook page in response to this article...
Julian Skidmore
My fb friends see quite a lot of climate posts thanks to SkepticalScience, because I actively share them. Their opportunity to have misinformation redressed will be more limited if you leave the platform. -
Doug Bostrom at 02:59 AM on 20 July 2020A conundrum: our continued presence on Facebook
Failure to communicate is usually in the hands of the person talking.
Here we've clearly failed to communicate MW's refusal to use pushed content and AI driving that push, the differences iin outcomes that unpack from that choice.
That and the lack of advertisements, the impossibility of microtargeted ads, how that unpacks.
-
Doug Bostrom at 02:52 AM on 20 July 2020A conundrum: our continued presence on Facebook
Sauerj: "I would work to leave FB but do so with as much noise as you can."
An excellent point. Ideally FB would be tamed, broken to the will of users. The company needs feedback in order to do that.
The equivocation of MeWe and Facebook regarding bogus information being delivered spontaneously to users is incorrect. MeWe doesn't push content: users have to seek it out. This is a key difference and according to the (excellent) method applied by SauerJ will change the results of the analysis quite radically.
-
sauerj at 12:20 PM on 19 July 2020A conundrum: our continued presence on Facebook
There a two major typo errors with the above text (and a number of poorly worded, sloppy errors). The major ones need to be pointed out:
#3 in the Reasons to Stay section: "... readership of SkS on SM would plummet in the meantime if fully leaving moving to FB."
Conclusion section: "The points above in #3 #4 and #5 in the 'Leaving' section should be made clear ..."
-
sauerj at 12:07 PM on 19 July 2020A conundrum: our continued presence on Facebook
Reasons to Stay or Leave: 4 Reasons for each group. Rating each 1 to 5 (1 = stay, 5= leave)
Reasons for staying on FB:
1) No One Polices False Information: FB does not self-control (police) false information. Neither does most other media organizations (Fox News), and neither does MeWe. There will still be climate denier groups and individuals all over MeWe, peddling false information within their echo groups, once it gets a full spectrum of users. So, this is a neutral point: Rating = 3.
2) Flow of False Information Likely Only Slightly Less on MeWe: Many climate deniers are not FB users. They get the misinformation from many other sources. Even if everyone moved to MeWe, the flow of climate denial into MeWe will be the same (coming from other media sources). (Certainly the self-amplification of this misinformation within FB will be stunted - see first two points in next section - but I believe this internal amplification is a smaller accelerant of the flow of misinformation on FB compared to the incoming flow of misinformation from other media sources.) So, this is a neutral point: Rating = 3. ... (Although, since the flow of misinformation may be less (if even slightly less), then one could argue this should be a 4 favoring leaving.)
3) Loss of Readership & Loss of Penetrating the Internet w/ Good, Truthful Material: FB users like the "one stop shopping" aspect of FB's news feed. Not having to click around on different sites, just scroll down to see media material from groups & individuals of interest is very fast and convenient. But, there are many other social media (SM) platforms that users do click on, so adding MeWe to the list is only a partial inconvenience. But, until MeWe use builds, the readership of SkS on SM would plummet in the meantime if fully moving to FB. So, this is not a show stopper for leaving, but it is a major reason to stay (for now): Rating = 1.
4) Buy out of MeWe or future change of MeWe: There is no guarantee that MeWe won't succumb to future money interest. So, loss of readership and other headaches could be all for naught in a few years from now. But, this is only speculation: Rating = 3.
Reasons for leaving FB
1) No Profile Specific Ordering of News Feed: FB users can order their newsfeed based on time too (just like MeWe); but they have to click on this feature with every refresh; while, with MeWe, this is built-in. Odds are that only <5% of FB users methodically do this. Therefore, this reduces the "outrage trigger potential" of MeWe compared to FB. This is one reason why the internal self-amplification of false information would be less on MeWe vs FB. Rating = 5.
2) No Profile Specific Ads: FB users can block ads using adblockers (very effective) and hiding the rest (a minor inconvenience). But, only 30% of internet users use adblockers. So, 70% of FB users are getting profile specific ads which potentially feed their "outrage & false information addiction". So, this is another reason why the internal self-amplification of outrage and false information would be less on MeWe vs FB. Rating = 4. (or maybe a 5)
3) Make a Moral Point about the Social Health Fallout caused by FB: Most media publishers get their paycheck off of peddling "outrage" in order to draw readership so to sell ads. Some publishers rely on this to the extreme (Info Wars, Fox News, CNN, FB); others much less so or not at all (AP News, MeWe). Social media (vs older media forms) speeds up the flow of this "outrage quotient" by 1) being constant in time and 2) enabling the viewers themselves to contribute to the circulation of outrage, like a virus. This can take this flow & buildup of "outrage" to socially unhealthy levels of polarization and radicalization which can even overpower the old social stabilizing institutions that, in the past, would keep up with dampening past lower levels of outrage (keeping it in check). So, today's intense flow of "outrage" caused by social media groups, like FB which feeds off of it for its paycheck and purposely is designed to amplify it, is a serious social health issue. However, MeWe doesn't block incoming "outrage" content; but it does thwart the internal self-amplification of this outrage, via #1 and #2 in the above 'Leaving' reasons. By leaving, this is taking a stand against this kind of socially unhealthy pathology against FB's purposeful amplification of outrage for the sake of making a buck. Rating = 5.
4) Make a Moral Point about FB not controlling Climate Denialism: As a climate pro-science site, it would only seem fitting & in keeping with its mission that SkS should make a moral stand against FB's nefarious climate denial inaction. Rating = 5.
Average Rating = between 3.625 to 3.875
Conclusions & Recommendations: Based on this, I would work to leave FB but do so with as much noise as you can. I would try to team up with as many climate action advocate groups as you can (scientists, climate groups, institutions, schools, companies, churches, etc). Then, I would write a mass article, signed by all, to be published in a couple major papers (Guardian, Forbes) so to announce your plans to leave FB on Date = XYZ, unless FB meets specified demands in writing by that date (and spell out your demands in detail). The points above in #4 and #5 in the 'Leaving' section should be made clear (like a social condemnation against FB and how they are nefariously polarizing the world for the sake of a buck). Then, follow thru (in mass) and leave FB if they refuse to meet the demands in full by that date. Give instructions to your readership on how to set up MeWe accounts with plenty of "overlapping" time to ease the transition.I have accounts w/ both FB and MeWe; although I am not a frequent MeWe user yet.
-
Wol at 11:02 AM on 19 July 2020A conundrum: our continued presence on Facebook
I don't use facebook for three reasons:
1) It's one of the worst user interfaces on the web (and that's saying something!)
2) I have no need to "communicate" with people I don't want to, nor to be "liked" (is that the word?) by them
3) The fewer sites that harvest my information the better.
-
Doug Bostrom at 06:30 AM on 19 July 2020A conundrum: our continued presence on Facebook
Lest anybody wonder and worry about it, we're not going to decamp from Facebook, any more than people are going to change or modify their consumption habits of material things such as fossil fuels because they know it's the right choice.
But it's important that we keep in mind the trades that we're making in being there.
-
John Hartz at 05:03 AM on 19 July 2020A conundrum: our continued presence on Facebook
Another comment posted on the SkS Facebook page in response to this article...
Stephen Keeler
Keep publishing. It’s important that your work is read (and shared). Otherwise you are handing victory to those publishing misinformation. -
Doug Bostrom at 03:40 AM on 19 July 2020A conundrum: our continued presence on Facebook
Thanks for the tip, Vasco. I'm going to take a look at that. We're spread thinly so part of our problem of course is staffing new beachheads.
A weird feature of this Facebook problem: miles of column inches given over to kvetching about Facebook while failing to mention that there are alternatives, and that using alternatives is the path out of the problem.
The conversation needs to move forward from "it's bad, somebody save us!" Most good luck is made, not found, and here we can make our own better luck with little effort.
And sure, FB has some postives. Neonicotinoids have some positives, seem completely wonderful if one is sufficiently myopic. But is destroying the food chain a worthwhile payoff?
Here's a neonicotinoid-style side-effect of Facebook, a description of the experience journalists encountered when investigating the ad purchase process at FB::
At one point in the process, for example, the automated system asked the researchers if they wished to “INCLUDE people who match at least ONE of the following: German Schutzstaffel, history of ‘why Jews ruin the world’, how to burn Jews, Jew hater”. “Your potential audience selection is great!” it told the researchers. “Potential audience size: 108,000 people.”
Worth it?
-
John Hartz at 02:41 AM on 19 July 2020A conundrum: our continued presence on Facebook
Everyone opining on this matter would do well to read the comments being posted about this article on the SkS Facebook page. Here's a typical response:
Marnie Parker
I share articles from or endorsed by Skeptical Science all the time on FB. Some my friends are being educated. Even people who know Climate Change is a big problem still aren't taking it seriously enough. But now several of my friends have liked your FB page directly. Don't discount that we, your readers and supporters, are spreading your information further than you ever could by yourself. -
Vasco at 00:57 AM on 19 July 2020A conundrum: our continued presence on Facebook
Have you ever considered having a strong Skeptical Science presence on WT.Social? It is the type of environment amenable to the content and procedures espoused on Skeptical Science itself; and from there you coud snipe at climate change deniers' platforms of choice.
-
Bob Loblaw at 23:20 PM on 18 July 2020A conundrum: our continued presence on Facebook
Haliburton:
Don't read too much into the phrase "bums in seats". It derives from the olden days when information or entertainment was spread by filling a room full of people and talking to them/showing a movie/playing a concert, etc.
The "bum" is just a person's posterior. Empty seats dont pay the bills (when people paid for the privilege of sitting there). A 60-thousand seat football stadium does not generate much revennue when it is empty - hence the need to make sure you have "bums" in those seats.
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/bums_in_seats
(Apparently, it is somewhat of a regional expression. I am Canadian.)
-
John McKeon at 21:31 PM on 18 July 2020A conundrum: our continued presence on Facebook
First impressions from article plus comments of readers ahead of me:
I do worry as Doug puts it that for SkS to withdraw from FB just leaves the creepy crawlies to keep confusing the hell out of people re climate science and fossil fuelled climate change.
On the other hand the disinformation would continue whether SkS is on FB or not. But now I also recall Doug's advice ... to stop being an active user of FB. -
Haiburton42 at 20:40 PM on 18 July 2020Category 6 Sets Its Sights Over the Rainbow
"I like to think of the rainbow pictured above as symbolizing the multitudinous human colors and textures that have made this meeting place what it is." Wow. What a refreshing perspective. A "rising rainbow" would be very neat to witness. I'm jealous! And I had no idea that in order to see a rainbow near the horizon, the sun needs to be almost 42° above the opposite horizon.
I guess you learn something new everyday if you're lucky, huh!
Really, though, comparing the climate crisis to a final-exam themed nightmare is perfect. I mean, if you're a student taking 12 credit hours, it's a bit like each course is one of the four horsemen.
Apocolyptic examinations, indeed!
-
Haiburton42 at 20:27 PM on 18 July 20202020 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #27
The link worked for me.
"Stop Making Sense"
"It's time to get emotional about climate change"
I really love that phraseology.
I can dig her conclusion, too, "I’m not saying facts don’t matter or the scientific method should be watered down or we should communicate without facts. What I am saying is that now the climate science has been proven to be true to the highest degree possible, we have to stop being reasonable and start being emotional. More science isn’t the solution. People are the solution."
The last sentence is especially powerful. Very spot on.
(Much like my horoscope most days).
-
Haiburton42 at 20:10 PM on 18 July 2020A conundrum: our continued presence on Facebook
The point I'd like to make here has already been made in this article but I'm going to rephrase it a bit. . .
FB--at this point--is just a platform users go to that simply reinforces existing opinions and viewpoints. I mean, every fourth (or fifth) post in anyones timeline IS an ad. My newsfeed includes several positive posts/advertisement messages specifically as they pertain to the issue of anthropogenic global warming. Sure, it probably could disillusion the way I think about the world around me if I wasn't conscious or wanted it to. I mean, in that it could make me feel like the world was on my side. (It isn't).
Nevertheless, I've been wanting a reason to deactivate my account and I don't see a problem with supporting SkS's efforts to, for lack of a better term, boycott FB for the reasons listed above. I recieve SkS updates via e-mail and prefer it that way, anyway. So, I'm not necessarily sure I'd go and make a MeWe account so I could re-follow ya'll. And it seems like that's the idea here (unfollow on FB, follow on MeWe). Correct me if I'm wrong?
And then just to really make sure my entire two cents is going to this here jukebox, I think that the comment made refering to FB users as, "bums in seats," is a little whack. I get it, though. It's hard not to :"sh*t talk" on people when you fundamentally disagree with how they're spending their time/investments.
What are facebook users?
People.
What's blue and white and data mines?
The most popular social media website.
-
Eclectic at 11:50 AM on 18 July 2020A conundrum: our continued presence on Facebook
Just like Wilddouglas, as a non-user of Facebook, my personal leverage is zero in this matter. Yes, I can (and do, FWIW) recommend less FB usage to friends & acqaintances. My share portfolio does not include (AFAIK) companies that advertise on FB ~ so no room for influence via shareholder meetings. And my political vote . . . well, governments are somewhat fearful of the Press & social media ~ so they might/may/could take action or exert pressure on FB, only when there is a sufficient scandal over FB-mediated influence on elections. But I suspect it will take much more stuff hitting the fan, before all major parties feel it is in their interest to take real action.
My inexpert opinion is not worth much ~ I only give it as some feedback for consideration by the gubernators of SkS. I suspect that a FB "drop-out" by SkS would be lost in the statistical noise at FB. So I am hoping there are other ways of skinning a cat.
Are there disadvantages in SkS having a foot on more than one platform? Could it be that a "partial defection" by user groups (such as SkS) would produce a bigger signal at FB Central, than would simple complete withdrawals? ( It seems almost inconceivable that FB would not intensely scrutinize their rival "David-size" platforms.)
-
wilddouglascounty at 10:47 AM on 18 July 2020A conundrum: our continued presence on Facebook
I have never been a Facebook member, and see no reason to ever become one for all the many reasons a reasonable person might list. Nevertheless, I can make a distinction between my personal decision not to join as a data collecdtion point that Facebook can extract identity profiles on me to sell to whomever wants to buy it, vs. having a Skeptical Science presence on Facebook that can be a reliable, vetted source of objective information.
I can even envision that the traffic to your Facebook site might convince the data analytics folks that there might be some profitability in providing a decent platform for science on Facebook.
This does not preclude a presence on alternative sites nor does it preclude criticizing Facebook whenever it tilts the playing surface as it does whenever it gives a pass to vetted information sources.
-
Bob Loblaw at 10:43 AM on 18 July 2020A conundrum: our continued presence on Facebook
Doug: I don't disagree that it's users that drive the advertisers. I guess they are more than bums in the seats in the sense that they also provide free content that brings in more bums in the seats. In normal media, they used to pay reporters to do that.
The advertisers want eyes on the ads, which happens when the bums in the seats stare at the screens.
And what the bums in the seats read and type gives Facebook more data to sell.
Fewer bums, less crap typed for others to read, fewer bums, etc. is the sequence that will end it.
-
nigelj at 08:29 AM on 18 July 2020A conundrum: our continued presence on Facebook
Governments can only regulate to a certain extent and facebook are bad at self regulation. So yes in the end it might comes down to users. I ended my account ages ago for numerous reasons.
-
Doug Bostrom at 07:41 AM on 18 July 2020A conundrum: our continued presence on Facebook
"...moving away from Facebook will only succeed if the advertisers/buyers move away. Users are just bums in the seats (or eyes on the screen)."
Users are why advertisers are on Facebook.
One comes before the other. Users are not "bums in seats," they're workers providing eyeball services to Facebook, which sellls those services to advertisers.
Let's keep our order straight here.
So: fewer users, fewer dollars flowing to Facebook.
A drop in revenue is the only thing Facebook will attend to.
This is all on users.
-
Bob Loblaw at 06:33 AM on 18 July 2020A conundrum: our continued presence on Facebook
In another sense, Facebook does what its advertisers (and people that buy data from them) want - they pay the bills, and as long as they are willing to pay, Facebook will continue on the same path.
As a user (which does not include me), moving away from Facebook will only succeed if the advertisers/buyers move away. Users are just bums in the seats (or eyes on the screen).
-
Doug Bostrom at 03:15 AM on 18 July 2020A conundrum: our continued presence on Facebook
To put it all less charitably, as a non-user of Facebook who has had a lot of conversations with Facebook users about the societal effects of Facebook and the choice implied by supporting its agenda as a user, I hear the same elusive reasoning employed by alcoholics when they're confronted with the negative effects they're producing.
If you're a Facebook user and you're making excuses for Facebook, think harder.
-
Doug Bostrom at 03:10 AM on 18 July 2020A conundrum: our continued presence on Facebook
For many reasons governments don't have the ability to save us from FB. And it would be far from ideal to allow governments to do this work in any case.
The levers of power here are entirely at FB user fingertips. Not lifting a finger, not logging in— that's how FB will be tamed.
As we explain, this isn't an all-or-nothing affair. A modicum of self-discipline on the part of individuals and a modicum of faith that others have the same modest capacity can steer the company.
FB is driven by and feeds on obsessively scrutinized statistics. Inaction will be noticed.
The analogy with the UN is dubious. One organization is charged with the mission of improving the human condition. The other is charged with the mission of collecting dollars for private benefit. One has a track record of doing good works albeit imperfectly, the other a track record littered with concertedly intentional depraved behavior, with imperfection being a key requirement of successful operation.
This job of remedying Facebook requires literally no effort and no cost. But we can't do it? We resign ourselves to fatalism? What a remarkable surrender, and how depressing to think of the same attitude applied to other urgent problems.
If we can't deal with repairing or replacing an entirely optional feature of our lives that has not even been in existence for two decades, we surely won't sort out other more pressing issues, such as climate change. If we choose not to vote on Facebook by not lifting a finger, what effort will we really apply to bigger, harder jobs?
-
Eclectic at 22:40 PM on 17 July 2020A conundrum: our continued presence on Facebook
Facebook is somewhat like the United Nations ~ which is far from perfect, but is The Only Game In Town. Withdrawing from the UN is an option with little benefit.
Facebook's AI "engagement algorithm" produces a toxic effect on society/democracy. And, as you know, it is very open to manipulation by outside interests. We can hope that governments & major corporations (of the benign type) will gradually push Facebook in a healthier direction.
Just like we can hope that the UN will improve. [But how to do it?]
Yet the climate-science deniers aren't having it all their own way. They claim persecution [as always, of course!] Several days ago, the marvellous blogsite WUWT posted an article saying that they were being deplatformed by "our hosting provider" per "a big increase in hosting costs". And so, after >2 years, they are moving back to Wordpress. Attached comments were filled with sentiments about "the suppressing of scientific dissent" ; and Conspiracy by the extensive Climate Alarmist institutions ; the "politically biased cancel culture" ; and "cultural Marxism" ; and suchlike.
WUWT will have some temporary disruption of service, and of commenters' postings. And Mr Watts is keeping an extra-tight moderation in place, until the changeover is complete. (It might be amusing, to see the tenor of comments there, once the Usual Suspects are free to let rip about this persecution.)
Prev 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 Next
