Business, Economics, Mathematics, Media Criticism, Political Commentary, Science And Society, Social Commentary, Technology and Society

Rick Perry’s Memo

7 Comments

…and Bill Nye’s optimism:

I see “science fans” applauding and promoting Bill Nye’s call for 100% renewable generation by 2050. One might think if one endorsed Mr. Nye’s plan it would also be prudent to encourage studies such as the one advocated by the Secretary of Energy. Certainly Mr. Nye is not a power systems expert, nor have I seen him reference any when he is explain how such a transition can be accomplished. We should all be at least somewhat skeptical about the potential consequences of such a significant endeavor.

What I may be missing is the role of “optimism” which Mr. Nye assures us is a necessary ingredient for this transition. I’d seen hints of this before and perhaps what is happening is that far too many people obstinately reject any criticism regarding renewables because they believe that optimism is crucial if the planet is to be saved. Consequently no one should utter a disparaging word about any of the potential “preferred” renewable solutions. The view seems to be that we must get started now and we will work out the distracting details as we go along.

Perhaps this explains why those who view climate with extreme alarm often show no tolerance for criticism of renewable energy? Otherwise, why are grid experts not trusted? Grid experts have academic credentials, share a common body of knowledge, and continually build and alter their understandings based upon empirical evidence. Individually and collectively they work to be innovative and develop new approaches and challenge older perspectives. Grid experts have a proven track record of success. As I’ve argued before grid experts do not for the most part have a strong vested personal interest in the status quo. An ambitious, aggressive transfer to greater renewables would increase the demand and likely compensation for most all existing grid experts.

It’s almost as though it’s religious, not scientific.

7 thoughts on “Rick Perry’s Memo”

  1. But optimism *is* necessary, if we are to save a world academicians are on top in, from industrial society. This is what the environmental movement is about! Without optimism, that regulatory hierarchies can plan our future, then academic hierarchies, whose original purpose was to provide clerks for the King’s government, cannot be sustained.

    Without optimism, that the certified people know what they are doing, the under-certified masses will not be obedient to activists. They would want to calculate for themselves what they should do, instead of upholding the authority of the government that sustains academia, and the positions of its hierarchies. Then all of society would descend into the ignorance of deciding things by calculating what would make *them* happy, instead of academicians.

    Obviously, then, optimism is necessary.

      2. That’s because the correct word is not “optimism” but “hope”; the previous President understood this and used it well to gain his title. Get people to believe they are miserable, and then be the supplier of their salvationhope, and they’ll follow you. If you fail, just tell them it is because their life was more miserable than you thought, but that you are still their only source of hope.

  2. Otherwise, why are grid experts not trusted? Grid experts have academic credentials, share a common body of knowledge, and continually build and alter their understandings based upon empirical evidence.

    Nye was recently on CNN saying that they shouldn’t have had one skeptic on but 98 or 97 climate scientists or engineers. How many engineers are down with the AGW nonsense? If a lot of them were, then they would be included in those allowed to speak about climate change. Just like if those grid experts were enthusiastically devoted enough to the cause, they could also be allowed to have an opinion.

    Usually, the online discussions focus on excluding people from being allowed to have an opinion, no matter what field they are in or how educated they are. And I have seen a number of engineers and others be rejected by AGW advocates.

    1. Engineers have to make things that actually work in the real world. They don’t have the luxury of claiming it will all work out as they say maybe 50-100 years from now.

Comments are closed.