Solar & Wind Power

[k0ua]

The problem with Forbes "Opinion" pieces is that they are never written by true journalists who have investigated an issue. Instead they are virtually always the work product of an "expert" who has a definite agenda. It can take a while to figure out what that agenda is and who is paying for the author to produce their "opinions" but they all seem to be slick PR pieces.

In this particular case, we find the author, Alex Epstein, says he is part of an organization called the Center for Industrial Progress. Pretty impressive sounding. Would you believe he is the founder and only member??? This guy is a philosophy major from Duke who was excited by Ayn Rand and now writes books telling everyone that fossil fuels are wonderful for the environment. I wonder who funds his for profit Center for Industrial Progress. He is a quack and a shill for the oil industry pure and simple. He writes on energy and climate science and his only preparation is an undergraduate philosophy degree...come on, give me a break.

Forbes is notorious for this sort of biased publication. The Forbes article most certainly does NOT present a true picture of anything. The guy is a quack in service of the oil industry.

Look into the authors and their backgrounds before believing what they say folks. Alex Epstein (American writer) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

OK, you shot the messenger, now what say you about the message?

 

[IslandTractor]

I am sure you are right. #55 is a lot more abusive than anything on the thread that was closed. .

Which is why there was no response. It was an off topic and irrelevant rant. "Nothing you want to see here, best to move along"

 

[IslandTractor]

Which is why there was no response. It was an off topic and irrelevant rant. "Nothing you want to see here, best to move along"

Busy now and I owe Greg a response to his thoughtful note first but I'll come back and reply this evening.

 

[95XL883]

OK, you shot the messenger, now what say you about the message?

I nominate James as a real expert. He managed to say in one sentence what took me umpteen paragraphs. :laughing:

 

[buickanddeere]

I am sure you are right. #55 is a lot more abusivve than anything on the thread that was closed. In fact I thought the previous thread was quite good - a lot of posts but it was, on the whole, civil. I also learned a few things through reading the posts and the links that were given. I was not participating much in the end because nobody seemed to believe how effective and economic windpower is in Portugal, so I gave up trying, but I was still reading the posts with interest.

One fact remains that the persons who dislike #55 should face. is that houstonscott is correct. Shooting the messenger is as popular as ever.

 

[buickanddeere]

IT,

If I may I'd like to respectfully challenge your judgement on this one.

First off, Epstein as a philosophy major and college trained writer, is probably very qualified to write on the moral aspects of fossil fuel use. I can easily see a valid claim that a large part of mankind's current welfare and wealth is due to our ability to extract and use fossil fuels. In fact, I can see the claim that a very expensive switch to "green" alternatives may only be possible due to the wealth generated by the use of fossil fuels. (Of course that assumes that those who held that wealth are willing to spend it in such a fashion.) I do worry about the moral implications of switching to expensive "green" energy. A large part of that cost will be born by those least able to afford their increased electric bills, more expensive cars, restricted mobility and decreased economic activity. It is reasonable to expect that a philosopher could easily be qualified to opine on such moral considerations. So I am curious, would you be so quick to criticize Forbes and him if he was saying that "green" is good and fossil fuels were bad?

Second, my experience is that who is trained as something is not necessarily capable of doing that task and that some with little or no training are far more capable than some who are trained/experts in that area.

Let me share four real examples. I'm a trained CPA who formerly practiced public accounting for one of the largest such firms in the world. I have almost 40 years of accounting/executive experience.

First, the best accountant I ever had work for me had only three hours of college credit. She could make and balance complex entries, balance and maintain that balance of large inventory, receivable and payable accounts. She clearly understood assets, liabilities, equity, revenue and expenses.

Second, during her tenure, I had two other accountants. One had a bachelor's degree with a high GPA (3.9 if I remember correctly.) and was studying to take the CPA exam. That accountant had trouble debiting cash and crediting a receivable or revenue. She had absolutely no understanding of assets, liabilities, etc. Not surprising, I promoted the capable, proficient and untrained accountant. Unfortunately, I had to let the trained accountant go. She just couldn't do the work.

Third, the other degreed accountant was also unproductive. My assessment was she had some skills but was totally unmotivated to put forth real effort or care about real results. I managed to keep her productive enough that I didn't have to fire her but it was a struggle.

Finally, and probably most dramatic example happened during a presentation by a partner in a large architectural/engineering firm. We had requested plans for an intricate four story office building. The partner was presenting the detailed drawings and painting a grandiose picture of a very complex design. One attendee in the meeting was a residential builder whose college degree was in English. He had no training as an architect/engineer/builder but we all knew who built beautiful very large homes. As this untrained builder looked through the drawings he suddenly stopped, flipped back a couple of pages then back to the page that had caught his attention and simply stated "This isn't possible. It can't be built." The next 30 minutes were spent with the highly trained and experienced engineer architect patronizingly calling him dumb and the builder holding to his claim of impossibility. Suddenly the the engineer's eyes widened and he froze. After what seemed like an eternity, the builder asked "Do you see the problem now? The problem can be solved by either X or Y" (The specifics of those suggestions went over most of the heads in that room, mine included.) The engineer quietly rolled up the drawings, apologized for the problem and promised to redo the plans.

As I recounted these four examples, many more started coming to mind. My point is not to denigrate formal training but to point out that what really shows an expert is demonstrated success in a particular endeavor.

So, where I am challenging you is to recognize that Epstein may, or may not be, capable of productively opining on the morality of fossil fuels (and conversely of "green" energy) and that we all are prone to jumping to the conclusion that supports our own agenda. I'm not meaning to tick you off or start a fight, I just think your conclusion was too quick and not as accurate as you think.

Respectfully,

Greg

I do agree to some extent on your observations. I work with some "professionals" who have been "educated beyond their intelligence".
Others may be well grounded in theory but have been hired for a role that requires BOTH hands on experience and understanding the theory. Another path to disaster.
I have worked with many persons who can perform good work by rote or repetition. However when faced with something new, they lack the fundamentals and have difficulty and even have no success solving the "unknown".
I hope that the point of the of the post is not that engineers, legal, medical, trades, aviation professions do not require extensive formal training?
Most of us probably agree that while related. There is a difference between knowledge and understanding, seeing and vision, hearing and comprehending etc.

 

[KennyG]

Lots of interesting stuff comes up here. Actually, it's not "Shoot the Messenger". That's when you blame the person who identifies the problem. It a reverse "Argument from Authority" logical fallacy. The Forbes article author may or may not be qualified but, as someone who knows a lot about this stuff, I didn't find anything inaccurate. It was an article pushing one side of the argument, but almost everything we read does that. At least that one was labeled an "Op-Ed".

The confusion comes when we have information from people who should be experts but are biased to the point they ignore facts. Recent reviews has found that about 50% of peer reviewed experimental papers in scientific journals cannot be independently duplicated. The push to publish and scramble for grants is ruining science.

Sorry to be lengthy, but an earlier paper referenced on low level radiation risks from Canadian nuclear plants is a good example. It relied heavily on papers from Helen Caldicott and Joseph Mangano.

Helen Caldicott should be a good authority. She is a pediatrician that has been active in movements against nuclear weapons and nuclear power for years. She gets a lot of favorable press. I know a lot of nuclear physics and health physics professionals and they uniformly think she's crazy. I'm not being flippant. They think she is mentally ill. If you believe her data, you have to conclude that no one who is not terminally ill should have dental or medical x-rays or radiation treatments, airline travel should be banned, and no one should be allowed to live in Colorado or work in the federal buildings in Washington DC.

Joseph Mangano is a con man. He has two masters degrees and has worked at several universities. He started a non-profit to expose radiation dangers and makes about 100K/yr from that. He also gets lots of press and support from celebrities. His approach is to go into an area, cherry pick and manipulate data, write papers to get more donations and, when the errors are exposed, he moves on to the next project. He was the lead example in Popular Mechanics 2014 article on "Junk Science". His work has been reviewed by the US NRC and about 10 state health departments with results ranging from inaccurate to fraudulent.

Bottom line is you have to read both sides and use your common sense. You can't depend on credentials.

 

[Egon]

Hellen Caldicott:
[video]https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helen_Caldicott[/video]