Save the world

28 min readApr 7, 2023

I have wanted to write about this topic since day one of this blog. It was one of the blogs I told myself I wouldn’t write though. There are topics like politics and religion that are better not written and commented on, I thought at the time. Something happened recently that made my blood boil. I admit that’s yet another reason not to write it. But as you can attest, I decided to do it anyway.

What has happened recently has to do with ChatGPT AI and climate change/global warming. This week’s blog is different from previous ones, if nothing else, in format.

I found it challenging to write in a way that conveys everything I want to. It feels like I needed another week to deliver exactly what I had in mind, but unfortunately, or rather fortunately, I don’t have time to write anything else for this week and have some pending tasks I need to focus on. I think I have done a good enough job though, and I hope it doesn’t make your hair curl.

The climate is changing

I intend on steelman the arguments of the scientific consensus on this subject before I expound my position. Will I try to argue that the climate is not changing and warming? Of course not, I want to win this “debate”, so I’ll do my best to stick to arguments based on scientific evidence and I will try to avoid any fallacies. I will argue that global warming is not mainly caused by human activities and that burning fossil fuels is good for humanity. Both views, as I’m sure you know, are not in line with the scientific consensus. I’ll also try to give the most likely reason why we are in this predicament.

https://bestsites0x.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/04/Richard-Lindzen-2.mp4

Who do you think you are?

So what do I know about this subject to attempt to argue against the scientific consensus? It all started many years ago, more than a decade ago, when this issue entered my consciousness. Al Gore’s documentary “An Inconvenient Truth” sounded the alarm (I’m not linking the film because it’s behind a paywall — that’s public good for you). I thought this was something new that I should look into. I learned that it wasn’t new. In fact, the predictions and scares I was exposed to were several decades old. Doomsday predictions.

Although this blog reflects my own views, there are a couple of works that have significantly influenced me. One of them is quite old and I watched it not long after “An Inconvenient Truth”, maybe a year or so later. It is a documentary called “The Great Global Warming Swindle” by Martin Durkin. More recently I read “The Fiat Standard” by Saifedean Ammous and “The Moral Case for Fossil Fuels” by Alex Epstein.

I’m not alone

Although what you’ll read here reflects my views and is not in line with the scientific consensus, I’m not alone and this position is supported by many scientists.

You might be inclined to think that I’m referring to some obscure pseudoscientists, but that is simply not the case. On the contrary, here is just a small list of scientists who disagree with the scientific consensus and base their position on facts established by the scientific method. A quick search for the credentials of these scientists will show you that you’re not looking at some run-of-the-mill scientist.

Richard Lindzen, MIT professor emeritus of atmospheric sciences

Judith Curry, retired Georgia Tech professor of atmospheric sciences

William Happer, emeritus professor of physics at Princeton University

John Christy, climate scientist at the University of Alabama

Patrick Michaels, director of the Center for the Study of Science at the Cato Institute

Roy Spencer, climate scientist at the University of Alabama

Willie Soon, astrophysicist at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics

David Legates, professor of climatology at the University of Delaware

Fred Singer, emeritus professor of environmental science at the University of Virginia

And here you can find a list of 500 scientists and professors that dissent from consensus. This document is from 2019 but nothing changed since then in terms of scientific findings.

It’s funny because it’s true

I found myself in the ludicrous position of having a heated discussion on this topic with ChatGPT. I know what you may be thinking, and I agree that it’s absurd. The AI has been fed and trained with a set of data and now spits out information based on that data. I easily and quickly concluded that the algorithm is biased. Although it has also been fed dissenting data, you will clearly see that it takes a position on the issue and ends up making some disturbing “mistakes”. This discussion was the main reason why I decided to go ahead and write this blog today. I will share a few excerpts from our discussion to illustrate my points.

Steelman

The data show that global average temperatures are rising. Since the 1950s, the global average temperature has risen by 1°C. And if we go back 150 years, to just after the start of the Industrial Revolution, we can see an increase of 2°C. An average global temperature increase of 2°C over a period of 150 years is indeed considerable and is considered a rapid increase.

Most scientists working on climate related fields agree that this change is primarily due to human activities. In particular, activities that release greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide (CO2) and methane into the atmosphere, which trap heat and warm the planet.

It’s scientifically proven that activities such as deforestation and burning fossil fuels increase CO2 emissions and activities such as landfills, wastewater treatment or agriculture increase CO2 emissions as well as methane emissions. I think this is indisputable. What is in dispute, however, is that these CO2 changes are the main cause of global warming.

The above was my attempt to steelman the consensus view. Human activity is causing greenhouse gases in the atmosphere to increase. And the earth has been warming since the 1800s, with a peak in recent decades. I don’t dispute any of these claims.

I must say, however, that this temperature rise is reported as a global average. In reality, the rise is mostly felt around the poles and in the populated areas of Europe, America, Africa and Asia it is barely noticeable, sometimes even declining, while the global average is rising. This is the main reason why doomsday prophecies nowadays have shifted to the death of polar bears and the melting of the poles.

Scientific consensus

The greenhouse effect is a natural process that helps regulate the temperature in the Earth’s atmosphere. Greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide, methane and water vapour retain some of the heat in the atmosphere and prevent it from escaping into space. This process helps keep the Earth’s surface warm enough to support life.

You know what they say about too much of a good thing… The more heat that is trapped the more the Earth’s temperature rises. This can lead to changes in precipitation patterns, rising sea levels and melting ice and permafrost. These changes can have significant impacts on ecosystems, natural resources and human society, and pose a threat to our long-term well-being.

The scientific community agrees that to combat the effects of the greenhouse effect, it is essential to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and move to a low-carbon economy. This can be achieved through a number of strategies, such as increasing energy efficiency, using renewable energy sources and improving public transport. By taking action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, we can help mitigate the effects of climate change and protect the planet for future generations.

Pulitzer for fiction

You can’t be faulted for agreeing with the scientific consensus that human activities such as the burning of fossil fuels are the main cause of global warming. After all, most scientists agree on that and we believe it because it follows the scientific method. I would like to draw your attention to what Upton Sinclair once wrote because it fits very well with one of my main arguments: “It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it”.

https://bestsites0x.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/04/Richard-Lindzen.mp4

Scientists are funded and paid by governments. There are some exceptions, as with everything, but I challenge you to name me one scientist who agrees with the scientific consensus and is NOT funded by the government. I will wait…

Fund my paper

If you’re actually researching and trying to find the one that will shut me up, look also at how much money governments have spent on funding climate change related papers since the 1990s. And while you are at it, do a search for papers on topics that have nothing to do with climate change at their core, but have still found a way to incorporate it. If you’re a researcher looking for funding to study wild foxes in Glasgow city centre, all you have to do is write in your proposal that you want to research how climate change is bringing foxes into the city or threatening the species. This way you have drastically increased your chances of success.

Mind you, if you want to write a paper that challenges the scientific consensus, not only will you not receive funding, but you will also find that it’s more difficult to be peer-reviewed and that the paper will be subject to greater scrutiny precisely because it goes against the prevailing scientific understanding. From this you can deduce that papers that align with the consensus are not scrutinised to the same extent.

When the rubber meets the road

We live in a time when someone can say, “I represent science” and we don’t burn that person on a stick, figuratively speaking. I will try to argue that academia is declining in terms of quality and relevance of research and why that is.

Academia is heavily influenced by government funding, resulting in a compromised incentive structure and a prioritisation of publication over actual quality of research.

When science is centralised and controlled by a single authority with seemingly infinite resources, the scientific method can be perverted and science itself can turn into an ideology or religion. In this case, I’m referring to governments that do not pay for the actual funding, as it’s the citizens who end up paying for research into, frankly, very often moronic areas of research and sometimes pure evil.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9NMtdxUIoK8&list=LL&index=21

It’s how we roll

Academic research is primarily funded by the government and is not subject to market forces, leading to an inability to perform rational economic calculations.
The current incentive structure in academia prioritises publishing as much as possible over arriving at important conclusions, leading to an increase in false and irrelevant findings.
Academic journals are consolidated into a handful of publishing houses that act as gatekeepers for the entire university system.
As the internet lowers publication costs, the academic publishing industry has become increasingly corrupt. This combined with increased competition for funding, and the influence of government and special interests has led to a decline in the quality of academic content.
Academia often leads to a wasteful diversion of talented people into the production of irrelevant research as they are isolated from the real world and forced to focus on obscure topics.

The phrase and thinking associated with “The science says” has become normalised, revealing a misunderstanding of science as a predetermined list of unquestionable pronouncements. This kind of thinking inexorably leads to negative consequences for science as people begin to rely on authority rather than the scientific method itself. Very convenient for authority, quite harmful for society.

Bias wrecker

The more I use ChatGPT, the more I understand its limitations and biases.

For the most part, the limitations are understood and even communicated before you start using the tool. There’s one limitation that I thought worked differently than it actually does. It uses machine learning algorithms to continuously learn, but it’s important to understand that it’s a static model, meaning it doesn’t learn in real time from interactions with users. Any learning requires the entire model to be re-trained and updated, which is a resource-intensive process that is done by the developers at OpenAI. I believe that it will evolve to a real-time learning algorithm. I imagine that can be a bit scary in scenarios where something goes wrong, because that’s inevitable. But we’re not there yet.

And then there’s the bias. I was aware of it, but didn’t think it was that bad. I’ll share with you some of the interactions I had with chatGPT in preparation for this article. It’s much easier and quicker to get information, but very different from a Google search where you know exactly who’s saying what and can check credentials as well as what else they are saying in other places or on other topics.

Winning side

ChatGPT is clearly on the side of scientific consensus and I can’t really criticise it for that. It’s understandable to side with consensus when it comes to science, even if it’s for erring on the side of caution. But what you’re about to see is not good.

Below is a summary of the discussion. I’ll include screenshots when it’s relevant and the response is short enough to do so.

I asked the following questions one by one. I waited for the answer to one question before asking the next question. What do greenhouse gases consist of? What is the percentage of each gas in the greenhouse gases? And what percentage of greenhouse gases are in the atmosphere?

In each and every answer, GPT reminded me that while greenhouse gases make up only a small part of the Earth’s atmosphere, their ability to trap heat contributes to global warming and that this is mainly caused by human activities such as the burning of fossil fuels and deforestation.

This is the breakdown of greenhouse gases and their percentages in the atmosphere:

Carbon dioxide (CO2) — Approximately 78% of total greenhouse gas concentrations and 0.04% of the total atmosphere
Methane (CH4) — Approximately 16% of total greenhouse gas concentrations and 0.00018% of the total atmosphere
Nitrous oxide (N2O) — Approximately 6% of total greenhouse gas concentrations and 0.00003% of the total atmosphere
Fluorinated gases (HFCs, PFCs, SF6) — Varying concentrations, but typically much lower than the other three gases

It’s all about the probe, about the probe

Is water vapour a greenhouse gas?

“Yes, water vapour is a greenhouse gas. Water vapour is the most abundant greenhouse gas in the Earth’s atmosphere, and it plays a crucial role in regulating the Earth’s temperature through the greenhouse effect.”

So what are the percentages of each gas in the total greenhouse gases?

Final answer (percentages on the atmosphere didn’t change for the other gases):

Water vapour (H2O) — Approximately 36–72% of total greenhouse gas and up to 4% of the atmosphere
Carbon dioxide (CO2) — Approximately 9–26% of total greenhouse gas
Methane (CH4) — Approximately 4–9% of total greenhouse gas concentrations
Nitrous oxide (N2O) — Approximately 0.5–0.9% of total greenhouse gas
Fluorinated gases (HFCs, PFCs, SF6) — Varying concentrations, but typically much lower than the other four gases

Ok, to put things in perspective. Greenhouse gases make up less than 5% of the Earth’s atmosphere, and less than 0.05% if we take out water vapour. But although they’re a small part, they have the ability to trap heat and contribute to global warming.

Slant you say

I continue my inquiry.

Can you plot earth’s temperature and solar activity per decade for the last 150 years into a table?

Below the table there’s a comment from GPT “While solar activity has varied over the past 150 years, it is generally not considered to be the primary driver of the observed global warming trend.”

There’s a striking correlation in the table you produced though? Main points in GPT’s response were: “…correlation does not necessarily imply causation… while solar activity can affect Earth’s climate, it is just one of many factors that can influence global temperature changes. Other factors such as greenhouse gas emissions, volcanic activity, and human activities can also have a significant impact on Earth’s climate…”

We’re aware human activity doesn’t cause water vapour. What human activities cause emissions of CO2?

“There are many…” Burning fossil fuels appeared twice in the list, first as burning fossil fuels and second as transportation due to the burning of fossil fuels. Deforestation, waste management such as landfills, agriculture and livestock production and industrial processes such as production of cement and steel among others.

What human activities cause emissions of methane?

On top of the burning of fossil fuels, landfills and agriculture, GPT added extraction, processing and transportation of natural gas and oil, burning of biomass such as wood and agricultural waste and Wetlands.

Checkpoint

The human activities that contribute to the increase in greenhouse gases are: Fossil fuel burning, deforestation, waste management, agriculture and some industrial processes. I want to look at what they are used for, how scarce they are and what possibilities there are to replace these activities. I’ll focus mainly on the burning of fossil fuels and have a stint at deforestation.

Humanism

What you doin’?

This is a short list of what we do with the fossil fuels we burn.

Transportation (We drive, fly, travel by train and ship)
Electricity generation (We keep hospitals and life-saving medical equipment on 24/7, homes, businesses and public places lit, power agriculture, manufacturing and communications)
Heating and cooling buildings (We prevent people from dying of heat or cold, particularly older people)
Industrial processes (We keep the world evolving and humans needs satisfied)
Agriculture and livestock production (We feed meat eaters and vegetarians)
Production of plastics and other materials (Synthetic rubber, Nylon, Polyester, Asphalt…)
Mining and extraction (Gold, sulphur, potassium, limestone…)
Construction (We build shelter, roads, bridges…)
Military operations (We defend countries sovereignty)
Recreation (We have fun)

Like pulling teeth

It used to be a common argument that we would run out of fossil fuels very quickly if we continued to extract them at the rate we did in the late 20th century. That was just a myth. Even though we have accelerated extraction, we are now able to extract more than ever before. The only thing preventing us from having more oil than we could consume is the technology to extract it and the actions of governments that penalise any investment in this area curtailing any development of the technology we need.

It doesn’t grow on trees

I decided to have a chat with GPT about scarcity. Another example of GPT’s bias coming to the fore:

Is it true that oil is the second most prevalent liquid on earth and that it regenerates within the earth?

“No, it is not true that oil is the second most prevalent liquid on earth, nor is it true that it regenerates within the earth… While oil can be found in many parts of the world, it is not as prevalent as water or other liquids on earth. Additionally, oil does not regenerate within the earth. Once it has been extracted and used, it cannot be replaced or replenished within a human timescale…”

What is the second most prevalent liquid on earth?

“…is likely to be brine, which is a highly concentrated saltwater solution…”

It seems the second most abundant liquid on earth after water is… Drum roll… Salt water.

So is oil the 3rd most prevalent, after brine?

“Oil is not typically considered to be one of the most prevalent liquids on Earth, as it is not found in significant quantities compared to water or brine…”

Are there any other liquids more prevalent than oil, apart from water and brine?

“Ethanol… Milk… Blood… Urine… Beer…”

Garbage in, garbage out. I’m working on my prompt skills.

Did I mention probing?

Is natural gas a liquid?

“Natural gas is not a liquid…”

So we have more tar on earth than oil?

“…Therefore, while tar is an important natural resource, it is not typically considered to be as prevalent or widely distributed as oil.”

Ok, glad we got that cleared. Moving on to the regeneration of fossil fuels.

Here we go again

If we stopped extracting fossil fuels completely today, would in 50 years time, the amount of fossil fuels on the earth’s surface be the same as it is today?

“No, if we stopped extracting fossil fuels completely today, the amount of fossil fuels on the Earth’s surface would not be the same as it is today in 50 years.”

What is the rate at which new fossil fuels form?

“The rate at which new fossil fuels form is very slow, on the order of millions of years. It takes a long time for organic matter to be buried and subjected to heat and pressure that turns it into fossil fuels such as coal, oil, and gas. Therefore, it is not a sustainable or renewable resource in the short term.”

Ok, but at what rate? because the earth has billions of years so today is the future of millions of years passed. at what rate are the fossil fuels formed.

“The rate at which new fossil fuels form is not precisely known, as it is a complex process that depends on many factors, including geological conditions and the presence of organic matter. However, it is generally believed that the process of fossil fuel formation takes millions of years. Some estimates suggest that it can take anywhere from 10 to 500 million years for the formation of fossil fuels such as oil, coal, and natural gas.”

I have work to do

Ok, what I want to know is the quantity of new fossil fuels being formed per year.

“There is no simple answer to this question as the rate at which new fossil fuels are formed depends on a variety of factors, including geological conditions and the availability of organic matter. However, most experts believe that the rate of formation is extremely slow compared to the rate at which humans are currently consuming fossil fuels…”

So if we don’t know the amount of fossil fuels that are formed each year, how can we claim that we’re extracting more than what is formed?

“It is not a matter of extracting more than what is formed every year, but rather a matter of the rate at which we are extracting fossil fuels compared to the rate at which they are being formed…”

I beg to differ. Even though it takes millions of years to form new fossil fuels, we need to understand the quantity that today is being formed from the millions of years passed to understand the impact our extraction is having.

“You make a valid point. While we may not know the exact rate at which new fossil fuels are being formed, it is important to consider the overall impact of human activities on the extraction and use of fossil fuels, and the potential consequences for future generations. Even if new fossil fuels are being formed at a slow rate, the rate at which we are extracting and using them may exceed that rate, leading to depletion of resources and potential environmental consequences.”

The equipment is always right

But if we do not know the exact rate at which new fossil fuels are being formed, we can not assert that we’re extracting more than what is being formed.

“While we may not know the exact rate at which new fossil fuels are being formed, we do know that the process is extremely slow and takes millions of years. It is widely accepted that the rate at which we are extracting and burning fossil fuels is much faster than the rate at which new fossil fuels are being formed…”

She’s hot. She’s hot y’all!

What have you done?

Human activities ( altogether ) generate an estimated 34 billion metric tonnes of CO2 per year. Depending on the source, this can account for between 70% and over 90% of current emissions. This is roughly equivalent to a 0.00157% increase in the total mass of atmospheric CO2. So is this tiny increase in CO2 out of an equally tiny total mass the main culprit for the global warming we’re experiencing? ChatGPT says so, and that’s because the scientific consensus says so. Surely the sun has a greater influence? Nope. Human activity, which produces 0.00157% of greenhouse gases in addition to the 0.05%, is the main culprit.

I continued to probe. Before human activity had any relevance, what factors contributed to global warming?

“…natural factors such as changes in the Earth’s orbit and tilt, volcanic activity, variations in solar output, and natural variations in greenhouse gas concentrations (e.g. due to changes in ocean circulation)…”

It’s a bit chilly

In which periods did we have a warmer earth than today?

“Throughout the Earth’s history, there have been periods that were warmer than today. One of the most notable warm periods was the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum (PETM) around 55 million years ago, which saw temperatures rise by around 5–8°C. The Pliocene epoch, which ended around 2.6 million years ago, was also warmer than today, with temperatures about 2–3°C higher than pre-industrial levels. Additionally, during the Holocene epoch, which began around 11,700 years ago and continues to the present day, there have been warm and cool periods, but overall temperatures have been relatively stable until the recent global warming trend associated with human activities.”

What were the main causes for the increase in temperatures for those 3 periods?

“The causes for the warming during these periods are not entirely clear, but they were likely due to natural climate variability, including changes in solar radiation and volcanic activity, as well as variations in the Earth’s orbit and tilt. It is important to note, however, that the warming during these periods was not as rapid or as widespread as the current warming trend, which is largely attributed to human activities such as the burning of fossil fuels and deforestation.”

Axial precession

Surely the Holocene Climate Optimum and the Roman Warm Period could have not been caused by variations in the earth’s orbit and tilt, right?

“Variations in the Earth’s orbit and tilt, also known as Milankovitch cycles, are believed to have contributed to climate changes over geological timescales. However, their impact on shorter-term climate changes, such as those seen during the Holocene Climate Optimum and the Roman Warm Period, is less clear. Other factors such as solar radiation, volcanic activity, and changes in ocean currents are also believed to have played a role in these warming periods. It is important to note that these natural factors cannot fully explain the rapid warming we are currently experiencing, which is primarily attributed to human-caused greenhouse gas emissions.”

How relevant could the earth’s orbit and tilt be on the rise in temperature during the Holocene Climate Optimum and the Roman Warm Period?

“The Earth’s orbit and tilt are considered to be contributing factors to the rise in temperature during the Holocene Climate Optimum and the Roman Warm Period, but they are not considered to be the primary cause…”

Root cause analysis

What do we consider the primary cause?

“is still a topic of ongoing research and debate among scientists. However, current scientific evidence suggests that a combination of factors, including changes in solar radiation, volcanic activity, and natural variations in greenhouse gases…”

What volcanic activity are we aware of that happened in those periods that hasn’t happened in other periods where we didn’t have a similar increase in temperatures?

“There were several volcanic eruptions… One of the most significant volcanic events during the Holocene was the eruption of Mount Toba in Indonesia around 74,000 years ago, which is thought to have contributed to a brief cooling period. However, this event was long before the Holocene Climate Optimum. During the Roman Warm Period, there were several volcanic eruptions…However, these eruptions were not significantly different from other volcanic events that occurred in other periods… not considered a primary cause of long-term climate change.”

Burn the bridge

I’m not going to discuss the zero emissions goals for 2030 or 2050 because I do care about my audience. Evil laugh.

So, how can we reduce CO2 emissions?

“Transition to renewable energy…like wind, solar, and hydropower… Increase energy efficiency… Reduce deforestation and promote reforestation… Support innovation in clean energy… Reduce meat consumption… Encourage behaviour change… such as reducing energy consumption, using public transportation or walking/biking, reducing food waste, and choosing low-carbon products.”

I’m going to ignore the meat consumption because bugs are very nutritive.

There’s quite a lot of funding from governments around the world and for a few decades now to incentivize development of renewable energies. Why is it taking so long to achieve stable energy from renewable energies?

“There are several reasons… One reason is that fossil fuels have been the dominant source of energy for over a century, and the infrastructure for extracting, transporting, and using fossil fuels is well-established… Another reason is that renewable energy technologies are still relatively new and evolving, which can make them more expensive compared to fossil fuels…”

Can you see how ignoble that first reason is?

Keep it real

How long is it expected to take to switch from fossil fuel dependence to renewable energy?

“The timeline for transitioning from reliance on fossil fuels to renewable energies depends on various factors, such as the level of investment in renewable energy research and development, government policies and incentives, public awareness and acceptance, and technological advancements. Some experts predict that the transition could take several decades, while others believe that it could happen more rapidly with sufficient investment and policy support. The International Energy Agency (IEA), for instance, has proposed a “Net Zero by 2050””

I opted to not continue drilling on these points. I don’t think it’s reasonable to ask for even more funding and political policies and incentives, public awareness and acceptance. Just think of ESG, carbon credits and all the media campaigns to raise awareness. You might not like it but accept it.

The grid’s hunger

With current technology renewable energies are not stable, abundant and cheap enough to supply base load requirements.

“While it is true that renewable energy sources such as solar and wind are intermittent and not always available, advancements in technology are improving their stability and reliability. Additionally, energy storage technologies like batteries are being developed to store excess energy generated by renewable sources during times of abundance, making it available during times of scarcity. As for cost, renewable energy costs have been steadily decreasing over the years and are becoming more competitive with fossil fuels. The transition to renewable energy will likely take several decades or more, but it is an ongoing process with increasing momentum.”

Hippocratic Oath

This next question is actually the reason why I started this discussion with ChatGPT.

Isn’t it true that batteries have a short life in the grand scheme of things and it’s not feasible to service the world with electric cars because of that?

“Lithium-ion batteries, which are commonly used in electric cars, have a limited lifespan and can degrade over time, which can impact their performance. However, the lifespan of the battery can be extended through proper use, maintenance, and recycling. In addition, advancements in battery technology are being made that could lead to longer-lasting and more durable batteries. While it may not be feasible to immediately switch the entire world’s vehicle fleet to electric cars, transitioning to electric vehicles over time and implementing sustainable battery recycling programs can help address these challenges.”

But batteries require raw materials that are harmful for the planet as well as humans and way more scarce than fossil fuels.

“That is true. The production of batteries for electric cars requires the extraction and processing of raw materials such as lithium, cobalt, and nickel, which can have negative impacts on the environment and local communities. Additionally, these materials are finite resources and could become scarce in the future.”

Gone with the wind

What about wind? isn’t it true that windmill blades are non-biodegradable, are buried in fields where they will live forever and that during their active life kill many thousands of birds per year?

“It is true that windmill blades are currently made of materials that are not easily biodegradable, such as fibreglass or carbon fibre… As for the impact on bird populations, studies have shown that wind turbines do pose a risk to birds, particularly raptors and migratory birds. However, the number of bird fatalities from wind turbines is significantly lower than those caused by other human-related activities, such as buildings or power lines.

Efforts are also being made to minimise the impact on bird populations, such as locating wind turbines in areas that are less likely to be used by birds… Overall, while there are still challenges and concerns associated with wind energy, it is considered to be a much more sustainable and environmentally friendly option than fossil fuels.”

Will we run out of space to accommodate all the wind turbines and solar panels required to power the world?

“No, it is unlikely that we will run out of space to accommodate all the wind turbines and solar panels required to power the world. While wind turbines and solar panels do require physical space, they can be installed on land that is not suitable for agriculture or other uses. Additionally, offshore wind turbines can be installed in oceans and other bodies of water. The amount of land required for renewable energy infrastructure is also much less than the land currently used for fossil fuel extraction and production.”

I could have challenged that last sentence but this is quite long as is and I prefer to go in a different direction.

Let’s move it, move it

And how do we transport that energy to where the people actually live?

“The transportation of renewable energy from remote locations, such as offshore wind farms or solar farms in deserts, to urban centres can be achieved through various methods. One of the most common methods is through high-voltage transmission lines, which can transport large amounts of electricity over long distances with minimal loss…”

What’s the loss of energy in high-voltage transmission lines per kilometre?

“The loss of energy in high-voltage transmission lines per kilometre depends on a number of factors, including the voltage level, the length of the line, and the materials used. Generally, the higher the voltage and the shorter the line, the lower the energy loss. However, even with high-voltage transmission lines, there is still some energy loss due to resistance in the wires and other factors, typically ranging from 2% to 10%.”

2% to 10% per kilometre?

“Yes, that’s a typical range for the energy loss in high-voltage transmission lines per kilometre. The actual percentage depends on various factors such as the length of the transmission line, the voltage level, the type of conductor, and the environmental conditions.”

So what?

My aim is to demonstrate why moving to renewable energy is not so straightforward as one might think and the media makes you believe.

Governments are spending billions of $ every year to fund research and incentivise private companies to adhere to “cleaner” energy practices. The incentives and penalties to car manufactures to make them shift to electric car production is a very good example. If governments let the market decide, there would be no electric cars. Mainly because any attempt to build a profitable business would fail without the funding from governments. And that’s not an argument in favour of the government. There are no solutions, there’s only trade-offs as Thomas Sowell would remind you. And he would also tell you that we’re looking at the misallocation of scarce resources which have alternative uses. I think everyone knows that the charging stations for electric cars get their electricity from the grid like everyone else. Guess how that energy is produced!

They want you to believe that green energy is abundant because the wind and the light of the sun are abundant. In theory, the energy we can use from these sources is indeed abundant, one could even say “unlimited” but acknowledge that the sun will die one day. But in practice, this is simply not so. These sources are unreliable and converting them into the energy we need comes at a very high cost, not only financially but also to the environment.

We’re rich

Fossil fuels are abundant and cheap. We can complain all we want about the state of the world today, but no one in their right mind would be willing to go back in time and live in the 1800s, let alone before. This energy source has lifted billions of people out of poverty, disease and darkness. You are led to believe that fossil fuels cause natural disasters such as hurricanes and the like, when the truth is that fossil fuels allow us to avoid certain death from such disasters. Natural disasters have always been part of our reality. The only difference is that today our shelters and support mechanisms prevent the death of millions or even billions of people every year.

It’s all yours but not theirs

An extremely small list of the impact that fossil fuels have on humanity:

Improved the availability and quality of drinking water through the use of pumps, pipelines, and other technologies.
Reduced the amount of deforestation required for fuel, enabling more land to be used for agriculture and other purposes.
Reduced the amount of time required for transportation, enabling people to travel farther and faster than ever before.
Enabled the growth of democracy and human rights, as it has led to greater economic and social mobility.
Increased life expectancy, reduced infant mortality, and improved health outcomes.
Enabled the development of modern medicine, as they are used in the production of drugs, medical devices, and other life-saving technologies.
Reduced the amount of time required for manual labour, enabling people to spend more time on leisure, education, and other pursuits.
Reduced the amount of time required for women to perform household chores, allowing them to participate more fully in the workforce and pursue other opportunities.

Deforestation is one of the human activities that lead to an increase in CO2 but as a matter of fact, the burning of fossil fuels has led to a decrease in deforestation and an increased awareness of the importance of conserving and reforesting forests, as well as the development of technologies and practices to reduce the environmental impact of various industries.

Conclusion

On ChatGPT

As for ChatGPT, even though there’s definitely bias built into the training of the algorithm, it’s important to point out that the quality of the prompts do influence heavily the output and I accept that I need to keep working on improving my prompting skills. When using this awesome tool be mindful of silly mistakes that it still makes. If you probe and improve your prompts the quality of the responses increases. I’m putting a lot of time and effort on improving my prompting skills because I really believe this technology will be as important as the internet, Bitcoin or the wheel.

Luddite?

I want to make it clear that I would like to see humanity switch from fossil fuels to renewable energy. My argument is that our knowledge and capabilities do not currently allow us to pursue this path responsibly, even though I would like to. I believe that nuclear energy, although non-renewable, is a very good first step that we are able to take technologically to reduce our dependence on fossil fuels. Unfortunately there’s no political motivation to make this happen, I can only wonder why. I don’t have time to “myth bust” the main concerns you hear from every source that has access to your attention, maybe in a future blog.

Hypocrisy

It’s very easy to turn on the Christmas lights for a few weeks, which run on fossil fuels, and then prevent poorer countries from using the same fossil fuels and make them invest in renewable energy infrastructure. We will not bring poor countries out of poverty without fossil fuels. The same way “we” wouldn’t have if we hadn’t used it.

Trust-thief

Science, like many other areas of our society, has been corrupted by centralised authority. I’m not saying that we can’t trust any science, I’m just saying that we can’t trust it blindly. Although the scientific method prevents a more dire situation, we are still in a bad one. Do not trust any authority, be it in science or otherwise. Think critically and constantly question the mainstream narrative. There’s always a reason behind a word, and the reason is hardly ever your best interest, unless it’s your own word. And even then, we often speak and act against ourselves out of ignorance.

Last word

I believe we have a duty to be good citizens, and we won’t be able to do that if we behave like sheep. Let me conclude with a quote from Richard Lindzen, which I think perfectly illustrates the preposterous situation we find ourselves in…