[pp.int.general] Climate change discussion [Re: The Venus project?]

[Pat Mächler]

@Maike:

On Sat, Aug 13, 2011 at 12:54 AM, Maike Marrek <listen at jaasnee.de> wrote:
> (horrible ... greenpeace energy GER is working on transforming wind and
> solar energy in storable gas, they've already managed it to find
> investors and are now looking for clients)

Could you explain to me what exactly is bad about that approach?
Is there some negative side effect to be expected from it?
I don't see it, but I may have missed it?

Is there some sort of clear danger to be expected from providing
alternative ways of energy supply?

> ... maybe someone thought it would be better to forget about this to
> prevent mass media from publishing bullshit - they have been right ;-)

IMO mass media tends to report on a lot of issues in a way which
misses crucial points and generates dubious beliefs; but that's rather
structural problem with mass media and the way people perceive
information transmitted 'through it. Such misinformation of the public
may always be mourned by interest groups considering a certain issue,
but it has hardly anything to do with those issue in particularity;
it's merely an overall problem but not so much has been done trying to
fix the actual, structural problem; likely due to the fact that some
still think it might become helpful again to their interests at a
certain point and most humans tend to dislike the idea of living in a
world where "facts" are always uncertain up to a certain point.
In that regard the research concerning the opinion tipping point is
certainly interesting.

I'm certain that some climate change is occurring, I'm not certain
that climate change is to a large extend caused by humans.
So what?
What would be a possible negative side effect for either case?
If it is occurring we likely will need to address it either way.
Researching the issue will help clearing that up. Not researching it
won't ever clear that fight up; also we might run into serious
trouble, as we might miss crucial changes that we should have had
addressed.

I don't consider myself a "green advocate", but rather a
"sustainability advocate".
The only specific critic that can be applied to this by "anti-green
advocates" is that we might miss some personal benefits, because our
behavior tends to risk-aversion. If we are putting a pure bet on that
we are likely to be risking way too much.