My professor used this graph on a slide today to show why we need to start investing in renewable energy sources.
Is it pure propaganda?
Yes, we can’t know the future.
As fossil fuels get more expensive, alternatives will be developed, and fossil fuels that are more expensive to extract will be extracted.
I don’t think it is propaganda, although such graphs don’t convey much meaningful data. For example, we know that not all power is provided by fossil fuel, but that graph seems to indicate that there are no other alternatives like nuclear and hydro, solar and wind already in operation. Or maybe I am ignorant, and their share of the energy market is so small, it cannot be shown as a gap on that graph.
One thing about this is troubling. It presumes a fixed supply of fossil fuels, which as far as I know, the Americans have lots of untapped reserves, including oil sands. Likewise, it presumes that global energy demand will continue to rise in a smooth curve, but I am not sure where those projections are coming from.
Well, he earns a salary. Is he investing into stock of companies having to do with renewable energy sources? Or is he all talk?
To express an opinion regarding the future state of the market is in no way propaganda or at least harmful propaganda, however, if such opinion is used to advocate State intervention in the market, then that is another another story. I am guessing that he is in the opinion of the latter.
My textbook says:
Some of the infrared radiation emitted by the Earth is absorbed by gases in the atmosphere and re-emitted back to the surface, maintaining Earth’s average temperature near 15 C. Although the precise consequences of this greenhouse effect are still subject to discussion, the global impact of CO2 emissions from fossil fuel combustion is now accepted as beyound reasonable doubt. Energy sources such as photovoltaics are needed to help reduce the levels of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere and alleviate this global warming.
Now that is a lie. Science is inquiry and skepticism. Whenever someone says that something is beyond doubt in science, run the other way.
I think it’s beyond reasonable doubt that all of Newton’s laws describe the world incredibly accurately if we are not at the atomic level. And that all the equations in standard physics books are beyond reasonable doubt. Same for Chemistry textbooks. And geometry textbooks, to within an incredibly small error. And that the double helix model of DNA is beyond reasonable doubt.
So would you say we should stop questioning these theories and reject any challenges to them based on the premise that the “science is settled?”
So it’s not for all cases. How is this explained? It isn’t. There may be a better theory for explaining such phenomena. Skepticism is how we leave room for new theories to replace old ones. Just as we would all see from common sense observation, the Sun orbits the Earth. Through mathematics and experimentation, we were able to show that this is false. The old scientific theory wasn’t completely correct, and the current one might not be, either.
Actually, it doesn’t describe it at the macro level either. For that you need relativity.
I’m not sure if the peak in fossile fuel supply is accurate, on that graph. “Peak oil” was supposed to have taken place about fifty years ago, as well. New estimates are always brought up. DiLorenzo covers the topic, a bit, in his book How Capitalism Saved America.
The graph is also implying of a problem that cannot exist in a market economy: that demand will exceed supply. Unless a government decree sets a maximum price, the graph is economic nonsense. So I am reversing my original response. Yes, this is propaganda.
A reply to a few posts:
So would you say we should stop questioning these theories and reject any challenges to them based on the premise that the “science is settled?”
Ain’t that a straw man? We should stop questioning them until contradictory evidence shows up. But it’s beyond a reasonable doubt that such evidence will ever show up, there being millions and billions of pieces of evidence supporting them, and none refuting them.
So it’s not for all cases. How is this explained? It isn’t.
Physics never explains anything. It only describes things. Have you heard any explanations of gravity? Or of why F = ma? Physics asserts that within certain boundaries, neither too big [TY to DD5] nor too small, all of Newton’s Laws apply. There is no room to reasonably doubt such an assertion. Not a single educated person in the Universe doubts that, and if he does, he need only do experiment after experiment till he is convinced. Same with all the other stuff I mentioned.
There may be a better theory for explaining such phenomena.
Of course there may be. There may be little green men under your bed too. it’s not impossible. But no one doubts that the present theories as taught in standard textbooks describes the universe accurately, which is all they claim to do.
Skepticism is how we leave room for new theories to replace old ones.
Scepticism is wonderful, but it is improper to be equally sceptical of all things. Some are way more likely than others, and have an incredible preponderance of evidence in their favor, like several trillion to zero. Are you sceptical of this assertion: If you let go of something in your hand, like a pencil, it will drop to the floor?
We need not live in a state of perpetual uncertainty to leave room for new theories. When the new evidence comes along, if it ever does, then we can rethink things. Until then we are totally justified and can sleep well nights trusting the laws of physics as currently taught.
Just as we would all see from common sense observation, the Sun orbits the Earth. Through mathematics and experimentation, we were able to show that this is false. The old scientific theory wasn’t completely correct, and the current one might not be, either.
This is an excellent example. Until there was contrary evidence, one was but a fool to assume the Sun is stationary. When contrary evidence came up [which I am not certain it did, I seem to remember that something about the Earth indicates that it’s spinning around its axis, but I don’t remember what] then and only then was the time to start being sceptical.
Actually, it doesn’t describe it at the macro level either. For that you need relativity.
TY for the correction.
Well, one line is Fossil Fuel supply, the other is of Energy demand.
1 billion bbl under the rocky mountains… just expensive to get to.
Probably the same program that predicts global temperature for the next fifty years. Maybe its the same graph with different labels on the axes.
I take it that the graph is implying that Fossil Fuel is the supply for the Energy demanded.
No. When I ask a question it is not a strawman. Sorry, pet peeve of mine.
Am I engaging in the Socratic method and attempting to lead you to an answer? Absolutely.
I was engaging in the Socratic method and attempting to lead you to a realization that you were attacking a straw man.
My last post on this digression from the main thread