Types of People in the AGW Discourse
1. The Deniers: they don't believe AGW is happening and no evidence will make them change their mind.
2. The Believers: they believe AGW is happening but they have their feet on the ground.
3. The Naivers: they believe Renewable Energy (RE) will replace fossil fuels (FF) and save the day.
4. The Black Swanners: they believe in AGW but at the same time understand that humans will not voluntarily reduce their standards of living. Thus humanity will NOT reduce their FF consumption for many decades to come. The way out? A serious black swan event that will solve the emissions problem "through the back door." Examples:
a. A gigantic volcanic eruption in Indonesia.
b. An ebola like virus that drastically decimates human population.
c. What have you.
5. Gamblers: they do believe AGW is happening but decide to wait and see. There might even be some unintended positive consequences of climate change. If nothing else, their investments in Greenland may become more valuable.
6. Opportunistic: the ones that make loads of money by selling the RE to the Naivers (above).
7. Liars / Lobbyists: what they believe in their heart is irrelevant. They follow the money and fully support their sponsors no matter how much they have to bend themselves backward to seem reasonable.
Framing people is never good, but it is certainly better to frame them in SEVEN camps rather than limit them to only two.
We hope the above classification adds something positive to the energy discourse.
Labels: AGW, deniers, fossil fuels, global warming, renewable energy
posted by Luis B. Aramburu @ 1:00 PM
4 comments
4 Comments:
Thank you for this article.
VERY helpful and enjoyed reading. It's a comfort :-)
Luis, where do your nuclear energy zealots sit in this frame work?
Hi Luis,
Thanks to Jan Paul van Soest (may want to take note) I have two utterly serious variations to add on the theme!
1: there are the conservative-relegious zealots: "It is utterlu inconceivable man would be able to upset God's Works in any significant way!"
2; the extreme Libertarians: "All hail to the Free Market and minimal Government" For Global Warming to be true and significant the free market *must* have failed and would require/mandate (Big) Government actions. This is total anathema to their thinking.
Both types are USA I'd guess :-)
http://www.trouw.nl/tr/nl/13110/Klimaatverandering/article/detail/3637596/2014/04/18/Klimaatsceptici-verkopen-goed-verpakte-kletspraatjes.dhtml
Re: For what its Worth
Hi Luis
I wish to formally request your consideration of the naiver's be broken down in separate categories.
The first group to have a new definition being:
“The illiterate of the 21st century will not be those who cannot read and write, but those who cannot learn, unlearn, and relearn.” ― Alvin Toffler
Persons of this description promulgate unproven science,(wishful thinking) and will NOT consider even the highest standard of references or provide them.
The second category of 'naiver' called Alice in Wonderland(AIWL)or Napoleon Complex - take your pick.
This category have made up their mind - the lights are on but nobody's home. Not wishful thinking as I doubt they do much 'thinking' at all.
A good example of this type would be someone pro-German renewables energy. (Good on them for putting their money where their mouth is and all- but not seeing failure is pretty sad.
Another example is PM of Australia. The common thread between the two examples is that they do more harm than good, and still do not see the error in their ways it despite international condemnation- denunciation. (It could come to that - you never know)
Lastly, I also wish to comment on Francis Van Staa's observation of Christian American Extreme Libertarians (CAEL). Today, I have a (CEAL) Pro-nuke follower and so is my mother(GOP-TeaParty)Pro nuke as well. So, I'm not convinced as to the traits of these individuals - which may vary - as American is a F******G huge country where I have lived coast-to-coast 20+ yrs.
Far from ADVANCING [against climatic change] we are LOSING ground.
Let's hope we come to our senses quickly, rather than gamble on the shortest straw.
Great article Luis! Thank you. It IS a BIG help in the energy discourse.
In Unity
Doyleclan1
I <3 Nuclear energy because it proven to decommission coal & is very safe
Post a Comment
<< Home