"The battle of the energy titans comes down to one great contest: nuclear vs. coal."

[joshcryer]

74. Barely a point...

GG: The global eco/energy/economic clusterfuck we are now experiencing is essentially unsolvable.

Bob: An opinion unsupported by evidence.

We're not spending 10 trillion a year to solve it. The evidence seems to suggest that it will simply not be solved.

GG: If we do get our shit together as a species it will be after the crisis has played out rather than before.

Bob: An opinion unsupported by evidence or history.

If it is not being solved, which it isn't, then this is only a logical deduction. Since Empires have fallen since the dawn of history, I think the evidence and history does support this position.

GG: Politics is more often the problem than the solution.

Bob: A cynical opinion unsupported by evidence.

Except, just today, the evidence only piles up.

GG: The world hit peak oil in 2005.

Bob: Possibly, partly correct. We seem to have hit peak "cheap" oil. That does not mean as doomers assume that we are now about to fall off the oil cliff.

No, we in the west will be fairly OK. I don't think GG implied otherwise.

GG: We are within 5 to 10 years of peak food.

Bob: Bull.

Peak food? Maybe. Don't think so, but I wouldn't rule it out once conventional oil starts hurting.

GG: Climate change has already passed a tipping point that will result in average global warming of at least 6 degrees C this century.

Bob: The majority of climate scientists do not agree with this assessment. It could be correct, but it's an extremist view.

What was "extremist" on climate change 10 years ago is mainstream now. 6C would be catastrophic and I think that ultimately we're going to resort to geoengieering, but not before a lot of poor impoverished people die in the undeveloped world.

GG: A human die-off of some degree is inevitable.

Bob: Oh, crap. Doomer porn.

Depends. 20-30% dieoff would not be economically disasterous, but it would be one hell of a genocide for humanity. Anything larger and then we can talk about doom and gloom. But it's pretty much assured that if we don't act immediately there will be a lot of poor people dying in the undeveloped world. I don't see what's controversial about this observation.

GG: On a personal level I think that's a good thing, because humans have appropriated far more of the planet's capacities and resources than is safe for the continuation of life as a whole.

Bob: And now I must admit that I've formed a very low opinion of you. Anyone who thinks having billions of people die a miserable, horrible death via starvation and dehydration is a "good thing" is beyond contempt.

I don't think it's contemptable or beyond contempt, even. I think it's a natural conclusion from this line of discussion and beliefs. Though I certainly have to disagree that we have "appropriated far more of the planet's capacities and resources."