Energy dreamtime, & George finds the prostate connection

I was deeply suspicious when I saw Scientific American running an article that claims the entire world's energy can be from renewable sources within 20 years. After all, if that were plausible, any nation with an interest in avoiding reliance on other countries' oil, gas or coal would already be on board with advanced planning for energy independence in our lifetime. Yippee.

Well, Barry Brook and friends have been looking at it closely, and basically rip it to threads. I'm convinced (by Brook, not by Scientific American.)

Meanwhile, on the related topic of global warming skepticism, George Monbiot is getting very depressed that polls indicate people are not so worried about global warming now. He writes in The Guardian: "There is no point in denying it: we’re losing. Climate change denial is spreading like a contagious disease."

Actually, I don't worry too much about this. People are incredibly fickle when being polled. I suspect that reduced concern may partly be explained by some people (the type that media spin works on) feeling that with Obama as President, and Rudd as PM here, something effective is being done about it, so we can relax. But it only takes an unseasonably warm or hot month to change their minds again, in all likelihood.

What worries me more is that virtually all politicians are displaying absolutely no skepticism towards the economist driven proposal that cap and trade schemes are capable of providing sufficient technological innovation and rapid deployment of clean (or cleaner) energy to make a difference. When you need them to be skeptical, they're not.

But back to Monbiot. He says climate change denial is like a disease, and as I have recently identified, that is true: it must be prostate disease. George sees the old age connection, but hasn't yet caught on to my innovative bit of deductive reasoning:

The Pew report found that people over 65 are much more likely than the rest of the population to deny that there is solid evidence that the earth is warming, that it’s caused by humans or that it’s a serious problem(9). This chimes with my own experience. Almost all my fiercest arguments over climate change, both in print and in person, have been with people in their 60s or 70s. Why might this be?

He doesn't specify, but I would bet that perhaps 90% of those argumentive oldies are also men. As for women skeptics: well, we always have hormone imbalances to fall back on. (Hey if I am being silly about men, I have to be about women too.)

Anyhow, George then goes in for a bit of psychoanalysis about why older people should be more skeptical. It could be all about death denial.

Interesting theory, but I don't know. Does death denial make old folk just get generally cranky and irrational on other topics. (My mother has become so annoyed at what she perceives as other women in her retirement village big-noting their children's careers, she has taken to telling some of them that all of her 7 children have been to university. In fact, it's only one.)

Older people can get wise in some ways, but you probably can't expect them to be reliable in telling where the scientific consensus lies when there are exaggerations on both sides of the debate. I would bet there would be a certain percentage of post 60-ish women who believe everything Andrew Bolt says because he's a nice looking chap.

And finally, speaking of Bolt, I had to laugh on Insiders on Sunday when antagonism erupted between Annabel Crabb (I believe everything she writes because, well, she is cute) and Andrew. If I am not mistaken, Annabel derided Andrew for always quoting "some professor from the University of East Bumcrack." That may not be a precise recall, but "bumcrack" was definitely in there.