Reply #10: Probably won't?

[kristopher]

That is an odd interpretation of your words from the OP, "I agree with Greer that despite the fervent hopes and endless calculations of the renewable energy crowd we are unlikely to ever see a global industrial civilization powered by windmills and turbines. Certainly not one that provides anything like the level of material comfort (aka entropy) that this one does."

How do "shortcomings in human neuropsychology" result in the failure you spoke of? It seems pretty evident that the remark is aimed directly at the technical capability of renewables to meet the demands of "global industrial civilization" and that it has absolutely nothing to do with the way humans are hardwired nor how that wiring translates into cultural institutions and actions.

It is, in other words, a direct statement that intends to discredit the proven potential of renewable energy to meet our needs.

That in turn brings us back to the issue of nuclear power. The issue of climate change is pressing and action must be taken. The Republican plan to take such action (insomuch as one exists) involves massive deployment of nuclear power. Most analysts completely disagree with the premise that nuclear is a viable option in either the short or long term and they conclude that the Democratic position aiming to meet our needs with renewable energy is greatly preferred. Your attempt to falsely discredit renewable energy has the result of being a defacto endorsement of Republican energy policy.

Let's add the assumption implicit in your statement quoted above:
"I agree with Greer that despite the fervent hopes and endless calculations of the renewable energy crowd we are unlikely to ever see a global industrial civilization powered by windmills and turbines. Certainly not one that provides anything like the level of material comfort (aka entropy) that this one does. <For that we must have nuclear power.>"

I know that you will now disavow nuclear also, for this conversation is one of many similar ones. The thing that argues against your sincerity, however, is that the pattern is always the same - a rejection of the recommended course of action built around renewables while no mention is made of nuclear, and THEN a "correction" when you're called on the bias. This isn't an isolated instance in other words.

Perhaps such instances of miscommunication could be avoided by bearing in mind that Republican efforts aimed at spreading disinformation have made some of us particularly sensitive to such repeated misstatements.

If you want to argue against the willingness of people to take action that is a legitimate point of view - but arguing against the ability of renewable technology to meet our needs is PURE REPUBLICAN SPIN.