Something Everyone, Deniers and Realists Included, Should Avoid

While certainly pertaining to climate change and online conversations about the topic, this post is really more about free speech, and how critical thinking and scientific, rational, and skeptical discussion cannot exist without it.

I listen to a lot of podcasts throughout the course of my week; at work, the gym, doing chores, running errands, shopping, etc. I just posted and boasted about donating to my favorite, Big Picture Science (BPS). I'm also a fan of The Skeptics Guide to the Universe (SGU). Both are pretty popular and successful shows, but within the skeptical/rational/atheist community, SGU might edge out BPS, whereas BPS maybe has greater appeal among a more generally science-minded audience. I should point out that there is not a drastic difference between fanbases, however, which is probably best exemplified by the fact that Seth Shostak from BPS has appeared on SGU, and Steven Novella from SGU has been interviewed on BPS.

OK, those somewhat trivial hairs now plucked/split, onto the point of all this...

If you listened to this week's episode, you learned that SGU Productions is being sued. Apparently, Dr. Steven Novella was very critical of another medical practitioner, Dr. Edward Tobinick, who uses a rheumatoid arthritis drug for several things it's not intended to treat, such as Alzheimer’s disease. I won't get into the gory details of Dr. Novella's criticism in this post, because I'm not a doctor, and I don't play one on the Interchutes either. Also, I'm more interested in why Dr. Novella has a right to be critical (even harshly so) without fear of being sued, rather than whether or not his analysis has legs. But you can read all about it here, if you would like to learn more.

As Dr. Novella points out in that link, Dr. Tobinick's motivation is silencing opposition, pure and simple. That's the real reason he initiated an absurd case that will hopefully get thrown out of court sooner rather than later. If there's any sanity left in the world, that is. Tobinick was hoping Novella would buckle under the pressure, and take down the scathing opinion-piece, rather than pay legal fees to defend itself, and it's sad that our justice system entertains such slimy intimidation.

Look, people, the point I want to make regarding this and similar lawsuits that target free speech is we need to preserve our ability to verbally dissect one another at all costs. It is crucial to getting at the truth. It is crucial to logic, reason, and science, and it is a vital part of our open public discourse. If you care at all about honest debate, then you will never do what Tobinick has done. Just because lawyers like to get paid does not mean we need to provide them a new boat or vehicle every time someone confronts or questions us. We all need to sign a pact in blood or something that we will never do such things to each other, even our archenemies. Novella is either right or wrong about whether or not Tobinick is engaging in some form of malpractice, and we cannot get to the bottom of it all, if we are all too scared to weigh in on the matter, because it will cost us tens of thousands of dollars for attorneys. It is of no consequence that we are not nice when we criticize each other's words and actions. We need the freedom to be as cold and calculating with one another as possible, because our fragile egos and self-interests are less important than the dangers posed by deception and charlatanry.

Wait a second...do the rest of you hear that growing rumble off in the distance? It's the sound of deniers rushing in and stumbling over one another to be the first to complain about Mann's libel case. Now, I am essentially a free speech absolutist, so I do take some exception to Mann's suit. However, if you deniers do not see a clear difference between what Dr. Novella is doing, and what the National Review and the Competitive Enterprise Institute were in reality attempting, well, I'm here to slap the dope outta ya and clear things up. You're welcome in advance.

My Space Pom-Poms Pale in Comparison

I've been trying to make a strong case for space-based solar power (SBSP) recently, but I got nothing on this guy. Meet the real SBSP cheerleader, President of Artemis Innovation Management Solutions LLC, John C. Mankins.

Mankins has had a distinguished technology innovation career in and out of NASA, and he has written a book which argues the case for SBSP.

You can get a good idea where Mankins is coming from by watching his TEDx talk. Notice how he dives right in and starts the presentation by mentioning the challenge of overcoming SBSP's present astronomical cost (OK, fine, pun intended).



SBSP has been in the research pipeline for decades, and, only a couple years ago, Mankins spearheaded an effort funded by NASA to address many of the issues raised by previous studies.

From the program's final report:

The vision of delivering solar power to Earth from platforms in space has been known for decades. However, early architectures to accomplish this vision were technically complex and unlikely to prove economically viable. Some of the issues with these earlier solar power satellite (SPS) concepts – particularly involving technical feasibility – were addressed by NASA’s space solar power (SSP) studies and technology research in the mid-to-late 1990s. Despite that progress, ten years ago a number of key technical and economic uncertainties remained. A new SPS concept has been proposed that resolves many, if not all, of those uncertainties: “SPS - ALPHA” (Solar Power Satellite by means of Arbitrarily Large Phased Array).

In other words, this latest SBSP research effort attempts to fix the remaining "technical and economic uncertainties."

SPS-ALPHA incorporates a number of critical new technologies, including: (1) WPT using a retro-directive RF phased array with high-efficiency solid-state amplifiers; (2) high-efficiency multi-bandgap PV solar cells, employed in a concentrator PV (CPV) architecture with integrated thermal management; (3) lightweight structural components, applied in various systems/subsystems; (4) autonomous robotics in a highly structured environment; and, (5) a high degree of autonomy among individual modules. However, no “breakthroughs” are required, and the key innovation is at the architecture level.

I made that last sentence bold text, because I think it's important. We don't have to invent anything new to make SBSP a reality. We have all the tech required in our hands already, and SPS-ALPHA takes it into the fold. The only innovation necessary is how we design it, or how we assemble it, the architecture.

As for the seemingly insurmountable economic issues of SBSP (I personally estimate present costs of satisfying all US energy demands at $10-$300 trillion...yup, trillion), this report will knock yer spaceboots off.

The study concluded that the SPS-ALPHA concept could – with needed technological advances – make possible the economically viable deliver of solar energy to markets on Earth. In particular, it appears that a full-scale SPS-ALPHA, when incorporating selected advances in key component technologies should be capable of delivering power at a levelized cost of electricity (LCOE) of approximately 9¢/kilowatt-hour...Although no breakthroughs in technology appear to be needed to realize SPS-ALPHA, transformational changes in how space systems are designed are needed. Additional research and development (R&D) will be required for confirmation of this very promising finding.

9¢/kilowatt-hour. Even if the true cost turns out to be double that, wow, just WOW. As Mankins mentions in his TEDx talk, today's US market prices range anywhere from 10¢ to 40¢/kilowatt-hour. No emissions and an eventual cost less than terrestrial production.

That settles it. I gotta buy bigger pom-poms.