I notice how you have avoided the question about these shills trying to get " credible " scientific interviews that no one can dispute.
I was referring to these people such as the many references that are posted on here by the coolists every day. Shill-enberger and Moore are just two of the more well known examples. The principle is the same. Why aren't they asking to be interviewed by any of the more scientific based programs ?
Unfortunately I am going to have to buy his book now because based on the podcast I am listening to, he is fos.
I have read some of his stuff before and I have watched his TED talk. He always exaggerates the bejesus out of everything to try and make his case.
E.g. In about the first 10 minutes of this podcast he refers to some other guy ( Vaclov Smil ? ) that " opened his eyes " about renewable energy in the US. He argues that current electricity production requires .5 % of land in the US while the amount of land required to power the US from renewables is between 25 to 50 % of all land.
Now, there's a couple of problems with that claim.
1. 25 to 50% ? That's a pretty broad claim. Couldn't he come up with a more accurate figure that that ? The US is almost 10 million km2. So, he's saying that it is 2.5 million km2 give or takeanother 2.5. million km2 ?
2. According to a 2015 study by MIT, he is so wrong it's not funny. Not even close. There are plenty of other theoretical examples out there for this as well. Also, in typical Shill-enberger fashion, he doesn't account for an improvement in solar and wind technology nor does he allow for building ( or even every built surface ) mounted solar panels and he certainly doesn't mention offshore wind farms that use no land and are more efficient than onshore versions.
