A little while back, CNN recruited a right-wing talk radio host named Glenn Beck to host one of its prime-time shows. As MediaMatters rather exhaustively reveals, Beck is an unreconstructed racist, sexist, classist, misogynist, authoritarian, xenophobic troglodyte of the old school. He doesn't work particularly hard to conceal his trogloditicism. In fact, one suspects CNN views the trogloditicism as the draw.
Beck's latest crusade is -- you guessed it -- global warming skepticism. He has a special running on CNN ("Exposed: The Climate of Fear") in which he compares the consensus on global warming to the early-20th-century consensus on eugenics. It features Patrick Michaels, Tim Ball, Chris Horner, Bjorn Lomborg, and all the other usual suspects.
I have a question for you Gristmill readers:
Do you think I/we should take on this stuff whenever it pops up? Should Gristmill produce a point-by-point refutation every time these same discredited spokesmen and arguments are trotted out? Is there any payoff in it? I could just keep posting links to the Skeptic Guide, but that's not quite as effective as a targeted rebuttal.
I guess it would be a public service, but I also wonder whether giving this stuff attention just plays into its hands. Is anyone who tunes into Beck's show, sees the same handful of cranks, hears the same zombie falsehoods, and is convinced, realistically going to end up at Gristmill looking for counter-arguments anyway?
To spend the time, or not spend the time, that is the question. How would you answer?
Sorry, the poll you are seeking no longer exists. If you’re in a voting mood, suggest a poll and you might just see it on the site.
On ‘climategate’
For McCain, it’s really all about the fake snow
What to make of the new climate poll
Comments
View as Flat
spaceshaper Posted 7:26 am
04 May 2007
The true meaning of life is to plant trees, under whose shade you do not expect to sit.
Permalink
JMG Posted 7:35 am
04 May 2007
On the other hand, it's always good to keep an ear open for new lines of argument, and then that has to be addressed to show why it's bunk. (The recent disinfomeme about Mars is the kind of thing I'm thinking here.)
The skeptics are losing the war, so they are not going to just sit there and repeat the nonsense that isn't working--sure, they'll fill in with that (after all, they've got hours of TV time to fill and paid speaking gigs to pander for, so they'll never quit using the chesnuts), but they will also continually test new lines of argument on shows like that, because they know they'll be treated gently and not hooted off the stage. For them, Glenn Beck's show is Peoria--they'll try it out in Peoria before trying to get to New York with it.
The much more difficult question is whether reputable non-denialist scientists should appear on such shows. I don't know the answer to that.
"An optimist is someone who thinks this is the best of all possible worlds. A pessimist is someone who is afraid that the optimist is right."
Permalink
Fergus Brown Posted 7:46 am
04 May 2007
For the more insidious type of scepticism which bedevils blogs everywhere, can I suggest this:
http://fergusbrown.wordpress.com/2007/04/25/
shades-of-scepticism/#comment-52
I am in the process of preparing a ready-made potato-print image to cut out and keep, so that silliness can be addressed with a simple reply, involving the image; no effort wasted.
You could always ask Mr Beck why he feels compelled to mislead and deceive, and whether he is morally comfortable with the notion that such deceit may soon amount to culpable homicide?
Or maybe that's too harsh...
Turned out nice again...
Permalink
GreyFlcn Posted 7:53 am
04 May 2007
And "those in the know" might know full well about these skeptics, it's crucially important that the misrepresentation of the facts by these skeptics be distributed to a larger audience.
And how you translate that information from technobabble into laymens is amazingly valuable.
Permalink
Zarkov Posted 8:04 am
04 May 2007
>> carpetbaggers with the phony fixes. Outfits like Planktos >>
A perfect example of a denier, WITH NO KNOWLEDGE, is sprouting DANGEROUS BS
The only way to save the planet; and yet many people including REALCLIMATE, IPCC and others are allowed to show their infectious lack of understanding.
In science such debates go on ... scientists have decades / millennia to argue
This Earth has /had no time to waste in petty ego arguments. I am appalled that THE most important project ... yes it was proposed long ago ... a project that NOW has a willing implementer, is/maybe being derailed.
THIS IS YOUR LAST CHANCE EARTH !
Speak loud and clear, the denniers will get a hearing and be debunked .... hopefully before the trumpets blow.
But because the world is mainly populated by idiots, yes idiots
such denniers gain a great MASS of following, and y'all love democracy !!!!! LOL (idiotic)
"The Death of Clouds"
omegafour.com
Permalink
thinkdharma Posted 8:31 am
04 May 2007
Permalink
d41295 Posted 8:31 am
04 May 2007
> refutation every time these same discredited
> spokesmen and arguments are trotted out? Is there > any payoff in it?
No--you don't have the expertise for it. Gristmill has demonstrated a noted lack of scientific expertise over the years -- your writers just do not have the chops to take on the big boys. Hence your ideological approach. Best to leave this to the professionals (RealClimate), and meekly link to them.
Permalink
Delay And Deny Posted 8:41 am
04 May 2007
I don't really see that you've rebutted anything so far.
I have an argument for almost anything in your skeptics guide, and many of my arguments have no response for weeks.
The "Skeptics Guide" is looking more like a battle plan for challenging the Crypto-Malthusian cult.
What is more, "Unstoppable Global Warming -- Every 1500 Years" is like the Boy Scouts Handbook for trying to curtail the cultists who want to use AGW as a way to bilk the public of tax funds.
You Read It Here First
Permalink
Chris Schults Posted 9:03 am
04 May 2007
I think this is more of a function of people simply ignoring you and not due to a lack of arguments.
Permalink
Bart Anderson Posted 9:19 am
04 May 2007
Keep in mind your long-term goals. Does this particular occasion advance your goals?
There's no automatic need to rebut skeptics.
Occasionally, it may be worthwhile to put out the arguments, more for the sake of the audience rather than with any hope of changing the mind of the skeptic.
Usually it's better to spend one's effort on allies and people with whom one shares most values.
Ignore trolls.
Bart
Energy Bulletin
Permalink
Gary Gifford Posted 9:56 am
04 May 2007
These deniers, who appear in Grist and other blogs EVERYDAY multiple times throughout the day are being paid to be there. Their employers hope that their regular appearances will give the impression that the actual world population views of the realities of global warming with a skeptical eye.
Engage them and refute them because the corporate greed that they represent wont go away. This is the only way to maintain a true picture of what the worldview is.
If I were a religious man, I'd be sure that there was a special place in hell reserved for these bastards.
Cheers,
Gary Gifford
Permalink
Billhook Posted 10:47 am
04 May 2007
to infest any and every environment & peak oil blog they can find.
Given that their attempt is to delay action on GW as long as possible,
there is a direct and now fully informed complicity in a potentially unprecedented scale of genocide.
Their aim is not to convince people,
but merely to hold the debate on the reality & significance of GW,
thus precluding discussion by the undecided of just how oil & coal usage can best be constrained.
Rebutting such trash neatly fulfills their goals, for there is always a denial or a new critique in response.
Utterly ignoring them in favour of discussion of the mitigation of GW neatly blocks their goals.
Personally I'd not only ignore them, I'd remove posting privileges from anyone pushing denial three times on the site.
Why waste energy on them ?
Regards,
Billhook
Permalink
Delay And Deny Posted 10:55 am
04 May 2007
Why waste energy on them ?
Yes, I'm sure you'd like to put skeptics in jail and gas them as well...but we can't let you do that, Mein Herr.
You Read It Here First
Permalink
Delay And Deny Posted 10:56 am
04 May 2007
LOL!
Is that why I live in a 1-bedroom apartment in Kent East Hill, Washington State while Al Gore flies around in Lear Jets and Sheryl Crow trails five tour buses farting sulfur everywhere she goes?
You Read It Here First
Permalink
Delay And Deny Posted 10:59 am
04 May 2007
Now I feel more confident...more me
So, I'm leaving the Closet behind.
I am a denier.
I deny Global Warming in all its manifestations.
I am a skeptic.
And I will now argue from that standpoint.
Purely.
See you at Studio 54...
You Read It Here First
Permalink
Gary Gifford Posted 11:16 am
04 May 2007
Its funny. Since Jaballo has no conscience and simply does this for money, he could be a paid blogger under different names for a whole host of causes.
Denier of the link between tobacco and lung cancer, paid blogger for Hillary Clinton and John McCain at the same time, NAMBLA supporter, the list goes on and on.
Cheers,
Gary Gifford
Permalink
GreyFlcn Posted 11:23 am
04 May 2007
Grist however is rather good for providing some context and framing for the general public who might not be viewing climate blogs every day.
Every skeptic? No.
But every major climate skeptic making a bit media appearance, Yes.
Permalink
GreyFlcn Posted 11:32 am
04 May 2007
Permalink
Ken Ward Posted 12:42 pm
04 May 2007
This is an excellent question that nicely illustrates why US environmentalists must discard the approach, tone and role we adopted over the last couple of decades if we are to have any hope of affecting the outcome on climate.
As I have noted in other posts, and you summed up nicely in a post on Huffington's site (link), the important question to ask in communications - and how we respond to skeptics is purely a problem of communications - is to ask what response best tells our story?
For the two decades, our story was that climate change is real. We won the point, a decade too late, but the overwhelming majority of Americans now accept reality.
We ought now to be telling the story of abrupt climate change and mobilizing the relatively small numbers of existentialist-minded leaders (many of whom are not environmentalists) who are prepared to take forceful and single-minded action. From this perspective, any time spent in rebutting skeptics is utterly wasted. Our important audiences could care less.
However, by taking a few simple, cheap and determined actions we have an excellent opportunity to reinforce our story. We won't do so, however, until we rid ourselves of two persistent and pernicious beliefs: that environmentalists are responsible for solving climate change and that our principle audience is the general public. These two, deeply ingrained assumptions channel our work, our politics and our response to our adversaries and enemies in ways that reduce our political power (and inflate the influence of skeptics).
If we refocus on mobilizing a bloc of determined climate action political leaders, then we should take action toward skeptics that matches the anger of these folks and is invigorating. This can be done by stepping outside the box of civic niceties and "balanced" debate, which no longer apply (did anyone bother to respond to pacifists after Hilter invaded Poland?).
Here's three easy ways this could be done.
NRDC, ED, UCS and the Sierra Club refuse to appear in any media broadcast with skeptics.
Grist should institute a policy similar to Craig's List where posts from "skeptics" are flagged by readers and removed.
The Green Groups release a white paper that endorses the precautionary, climate-science-proposed standard of global action, or "bright line," defined by Jim Hansen and hammer away at the terrible story of ice sheet break-up and civilization-busting sea level rise.
But won't be charged with censorship and uncivil behavior? Sure, and that would be great because if would give us another opportunity to say that the world as we know it is about to come to end and we don't have time to screw around with niceties. Our most important audiences will appreciate that we are finally matching our words with action.
Ken Ward
ken[at]brightlines.org
Permalink
tico89 Posted 12:45 pm
04 May 2007
Of course, it's catch-22, as engaging people in intelligent conversation gives them a feeling of importance (the same probably goes for some trolls I could mention), plus the simple fact that if people see something mentioned a lot in print, they will have more respect for it. On the other hand, not refuting them gives the impression that you have nothing to say. With most of these fools though, probably the majority of us in the public can pass the truth on to those around. Keep the firepower for what deserves it, or for anything that's in the grey area.
It might be an idea, though, occasionally to track down one of these shows, and totally annihilate it in an article, just to give us a feeling of satisfaction, and to make others think twice.
On the whole, though, these are just better-known trolls we're dealing with. And ignoring is the best policy.
The whole is greater than the sum of its parts. Humanity can't work individually.
Permalink
SustainableGreen Posted 1:08 pm
04 May 2007
Well, yes of course we have to continue. This is a crucial moment in human history, and will determine which of two paths we take.
If some of us get tired or have to move on to other things, others can fill in. View it as a tag team.
I hope hope hope the Dems don't self-destruct (again) in '08, and we have a much more receptive progressive audience and administration. If so, things will improve.
If we don't continue to fight, Hell is much too good for all of us.
David
Sustainability For Life
Messages done with sustainable energy, with Wind and Sun!
Permalink
evanthomaspaul Posted 1:23 pm
04 May 2007
I think the only way to restore real "balance" to news coverage of climate change (i.e. debating solutions, not the science) is to pressure the MSM to report science accurately. Pressure the advertisers that run ads during Glenn Beck's show. Jam the phone lines of CNN executives. Take notes from the recent downfall of Imus as a road map on how to get trash off the airwaves.
Permalink
Pangolin Posted 2:31 pm
04 May 2007
Get an alert button and send unoriginal sceptical posts to the sceptics dungeon um er corner with a link back to the original thread. Sort of like a hate mail bag.
You could even keep count like 22 comments, 4 skeptics corner with a little link for folks to follow if the sceptics start to rack up.
I don't like sites that ban unneccesarily but sending those internet tourette's post off to their own corner seems fair.
Permalink
njorer Posted 2:57 pm
04 May 2007
people, but i'm struggling to adopt a new policy, pointed out by a anti-nuclear activist quoted in a local newspaper. It goes something like this:
"Never argue with idiots. They'll just drag you down to their level and beat you on experience alone."
Permalink
Ralph Posted 3:27 pm
04 May 2007
Seriously now, there is STRONG evidence that CO2 emissions are NOT driving global warming. Consider the following from a former researcher working on climate change ...
http://backseatdriving.blogspot.com/2007/04/climate-skept ...
If you have half a brain, you will consider what David has to say. The debate is NOT over, the evidence is NOT conclusive, and as David points out, "The integrity of the scientific community will win out in the end, following the evidence wherever it leads."
And finally, one more link to counter what you've been reading on the Socialist web site (mediamatters), here's a bit of analysis from one of your so-called deniers, Tim Ball ...
http://newsbusters.org/node/12174
Is it so impossible for you to believe that government-funded scientists might tweak the facts just a bit to keep the big bucks rollin' in?
Geez, get a clue about money and politics?
Sincerely,
Ralph Hansen, Ph. D.
- When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir? -- John Maynard Keynes
Permalink
Zarkov Posted 4:28 pm
04 May 2007
Yes there is, CO2 is not a problem
>> => Fewer low clouds are formed
=> Earth heats up. >>>
Yes this is correct.
Cosmic rays ! well that is stretching credibility, no point introducing further complications without evidence.... just not good science.
LOL
so we are left with FEWER CLOUDS, especially low clouds ... high level ice clouds are increasing
Well, well, what do you think from this ?
Earth's hydrology cycle is in REAL TROUBLE
Wonder why ?, could it be
that the oil on the sea inhibits water evaporation.
D'oh. Now ask why the rest of the scientific world is so ignorant ? An answer must be obtained, these people hold our fate in their hands.
WHY ???
omegafour.com
Permalink
GonzoDon Posted 1:30 am
05 May 2007
Lesson: if a lie is repeated often enough by people in 'authority' positions, and if that lie helps to confirm people's confortable and pre-conceived worldview, then you'll have one hell of a time ever dislodging that lie from a large part of the public consciousness.
The only real solution may be to wait for the older, stuck-in-their-old-mindset, don't-dare-do-anything-that-may-affect-the-cost-of-my-gasoline generation to gradually die off. Unfortunately, with global warming already upon us, we can't afford to wait that long.
So, I vote that you keep rebutting the most absurd of the skeptics -- somebody has to. But don't obsess over trying to rebut everything. Like the debate over evolution or Saddam and 9-11, we need to avoid giving the flat-earthers a forum that implies equal credibility for their arguments.
I don't see our schools giving equal opportunity for those who oppose the 'theory' we live in a heliocentric solar system (i.e., that the earth revolves around the sun, not the other way around.) There's a good reason for that. Science and common sense finally won out on that issue. As it will on global warming, sooner or later.
Permalink
Gar Lipow Posted 6:30 am
05 May 2007
Also use low labor means that give denialists minimal respect. Do your rebuttals via quotes from "talking to skeptics" sites. Also, before going to real climate or Becks "How to talk to a climate skeptic", why not start with Tim Lambert's Global Warming Skeptic Bingo. For example, Cockburn's latest diatribe could have been rebutted entire from that Bingo game. If someone actually makes a point not included on the Bingo card, than move on to Beck and Real Climate. But don't treat this is a serious debate. Treat them like chew toys; show them no respect.
Permalink
Michael Tobis Posted 7:33 am
05 May 2007
http://motls.blogspot.com/2007/04/larry-king-richard-lind ...
Someone unqualified was put up against Dick Lindzen, and simply didn't fare well. It's necessary to show up at the high-profile events.
This (and the associated commentary) convinced me that you can't just let these events be handled by amateurs.
It's also necessary to frame the terms of the debate, and not simply be responding. In order for us to come out of this situation reasonably well, we want the world not too disrupted, and democracy intact. If that is going to happen, democracy has to get better at understanding what is going on.
This means not just denying the denialists but actually effectively drawing the big picture. More well-informed people need to get good at this.
As for "Swindle" type episodes, I agree.
Point briefly to chapter and verse. Allegation a, rebuttal A, Allegation B, rebuttal B. Please don't stop there, though. Lead in with some description of the big picture untainted by the denialist frame, and close likewise.
The audience must get the idea that all these ideas have been trotted out for a long time, that most of them are totally without substance and the rest are dubious, that it isn't bias or closed-mindedness to assert that the truith lies elsewhere. That's not enough though.
It's even more important that the audience does get a reasonably clear idea of where the truth does lie. Every communication which involves these people directly or indirectly should, I think, debunk the lies in a sandwich of asserting the truth.
mt
Permalink
d41295 Posted 8:06 am
05 May 2007
Try thinking for yourselves sometime.
Permalink
Ralph Posted 1:40 pm
05 May 2007
That's news to the Gristmill geniuses, no doubt. But now for the big rant!
What facts should make me believe increasing CO2 concentrations produced by humans are heating the planet, particularly at a magnitude likely to cause global catastrophe? Please explain why the minor warming we've experienced in the past century isn't attributable to land use changes (the heat island effects of urbanization, deforestation, increased surface albedo caused by our greening of the landscape), surface or underwater volcanic activity, or an increase in solar intensity. How might the mitigating effects of plant life, clouds, precipitation and the oceans offset the warming effects of the .038% concentration of atmospheric carbon dioxide?
Please explain why you trust a climate panel, under the auspices of the United Nations, when it proclaims it is more than 90% certain human emissions of greenhouse gases are responsible for recent warming. Isn't it possible that the combination of political pressure and the desire of IPCC scientists to keep the money flowing might have corrupted the process? Please explain why it's not possible for politics to trump science.
If "global warming" is changing the climate, why should we presume that it is bad? Are milder winters, lower energy bills and longer growing seasons undesirable? Because plants use CO2 like we use oxygen, shouldn't they grow better and absorb more CO2 if concentrations are higher? If most of the warming occurs at higher latitudes, shouldn't we see less-intense storms because there is less difference in the temperature of the colliding air masses that cause them? Why should we expect droughts? If the world is warmer, shouldn't it also be wetter because there will be more evaporation?
Those promoting the global warming theory blame it primarily on human combustion of fossil fuels, but it's also agreed this is a global issue. How do you propose this issue be "solved" without unduly harming the ability of developing countries to lift their citizenry from the depths of chronic poverty? Will these countries, most notably China and India, agree to cooperate with the international community in reducing their use of fossil fuels? Considering that 80% of America's energy now comes from fossil fuels, what do you propose as a replacement? How will imposing restrictions on the use of coal, America's cheapest and most abundant source of energy and the source of 50% of our electricity, affect our ability to break our dependence on foreign energy? How will it affect America's competitiveness in a global marketplace, particularly if developing nations do not participate?
What methods do you propose to calculate the cost/benefit ratio of global warming legislation? How do you propose to monitor the effectiveness of climate change legislation in reducing global warming? If we are convinced future planetary warming is already inevitable, why isn't it more sensible to invest in adapting to climate change, rather than spending billions on an emissions reduction plan that may have little, if any impact on the earth's climate? Isn't it better to embrace the warming as insurance against the next ice age, which some climatologists suggest may arrive very soon?
When you can satisfactorily answer these questions, you will then have the right to enact laws that significantly increase the price of energy, constrain the US economy and force Americans to lower their standard of living.
Rebut that, children! Or maybe you just want to concede now because you can't!
You dweebs who blindly follow the treasonous likes of Al Gore and Barbara Boxer are pathetic.
Ralph Hansen, Ph. D.
- When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir? -- John Maynard Keynes
Permalink
Grevangelical Posted 2:13 pm
05 May 2007
It's all China's fault, they produce more CO2 than us despite using less than we do with nearly ten times the population only the size of economy really matters.
Global warming isn't happening/isn't caused by CO2.
Global warming will be more good than bad.
Economic death and mayhem to solve the problem. Oh no! Okay, just because every credible economic report on the subject says that energy efficiency and global warming prevention will protect and improve the economy doesn't mean it actually will.
Do you guys come up with anything new? Then you just throw out arguments again and again. They aren't even logically consistent with each other.
Followed by calling everyone you oppose treasonous and assuming stupidity.
Finally, of course, the emphasis on PhD by someone who clearly doesn't understand either the greenhouse effect or the carbon cycle which I learned in elementary school. All the information you just rebutted is found in the Skeptic's Guide, or in the relevant articles in Science or Nature.
Maybe if you knew something about the topic you could come up with more logical skeptical arguments, like aliens using death rays to heat the atmosphere.
As for the topic at hand, if the skeptics are honest doubters, uninformed or have new arguments, treat them seriously and politely. If they call environmentalists names (commies, treasonous, etc.) and don't use facts or common sense then either ridicule or ignore them.
Permalink
Earth Shaman Posted 2:42 pm
05 May 2007
Earth Shaman
Permalink
Zarkov Posted 2:57 pm
05 May 2007
LOL, Both had better update your uninformed knowledge instead of becoming emotional.
Is Global Drought something to be concerned about ? err that means NO RAINFALL, NO FOOD
Is a Snowball Earth something to be concerned about ? and that means you will be frozen solid
The effects of Carbon dioxide are puny compared to what a worldwide oil slick on the seas is doing.
You are correct it is all BS, so why waste time here. I enjoy teaching so get informed then come back to discuss, unless you are a Big Oil TROLL, LOL.
If you really want to know then at least read the evidence, but I expect you are laypeople and will not understand what has been written.
omegafour.com
Permalink
Pangolin Posted 4:00 pm
05 May 2007
I want to see articles that have abstracts and bibliographies and say "published in......."
You can't. You can't even get anybody to link to your little echo-chamber website. Hell it only gets 18 hits on Google and most of those are you linking back to yourself.
What you have is pseudo-science mumbo jumbo and a bad case of internet tourette's or possibly a grant from Exxon.
Put up or shut up.
Here's an annotated bibliography of over 1800 journal articles on Climate Change. That's my evidence.
Permalink
Pangolin Posted 4:10 pm
05 May 2007
So put up or shut up. Declare your sources. Link to the university or research center of which you are accredited faculty.
Do you have any sources? Any?
When I googled "tier one capablility" I get speeches on the House of Commons and damn few of those. No scientific literature.
Permalink
Earth Shaman Posted 4:51 pm
05 May 2007
Earth Shaman
Permalink
Pangolin Posted 5:24 pm
05 May 2007
Dude, you've got less documentation than the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Now that's sad.
I'm not a PhD but you don't have to be one to recognize a snow job when you see one. Your last post was pure snow.
Next.
Permalink
Zarkov Posted 5:49 pm
05 May 2007
This is the Internet... isn't NASA good enough ?
Well do some research in the local Uni library, its all there.
I take it you have not read my "echo chamber"
Take a look it is all laid out for you, I am sure you will find what you desperately seek, LOL.
But hey, you really aren't interested, just interested in throwing up. I terminate this conversation.
omegafour.com
Permalink
Ralph Posted 3:56 am
06 May 2007
I don't deny CO2 may be part of the reason we saw some minor warming in the late 20th century, but there is NO evidence whatsoever to suggest a further rise in its concentration will result in doom for the planet.
But go ahead and try to answer the questions. If you can't answer them all, then shut up because you haven't studied the issue enough to offer your opinion to the world.
Ralph Hansen, Ph. D.
- When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir? -- John Maynard Keynes
Permalink
Andrew Dessler Posted 4:03 am
06 May 2007
This thread is a good reason why rebutting skeptics is not a particularly good idea. It's too easy to get pulled into a ridiculous argument ("Oh yeah? You show me a peer-reviewed publication that shows that." "How about the IPCC report?" "That piece of trash? It's from the UN! That doesn't count." etc.).
This is, in fact, why arguing about science is such an effective technique for those who want to delay action on any policy. So my position would be to rebut particularly interesting skeptical arguments, but ignore the run-of-the-mill arguments.
Regards
Permalink
Delay And Deny Posted 4:36 am
06 May 2007
a ridiculous argument ("Oh yeah? You show me a peer-reviewed publication that shows that."
Only a Grist Ecologist would define asking to see peer reviewed articles in the scientific press a ridiculous argument.
Grist Hoaxers prefer:
Their own web pages on MySpace
Hearsay
Grainy graphics that have been rescanned so many times you can't see the lines clearly
John Bailo, The "Denier Guy"
You Read It Here First
Permalink
Delay And Deny Posted 4:39 am
06 May 2007
Ralph Hansen, Ph. D.
What?
A PhD?
Don't expect respect from the Grist Ecologists.
It would be better if you were a European Art History Major who wrangled a free seat on the IPCC...or else a surfer punk with a chip on his shoulder.
John Bailo, The "Denier Guy"
You Read It Here First
Permalink
SustainableGreen Posted 5:06 am
06 May 2007
For "Ralph" and "Earth Shaman":
Paraphrasing Lloyd Bentsen, and with apologies to his memory, I have never heard people denying the reality of anthropogenic climate change, supposedly with PhDs, talking, acting, and writing like they are in fact only semi-literate bench warmers on a second string middle school football team.
You discredit you own positions and your supposed level of achievement. Look in a mirror. Use some of ExxonMobil's money for manners classes. Grow up.
David
Sustainability For Life
Messages done with sustainable energy, with Wind and Sun!
Permalink
Delay And Deny Posted 5:59 am
06 May 2007
Unstoppable Global Warming -- Every 1500 Years!
John Bailo, The "Denier Guy"
You Read It Here First
Permalink
Andrew Dessler Posted 6:26 am
06 May 2007
I like how you ignore the response to your request for peer-reviewed literature, which is "read the IPCC." If you read it, you'll see that all of your comments have already been addressed by the scientific community.
Regards
Permalink
MarkUK Posted 6:32 am
06 May 2007
That's rare by the way, though I was amused by the recent global warming in the solar system claims.
By the way, this blog at the Houston Chronicle could use some realistic and science based commenters to balance the nutcases hanging out...
http://blogs.chron.com/sciguy/archives/2007/04/uhoh_what_ ...
Permalink
Delay And Deny Posted 6:36 am
06 May 2007
you ignore the response to your request for peer-reviewed literature
As documented in Grist, I read both papers and responded in the skeptics forum and elsewhere.
To repeat, I found them lacking.
John Bailo, The "Denier Guy"
You Read It Here First
Permalink
Delay And Deny Posted 6:38 am
06 May 2007
I am still waiting for the first so called skeptic to say something that will impress me.
It's not our job to "impress" you.
Remember, you Crypto-Malthusians are the ones presenting a case for something. It is you who must impress the world.
So far, the world yawns, and shrugs its shoulders.
John Bailo, The "Denier Guy"
You Read It Here First
Permalink
Andrew Dessler Posted 6:39 am
06 May 2007
Permalink
GreyFlcn Posted 6:39 am
06 May 2007
http://www.desmogblog.com/node/1478
Permalink
Pangolin Posted 6:39 am
06 May 2007
Your whole argument; one book by an Exxon funded denier.
Well you should be congratulated on having a source. The average Global Warming denier on this board and on the net reads like a schizophrenic bailed out of a mental institution and given a computer, a free pizza pass and an endless supply of Mountain Dew.
I have libraries of science fiction more believable than that claptrap. Hell some science fiction authors even started their own cults and you refer to a single book? I am staggered by the weight of your argument.
I'm really starting to think that Global Warming denial on the net consists of think tanks of 18 year old Pakistanis given talking points and paid by the keystroke.
Permalink
GreyFlcn Posted 6:45 am
06 May 2007
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=52278449904586781 ...
Permalink
GreyFlcn Posted 6:49 am
06 May 2007
http://greyfalcon.net/denial
24:50 is a pretty good timemark as well.
Permalink
Delay And Deny Posted 6:52 am
06 May 2007
the gist of your argument amounts to one book
"Unstoppable Global Warming" conveniently summarizes decades of research and tomes of papers.
Each paragraph is densely footnoted.
So, it's not just "one book".
John Bailo, The "Denier Guy"
You Read It Here First
Permalink
Delay And Deny Posted 6:55 am
06 May 2007
The Crypto-Malthusians speak of Whack-A-Mole when referring to rebutting skeptics.
Funny, but as each day passes, the mole population seems to be overwhelming the CMs.
Guess the truth cannot be contained.
John Bailo, The "Denier Guy"
You Read It Here First
Permalink
MarkUK Posted 6:57 am
06 May 2007
Again, if the skeptics are so much better at understanding the real science than they sure make a mess of communicating it and do a pretty good job of destroying their own credibility.
Permalink
GreyFlcn Posted 7:01 am
06 May 2007
32:50
Permalink
Earth Shaman Posted 8:39 am
06 May 2007
Earth Shaman
Permalink
Grevangelical Posted 8:51 am
06 May 2007
Do you want to know why I refuse to deal with your arguments?
They are bigoted, asinine and insulting. Before I had ever said a word to you, you implied that I was treasonous, blindly followed Al Gore, am an imbecile and quite a bit more. Do you expect me to even consider the opinions of someone who says things like that?
No, because it is human nature to label them a biased cretin without thinking twice. So my assumption is that your intention is merely to get an angry response. Your arguments are so laced in insults that it would be difficult for me or any of the others to you without showing the same boorish and patronizing attitude that you are displaying. In short: you are an internet troll.
Of course, if you researched and came up with new ideas that hadn't been rebutted ad nauseum, I'd love to read it. I really wouldn't mind being completely wrong. A good place to find aspects that are universally considered wrong is actually provided by Grist, right on this very site.
http://gristmill.grist.org/skeptics
This has the answers to all the questions you've posited so far, and if you don't like them you can always post on those threads. Of course, you are probably unwilling to go through the work of research, but it is your problem if you're unwilling to enrich yourself and no concern of mine.
Of course, the rest of you know that the best way to deal with trolls is to ignore them, I apologize for antagonizing it as it will probably simply post more tripe in response.
Permalink
Earth Shaman Posted 9:12 am
06 May 2007
Earth Shaman
Permalink
Zarkov Posted 9:28 am
06 May 2007
Yes, looks like Big Oil (or religion) is trying to flood this forum with unsound spam. Similar practices are employed in every forum that starts to get near the truth. You must realise public opinion is money to these guys.
I had the same problem on my forum... so I just locked it all up.
I would delete flawed, well covered or just rude comments.
Discussion is too precious to allow reasoned people who wish to explore the logic, to be sucked into ad hominem or deceitful tangents.
omegafour.com
Permalink
Werdna Posted 10:55 am
06 May 2007
Every time there is a new editorial, article, or documentary claiming that Global Warming is a "Swindle", he sends it to me.
It would be very, very nice to simply point him to Grist, where he can read a point-by-point rebuttal of whatever.
I imagine that there are others dealing with the same thing I am.
That being said, a point-by-point rebuttal does not necessarily require new material. It is quite reasonable to recycle old stuff (because that's all that they are doing).
Andrew Eisenberg
The gateway project is wrong---http://www.liveableregion.ca/
Permalink
GreyFlcn Posted 11:24 am
06 May 2007
http://www.greyfalcon.net/swindle
http://www.greyfalcon.net/swindle2
http://www.greyfalcon.net/swindle3
Permalink
Ralph Posted 1:15 pm
06 May 2007
Earth Shaman - Mercury was a boondoggle cooked up the environmentalists in their crusade to eliminate coal. Most of the mercury originates from natural sources. Check the fish advisories around 2025 or 2030, long after electric consumers have paid trillions to capture the small amounts of mercury emitted by coal plants. I'll bet we still have mercury in fish!
Grevangelical - It was kind of you to refer me to the 8th grade primer provided by the brainwashers, but your "skeptics guide" fails to answer many of my questions. I'll zero in on just a few:
Why do you trust the IPCC? Are you unfamiliar with the accounts of scientists who've quit in protest because the facts were being twisted to fit the political agenda? (Google Chris Landsea) The skeptics guide calls it collusion. Why are you so sure that IPCC scientists aren't fudging facts to keep their jobs? Imagine what happens to them if they admit that CO2 might not be a big problem after all.
Will countries like China and India agree to cooperate with the international community in reducing their use of fossil fuels? If they agree (which I doubt will happen), it will take a team of UN inspectors to ensure their compliance.
But the biggest unanswered question is this - If America and the world are to reduce carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fuel combustion 80% or more, what do you propose as a replacement? Carbon capture technology is many years away, and will likely be prohibitively expensive when it is commercially available. How shall we power our lives? Or are you content to ratchet down the economy, force people to lower their standard of living, all based on the dubious belief that a minor rise in atmospheric CO2 concentrations will cook the planet?
By the way, in case anyone is curious, my Doctorate is in Economics.
Ralph Hansen, Ph. D.
- When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir? -- John Maynard Keynes
Permalink
GreyFlcn Posted 2:03 pm
06 May 2007
Only if the US steps up to the plate to provide cost effective technologies.
And Carbon Capture and Sequestration is not one of them.
And the only way thats going to happen is if USA takes on restrictions that push those technologies to the forefront.
Cause frankly, from their point of view. We primarily made the problem. Therefore if we aren't going to solve it, why should they?
Are you unfamiliar with the accounts of scientists who've quit in protest because the facts were being twisted to fit the political agenda? (Google Chris Landsea)
Sounds a lot like a cherrypicker who got miffed people weren't paying attention to his weak claims on hurricanes.
http://rabett.blogspot.com/2007/04/all-hell-breaks-loose- ...
Permalink
GreyFlcn Posted 2:12 pm
06 May 2007
Heh, well seems pretty obvious to me.
Plugin Hybrid Cars
and Electric Cars
And then all we need to do is green the grid.
Obviously not by making "Clean Coal"
Merely by making Green be more reliable.
Solar has about 4 big breakthroughs up it's sleeve.
Thinfilm CIGS solar (cuts cost and capital down by 10x)
Thinfilm using silver sheeting (Gets thinfilm up to 20% effeciency)
Quantum dots (Can get inbetween 2-7 electrons per photon, instead of just 1 to 1)
Titanium Oxide Organic Dyes (Another 10x cheaper inexpensive way to make solar)
Mix any two of those and you got high production volumes, at low costs, with high flexibility.
But perhaps another cool tech will be geothermal.
Raser Technologies, an electric motor company has developed an iron electromagnet drilling motor which offers orders of magnitude more torque than expensive physical magnets.
Lastly, some massive scale way to store energy will likely be key. The most likely ones for that will be pumped hydro, compressed air storage, ultracapacitors, or high density batteries in electric cars.
_
And lastly for air travel and military fuels, we've already developed bio-jetfuel in labs which is cheaper than normal jetfuel with increased performance.
Permalink
Delay And Deny Posted 2:26 pm
06 May 2007
Yeah, you've been saying that since 1970. Solar is always on the verge of a "breakthrough".
But you know what -- if you want to replace fossil fuels (which are actually unlimited and abiotic in origin) you have to come up with something Better than what you're replacing, not harder to use, more expensive and with a negative ROI.
Quite frankly, fossil fuels "combusted" with fuel cells are the only real answer until the ITER project produces >1/1 fusion.
John Bailo, The "Denier Guy"
You Read It Here First
Permalink
Delay And Deny Posted 2:28 pm
06 May 2007
After laying the blame squarely at Man's doorstep, this seems to be the backpedaling plaint of the Crypto-Malthusians.
"Well, ok, it's not CO2, but Man is still responsible...somehow...somewhere...we can't exactly pinpoint it...but really...ok...now let us have a Carbon Tax."
John Bailo, The "Denier Guy"
You Read It Here First
Permalink
GreyFlcn Posted 2:39 pm
06 May 2007
_
Well the 3rd and 4th one are still in the lab
Although the Quantum Dots recently they figured out how to manufacture em really well.
http://thefraserdomain.typepad.com/energy/2007/05/method_ ...
http://www.sciencenews.org/articles/20060603/bob8.asp
Fourth one, I dunno where thats at.
http://www.blog.thesietch.org/2007/04/08/organic-solar-ce ...
Silver dunno where thats at, but it seems rather simple. Just switch the stainless steel foil backing for silver foil
http://jcwinnie.biz/wordpress/?p=2175
But the CIGS thinfilms should be out in 2008 in high production volumes.
They've already started building the production facility last year.
http://venturebeat.com/2006/06/20/nanosolar-to-build-worl ...
I've actually been able to tour one of the facilities so far, and they were mostly just waiting on municipal permits before they started pushing product.
Permalink
SustainableGreen Posted 3:22 pm
06 May 2007
Hey, Ralph:
Well, I will say you have at least redeemed yourself somewhat by greatly improving your tone. Now we can address issues instead of personalities.
First, none of this is nor should be a matter of belief but objective science. Second, I do have an open mind (much more than you realize) and the reality is that the probablility favors those who have concluded that anthropogenic global warming is a reality. And unlike those who subscribe to the One Percent Doctrine, the confidence is much much higher. In fact, it is interesting to observe the selective perverse application of that doctrine by those who should know better.
Just consider 5% added Carbon per year for 100+ years, Carbon previously sequestered and not part of the the terrestrial Carbon cycle. You are an economist: consider what could easily be regarded as compound interest in Carbon added to the global environmental account.
And I can't believe I am defending "Earth Shaman", but concerns over Hg are quite legitimate. You may understand his ramblings, so I will leave that to you. Regardless, Hg is toxic at extremely low levels, especially in fetal neural tissues of any animal species, and has no known metabolic function in any organism--it is completely useless to life. For everyone--MERCURY HAS NO KNOWN METABOLIC FUNCTION IN ANY TERRESTRIAL ORGANISM. It is released whenever coal is burned or processed without capture, and is now found in places where it never never never was before. It also biomagnifies and bioaccumulates through the food web. It is not a ruse to sway policy.
I am not one of those who trust government as a rule (actually the other way around) but I trust government scientists over right-wing government stooges any day. And I also trust them more than I do those who follow the Big Tobacco model of obfuscation and outright lying.
I sincerely think we in the U.S. will have to wait until Jan '09 for any meaningful change in government policy. In the meantime both India and China are doing a lot to change and improve, regardless of Kyoto. China is now one of the world's biggest producers of PV panels and are exporting many of them. Clearly both have much more to do, but using them as an excuse is a playground tactic which should be beneath all of us.
To answer your biggest question: look at what Germany has done. They have dramatically increased the manufacture of PV panels and installed them everywhere and have already displaced much of their CO2 output and will go much much further. They have also done a lot with wind turbines.
What we need in this country is to reassign the $Billions for fossil fuels and nuclear power and 'biofuels' instead to sustainable energy sources and activities. This includes distributed generation by wind and sun on the roofs of homes and businesses across the country. Another needed redistribution of government funds is in agriculture, from still more GMOs and Terminator technology to sustainable, local, organic farming, all of which will reduce fossil fuel imputs.
Consider the egalitarian economic benefit of hundreds of PV and turbine manufacturing firms reopening closed and dark factories and putting employees to work. The first 3000 PV panels (or 1-20 turbines) go up on the roof of each factory where they were made, and then to the surrounding communities. Have you mentally calculated the economic ripple effect?
Transportation, installers, all the other infrastructure, even technical re-education all would see a huge increase. And batteries, and wire, and controllers and inverters. Note I am not proposing huge wind farms or huge arrays of PV panels covering the countryside; small wind and rooftop PV will do fine, and will go a long way in disabusing ourselves of the mentality of 'Electricity as Commodity', that is owned exclusively by 'someone else' and has to be bought monthly ad infinitum. We need to move away from high-investment, centralized, secondary-tertiary-quaternary production of energy, to Sun (primary) and Wind (secondary).
We also need to move very aggressively to replace our transportation fleet with battery electric and Hydrogen electric vehicles. We can do this as we move to distributed generation of electricity since this will give us the sustainable electricity source for the fleet. As we supplant coal and nuclear power plants we can take them out of service and demote the rest to a back up role.
None of this has anything to do with Carbon capture (which is as much a pipedream as anything yet proposed, and is merely a ploy to extend the use of coal and oil), and it is far more sustainable than any any any fossil fuel, nuclear or so-called biofuels. It also has the benefit of ending foreign wars, reducing 'gobblization', outsourcing, and repairing the international good will squandered by ignorant political stooges. It will also reduce loss of habitat associated with the unwise rush to biofuels, and subsequent loss of biodiversity. Then maybe 50% of the world's species will not be rendered extinct due to human activities by the end of the century.
You see, the argument that we must sacrifice the economy for the environment is a straw man, and I will assume you actually know that. Nor is it an either/or choice, as has been constantly charged by the stooges funded by Exxon/Mobil and Big Coal. I will assume you know that, too. The CEOs of Big Coal and Big Oil will take a hit, but they will have their multi-multi-multi-million dollar parachutes, and the entire history of industry has shown that they don't care who finds out about it.
You are the economist, so surely you can see the economic advantages. The savings in avoided 'pre-emptive wars' alone is staggering.
Open minds, you say? The facts ARE changing--or rather, they are being corrected--what will you do, sir?
David
Sustainability For Life
Messages done with sustainable energy, with Wind and Sun!
Permalink
Grevangelical Posted 11:53 pm
06 May 2007
"Grevangelical -
But the biggest unanswered question is this - If America and the world are to reduce carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fuel combustion 80% or more, what do you propose as a replacement? Carbon capture technology is many years away, and will likely be prohibitively expensive when it is commercially available. How shall we power our lives? Or are you content to ratchet down the economy, force people to lower their standard of living, all based on the dubious belief that a minor rise in atmospheric CO2 concentrations will cook the planet?"
First, I do not trust the IPCC or any information fed to me by a governmental body. However, since the IPCC does not do its own research it has citations of all the studies that it uses. I can read through the report and then read each of the studies to see if anything was lifted out of context or if anything was ignored. Okay, so I only read the studies that interest me, otherwise I'd still be on the first page of the report. I also try to keep up with all the reports released in Science or Nature on the topic.
As of yet all my problems with the IPCC and their process is that they are consistently months behind the leading curve of research. There are new papers that are published before the reports are released that have no accounting, which is why the most recent report uses CO2 concentrations of 550ppm as the maximum to avoid over 2C? temperature change. The most recent studies suggest that this concentration is probably 100ppm to high to be reasonable.
The Landsea controversy, however, is an issue that was essentially resolved by the heavy bureaucracy of the system. Landsea resigned but the report he was working on doesn't specify the degree of increase in hurricane winds, and thus doesn't contradict Landsea's numbers (that the change would exist but would be miniscule) on increased hurricane wind-speeds, which is the reason he stated for leaving. Even though he quit his point of view won out and the conservative IPCC let his standards remain on the table until the next report comes out.
Getting China and India to cooperate is a incredibly difficult problem, but to some extent they've already started. Standards for fuel efficiency in Chinese cars are significantly higher than US standards and continuing to increase. The pollution (both greenhouse gas and otherwise) largely comes from industrial procedures, which means that the United Sates and Europe are to blame as the major importers of Chinese industrial goods. Until the US starts to clean up its act it is going to have a nearly impossible time dealing with China and India.
I should only agree to address your final argument if you agree that climate change actually is an issue, otherwise it is logically inconsistent to even posit this argument. However, there are many solutions.
One that I am personally fond of is the use of natural biomes to sequester carbon and produce fuel that can be used in existing coal plants. A recent University of Minnesota study (press: http://www1.umn.edu/umnnews/Feature_Stories/Natural_prair ... ) shows that a mixture of prairie grasses can yield 60-70% of the energy that coal does in existing fluidized bed technology of coal-fired power plants. Since the grasses are perennial and native they require no weeding, herbicides or fertilizer they are cheap and environmentally friendly, not to mention will increase habitat and food sources for wild animals. Furthermore, they greatly enrich the soils naturally, especially when native clover or other nitrogen fixing plants are included in the mix. Furthermore, 60% of the mass is kept underground, which means that as a fuel prairie grasses could be carbon negative.
Of course, even with a million acres in Minnesota that could be restored to natural prairie it would provide only a small portion of the solution. However, since they can be stored they could be burned exclusively when there is not enough power being produced by the various other elements of a diverse grid.
You see, Ralph, no one element is enough to make a system stable. As many different methods of producing power as possible should be incorporated in order to protect our investment. Of course, the most important thing we could do would be to use less energy, through efficiency and conservation. In the two years I've been able to cut my energy usage down to half of what it once was and I've been happier and had fewer monetary problems. I'm fairly certain that almost everyone in America could do as much with little inconvenience, and then there would be a lower trade deficit and more disposable income. I don't see how efficiency and conservation could possible be seen as a bad thing to do, even for global warming deniers.
Permalink
Grevangelical Posted 11:54 pm
06 May 2007
Permalink
Delay And Deny Posted 12:45 am
07 May 2007
No disrespect, but why are these technologies always "in the lab".
Case in point -- and one that pisses the bejesus out of me -- portable fuel cells.
In 2006 there was article after article about fuel cell "batteries" for laptops.
It was just around the corner, or at market by a certain date.
The poof! Nothing...oh, and then a new flurry of articles about how it will be ready in 2010.
Same with electric cars.
Until we unglue the 3% that control the 84% of the wealth, we'll never know what's going on.
The changes of CC must be political before they are technological.
John Bailo, The "Denier Guy"
You Read It Here First
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 12:57 am
07 May 2007
It does not distribute capital, it extends tyranny to the bottomline.
Energy re-evolution only takes a modest investment in each home, business, vehicle. Conversion without representation? Yes.
Our elected representatives will not help US. They owe their souls to the company store.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog
Permalink
GreyFlcn Posted 1:28 am
07 May 2007
Because it takes about 2 years to bring anything from the lab into the market. Regardless of what it is.
Just the way things work in the venture capitalist system.
But I can tell you, I've seen the Tesla Roadster, and thinfilm CIGS solar panels up front, in person.
And the Phoenix SUT looks real enough to me.
http://www.autobloggreen.com/2007/04/04/avfi-show-abg-vid ...
Permalink
Delay And Deny Posted 1:33 am
07 May 2007
And the Phoenix SUT looks real enough to me.
Ok, so I still don't get it.
On the one hand, you're telling me that the current system, the CO2 spewing, energy wasting leviathan, taken in its entirety, is capable of coughing up real technologies, that can be mass produced, which will solve the problems of the previous generation of technology.
On the other hand, you're telling me to replace it all right away.
I say, CO2 or not, who cares? If the first scenario is true, things are taking care of themselves and we'll all be driving "fusion bikes" in 2050. Plus the population will stabilize.
So, of all the things to worry about in the world, Global Warming, should be a really low one on most people's shopping list. The Technocracy created it, let them solve it.
Pour me another G&T.
John Bailo, The "Denier Guy"
You Read It Here First
Permalink
astetica Posted 1:44 am
07 May 2007
Shell stopped building solar cell plants because the improvements keep coming and coming. Building one of these factories (very polluting to run...) costs several billion.
We will not change over from fossil fuels because there is no compelling reason to do so and the alternatives are not fully developed. If climate change is happening we will just have to live with it. The rich west will cope, the poor will suffer. Just like things are today. Nobody in the west is sacrificing anything for the poor, why would that change? Something vague and abstract as climate change?
Permalink
SustainableGreen Posted 3:35 am
07 May 2007
Who would like to receive 5-20% return on an investment? This is the nominal range of conversion efficiency for PV panels and wind turbines. All the investment is for collection, conversion, and storage devices for this FREE, infinite, sustainable, egalitarian, non-selective form of energy. NO waiting!! No 2 years, no 10 years, no 20 years--PV has already been in existence for 50 years and wind turbines have been in existence for over 100 years. Why the HELL wait?
I have lived quite well for 8 years off the grid with Wind and PV. I shut down my turbine this morning because my batteries were already fully charged.
I find this lack of action in the U.S. completely stupefying, individually, institutionally, and governmentally. PV was INVENTED in the U.S. and now we have given up leadership in manufacturing!
Is all of this due to the draconian, Machiavellian marketing techniques and political dominance by the corporate oligarchy? What other explanation is there? Is there some actual drug or subliminal message in the advertising you see on your TV and in print? What IS the reason?
To improve on the silly wimpy John Mayer approach, do one thing--one that has meaning and consequences--go out and find an installer who will put a solar domestic water heater system on your roof. It might cost $1000-3000 but will supplant 40-100% of your fossil fuel, nonsustainable energy sources. Mine is good for 95-98%. Just do it.
Then come back and resume the silly abstract arguments. Lead by example--be out front--that is what "lead" means--otherwise it is mere hypocrisy.
Which approach is more effective, from a technology, economics, and progress standpoint? Sitting on your hands and saying 'oh, I am waiting until the efficiency improves', or finding the best available products now and using them? Would we have $40 DVD players today if we all took the former approach 10-15 years ago?
While you sit on your hands, factories close or never open, more sequestered Carbon is released, and more and more and more and more species are being obliterated. And soldiers and civilians are being killed. And the undeserving are being enriched.
David
Sustainability For Life
Messages done with sustainable energy, with Wind and Sun!
Permalink
Ralph Posted 4:47 am
07 May 2007
Wind and solar may help meet this demand, but they are intermittent sources of energy. Our country will need more baseload power, meaning it's available 24/7. There are basically four sources - hydro, nuclear, coal & natural gas.
I don't expect the enviros will be endorsing new hydro anytime soon, considering there's a debate underway in the Pacific Northwest about tearing down existing dams because of alleged damage to the salmon fishery.
A few environmental groups recognize the potential (and safety) of zero emission nuclear power, but I wouldn't place any bets on a lot of new nukes in the near future (and it seems SustainableGreen thinks we need to eliminate the ones we have).
You're both suggesting we need to phase out coal, so the only option that remains is natural gas to provide baseload power. We've already seen the economic consequences of the growth in gas-fired generation in the 1990s and first half of this decade. We've had gas spikes in the $20/MMBtu range. Let's assume we build even more gas plants, and America continues its ridiculous policy of blocking access to most of its domestic energy resources, can you imagine where natural gas prices would go? Far too many people depend on natural gas for their space heating needs to even consider that type of energy policy.
Again, I maintain it is irresponsible to pretend that our demand for electric energy won't grow. The alternative forms of energy you suggest should be pursued where they make economic sense, but they won't be nearly enough to meet future demand.
As for China, I've seen the reports you describe that it's making strides. But consider the rhetoric in this article:
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/75281610-faa5-11db-8bd0-000b5df10 ...
"Beijing has begun to adopt a more assertive role in global climate change negotiations to head off the development of a regime which it worries could force it to cut emissions and scale back its economy."
I'd like to address a few more of the points you've made, but am a bit pressed for time.
More later.
Ralph Hansen, Ph. D.
- When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir? -- John Maynard Keynes
Permalink
Ralph Posted 4:58 am
07 May 2007
U.N. climate plan called unrealistic
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-sci-warm ...
- When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir? -- John Maynard Keynes
Permalink
Delay And Deny Posted 5:08 am
07 May 2007
Unrealistic?
Just ask these people:
http://ainashe.net/wp-content/uploads/2006/03/Abaaraha%20 ...
John Bailo, The "Denier Guy"
You Read It Here First
Permalink
Grevangelical Posted 2:27 pm
07 May 2007
Now you're close to what this site is all about, trying to find solutions to the problems. There are people here who argue geothermal (it works pretty well in Iceland and there are hundreds of sites that present technology could utilize to produce significant amounts of base-load power), tidal, efficiency (actually almost everyone agrees that this is an important first step), electric cars, universal veganism, local food production, taxation on flight, internalization of the externalized costs of pollution emissions, and probably a dozen other things I've missed. We don't have a solution, but we do have dozens of steps in the right direction. Many of these harm vastly fewer people than they help, some (like efficiency) will probably harm no one at all and help everyone. Stick around and help us build solutions, you'll find that a few Gristies even have economic outlooks (not me, I'm afraid, morality always trumps money in my mind).
Permalink
ffletcher Posted 4:42 pm
07 May 2007
Keep on keeping on.
Permalink
calvinjones Posted 1:36 am
08 May 2007
The future is driven by vision not by rebuttal.
If Martin Luther King wasted his time taking apart segregationist arguments then he wouldnt have had time to inspire!
It is painfull and somewhat counterintuative to ignore these attacks, but i believe--and i think of you look at practically any book on social change and physchology you will see this--that it is time to lead from the front. Accepting climate change as an argument won and showing all the reasons that this low carbon future is going to be great!
What did the romans ever do for us?
(asked Monty Python)
In the end...
"All right, but apart from the sanitation, the medicine, education, wine, public order, irrigation, roads, a fresh water system, and public health, what have the Romans ever done for us?"
XERXES:
Brought peace.
REG:
Oh. Peace? Shut up!
Similar picture for climate policy.
"All right but apart from Cleaner air, a fitter population, less foreign oil, more high qaulity jobs, more efficient appliances, safer streets, better qaulity housing, more distributed political and economic power abd closer communities what has climate policy ever done for us?"
Calvin Jones
"Save the planet"
Realisitcally, leading with the first bunch of reasons will enable climate policy to take on a positive energy that people will come to accept as the future, saving the planet is then positive by association...we need to give up the rational and work on the emotional, that is how arguemtns are won in most cases.
Interested in climate change?
http://climatechangeaction.blogspot.com
Permalink
Delay And Deny Posted 1:47 am
08 May 2007
Realisitcally, leading with the first bunch of reasons will enable climate policy to take on a positive energy that people will come to accept as the future, saving the planet is then positive by association...we need to give up the rational and work on the emotional, that is how arguemtns are won in most cases.
I can just feel the love.
I just don't buy the science.
John Bailo, The "Denier Guy"
You Read It Here First
Permalink
DaveGreenAndRed Posted 3:05 am
08 May 2007
We have provided them yet another platform for their nonsense. It's time to stop doing that.
Instead of "debating" the winged monkeys of Big Oil, I'd suggest we focus on getting our side of the story out - over and over again - just like they do (Big Oil and its ideological sycophants, while boring, are certainly not stupid).
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 3:24 am
08 May 2007
All in a different context depending upon the frame of reference of the wing nuttery one is responding to.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog
Permalink
SustainableGreen Posted 4:26 am
09 May 2007
Ralph, in the spirit of rebutting skeptics, I must point out one glaring mistake in the message referred to above: The technology I refer to is not "on the drawing board", it is ON MY ROOF! And furthermore, it has been for 8 years and I am a newbie in the field. There are thousands, just in the U.S. alone, who have been using PV and wind for many years. Like I said before (and it obviously bears repeating), PV technology is been in existence for 50 years, and wind turbines have been in existence for over 100 years. Added to this, in Germany the number of homes with PV numbers is increasing rapidly and may be in the hundreds of thousands. They HAVE substantially reduced their demand for fossil fuels, and have a huge, probably in the billions of dollars, domestic PV industry.
May I point out to ALL, Sun and Wind and Rain are FREE? That is, FAaaaaaaaa-REEEE!! Say it with me, folks, FAaaaaaaa-REEEEE! YeeHAW!! That's it!!
Now, I will never say, nor will I obscure the fact that the collection, conversion, and storage devices needed to use these sources of Faaaaaaaa-REEEEE (sorry, couldn't hep me-seff) resources are cheap, but the return on investment (ROI) can be very rapid. The emergy (embodied energy) is compensated for in 3-5 years, and the monetary investment in 2-20 years, depending on many factors, including governmental incentives and system design. From that point on, except for maintenance, these technologies are cost-free and environmentally priceless. Compare this ROI to other investments. Look at your empty roof and its solar heat gain, and look at your monthly electric bill.
So, please, Ralph, we can all wish for and actually see improvements in technology, but the technology DOES exist.
David
Sustainability For Life
Messages done with sustainable energy, with Wind and Sun!
Permalink
snailkite Posted 8:48 pm
24 May 2007
So why do the anti-earth extremists troll and attack? My friends, big oil, big business and the Repug Party have all the money. They can buy pundits, air time, commercials, PR consultants. They own all the networks (some more obviously than others, like Faux News), radio, etc. What do we have? People and the truth. But whereas the anti-earth crowd can buy soldiers in this war (if not for them, who would pay Coulter, Limbaugh, or O'Reilly a salary?), we have to rely on volunteers to dedicate their lives to the fight. And those of us who get paid aren't living in multi-million dollar mansions in Palm Beach.
And when you dedicate your life to the fight, what you are giving is your TIME. The anti-earth extremists know this, and every time you waste time answering their taunts, our fight loses part of your sacrifice. Ignore the anti-earth crowd, and keep focused on the undecided middle, where your time is not wasted.
And everyone should read Daniel Quinn's "Ishmael."
Permalink
ourearthmusic Posted 6:19 pm
26 Jun 2007
However, I think it is important for Grist to rebut any denier from a major media source - mainstream television, newspapers, radio, magazines as well as major internet sites.
Permalink
beninmv Posted 2:02 pm
28 Jun 2007
I am concerned that the trolls are out in force. Check out the posts on global warming videos shown on Youtube. there are a lot of young people who check these videos out read the disinformation.
Permalink
beninmv Posted 4:00 pm
28 Jun 2007
This link will take you to their discussion of global warming.
http://www.conservapedia.com/Global_warming
Permalink
JohnCaley Posted 7:31 pm
28 Jun 2007
We can all read expert opinions, BUT a layperson should not even try to interpret those opinions.
Science is a language all of its own, unless you walk the walk and talk the talk, you are totally misinformed by scientific writings.
However, it is nice to see the to'n'fro, the misunderstandings, the dreams and fantasies and the total lack of communication.
Great guys. Always get a committee to do nothing.
All I can do is point you to your own blog
http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2007/6/28/12424/1558
and
http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2007/6/27/11955/7487
Unfortunately you are all incorrect, both in your assumptions and parroting.
Now to the subject, UNLESS y'all start to actually communicate and sift through the fact in an unbiased manner, well, there will be just animosity.
But why bother, what can you do about anything anyway..... debunk or not to debunk...
by the time y'all get your act together it will be game over.
Permalink
David Roberts Posted 7:53 pm
28 Jun 2007
grist.org
Permalink
JohnCaley Posted 9:37 pm
28 Jun 2007
I don't seem to be able to get it through to people just how serious this climatic situation is.
Dr J Hansen, the IPCC and most climatologists think global climate change is very serious. What is happening is serious, that is no debate. The debate is about the cause. It is very unscientific to hold a case so dear that discussion is censured.
However there are serious climatic disrupters that have been observed that have not been addressed in any reports I have read.
All I ask is to be able to present my case for a concern so serious that I must be forthright.
Unfortunately I am a scientist and with that comes my totally different way of thinking, and in some cases I hold a fatal assumption that y'all know the deep knowledge that a student of science holds.
I am not asking you to trust me, I am asking that the evidence can be presented for open perusal. I would not normally be so passionate about the demise of the human race, but I really must.
So please forgive me for being what I am, I only mean good, I am not a stooge, nor a puppet nor a troll, just a concerned scientist.
Permalink