David Letterman is a national treasure. And, not for the first time, I ask you to marvel at the ability of Tom Friedman to generate a memorable aphorism for literally any point he's trying to make. He's like a savant or something:
(thanks LL!)
The Mustache on David Letterman 10
-
Posted 11:46 AM on 3 Mar 2008
by David Roberts -
Posted in
-
Read More About
David Roberts is staff writer for Grist. You can follow his Twitter feed at twitter.com/drgrist.
Related Stories
‘Copenhagen Diagnosis’ offers a grim update to the IPCC’s climate science
Cast your vote for the best climate journalism
Add a Comment
You are not logged in. Thus, you cannot post a comment. If you have an account, log in. If you don't have an account, well, by all means go make one! Meet you back here in five.
Comments
View as Flat
Biodiversivist Posted 5:42 am
03 Mar 2008
In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Poison Darts--Protecting the biodiversity of our world
Permalink
jakea99 Posted 5:52 am
03 Mar 2008
If entrepreneurs know that their investments aren't going to be erased by the expiration of their tax credits or the undercutting of their price point by cheaper oil then they will be much more willing to commit the resources necessary for clean tech innovation.
Him and Letterman were right, I think, that clean tech is the industry of the future, but right now many of these important technologies are coming from other countries. (e.g., foreign companies own 2/3 of the wind plants currently being built in Texas).
Permalink
Steve Bloom Posted 7:29 am
03 Mar 2008
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 5:23 pm
03 Mar 2008
Yep, what a surprise. From the same MOT (moron of truth, TOM spelled backwards) who still supports the Iraq war.
And says (I summarize to avoid listening to the MOT again), we need to replace that dirty fuel with clean fuel. That means ethanol, admit it Friedman fans. He has been pushing ethanol for years.
Then he says, if it's a hoax (GHG climate disaster) it's the greatest hoax ever (since the hoax that you helped perpetrate that got us into Iraq?). It'll revive the economy, so lets do the energy revolution anyway.
The fair and balanced approach to the climate "debate". The MOT simply condcedes the entire debate to the deniers.
Well TOM there is a difference. If all we need is an economic boom and no GHG reduction, then fuel farming fits the bill.
Then Friedman describes upper clouds as reflectors, that melt, then the lower clouds as a blanket? But MOT, how does the CO2 "melt" clouds. Has anyone ever heard this nonsense anywhere?
Friedman ought to retire from public life, recluse himself from mass media delusion. It's dissappointing to see those who spend so much time on these issues actually praising him.
How in the world can the general public become aware of these issues if you can't even understand them?
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 5:43 pm
03 Mar 2008
Yep, MOT let the hedge funds get in there and trade carbon, that greed will fix things right up, just like it fixed world credit markets.
Did you know that Bernanke now announces he is lowering the fed rate before the fed meets to do that? This has traditionally been one of the most closely held secrets on Wall Street.
To break this rule and lower wily nilly, as has happened recently, completely undermines the credibility of the fed. It destroys the inflation fighting and emergency global economic insurance functions of the central bank. The two main aspects that insure the pursuit of financial happiness, security and prosperity, for we the people.
Greenspan must be living in a sensory deprivation chamber not to scream about this on every news outlet. That is the state of your bushwacked "free" markets that are going to use "father greed" to fix the climate.
Pathetic, really pathetic.
Congress ought to have thrown Bernanke the hell out of that job when he first met with hedge fund managers so they could explain the credit crisis to him. The crisis they created, and he trusts them to explain it to him?
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog
Permalink
John B Posted 1:11 am
04 Mar 2008
Permalink
jwang Posted 2:04 am
05 Mar 2008
Friedman described the atmosphere as having an upper cloud layer and a lower cloud layer. He then said CO2 absorbs sunlight, which is not correct--it absorbs heat radiated by the Earth. Then he said the absorbed heat melts the upper clouds, increasing the humidity and resulting in a thickening of the lower clouds, which trap more heat. The problem with this description is that CO2 traps heat directly, not indirectly via clouds. Changes in cloudiness due to global warming could affect the climate, but whether they'll have a net warming or cooling effect is uncertain. And CO2 doesn't exactly melt clouds in one layer and thicken clouds in another.
Also, actual clouds work in the opposite way of what Friedman described--high clouds trap heat, while low clouds reflect sunlight, cooling the climate.
Permalink
christophersj Posted 7:36 am
10 Sep 2008
While his opening analogy of how the greenhouse effect works may have been flawed, your other criticisms of Friedman's positions are incorrect or hearsay. For example, your pinning the hoax/denier thing on him just means you were tired and misheard him. Listen again. Listen to his appearances on Charlie Rose and Fresh Air on-line this week.
No person in America is introducing the political middle to the green energy revolution as much as Mr. Friedman. It is helpful to know an ally when you come across one.
Permalink
trobins Posted 3:34 am
11 Sep 2008
Permalink
trobins Posted 3:46 am
11 Sep 2008
Permalink