da silva’s Recent Comments

• Click here to view comment in original post

  wives tale

  You know, I did wonder about that bit in the movie. Has the Competitive Enterprise Institute picked up on this yet? On More Gore lies! posted 3 years, 5 months ago 2 Responses

• Click here to view comment in original post

  Isn't this exactly what Gore's doing?

  So: simplify explanations, focus on solutions, speak in terms of values, claim the future. All the usual stuff.

  At this point it seems to me that good framing ideas on global warming abound. Now the question is: Why is nobody using them?

  Seems like Gore's tact to me, albeit with the obligatory 'over-representation of factual presentations about the dangers etc, etc, up front. No?On Framing climate change posted 3 years, 6 months ago 20 Responses

• Click here to view comment in original post

  with or without warming ...

  The thing is we already know with a very high degree of confidence that man-made greenhouse gases are the main forcing agent in current warming trends. The interesting thing about the Bush quote is that even he seems to acknowledge (unwittingly?) that greenhouse gases are the cause of warming. Again, he says:

  ... in my judgment, we need to set aside whether or not greenhouse gases have been caused by mankind or because of natural effects, and focus on the technologies that will enable us to live better lives and, at the same time, protect the environment.

  Note: he says the uncertainty is whether or not mankind is responsible for the [overabundance of] greenhouse gases -- something there is zero uncertainty about. Interesting that I had to insert the brackets. Perhaps Bush has been coached to adopt the CEI canard that carbon dioxide isn't pollution, it's life. ...

  It should be noted that there are other reasons why we need to stop burning fossil fuels that have nothing to do with climate change. There's the peaking production of oil, for one. Acid rain, smog and particulate pollution, for another. And one really big one that hasn't gotten enough attention: the acidification of the oceans, which threatens to undermine the basic marine food chain.

  So, even if we take steps to mitigate the impacts of climate change, we'll have to cut back on emmisssions from burning coal, oil and gas anyway. On No. posted 3 years, 6 months ago 33 Responses

• Click here to view comment in original post

  Adapt and Change

  Regarding #3. It's not really an either/or, is it? Given that we are already committed to a certain level of warming and thus instability, it seems we'll have no choice but to do both -- adapt, like it or not, but also curtail emissions with a vengeance, lest we send civilization tumbling over some unseen edge (those tipping points).

  At the same time, your argument that adaptation will be a moving target is an important one, as the climate would not be likely to stabilize in any reasonable (human) time scale. Which begs the question: Adapt to what exactly?

  The trick is to devise some carefully planned retreat from the status quo even as we struggle to "adapt" -- again, we'll have to adapt, like it or not.

  But how do we allocate our resources in a way that makes sense given what we're up against? How do we curb emissions sharply enough? Nuclear energy is often pointed to as the answer, and it does seem to me like we may have to bite that bullet, at least until we can ramp up other alternatives sufficiently. The big thing now is to overcome inertia and the resistance to doing anything.On No. posted 3 years, 6 months ago 33 Responses

• Click here to view comment in original post

  Sheesh

  He's a smart guy, he uses long words, and he likes to be precise. In this case, he botched a sentence, probably by running together two thoughts or phrases. Reading with even the slightest sense of charity would make that interpretation the obvious one. It's astonishing how people treat public figures -- no wonder he doesn't want to run.

  Astonishing? C'mon, man. Anyone who reads Grist knows you don't exactly go easy on public figures.

  What's more, I did read the interview charitably and, for what it's worth, I thought it was a great. Nice job.

  Still, like it or not, politicians are held accountable for the words that come out of their mouths. And what came out of Gore's mouth in that instance was (sorry) wonky gibberish. If the question you asked him was, as you say, more complicated than is reflected in the transcript, then maybe you ought to give us the unexpurgated version.

  Better yet, don't. This is all starting to seem like much ado about nothing. On Pat Michaels slanders Al Gore on Fox's Hannity & Colmes posted 3 years, 6 months ago 15 Responses