pielke’s Recent Comments

• Click here to view comment in original post

  I agree, but huh?

  amazingdrx:

  I'm all for empowering women, it should be center in any adaptation agenda.  But you lost me with this:

  It's we environmentalists that are killing the poverty stricken by opposing unlimited growth, pollution, use of toxins like DDT, chemical agribizz, nuclear power, unregulated corporate power, genetically engineered crops, and all of your other pet causes?  Right?

  Where in the world do you come up with that nonsense?  It seems common practice on this site to argue by completely misrepresenting other people's views . . .

  Roger Pielke, Jr.
  University of ColoradoOn It's seductive -- and wrong posted 2 years, 8 months ago 54 Responses

• Click here to view comment in original post

  A Lost Cause?

  http://www.reutershealth.com/archive/2007/02/14/eline/lin ...

  One billion poor suffer from neglected diseases: WHO

  Last Updated: 2007-02-14 9:44:10 -0400 (Reuters Health)

  JAKARTA (Reuters) - One billion people in tropical countries are still suffering from debilitating and disfiguring diseases associated with poverty, but many remain untreated due to official neglect, health officials said on Wednesday.

  Despite the existence of inexpensive and safe treatment, those who suffer from diseases such as leprosy, elephantiasis and yaws remain untreated due to a lack of resources and political will, said Jai Narain, South East Asia director of communicable diseases at the World Health Organization (WHO).

  "These tropical diseases have been neglected by policy makers, by the research community and also by the international community," Nairan told a news conference at the start of an international meeting to tackle tropical diseases.

  I'd suggest that we should be doing more for these folks, but Dave Roberts might then accuse me of giving aid and comfort to the true enemy, which is of course not unconscionable poverty, but U.S. conservatives! ;-)On It's seductive -- and wrong posted 2 years, 8 months ago 54 Responses

• Click here to view comment in original post

  Adaptation nonsense

  Dave Roberts writes

  In today's political reality, focusing on adaptation is in keeping with the essential conservative message: we've got ours, screw everybody else.

  So lets see if I have this straight:

  1. Those of us calling for rich countries to invest more money in adaptation are in fact contributing to the political agenda of those who say "screw everybody else"?  Right, that makes sense.  It seems to me that Dave Roberts and his conservative straightmen are the ones who agree that we should not be investing in adaptation.

  2. So are you implying that those people in developing countries who are calling for more attention to adaptation (you know, because their children are dying and stuff like that) are in fact supporting US conservatives?  How narrow minded of them! Don't they even think about our domestic political squabbles before speaking out?

  3. Dave Roberts writes:

  does anyone think the world's developing countries are going to get aid sufficient to allow them to prepare?

  Pretty ironic in a post about defeatism. They surely won't get any aid with defeatists simply giving up on the billions of people around the world who are suffering today.  But it is a lost cause anyway, eh, Dave?  Lets talk about Republicans instead! ;-)

  Note: Tongue firmly in cheek in the above, but there is a message too.On It's seductive -- and wrong posted 2 years, 8 months ago 54 Responses

• Click here to view comment in original post

  GJ

  Thanks, I don't disagree.  But we won't be well served by mischaracterizing the challenge.  There is no partial solution to decarbonization -- it has to reach a level of net zero emissions at some point.  Pointing out the reality of the challenge is not political fatalism, it is, well, reality.  Thanks ...On Game over? Hardly. posted 2 years, 9 months ago 10 Responses

• Click here to view comment in original post

  check this

  Charles-

  You should check the accuracy of this statement, it is scientifically incorrect, or at least incomplete:

  "Every percentage drop in emissions will translate into some mitigation in sea level rises, violent storms, and other harms from global warming."

  A reduction in the rate of emissions will only buy time, it will not have a proportional impact on those impacts, "harm reduction" as you say.  

  I discuss this here:

  http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/admin/publication_files ...

  Further details here:

  http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheus/archives/cli ...On Game over? Hardly. posted 2 years, 9 months ago 10 Responses