lgcarey’s Recent Comments

• Click here to view comment in original post

  What John said

  John, thanks for the link, that post had slipped my mind.  Lomborg is dangerous because he's so clever and so good at misdirection and spouting faux-reasonable twaddle.  He loves to try to center the debate around irrelevant issues (e.g., more people die of cold than of heat each year), rather than, say, the risk of major food shortages from agricultural collapse due to shifting climate patterns.  Gore was absolutely right to refuse a debate - never debate someone who can cram so many misstatements and logical errors into two sentences that you will have to use up ten minutes just trying to get the discussion back on track.On Gore declines to debate Lomborg posted 8 months, 4 weeks ago 11 Responses

• Click here to view comment in original post

  Do we really "believe" in climate change

  Last fall, Barry Brook republished an opinion piece by George Marshall titled "Do most scientists really believe in global warming?"  http://bravenewclimate.com/2008/11/06/do-most-scientists- ...

  The point was not that lots of scientists rejected the existence of global warming (not true, obviously), but rather the more subtle point that even among scientists whose own work directly affirmed the existence of global warming, many didn't actually ACT as though they believe the obvious implications of their own research.  Human nature being what it is, many simply proceed with their lives as before - they intellectually affirm the existence of climate change, but can't bring themselves to actually "believe" the real-world implications.  Hence they adopt avoidance strategies, use clinical language discussing the topic and proceed as though it is merely another technical area of inquiry.  Are environmentalists now doing something similar - are we "saying" global climate disruption is a crisis, but erecting psychological barriers to actually acting like it is (i.e., actually "believing")?  It does kind of look like that is the case in some instances, with organizations still focusing on supporting dozens of individual initiatives and activities, all of which will be counted as minutia if climate change is not stopped ASAP.  On Lessons from cognitive dissonance theory for U.S. environmentalists posted 8 months, 4 weeks ago 30 Responses

• Click here to view comment in original post

  WSJ Readers Remain in 19th Century

  "This is America! We can do this!"  Thank heavens somebody is finally saying this out loud!  And the WSJ blog piece is very good.  However, the amount of vitriol directed toward Schmidt, Google and renewable energy in the comments section is remarkable - and I'm confident these people would be saying exactly the same things if we were just getting around to building the Interstate Highway System!   On Google CEO tells conference to get ambitious posted 8 months, 4 weeks ago 4 Responses

• Click here to view comment in original post

  Drill, Baby, Drill

  The Republican "solution" to future shortages and price increases will be to blame Democrats for ignoring the prescient advise of their leading energy guru (i.e., Sarah Palin) - to wit, "drill, baby, drill".  Thus, all shortages will be due to Democratic shortsightedness in standing in the way of drilling anywhere and everywhere possible, blocking leases to develop oil shale, etc.  Idiotic?  Yes.  Effective?  Maybe. (After all, similar soundbites, however moronic, were having an effect during the campaign until the bottom fell out of the economy - people who aren't following this stuff have had no need to think much about the underlying dynamics of the energy sector, and are therefore susceptible to an argument that business as usual can continue forever). On What's the alternative? posted 9 months ago 5 Responses

• Click here to view comment in original post

  What about after the initial mandates?

  I agree with hapa's points.  While the existing grid may support the current (did anyone say woefully inadequate?) RPS mandates, what about BEYOND the current mandates?  I thought the idea was to maximize the potential future contribution of renewables.  Even if remote / local costs are similar, I don't believe that this post adequately discusses just how one would actually get "additional" non-local wind or solar generated power from, say, Nebraska or Nevada to a major market, without a major upgrade in the grid.  If we are going to get off reliance on coal production, I would think that we will need to enable contribution from renewable sources in as many geographic locations as feasible - and major wind and solar facilities need lots of space.  As Gar notes, however, there need to be clear disincentives for using a new grid to support more coal.   On A smart grid, yes. A new national grid, no. posted 9 months ago 27 Responses