There are people on the left who are willing to throw environmentalists to the wolves. I've never been sure why. Is it to try and keep the right-wing attack machine focused on someone else? Its another case of letting the right set the debate on its terms.

"We did sue" The initial lawsuit was if the EPA had the authority to regulate CO2. Once that was done an endangerment finding was required. Bush punted on that and Obama made it. The next step is to start regulating.

This is where another lawsuit comes in. If the EPA goes slow waiting for legislation from Congress, that's when another lawsuit should be filed. Maybe one of the more litigatious groups like the Center for Biological Diversity can file. The regulations typically require action within deadlines. If action is not being taken enviros should sue to force compliance with the law.

A trial to find scientific facts? Since when are courtroom trials the way we conduct science?

The term res judicata is the legal term that describes a situation where a suit is thrown out because the courts have already made a final desicion. If you've lost its too bad because its over. Someone needs to tell the delayers and the denialists its over.  

"Bet there's no picture with Bill Clinton's arm around the cookie monster!"

There's a picture, but it's not Bill Clinton's arm that's around the cookie monster. ;)

Robert Kennedy Jr would be a terrible candidate. A former heroin addict, who failed the bar multiple times, has meger court room experience and never sat on the bench would be a self-destructive choice for enviros. Michael Wara who has been a lawyer for all of two and a half years is simply not experienced enough to be considered for the Supreme Court. Endorsing either one would make enviros look like lightweights.

I'll rephrase my question: who with any chance of being approved by the Senate should have enviros backed?

From Pew: Myths about the Waxman-Markey Clean Energy Bill

http://www.pewclimate.org/acesa/eight-myths/June2009

I really shouldn't feed a certain type of commenter, but here goes.

"The ice sheets in Antarctica have been actually been growing in aggregate (even as CO2 levels are been increasing!) In other words, Miami is going to be safe! This is good... right?"

No, you are confused. Sea ice is already floating and so doesn't alter sea levels when it melts or freezes. Terrestrial ice is what counts. The cited text from the Scientific Committee on Antarctic Research refers to sea ice not terrestrial.

Remember

that Paterson was not elected Governor. He is a conservative Democrat in a liberal Democrat state. He might not be the Democratic candidate next election.

I understand here in NY and NYC the economy is particularly bad so somethings have to change, but to hold a secret meeting to change critical AGW laws is unacceptable.

The NYT also had an editorial about this:
A Need to Clear the Air
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/07/opinion/07sat4.html?th& ...On New York governor goes in the tank for industry, backs away from climate plan posted 8 months, 3 weeks ago 12 Responses

From the Cryosphere Today

February 15, 2009
In an opinion piece by George Will published on February 15, 2009 in the Washington Post, George Will states "According to the University of Illinois' Arctic Climate Research Center, global sea ice levels now equal those of 1979."

We do not know where George Will is getting his information, but our data shows that on February 15, 1979, global sea ice area was 16.79 million sq. km and on February 15, 2009, global sea ice area was 15.45 million sq. km. Therefore, global sea ice levels are 1.34 million sq. km less in February 2009 than in February 1979. This decrease in sea ice area is roughly equal to the area of Texas, California, and Oklahoma combined.

It is disturbing that the Washington Post would publish such information without first checking the facts.
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/On Conservative columnist lies to millions of people, again, ho hum posted 9 months, 2 weeks ago 36 Responses

Obama is

sending it to the EPA because this is the normal process. According to the Clean Air Act the head of the EPA is the person who grants the waver.

I am happy to see this return to the rule of law, and I expect the waver to be quickly granted. On Move would allow California and 13 other states to set tougher tailpipe standards posted 10 months ago 10 Responses

David Roberts is right this thread

is depressing, so to change the topic and lighten the mood:

Obama to Let States Restrict Emissions Standards
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/26/us/politics/26calif.htm ...On Carl Pope stepping down from helm of the Sierra Club posted 10 months ago 24 Responses

The entire regulating CO2 situation.

Saying he would do it then saying he wouldn't, casting doubt on the science, withholding scientific reports, muzzling scientists, blocking the states actions, undercutting international efforts, political appointees castrating agencies, fighting in court, losing in court then flipping off the courts and doing nothing, dragging out the rule-making process to epic proportions.

"hey, let's f*ck with the dirty hippies!" indeedOn Grist looks back at the WTF moments of the George W. Bush years posted 10 months, 1 week ago 3 Responses

The Daily News

is really just a tabloid. I doubt they have any insight into the Obama administration. Sports, celebrity gossip and lurid news stories are the only things that get any substantial coverage in the paper. On NY Daily News: Obama considering moving USDA pick Vilsack to commerce posted 10 months, 3 weeks ago 1 Response

Hmmm

Comparing Obama to Saddam Hussein? Didn't the republican smear machine do that? How did that work for them? Isn't it a little early to attack considering he is not even the president yet? On Vilsack's appointment is representative of the narrow range of viewpoints in Obama's Cabinet posted 11 months, 2 weeks ago 5 Responses

Not everyone is an environmentalist

As president-elect Obama has to appeal to more people than environmentalists. Some of his picks aren't as great as we would like, but it's just politics.

I am waiting to see how Obama's picks perform. I'm expecting a lot of good but not perfection. On Not-so-deep thought posted 11 months, 2 weeks ago 7 Responses

To see what conservatives

think read this editorial in the Wall Street Journal. They are so ticked off I laughed when I read it.

Obama's Carbon Buster's
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122904166229300171.htmlOn Obama's green administration picks signal major shifts in policy posted 11 months, 2 weeks ago 6 Responses

I don't think Al Gore meant that either

Environmental Defense is being scapegoated and it serves no purpose other then allowing some enviro's to vent about their failures by blaming other enviro's.On Taking on corporate America's faves posted 11 months, 4 weeks ago 8 Responses

Its interesting to see what the other side

of the aisle is saying about Obama's picks.

Conservative columnist David Brooks so far likes Obama's choices because they are moderates, well-respected in and out of Washington, and make decisions based on evidence not ideology.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/21/opinion/21brooks.htmlOn Obama announces economic advisers, stresses clean energy posted 1 year ago 3 Responses

Promising begining

The big picture looks very good but there are lots of details to be worked out.

The Bush administration doesn't really have the time to do anything about this ruling, even delay is not option because the decision was handed down so close to the end. Those opposed to the decision can appeal it in federal court but this again will just delay it.

If the EPA says CO2 is a pollutant the states have to follow because the EPA has the ultimate authority on air pollution permits, even when the EPA has granted a state authority to do the permitting themselves.

The wildcard is the BACT. Best Available Control Technology has a list of sub-categories and it gets deep into legal and engineering details. I think the most to be expected right now is increased efficiency. Carbon capture techniques might be mandated in the future. On Sierra Club win shuts down 30 proposed coal plants at a stroke posted 1 year ago 14 Responses

All this is not to say

that RFK jr hasn't done some good work, because he has. Its particularly his work as a spokesman on some issues that has been valuable. He has also been wrong on other issues.

RFK jr works for the NRDC. He is not the lead attorney for the NRDC, he doesn't work for the litigation division.
http://www.nrdc.org/about/staff.asp

At Pace University Law School he participates in the clinic which means he helps students get real world experience, but he is not a professor or legal scholar in the normal usage of the that term.On Obama considers RFK Jr. for EPA posted 1 year ago 34 Responses

The right still

has control over the third branch of government, the judiciary, which could hamper the democrats efforts.

The democrats must be careful not to overreach, and start to think that just because they control two of three branches (one of those narrowly) they have a mandate to change everything. The right tried that and look where its got them.On Nader's challenge posted 1 year ago 5 Responses

Backcut

are any of your comments not freak-outs about forest fires? Have you thought about going on meds?On How Obama can revive the economy and heal the planet posted 1 year ago 6 Responses

And

The EPA is legally obligated to make regulatory decisions using the best available science. To do otherwise would reject the rule of law. Again considering the past eight years the EPA needs an administrator who will closely follow the law.

RFK jr has great qualities for an activist but not those needed to run the most important environmental regulator in the world. On Obama considers RFK Jr. for EPA posted 1 year ago 34 Responses

From todays NY Times

"The administration has been especially busy weakening regulations that promote clean air and clean water and protect endangered species."
So Little Time, So Much Damage
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/04/opinion/04tue1.html?_r= ...
On 'Midnight regulation' abounds after June 1 deadline posted 1 year ago 2 Responses

The priority is effective action

and sometimes that means compromises.

Its not good vs better courses of action, its doing things that will work in the wider world outside environmentalist circles vs things that won't work.On The Senate and the union hall: Where American climate policy will succeed or fail posted 1 year ago 4 Responses

Very true

If you talk to the people in the companies and not their allies in the media and advocacy groups you'll find they are much more reasonable.

Many lawyers, for example, the priority is 100% compliance, not getting their companies around the law. On future regulations they'll willingly accept very strict limits if it means uniform and stable standards.  On Corporate foot soldiers fired up to kick environmental butt posted 1 year, 1 month ago 17 Responses

Obama does in fact get it

Green is the way of the future. We enviros are right, and we'll have a president who agrees.

NY Times has endorsed Obama in an editorial including this line about McCain:

"He surrendered his standing as an independent thinker in his rush to embrace Mr. Bush's misbegotten tax policies and to abandon his leadership position on climate change"
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/24/opinion/24fri1.html?pag ...On Obama muses on the connection between energy/climate and our other problems posted 1 year, 1 month ago 7 Responses

One thing the far right hates

and I mean truly hates is public participation.

When enviros worked to get the current laws passed they made sure substantive involvement for the public was included. In the history of regulation this was a major innovation and the US system of environmental protection is globally recognized for how democratic it is.

To shed some light on some insider baseball meaningful public participation allows enviros to step in and require the regulated groups and the agencies to prove their claims by producing evidence. If they don't produce it or if they do and environmental laws are violated enviros can sue to stop it.

Its these provisions that let the states and enviros sue to force the EPA to obey the law and reduce greenhouse pollution.

I'll summarize the heritage foundation's post: we want to do whatever we want, whenever we want and in any way we want but the enviros are stopping us, so we will change the game. We will kick the enviros out and pretend we are not.    On Republican foot soldiers prepare to push for reduced public participation in dirty energy projects posted 1 year, 1 month ago 1 Response

Well put David

Obama is a good politician and that's what enviro's need. We have been spoiled by our successes and need a dose of realism.

To some degree a committed environmentalist president is like environmentally responsible oil-drilling, they don't exist. Politics and drilling are dirty businesses. Nobody involved with them is untouched.

An environmentalist president will look for the best realistic possibilities. I think Obama has already in reminding us that we already have an enacted and proven very successful law that the Supreme Court ruled covers greenhouse gases, the Clean Air Act.

 On Obama cannot politically afford to take the kind of bold green stances enviros are hungry for posted 1 year, 1 month ago 19 Responses

Its about time

Greenpeace disowned him.

The only reason the nuclear industry and others hired him was because he worked for Greenpeace. All he does lend the NEI and others false environmental credibility in public relations. He is no expert on nuclear energy.  On Greenpeace formally disavows any connection to industry shill Patrick Moore posted 1 year, 1 month ago 7 Responses

Well said

"If we as Americans can't reject that kind of politics, we deserve what we get." Well said indeedOn Republican congresscritters are in serious trouble posted 1 year, 1 month ago 5 Responses

I was mildly suprised

but only mildly. As I have written umpteen times in comments on Gristmill the republicans have no interest in bipartisanship or compromise. Its been this way since at least 2000 and especially since the democrats were elected as the majority in congress.

The public is blaming the republicans for the financial crisis and in response they are holding the country and country's well-being hostage for damage control.

Now I have serious doubts about McCain doing anything about climate change if he becomes president. I am suspecting a Bush style position reversal by McCain. The same people who engineered it for Bush work for McCain. On McCain gambles with the U.S. economy; House Republicans hold the bailout hostage; chaos reigns posted 1 year, 2 months ago 6 Responses

Bush's support is unlikely

The administration has made it abundantly clear it doesn't like legislation that it removes the tax breaks to oil and gas companies and encourages renewables. Not wanting to seem to contradict the bogus and election motivated "all of the above" scheme, Bush has not said he will veto it.

The bill will go to conference to iron out the differences between the house and senate versions and the inevitable changes will be used as an excuse to veto it. On Senate passes renewable tax credits on the ninth attempt posted 1 year, 2 months ago 5 Responses

Even Bush wasn't this bad

Palin appointed someone with no real experience, either legal or management as the attorney general. Gonzales did a terrible job, but he was at least qualified for the job. The attorney general is responsible for the states criminal justice system, family courts, and enforcing environmental laws just to name a few things.

Palin is not fit to be vice president and McCain in naming her is not fit to be president. On Palin's record of secrecy and cronyism affects environment among other issues posted 1 year, 2 months ago 4 Responses

I thought the NYT article was OK

It had a bit of the 'new study changes everything' hook, but it was nuanced and did a pretty good job about reporting on the study itself.

What to do about alien/introduced/invasive species involves not just science but also economics and ethics. The last line of the article:
"It's not that this is all good or all bad, and I'm not sure science should be the arbiter," Dr. Brown said. "Placing values on these things is the job of society as a whole."On NYT critiques alien biology posted 1 year, 2 months ago 27 Responses

Its finally happened

George Bush is a New England blue blood playing a good old boy. But no more acting for the GOP! The vice president candidate is actually from a trailer park.On Van Palin posted 1 year, 2 months ago 2 Responses

look at his record

John McCain is a conservative republican, regardless of the spin of him being a moderate or maverick. His record on environmental matters in the senate is poor. Although its not as bad a Bush, but then again no one is bad as Bush.

The people who advised Bush in 2000 had Bush lie through his teeth and say he was going to regulate greenhouse gases. These same people are advising McCain's campaign. On Who's advising McCain on energy and climate? posted 1 year, 3 months ago 2 Responses

One thing is

all the work that went into creating the WCI will be valuable experience when there is a better chance for action on the federal level in 2009.

My semi-educated guess is McCain might push a weak uniform national program that would pre-empt the WCI. McCain is after all a conservative republican so business interests will have a powerful role in his climate policy.

Obama first of all will push much harder for a much better program. Setting a minimum and uniform federal standard, but giving states the option of going further like the Clean Air Act seems most likely. The business community will accept the uniform part begrudgingly, the agencies will like the continuity with the existing CAA, and enviros will like the state's option to go further as will the states.On What happens with a new president? posted 1 year, 3 months ago 3 Responses

What concerns me

is that the Dems will cave, the coastal areas are opened, and then gas prices don't drop. The public will ask what happened.

The Republicans will come up with something new, like saying "the environmental laws that the oil companies are forced to obey are the reason for high gas prices. These laws must be repealed."On Unilateral drilling deal is bad politics posted 1 year, 3 months ago 3 Responses

Governors do have some veto power

Most states have some say in federal activities in their waters under the Coastal Zone Management Act, but most of the drilling would probably be outside of the states territorial seas. On Coastal governors stand in the way of offshore drilling, even if Congress approves it posted 1 year, 3 months ago 4 Responses

So the EDF is not a dirty hippie

Yes the EDF works with big business sometimes. Yes the EDF makes compromises. Maybe the EDF can be faulted for not pushing hard enough, but its a stretch to say they are in bed with corporate america or undermining the environmental movement.

Some of the discussions about the EDF on gristmill remind me of the posts about meat-eating environmentalists where ideological purity becomes an obstacle to progress.On EDF prez says we can't afford to wait for the ideal first step posted 1 year, 4 months ago 17 Responses

My clarification

No the Democrats don't agree with the Republicans, but as David accurately notes the Democrats have a special talent for folding.

I am hoping the Democrats won't fold on oil drilling.On Republicans are bluffing on drilling posted 1 year, 4 months ago 19 Responses

RealClimate joins in

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/07/onc ...On Viscount Monckton, a British peer, says his paper was peer-reviewed by a scientist posted 1 year, 4 months ago 8 Responses

Its an election year

I think this is some political theater. The democrats are making a token gesture to the right to blunt the PR offensive McCain and the right have launched. I don't think it will amount to anything.On Some Democrats in Congress bending on drilling debate posted 1 year, 4 months ago 8 Responses

Moratorium = stick it to the environmentalists

If this wasn't coming from the Bush administration I would say caution on public lands is OK, but this decision is coming from the Bush administration.

Considering Bush's history, its hard not to see this as an intentional poke in the environmentalist community's eye.  On BLM contemplates two-year moratorium on solar power plant construction in the West posted 1 year, 5 months ago 68 Responses

globalwarming.org?

Its a website created by the International Policy Network, a front group created by tobacco and oil company lobbyists. Its not a credible source.

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=International_ ...On U.S. federal report details climate change's impact on weather extremes posted 1 year, 5 months ago 29 Responses

Regulations do encourage R&D

There even is a category of regulations called "technology forcing". Generally these regs state that an industry must reduce pollution to set levels by a set period of time. Its done to spur businesses to develop pollution control technology. On How much will it really cost to address climate change? posted 1 year, 6 months ago 11 Responses

manacker/black wallaby is upset and emotional

manacker/black wallaby:
"back off on your somewhat stupid comment that "commenters are knocking themselves out to convince everyone that there has been a plateau in global warming""

First its not my comment and second its not stupid. manacker/black wallaby is confusing weather and climate.

manacker/black wallaby:
"John, who is terribly busy when it comes to others on thread, can leap to respond in less than four hours"

manacker/black wallaby is upset that JCross is not replying to him but is responding to other people.   manacker/black wallaby needs a more constructive hobby than waiting for comments on gristmill.   On Similarities between the skin cancer and climate change 'scams' posted 1 year, 7 months ago 173 Responses

For Mr. Nice Guy's question,

this may not be the answer, but may be helpful.

The graph in the New Statesman article is from this RealClimate post:
"Uncertainty, noise and the art of model-data comparison"
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/01/unc ...
On Similarities between the skin cancer and climate change 'scams' posted 1 year, 7 months ago 173 Responses

Has global warming stopped? No it hasn't.

Mark Lynas wrote an informative article addressing the claims contrarians make about recent short-term temperature measurements.
http://www.newstatesman.com/200801140011On Similarities between the skin cancer and climate change 'scams' posted 1 year, 7 months ago 173 Responses

New York Times

Has a spot on editorial, placing the blame on the New York Assembly in general and Speaker Mr Silver in particular. "Unworthy of his office" the NYT writes about Mr Silver.

Mr. Silver does it again
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/08/opinion/08tue2.html?_r= ...On Ten reasons NYC's congestion pricing plan went belly up posted 1 year, 7 months ago 18 Responses

Whoops again

Biodiversivist, Groundskeeper Willy is Scottish not Irish :( .On Hansen paper released; WaPo fails to link to Grist posted 1 year, 7 months ago 8 Responses

Physician heal thyself

manacker/black wallaby:
"Josullivan58,
I recommend that you seek medical help"

Why? I am just commenting the same way that manacker/black wallaby comments. If manacker/black wallaby can lie and insult people why can't I do it to him?On The Heartland conference recycles the usual climate change skeptics in its speakers list posted 1 year, 7 months ago 287 Responses

I was right

It was a case of mistaken identity!

manacker/black wallaby does have me mistaken for someone else. It's understandable for manacker/black wallaby to make a mistake like that.

manacker/black wallaby:
"I though I'd check just how many times Lovely Jo Sullivan has used the description "sock puppet" on Gristmill"

It wasn't me, josullivan58, who used the description "sock puppet". It was this other person Jo Sullivan manacker/black wallaby is referring to. Before manacker/black wallaby wrote about sock puppets on this thread I never heard the expression before. manacker/black wallaby still has not explained what it means.

I'm not sure why manacker/black wallaby keeps writing that he is in Australia. Maybe he wants this man Jo Sullivan to stop by and see him so manacker/black wallaby is telling Jo Sullivan where he lives. manacker/black wallaby does constantly write how he thinks this man Jo Sullivan is physically attractive.On The Heartland conference recycles the usual climate change skeptics in its speakers list posted 1 year, 7 months ago 287 Responses

Show me

manacker/black wallaby:
"I identified a few "fallacies" sometimes used by IPCC supporters..."

"Do you ever use any of these?"

I don't think I do. Maybe manacker/black wallaby can read through my comments and point to the fallacies in my comments. On The Heartland conference recycles the usual climate change skeptics in its speakers list posted 1 year, 8 months ago 287 Responses

Science's Achilles Heel

Its unfortunately very easy to cast doubt on science. Scientists have to follow a high standard of behavior and can't be dishonest. The PR people who work for tobacco companies, tanning businesses, oil companies etc. can, and do, lie all they want.  On Similarities between the skin cancer and climate change 'scams' posted 1 year, 8 months ago 173 Responses

Once more unto the breach

I, like JCross, have noticed the logical fallacies of manacker/black wallaby. If manacker/black wallaby reads this list of logical fallacies and then eliminates these fallacies from his comments perhaps  the readers of Gristmill will take him seriously.
List of Fallacies
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies

I know manacker/black wallaby doesn't trust wiki-sources, he prefers websites like the heartland institute. The heartland institute has quite a record for being a reliable source of scientific information since its primary author seems to be the snuffalufagous.On The Heartland conference recycles the usual climate change skeptics in its speakers list posted 1 year, 8 months ago 287 Responses

I'm still reading JCross

Yes I noticed that your argument with manacker/black wallaby was similar to the my argument with him in December. I have no doubt that you came to your conclusions based on your own research. Your points are essentially the same as mine because they both are based on the science in the IPCC.

Its a waste of time trying to engage in a scientific debate with manacker/black wallaby. This thread started with manacker/black wallaby misrepresenting a statement in the IPCC, either due to his misunderstanding of the way scientific research is published or due to his idealogical conflicts that make it impossible for him to accept scientific facts.

Nearly all of manacker/ black wallaby's assertions are scientific sounding hand-waving. This combined with his lack of civility and his parroting anti-environmentalist talking points it isn't worth the effort to reply to him.On The Heartland conference recycles the usual climate change skeptics in its speakers list posted 1 year, 8 months ago 287 Responses

Don't feed the trolls

manacker and his sock puppet black wallaby are applying lesson 1 and lesson 2 from Nexus 6
http://n3xus6.blogspot.com/2008/03/lesson-1.html
http://n3xus6.blogspot.com/2008/03/lesson-2.html

Discussing climate science with black wallaby/manacker is like discussing evolutionary biology with creationists or discussing the health effects of smoking with a tobacco company spokesman.On The Heartland conference recycles the usual climate change skeptics in its speakers list posted 1 year, 8 months ago 287 Responses

Cherry picking?

"cherry picking is used metaphorically to indicate the act of pointing at individual cases or data that seem to confirm a particular position, while ignoring a significant portion of related cases or data that may contradict that position."

"when a person with a supposedly neutral position cherry picks, that is commonly regarded as inappropriate. Examples would be journalists, scientists, and judges."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cherry_picking

IPCC SPM Page 5
"New data since the TAR now show that losses from the ice sheets of Greenland and Antarctica have very likely contributed to sea level rise over 1993 to 2003 (see Table SPM.1)."

From Table SPM.1 Page 7
"Rate of sea level rise (MM per Year)" 1993-2003 Antarctic Ice Sheet 0.21 +/- 0.35.

The IPCC states clearly the Antarctic Ice Sheet might have been a net sink. Claiming the IPCC ignored papers that conclude the Antarctic might have been a net sink ignores incontrovertible facts.

Citing the first half of the sentence on page 5 and ignoring the second half of this same sentence and then ignoring page 7 entirely is a textbook example of a cherry pick.On The Heartland conference recycles the usual climate change skeptics in its speakers list posted 1 year, 8 months ago 287 Responses

Start with a credible source

manacker/black wallaby:
"On March 11, on the gristmill 'solar distraction' site, I cited a reference to a September 2007 report..."
"...I asked if anyone had seen a direct refutation of this paper."

A paper on physics.oa-ph? From the physics.oa-ph FAQ:
"7.1 Some of the arXiv articles are nonsense!"
"If a submission is merely mediocre, speculative, or erroneous, the readers of some particular category could still find it useful."
http://front.math.ucdavis.edu/ifaq#moderation

manacker/black wallaby finds the physics.oa web page useful to try to waste time with specious claims. If this is really a scientific debate, manacker/black wallaby has to start using peer-reviewed science as sources.

If someone chooses not to reply to manacker/black wallaby on one post, then manacker/black wallaby should get the hint. If someone does not reply on one post, its still unlikely they will if the comment is repeated on another post.
On The Heartland conference recycles the usual climate change skeptics in its speakers list posted 1 year, 8 months ago 287 Responses

Add the Discovery Institute

Big oil, big tobacco and big religion are all united by their hatred of science.

Big oil is using the same tactics to undermine support of climate science that the Discovery Institute created to undermine biology and medicine. Its falsely creating doubt to advance political goals.

From Framing Science:
At the Heartland and Discovery Institutes, a Shared Rhetoric
http://scienceblogs.com/framing-science/2008/03/at_the_he ...On Do Big Oil and Big Tobacco share a similar smokescreen? posted 1 year, 8 months ago 26 Responses

Well put David

The problem with the waffling middle
From PZ Myers on ScienceBlogs
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/the_problem_wi ...On Green advocates urged to be reasonable posted 1 year, 9 months ago 16 Responses

Oh I forgot

black wallaby (manacker's sock puppet)
"Please stop taking-up unfertile page-space and go elsewhere"

Yes that's right, gristmill is black wallaby's blog and black wallaby decides who can make comments here and what the comments should be. For someone who likes to talk about free speech its odd to tell people to stop speaking out. Maybe the only free speech black wallaby wants is his own.

Black wallaby needs to read gristmill's posting rules, particularly #1, #2, #3, #4 and #6.

Steve Earl Salmony don't listen to black wallaby.
On Today: Christopher Castro posted 1 year, 9 months ago 68 Responses

More incorrect statements from manacker

manacker
"Then some of Andrew's surly surrogates, like josullivan58 or ian forrester, get in the act and start spewing venom"

I do not spout venom.

I questioned manacker's reliance on a partisan publication that routinely misrepresents science. I can not, nor can any other person who understands science, take a creationist publication seriously. In a scientific debate there are standards that must be met to make it a scientific debate. Using the Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons as a source violates basic scientific principals.

I questioned the assertion that Eos is suppressing  sammyowl's freedom of speech because Eos would not publish sammyowl's advertisement in Eos. The editors of Eos are not stopping sammyowl from expressing his views, they just don't want to publish his ad in Eos. Maybe sammyowl can submit his ad to the  Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons.On What happens when a group's position statement does not reflect its members accurately? posted 1 year, 9 months ago 89 Responses

What is free speech?

If the AGU doesn't publish something you want to publish it does not mean they are suppressing your free speech.

If benp, sammyowl, or manacker were to submit a fictional manuscript to a novel printer and they don't publish it, that doesn't mean they are suppressing free speech. The publishers just think that people won't buy it.

Free speech is like the free market, if people want  to hear it the publishers will accept it, if they don't too bad for you. On What happens when a group's position statement does not reflect its members accurately? posted 1 year, 9 months ago 89 Responses

Does it matter?

Is a 2008 climate bill a realistic possibility?

The Bush administration will most certainly veto it. Is there any possibility that enough republican congressmen will sign on to make it veto proof?

As far as I know this is not a possibility, but I am open to listen to facts that say I'm wrong.On Delay makes environmental catastrophe more likely posted 1 year, 9 months ago 25 Responses

manacker is losing it

manacker:
"A correction: if Manacker were a "her" it would have to be "ad feminem" outbursts."

No, ad hominem refers to both men and women. Ad feminem is not a real term. If it is then "manacker" should be "womanacker". Manacker is not content to make up things about science, politics, economics and the comments on gristmill. Now manacker is making up her own vocabulary!

manacker:
"A poem for MarkUK and josullivan58"
Wow, manacker is composing poetry for me! What is that about? The next thing manacker will do is send me flowers.On AGU releases position statement on climate change posted 1 year, 9 months ago 62 Responses

My wisdom is boundless

Manacker:
"Thanks for your ad hominem outburst, josullivan58"

Since Manacker appreciates it so much I'll keep them coming. I'm sure that will make her happy.

Black Wallaby:
"Apparently too, you like teasing the trolls.  I refer to various threads where you have issued forth."

I don't recall writing any such statement. Black Wallaby must have me mistaken for someone else.On AGU releases position statement on climate change posted 1 year, 10 months ago 62 Responses

mancker hates freedom

Freedom of speech means a person is also free not to speak. If a well-known climate expert choses not to  reply to manacker, that expert is free to. Any climate expert should not be harassed for exercising his right of free speech.

Its against American jurisprudence and deeply held American values to try to force someone to speak. Manacker wants everyone to toss aside their fundamental human rights, just so he can continue his rants.On Today: George Waldenberger posted 1 year, 10 months ago 52 Responses

manacker is very talented

Manacker is doing a truly spectacular impression of the black knight. Well done manacker!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Knight_(Monty_Python)
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1433376252473629 ...
On Today: George Waldenberger posted 1 year, 10 months ago 52 Responses

Its more dishonest spin from the right

The "scientists are exaggerating to get funding" talking point was created to counter the fact that much of the doubt being pushed about climate science is part of a PR campaign funded by industries that would be effected by regulations.

When environmental regulations were first being discussed companies that would be regulated started public relations efforts to sway the political outcome. This PR was less than honest. Enviros won big PR points by connecting this dishonesty with the financial motivations, ie big greedy corporations poisoning the air and water.On Scientists do not have a financial incentive to settle the climate debate posted 1 year, 10 months ago 30 Responses

From another angle

Tim Russert said about the New Hampshire primary that McCain was so successful in 2000 because the independent-minded people joined the Republican primary to support McCain. Obama, considering his performance in Iowa, might siphon off these same independents and they would instead join the democratic primary. On McCain will likely take it after all posted 1 year, 10 months ago 8 Responses

Thanks, but its time to go

Steve:
"If you would be so kind and helpful, please... ...do not let go of this discussion just yet."

I appreciate the encouragement, but the thread with manacker has outlived its usefulness.  Considering the dishonesty of the contrarian positions, it gives more attention to contrarians than they deserve. Manacker has the chance to stop making things up and repeating things someone else made up on gristmill.

Seeing this comment, manacker will feel compelled to take a break from his habit of kicking puppies to make up more stuff on gristmill. I will not reply. Life is too short to spend time replying to vacuous arguments.On More bogus climate skepticism posted 1 year, 10 months ago 227 Responses

What?

Yes Bush is going to pursue a pro-environmental agenda. And the check's in the mail. And I gave at the office. And I'll call in the morning.

Add it to the list of lines that everyone knows, or should know, are BS.

Yes 2008 will different. That's why 16 states and 5 environmental groups (including Fred Krupp's Environmental Defense) sued the Bush administration the first day of 2008 the courts were open because Bush is blocking their global warming plans .
From NRDC The Great Galvanizer
http://switchboard.nrdc.org/blogs/ddoniger/the_great_galv ...

Eileen Claussen summed it up best, yes the public image has changed, but its only image.

Bush has always been virulently anti-environmental, but there has been a big push back that has been getting a lot of public attention.

In response the Bush administration is launching a PR campaign to cover their losses and cover up their extremist behavior. The Bush administration is also framing the debate for the upcoming struggles with congress, the courts, the states and environmentalists.

The Washington Post article ends with the question whats the next step. That's easy, it will be the same as the previous steps.On The Washington Post offers a late entry for Worst Story of the Year posted 1 year, 10 months ago 1 Response

I should let this go, but...

manacker
"Don't hijack the "science" mantel for only those scientists that support the IPCC's "party line" stand on AGW."

I'm not. Science is science when the high burden of proof is met. To meet that burden certain behaviors are required in a scientific debate. None of manacker's claims meet the threshold of convincing arguments. Its not because they disagree with the IPCC, its because manacker is creating strawmen using false statements about what's in the IPCC and what's in the science literature. This is besides manacker's cherry-picking.

manacker
"And, josullivan58, where you are way off base is in thinking that only scientists should have an opinion on the draconian policy changes being proposed by the pro-IPCC political lobby"

Another strawman, I never wrote that.

manacker
"which most experts tell us will do major harm to the world's economy and will have no impact on the world's climate."

Isn't the use of experts "elitist", "pompous" and "arrogant" according to manacker?

manacker
"And as rational skeptics, we have to probe for and expose any weak spots in the science that supports these proposed policy changes."

Let us know when you start being rational.

manacker
"I think I understand the message here."

No , when it comes to the science everyone has to meet the same standards. As long as the procedures are rigorous, you can be wrong but not dishonest. The conclusions don't have to be the same, but standard scientific method has to apply to all the science. To claim my position is different is another strawman.

manacker
"So your deadline argument is not valid. But it was a good try."

Wow a combined cherry-picking/strawman involving both my statements and the IPCC with an accusation of IPCC censorship on the side and an ad hom on top, that's a lot of non-science in a science debate! First the claim that the IPCC rejected Wingham (2006) because it concluded Antarctic ice sheet is growing is false because the IPCC included other studies with similar findings and the IPCC stated that the  ice sheet might be growing not melting. Second, read this page for the deadline issue. Its not as black and white as manacker claims http://www-pcmdi.llnl.gov/ipcc/revised_deadlines.phpOn More bogus climate skepticism posted 1 year, 11 months ago 227 Responses

Answers

manacker
"Thanks for your latest 'ad hominem'"
No need to thank me, I'm more than happy to do it.

manacker
"Where do you dig up all this drivel?"
From your comments on Gristmill, the scientific literature, and the anti-environmentalist's memos.

manacker
"Is this ad hominem attack supposed to be witty? Or is it just plain stupid and childish?"
None of the above, its just meant to turn your own tactics on you and to see if you like it. I get the distinct impression that you don't.

manacker
"But you have not yet shown me why my statement is incorrect."
You need to prove its correct first. Since this thread is about the science, act like a scientist. In science you need objective proof for a idea to be accepted. You haven't offered any facts yet.

manacker
"These are totally irrelevant to our discussion on what happened in both Greenland and Antarctica over the 11-year period 1992-2003, since they only started in 2002 and are thus outside the period we are discussing."
Why can I only write about the things you want me to? You're suppressing my free speech. You must hate freedom. On More bogus climate skepticism posted 1 year, 11 months ago 227 Responses

If at first you don't suceed, lie, lie again

Thats manacker's motto

Manacker:
"Published reports based on hundreds of millions of 24/7 ESA satellite readings over an 11-year period showed net growth of both ice sheets over same time period:
Greenland:
Johannessen (2005)
Antarctica
Davis (2005)
Wingham (2006)
Just facts. That's all."

The Competitive Enterprise Institute, a lobbying group with a history of dishonest behavior, produced ads that said the same things as manacker about Johannessen (2005) and Davis (2005) and might be manacker's source. Namely the ads claimed these papers showed net growth of the entire ice sheets and went on to say that this invalidates the science.

Dr Davis saw the ads. In response Davis put out a press release with the university he is a professor at. "Davis said that three points in his study unequivocally demonstrate the misleading aspect of the CEI ads.

• His study only reported growth for the East Antarctic ice sheet, not the entire Antarctic ice sheet.
  
• Growth of the ice sheet was only noted on the interior of the ice sheet and did not include coastal areas. Coastal areas are known to be losing mass, and these losses could offset or even outweigh the gains in the interior areas.
  
• The fact that the interior ice sheet is growing is a predicted consequence of global climate warming."
  

The IPCC:
"New data since the TAR now show that losses from the ice sheets of Greenland and Antarctica have very likely contributed to sea level rise over 1993 to 2003 (see Table SPM.1)." page 5
From Table SPM 1
Source of sea level rise Greenland Ice Sheet, rate of sea level rise 1992-2003 0.21 +- 0.07
Source of sea level rise Antarctic Ice Sheet, rate of sea level rise 1992-2003 0.21 +/- 0.35
page 7

The plus and minus indicates a range of values that is found by adding and subtracting the second figure from the first. So the rate of sea level rise from Antarctica could be as great as 0.56 or as little as -0.14 meaning that it could be taking water from the oceans, not adding to the oceans. The range for Greenland is different, 0.28 to 0.14.On More bogus climate skepticism posted 1 year, 11 months ago 227 Responses

going in circles

Manacker is selectively citing scientific studies to falsely cast doubt on the science. Manacker cited three studies to try to disprove the IPCC. The Competitive Enterprise Institute cited two of these studies and publicly claimed that they showed that the Greenland and Antarctic ice caps were growing not melting. Manacker repeated these claims. The authors and publishers of the studies themselves said that the CEI was lying.

On the third study, Wingham et al 2006:
Mancker: "it does not change the fact that Wingham concluded in his report that the Antarctic Ice Sheet overall gained mass equivalent to 27 Gt/year over his 1992-2003 study period, which just happened to coincide with the period of IPCC's claim of mass loss equal to a sea level rise of 0.21 mm/year, which calculates out to a mass loss of 71 Gt/year over the period."

The authors do no such thing. The authors recognized the discrepancies and clearly stated "other data are needed to settle this value. In any case, our data excludes 28% of the grounded ice." They emphasized that good measurements are lacking in Antarctica and that even their study is preliminary because data is lacking.

I will point out again that Wingham 2006 was not included in the IPCC because it was published after the deadline for studies. Deadlines are a constant present in our daily lives, they are not a sign of some conspiracy.

On the IPCC:
manacker: "IPCC does, indeed, claim a LOSS of ice in both the Greenland and Antarctic Ice Sheets, each equivalent to a sea level rise of 0.21 mm/year over the period 1993-2003. You have to actually read pp 5 and 7 of the IPCC 2007 SPM report and you will see that this is the case."

The  0.21mm year figure manacker gives is misleading. Manacker fails to note the error bars in the IPCC on page 7. For Antarctica the error range is  +/- 0.35mm so this means that according to the IPCC SPM Antarctica could be absorbing 0.14mm a year from the oceans. The IPCC is explicitly stating the possibility that Antarctica is a net sink of water. The error bar for Greenland is 0.07mm, and so not the same as Antarctica.

On page 17 of the IPCC SPM puts this in prose: "Current global model studies project that the Antarctic Ice Sheet will remain too cold for widespread surface melting and is expected to gain in mass due to increased snowfall. However, net loss of ice mass could occur if dynamical ice discharge dominates the ice sheet mass balance."

I don't know if manacker is being dishonest or has intellectual blinders on, but its clear manacker is looking to sow uncertainty about the science where there is none.
On More bogus climate skepticism posted 1 year, 11 months ago 227 Responses

Be careful of what you ask for...

I'll respond to specifics:
Manker cites three papers to show how the the IPCC is wrong and dishonest

Snowfall-Driven Growth in East Antarctic Ice Sheet Mitigates Recent Sea-Level Rise
Curt H. Davis et al Science 24 June 2005

Dr Davis on the claims by people who say it disproves climate science and the IPCC, calling it "a deliberate effort to confuse and mislead the public about the global warming debate. They are selectively using only parts of my previous research to support their claims. They are not telling the entire story to the public."
http://www.factcheck.org/article395.html

Recent Ice Sheet Growth in the Interior of Greenland
O.M. Johannessen et al Science 310: 1013-1016
The editors of Science printed this in response to people saying that this paper disproved climate science and the IPCC, the "ad misrepresents the conclusions of the two cited Science papers and our current state of knowledge by selective referencing."
http://www.aaas.org/programs/centers/pe/CEI-ad.pdf

The author's research institute comes to conclusions that are similar to the IPCC's
http://www.bjerknes.uib.no/pages.asp?kat=2&id=170& ...

Mass Balance of the Antarctic Ice Sheet
D.J. Wingham et al Phil. Trans. R. Soc. A.
From The summary of this paper:
"What is clear, from the data, is that fluctuations in some coastal regions reflect long-term losses of ice mass, whereas fluctuations elsewhere appear to be short-term changes in snowfall. While the latter are bound to fluctuate about the long-term MAR, the former are not, and so the contribution of retreating glaciers will govern the twenty-first century mass balance of the Antarctic ice sheet."
http://bowfell.geol.ucl.ac.uk/~lidunka/EPSS-papers/djw3.p ...

This again agrees with what the conclusions of the IPCC.

Manacker is misrepresenting the content of the IPCC SPM as well. If you use the find function on the pdf for "antarctic" you will see its found eleven times and when you look at what the IPCC says all eleven times, it concludes that the ice sheets on Greenland and the Antarctic probably contributed to recent sea level rise, but its unclear how much.

The IPCC SPM itself states its predictions of sea level rise don't include the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets because of the uncertainties in ice sheet dynamics.
Check RealClimate for a discussion
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/03/the ...

Intentionally or not, manacker is making comments that are deceptive. Judging by the tone of manacker's comments and the clear political content I would say its the former. On More bogus climate skepticism posted 1 year, 11 months ago 227 Responses

How science works

There are categories of acceptable and unacceptable behavior in the scientific community.

Acceptable behavior is making claims that have a basis in physical reality. Unacceptable behavior is making claims that don't have a basis in physical facts.

Inhofe is trying to attack the scientific community to avoid the the political question of what to do about global warming. The people the senator cites don't have arguments that are based in facts.

I personally don't see anything wrong with the argument that we should not regulate economic activity to address global warming. Just be honest about it, instead of raising spurious objections to the science. On More bogus climate skepticism posted 1 year, 11 months ago 227 Responses

Remember again

The contrarians don't have the facts on their side. If they were to use the same arguements in a court of law they would be charged with perjury.On Today: Thomas Ring posted 1 year, 11 months ago 66 Responses

Opinion vs Fact

The late Senator Moynahan famously said that everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not there own facts.

The scientific community agrees with AGW because the physical facts overwhelmingly support it. Even the right's leading PR strategist Luntz agrees that the facts are on the enviros side, and has urged his clients to avoid debates about the facts.On More bogus climate skepticism posted 1 year, 11 months ago 227 Responses

Is jabailo a creationist too?

Jabilo is using a definition of consensus that does not apply to the word consensus as it is used in science.

Its like people who say that evolution isn't a fact because its just a theory.On NYT's Revkin gives Inhofe a pass posted 1 year, 11 months ago 66 Responses

%$@*! Filibuster Indeed

If it could be successfully spun as the republicans as being obstructionist or sore losers, trying to force the republicans to filibuster might be worth it. It would be a major PR victory and could win more pro-environmental seats in congress come fall 2008.

But as David Roberts put it "frankly, my confidence that Dems would win the ensuing PR battle is fairly low". More likely it would make the democrats look incompetent or ineffective.On Dems can't overcome filibuster threats to get decent legislation -- so what should they do? posted 1 year, 11 months ago 31 Responses

Where's the liberal bias?

Reports like this where all over the media. Many seemed to be repeating republican talking points.

Even The News Hour on PBS, normally a very even handed and reliable source, said part of the conflict over the energy bill was about the democrats plan to tax the oil companies, not to repeal the tax breaks they were given.On Press peddles Republican talking points on energy bill posted 1 year, 11 months ago 4 Responses

Sam Wells has a good point

Any politician in Texas or Louisiana or Texas is going to be in bed with the oil industry to some degree. Big oil is an especially big player in Texas and Louisiana politics.

As I understand it Sen. Mary Landrieu initially voted for the bill, but then said no. She probably voted yes because her single vote would not matter in the outcome, but when it came down to one vote there would have been negative repercussions for the democratic party in Louisiana.

Texas and Louisiana democrats are different than most democrats. I joke with people I know in New York that Texas democrats are more conservative than New York republicans.On Louisiana's Sen. Landrieu votes against party, for Big Oil posted 1 year, 11 months ago 7 Responses

Was it irony or simply poor word choice?

None of the above. It was dishonesty pure and simple. The Bush administration has been consistently anti-environmental but has tried to spin its positions as the opposite. Remember the Clean Skies and Healthy Forests Acts?On The U.S. sits on the sidelines rather than leading the charge in a war on climate change posted 1 year, 11 months ago 2 Responses

Was he really saying that in the speech?

Al Gore's point seemed to be that the failure of leadership of China and the US was the problem, not that the US and China had historically equivalent emissions.

Has he said or written that China is as bad as the US at other times?On There is no comparison between Chinese and American GHG emissions posted 1 year, 11 months ago 41 Responses

Take a stand

The best thing to do would be to force the republicans to filibuster it. Odds are Bush will veto any bill with increased CAFE standards anyway, so it will be a double defeat to get cave in the Senate and then be vetoed by Bush.

Right now the goal should be to build momentum for meaningful legislation when the new president is in office. Sticking to the original bill will show the obstructionists in congress who is in charge and will show they won't be able to block strong bills.

If the opponents of the bill are forced to publicly filibuster it, they will also have to take the majority of the blame for not getting necessary legislation passed.On Reid will have to decide whether to trim back the bill to get it through posted 1 year, 11 months ago 4 Responses

Doom-and-gloom over victories

Well put David. A few things about the environmentalist community:

We as a group are idealistic, and sometimes this gets in the way of action. While there is something positive to be said for people who are completely committed to a cause, having an ideologically pure movement is no replacement for effective action. The right-wing spin machine portrays enviros as holier-than-thou to an extent that is out of touch with reality, but there is a grain of truth to this spin. Lets not fall into our opponents trap.  

In the US the environmentalist community has had stunning success. In the span of 25 years we went from having virtually no environmental protection to the most extensive and effective environmental regulations in the world. Our success has made us spoiled and complacent. These victories were hard won and at the time our opponents were not really fighting back. Now they are, and this means it will be harder to get legislation passed and there will be no perfect bills.

We often forget that not everyone is an environmentalist. Just because all the enviros want to do something does not mean everyone else wants to do it too. Getting climate change bills passed will require broad based coalitions with people who are outside the environmentalist community. They might not want everything the enviros want, so sometimes compromises must be made for the sake of progress. On Greens need to learn how to celebrate their friends and their movement posted 1 year, 12 months ago 31 Responses

UCS urges support of the energy bill

From an e-mail the Union of Concerned Scientists is sending out:

"Thanks to almost a year of your emails and calls in support of an Energy Bill that promotes fuel economy and renewable electricity, we are on the cusp of passing a strong, comprehensive energy package that protects consumers and reduces the threat of global warming.

Last night the Speaker of the House announced that they will vote this week on an Energy Bill that includes strong standards on fuel economy and renewable electricity. This historic bill will raise fuel economy standards for the first time in 32 years, require electric utilities to obtain more power from clean, renewable sources--such as the wind and sun, and will help reduce America's global warming pollution.

Please urge your representative today to support the energy bill. This is your last chance to contact your representatives about this bill!"On Pelosi says bill up for vote next week will contain CAFE, RFS, and RES posted 1 year, 12 months ago 29 Responses

Debate still goes on in the media unfortunately

On the American Museum Natural History's website:

" Maxwell T. Boykoff of the University of Oxford analyzed 143 news segments about climate change that were broadcast between 1995 and 2004 on programs ranging from the CBS Evening News to CNN's Wolf Blitzer Reports. Only 28 percent of the segments paralleled scientific opinion in portraying humans as the main cause of global warming, Boykoff discovered. Just a handful of segments went so far as to suggest that humans had a negligible effect on Earth's climate, but a full 70 percent gave roughly equal play to both sides of the debate."

http://www.naturalhistorymag.com/index_samplings.html
scroll down to the warming earth sectionOn Search for local climate skeptic in Texas proves fruitless posted 2 years ago 61 Responses

Yes he is.

Ralph: "I'm not pushing any taxes."

Ralph's previous comment: "Great idea.  Seriously, I agree.  Let's supplant existing property and income taxes with consumption taxes on fossil fuels."

That sounds like pushing taxes.

The Copenhagen Consensus is misleadingly titled. Its a handful of libertarian-leaning economists who were cherry-picked for their political views. It presented a false dichotomy that measures to reduce global warming would take money from efforts to address other problems. It also was based on global warming being very moderate and gradual, a view that is a scientific outlier. On One last rant from the Senate's loopy streetcorner anti-prophet posted 2 years ago 34 Responses

Quote a reliable source

Roger Pielke's blog is no longer running. Alot of his posts were complaints that his area of research wasn't getting enough attention. Towards the end of his blog he started being a crackpot complaining about the scientific community's conspiracy plots.

 On One last rant from the Senate's loopy streetcorner anti-prophet posted 2 years, 1 month ago 34 Responses

Its not what you say its how you say it

As a general rule vegetarian/vegan diets have less environmental impacts.

That being said its a good to suggest a vegetarian/vegan diet to people who are environmentally conscious and to encourage people who are less environmentally conscious to eat less animal products.

The key is to do it in a way that does not alienate the people you are trying to convince. The demands to stop eating meat because it is morally offensive are often off putting. Some of the more strident comments here remind me of the old saying the road to hell is paved with good intentions.   On On PETA's latest campaign posted 2 years, 1 month ago 256 Responses

I am amazing!

"JoSullivan58's posts never cease to amaze me." Of course they do because my posts are the best ones ;)

My issue with PETA is how effective their climate change campaign will be. I think that they will not help and will hurt attempts to reduce global warming. PETA is very good at getting attention but screws it up because much of that attention is negative. Animal-rights activists have had only small successes. A small group of people buy into their message and the public has a whole has made only cosmetic changes.  There is no reason to think that this will change.

Climate change will be reduced only by major changes in society. PETA's campaign is hurting the environmental groups attempts to do this.

As for the specific claims of the benefits of vegetarian/vegan diets, there are many benefits, and I personally eat little meat.  Too often however the benefits are overstated. Many of the animal-rights activists oppose eating meat for moral reasons, not for scientific reasons or environmental reasons.  Trying to explain your choice not to eat meat using science and conservation is too often disingenuous.

A more realistic goal would be to try to persuade the public to eat less meat, not demand that people stop eating all animal products.

I'm sorry if some people don't like me saying this. It does not mean, as C4nier writes, that I am a mass murderer ("JoSullivan58 isn't willing to give up delis, barbecues, clams or hamburgers, even if he may be killing us all") or want slavery or segregation ("it's people like this who reminisce the days of slavery, segregated society...") or want unrestrained  pollution, pesticide use, or unsafe products ("...sewage filled waterways, indiscriminate DDT spraying, and ubiquitous lead paint).

I am hesitant to add this, but what does the C in C4nier stand for, crackpot?On On PETA's latest campaign posted 2 years, 2 months ago 256 Responses

Some different answers

Question #1
The convenience or cost of going vegetarian is very subjective. In financial terms going veggie  is one of the few things that will instantly save you money and help the environment, but food is an important part of culture. Think of the New York delis, the Texas barbecues, the New England clam shacks or the drive-through hamburger places that are ubiquitous in the US . Giving up something that makes us what we are as a people is a lot to ask. How many people would give up their thanksgiving turkey, easter ham or hot dogs at the ball park?

Question #2
I agree completely. There is too much tribalism and infighting. One of the things the right does very well is not infighting, not publicly at least. I also think that some on the left view the environmentalists as sacrificial lambs that they can offer to the republican noise machine to keep them off their own back. Infighting encourages this.

As long as the term environmentalist is not used to green-wash or cover up another agenda it should be used broadly. That being said PETA is first and foremost an animal-rights group. PETA shares many of the same goals as environmentalist groups, however PETA  has acted against environmentalists if they violated PETA's position on animal-rights.

Question #3
PETA is good at getting itself heard, but more substantive results are harder to come by.  For example a large majority of people in the US and Europe now considers wearing fur unacceptable. That has resulted in a temporary drop in fur sales, but sales increased over 30% in the past 5 years
http://news.scotsman.com/topics.cfm?tid=604&id=175461 ...

Largely because of PETA, many food companies and restaurants use more humanely raised meat, and clothing companies use more humanely raised leather, but PETA has not caused  much of a dent in the consumption of these animals. One of the reasons why PETA was successful was because these where relatively small sacrifices. Getting a large part of the public to become vegetarians will be much harder, if its possible at all.

Why PETA's recent campaign against environmental groups is bad:
Infighting of any kind wastes time and resources.
Public infighting further damages the public image of environmentalists.
The things PETA is saying are reinforcing the right's stereotype of environmentalists as holier-than-thou and hypocritical and environmentalists as not smart enough or too emotional to understand the issue.
The way PETA is behaving reinforces the right's stereotype of environmentalists being fringe radicals who are hostile and want to force everyone else to live their extremist lifestyles.
It gives ammunition to the republican noise machine to set a negative public image of environmentalists that many in the general public accept.
Its these images that have influenced people to join the attacks on environmentalists, or decide not to work with or support environmentalist groups.
It increases infighting with groups that should be environmentalists natural allies.
Reinforcing these negative images makes it harder to create the broad coalition necessary to fight climate change.

Why is PETA doing this, to get environmentalists themselves to go vegetarian? Some motivated environmentalists will do it, but that will have little effect.
Do they want the environmental groups do push the message? This seems to be the case.
Why, because environmentalist groups have been more successful than PETA ? (yes they have been).  
Because environmentalists groups have a broader base of public support? (yes they do).
To capitalize on Al Gore's success increasing awareness about climate change without having to develop an effective campaign themselves? (this seems pretty likely, PETA is opportunistic).On On PETA's latest campaign posted 2 years, 2 months ago 256 Responses

What do you want?

Do you want an ideologically pure sect or do you want effective actions that will help stop global warming?

PETA's "if you like to eat hamburgers, you must like clubbing baby seals" rhetoric is counterproductive. They preach their way is the only one true way to save the planet. Unfortunately few people will follow their way, and the shrillness and the hostility of their ads are off-putting.

Effective action to stop global warming needs broad support from society as a whole. Measures that are seen as too extreme by most people are not realistic goals. Infighting and extremist demands are a waste of time and energy.  On Animal-rights group makes the stupid claim that enviros must be vegetarians posted 2 years, 2 months ago 208 Responses

Its late, but listen

Anthony Weiner (Rep. Dem. NY) is being criticized, but be careful. I lived in his district for years and I was signed up for every major environmental group's action list. This meant I sent several e-mails a week to him. He sent me letters, not just form letters but letters indicating that he (or his staffers) read all my e-mails carefully and sent thoughtful replies.

His environmental record in congress was very good, but I noticed after the consent urges for action I sent he became even more active in congress for environmental legislation.

Both PIRG and the League of Conservation Voters called him an environmental hero because of his actions in congress.  On Gets into it posted 2 years, 2 months ago 19 Responses

How science works

I agree with Dr Dessler that scientists have to explain how science works in the normal day-to-day work to have people understand what the scientists are saying.

Individual papers only address small parts of the big picture. Thats how science is done. Big questions are only examined in synthesis reports like the IPCC. Also scientists should explain that the basics behind climate change will not be found in recent papers. These facts are so well established that to find them you'll need to look in basic climatology textbooks.

As far as the private property question, remember that nuisance, the legal term of art that means that one can not use their property in a way that negatively effects someone else's property, was on the books as long the US existed. It does apply to climate change.On Flawed new analysis purports to show that there's no scientific consensus on climate change posted 2 years, 2 months ago 34 Responses

Mr McIntyre is getting the desired results

"The reaction in the right-wing blogosphere is overwrought," Mr. McIntyre said. "I certainly haven't said that this is some kind of magic bullet that disproves global warming."

I will say with a high degree of certainty that Mr. McIntyre wants to produce the kind of material that will fuel the right-wing noise machine. He is not not just some amateur scientist, he's a political operative. On The Wall Street Journal contradicts itself on global warming posted 2 years, 3 months ago 24 Responses

Daily Kos and Enviros

Environmentalist groups like Sierra Club ticked off the liberals this fall because they endorsed republicans in elections if they had strong environmental records.

The first question and response of the interview says it all. Marko's first statement is a complaint that environmentalist groups don't want to create a progressive voting block similar to conservatives.

The environmental groups don't want conservation and environmental protection to be a partisan issue, so they decided not to exclusively support progressive candidates and issues.On For shame posted 2 years, 4 months ago 29 Responses

Bush is not a "foot-dragger"

Bush is an uncompromising obstructionist when it comes to meaningful action on global warming. He just publicly lies about it beginning when he started campaigning for the presidency in 1999. No action will happen when Bush is in office.

Friedman in today NY Times writes that the only thing blocking action is a few politicians who are putting their own interests ahead of the United State's well-being. Bush is not only one of them, he is the leader of them. On Hold the applause on the administration's posted 2 years, 5 months ago 9 Responses

Irreversable actions

Remember once a species is established it can be impossible to eradicate. Its better to prevent alien species from getting established than to let them get established and blindly hope for the best.On They may not all be bad. posted 2 years, 5 months ago 82 Responses

Was he off his meds?

It was a funny skit, but the guy seemed to be disturbed. I know they edited it to make fun of the man, but when he talked about the world ending he was almost scary.On Some of the funniest stuff I've seen in a long time posted 2 years, 7 months ago 2 Responses

receives no funding from energy corporations

In a way that is true, but Newsweek writes it in a way that's deceptive.

The entire quote is:
"Lindzen is the Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. His research has always been funded exclusively by the U.S. government. He receives no funding from any energy companies."

Lindzen's research funding is exclusively from the government, and Lindzen has received no RESEARCH funding from energy companies. Lindzen has received CONSULTING funding from the energy companies.

The biographical note is like the editorial itself. It appears to be correct, but its wrong and worded deceptively.   On For shame! posted 2 years, 7 months ago 23 Responses

The difference

I think David and Jason are talking past one another. When Jason talks about enviro's he means the people who are interested but not actually the people who are involved in the policy decisions.

When David talks about enviro's he means the professional types whose job is getting policy objectives done.

If we understand what they mean, there is not so much difference. If we explain what we mean a little more clearly there would be less conflict.On Unintended consequences? posted 2 years, 8 months ago 46 Responses

A strawman?

Is this emphasis on enviro's wanting to preserve nature for nature's sake something that is being blown out of proportion by enviro's opponents?

It sounds like the often heard enviro's as extremist shtick. The right is very good at setting up the discussion in a way that benefits their side.

Are enviro's falling into a trap when we ourselves make a big issue out of this?On Earth Firster urges a return to conservationism posted 2 years, 8 months ago 42 Responses

Its Finally Happened!

"whether in the form of global warming or homosexuality"

I knew that some one was going to connect taking action on global warming to promoting gay marriage! I didn't listen to the video because I thought it was the same old stuff, but this is different. On 'Supporting global warming initiatives is tantamount to endorsing communism and the one world order' posted 2 years, 8 months ago 27 Responses

More of the worst ever category

Worst commenter ever on gristmill: jabailoOn Oil and gas lobbyist pleads guilty posted 2 years, 8 months ago 4 Responses

Republicans pro nuclear?

It sounds like they want to blame environmentalists for making global warming worse

Because enviro's opposed new nuclear power plants  the republicans want to discredit enviro's.   On Liveblogging is the new black posted 2 years, 8 months ago 27 Responses

Post OK but for a different forum

This post is a classroom type of teaching tool. The facts are changed to spur discussion. It can quickly break down into arguing for arguments sake.

If I were in an an environmental policy course it would be good, but on a public forum like gristmill I would expect something better.  On An opportunity for reflection posted 2 years, 8 months ago 35 Responses

Just in

The TXU board is recommending that shareholders approve the take over.On This is huge posted 2 years, 9 months ago 21 Responses

Rodger Pielke Jr

I don't think Rodger is a skeptic, but his main thing is that he seems to like to debate.

If you read his blog it sometimes gets to the point where he argues for the sake of arguing rather than making any really substantive points. Its hard to figure out what his point is.

I made a comment on RealClimate and he took that comment an said it was a comment by climate scientist Judith Curry. He was trying to provoke a response and he was publicly misquoting me and Judith Curry to do it.

I wrote on RC that I liked the NRDC's and Environmental Defense's web pages on global warming and then Rodger took that comment and said it was from Dr Curry and said that she was publicly endorsing ED and the NRDC.

He later complained that no one criticizes environmental groups. When I called him on that he backed down from that position. I think he got caught up in the debate and acted without thinking about what he was really saying. On Our old friend posted 2 years, 10 months ago 22 Responses

New measures needed

Some member of congress should sneak a rider into a bill thats sure to pass that would ban Polombo from politics completely. He could keep his right to vote but he should not be allowed to do anything else.On Planning to work for firm that had lobbied him posted 2 years, 10 months ago 4 Responses

its the pombo syndrome

Maybe they saw what happened to Pombo, and it made them a little nervous. They don't want to take the far right anti-environmental position because its increasingly unpopular. On Alaska's Ted Stevens gets desperate for ANWR posted 2 years, 10 months ago 1 Response

Tell it like it is

It refreshing to read:

"Like all advocates, they use whatever arguments they think will win"
"That's political debate, folks. If you don't like it, move to North Korea. The scientific community has no control over either group and should not be held responsible for them"

Its important to differentiate between the activist and scientific community. On What do the climate scientists think? posted 2 years, 11 months ago 24 Responses

Why people are opposing environmental protection

People are opposing environmentalism because others are persuading them to. There is a highly organized and financed campaign public relations campaign to destroy environmental protection by convincing the public that environmental protection is bad. I think all environmental organizations should mount a unified counter-campaign with the single purpose of exposing the lies, slurs and mudslinging and the sources.

Two of the posts here on the gristmill about DDT (from Tim Lambert) and about the eco-terrorism labels are examples of anti-environmental campaign. I also think gristmill's advice about how environmentalists should respond to the terrorism charges by exposing these lies and who is behind is the best response and trying to explain its just a few bad apples etc etc etc is just playing into anti-environmentalist's hands.

Much as been said about the "death" of environmentalism, but I think the more accurate way to put it is that there are people who are trying to kill environmentalism. They are spreading lies to destroy environmentalist's strength, public support. We need to a much better job in protecting ourselves.
On Liberal opposition to drilling is reason enough to support it for some folks posted 4 years, 1 month ago 4 Responses