Comments Jones has made

  • picking nits...

    While I strongly agree that Chu seems to be a "green progressive environmentalist", I think the commenter's point still stands, at least in spirit. Lest we forget, there is probably as much dogmatism, groupthink and closemindedness within the environmental and progressive "communities" as there is in any movement. Some people just have the good fortune of being on the right side, through no merit of their own.

    I think objectivity is a better word for the type of pragmatism we're discussing here--the freedom from idealogical frameworks which, often in insidious ways, limit the information we allow ourselves to consider. Obama seems impeccably objective, and is making choices for what I think will be an excellent administration.On Steven Chu is a progressive environmentalist because he's a good scientist posted 11 months, 2 weeks ago 6 Responses

  • the right amount of the right stuff = good eatin'

    I heartily agree with Howard's sentiment here:

    "Mother Earth never attempts to farm without livestock; she always raises mixed crops..."

    I would point out that Mother Nature raises a lot of vegetables for every animal. I figure our own diet ought to reflect that ratio. Less meat, better raised, seems like it's definitely the way to go.

    In the past two years I've significantly cut down the amount of meat in my diet. Once I'd tackled the quantity, I then focussed on improving the quality of the meat--organic, outdoor-reared, etc. I pay more per pound, but it's worth it on the taste alone. Not to mention the health benefits of eating less meat. Or the warm, fuzzy feeling of moral superiority. And because it's a 50% increase in price, but a 67% decrease in quantity, I'm still saving money. It's a real tri- or quadri-fecta.

    The takeaway from this is twofold. First, that paying higher prices for better meat can benefit, rather than punish, the individual. Second, that sustainably meaty eating is thus a viable option for most people, right now. No need to badger the govt--create your own demand. On Hog farms can benefit rural agriculture and community posted 1 year, 1 month ago 6 Responses

  • Wait a second...

    Most of those measures seem good, but there's one glaring overgloss: how does

    "support for a tidal-energy project in the San Francisco Bay, despite a recent study's conclusions that the project would be more expensive than it's worth"

    equate with

    "even greener"?

    Last I checked, "Green" doesn't mean "blind pursuit of purportedly environmental technologies, regardless of effect". The word for that is "greenwash".
    On San Francisco gets even greener posted 1 year, 8 months ago 15 Responses

  • He seems to take it seriously

    I guess you didn't get this over in America, but a few days ago a BBC reporter asked McCain how his "foreign policy" would differ from Bush's. He quickly and very emphatically said that we'd see some action on climate change. Of course, he was trying to signal a new multilateralism, and perhaps gloss over his stance on Iraq; but it also seems a pretty telling example, and he really did seem sincere in his conviction.

    Now, I know that the "straight talk express" has gone a bit wobbly at times, and I definitely have misgivings about McCain on several points. But something about the way he said it seemed really genuine and non-politicianesque. In the end, I might not like the specific way he addresses the issue, and we don't know how he'll handle his party/"stakeholders"; but I'm pretty surehe won't pull a Bush. On Will the media give McCain a free ride on climate? posted 1 year, 9 months ago 7 Responses

  • trucks?

    Let me get this straight: SUVs are still being let off the hook?On A possible compromise in energy legislation negotiations posted 2 years ago 8 Responses

  • Yes.

    You're being absurd. Environmentalism is about intelligent choices, not pious indignation. There are few rituals left in Western culture, and Halloween is one of the best of them, for kids. Getting sick on halloween candy is almost as important a life experience as egging the apple-giving curmudgeon's house.

    And anyways, by the time your kids are 17, they'll probably be self-righteous vegetarians and hating you for all the "junk" they think you fed them growing up.

    Seriously--one day (or two or three) a year of indulgence isn't going to harm any kids, but protecting them from it, might.
    On Does this Halloween skepticism make me a curmudgeon? posted 2 years, 1 month ago 7 Responses

  • Good Ruling

    Using a feature film to teach climate science, if that's what they're trying to do, is silly. Whatever the merist of this film, textbooks are a completely different medium. They have a different purpose, and different ways of exposing the material, than a Hollywood documentary does, and for good reason.

    Now, the movie can be used quite profitably in the classroom. Compare the predictions in AIT to the IPCC's, and even other takes out there. Explore the issues that the disparities raise. Reinforce the notion that predictions are not correct/incorrect, but have probability distributions. Discuss the nature of "consensus" in science. Discuss the influence that "science" can and does have in politics.

    Science class is still fundamentally for the teaching of science itself, and "issues in science" should take a second place. The issues I pointed to in the last paragraph are subtle and philosophical in nature, and it would seem hard for a class of 16-year-olds to appreciate them fully. So it has to be taught properly. But if the "debate" on global warming teaches us anything, it's that a lot of people could use a bit more knowledge in these areas. On Brit judge claims to find errors in Gore movie posted 2 years, 1 month ago 15 Responses

  • A couple of issues, in defense of S&N...

    So to believe...that only cheap clean energy can persuade China to develop differently, you have to believe that China is willing to condemn the entire world -- including itself -- to a future of drought, floods, disease, desertification, and rising sea levels. The idea that China would be immune to such considerations strikes me as a piece of cultural condescension, perhaps borderline xenophobia.

    No. You only have to assume that China is just as capable of self-delusion as the US (or, to be fair, most of the world). The US has "known about" Global Warming for quite some time now, and what has been the result? There may be promising developments, much like there have been promising developments for hydrogen fuel cells, etc. But nothing yet that points the way definitively, or even probably, to a low-carbon future. We may have left it till too late, and there's no reason to believe that, whatever their motives, ego- or altro- that they'll get their act together any better than the West. I thought that was S&N's premise, and the reason we need to pursue other avenues.


    Here's a blue sky idea that deserves better than being tacked onto the end of a blog post...

    Blue sky, or pie-in-the-sky? Don't get me wrong: I'm an eternal optimist. But that doesn't mean I'm naive. Of course we need to envision a better paradigm, but we can't just keep saying "it would be great if..." without putting meat on them bones. Saying "we need a paradigm shift" is not a solution.That's the environmentalist's curse, and again, I thought that was S&N's point. We need to start playing with the cards we've been dealt.

    So please, Mr Roberts, don't just tack your blue sky idea onto the end of a blog post. We've seen a lot of injured reaction to S&N's proposals, yet no one has really taken up the gauntlet--at least, I haven't seen anyone else deal adequately with the "elephant". S&N's is still the best plan because it's the only plan. If you don't like that, then do something about it.On How do you solve a problem like Maria China? posted 2 years, 1 month ago 13 Responses

  • literary proliferation

    Seems the climate debate has been very good for the publishing industry. Same with the Iraq/terrorism debate, and atheism vs religion. Forget academia, we now debate issues using amazon. After all, it's much easier to get published than peer-reviewed.

    Richard Dawkins has noticed this phenomenon too. He calls them "fleas."

    Now...what did they use to say about climatologists being attention-seeking self-promoters with financial motivations?On Climate-skeptic books abound on Amazon's top sellers list posted 2 years, 2 months ago 8 Responses

  • Brit's eye view

    Oh what a difference an ocean makes. I don't think Grist covered this, but the UK Conservative Party recently released a report from their "Quality of Life Policy Group" which was generally described their Environment Report. It covers many of these same issues, and contains such juicy tidbits as:

    As well as being inadequate in itself to measure human well-being, GDP also
    includes many economic activities that actually decrease it.
    In a follow-up op-ed piece, one of the authors goes on to say:
    President Bush has been a disaster, but that doesn't let us off the hook...We led the world in the Industrial Revolution. We must now lead a green revolution.
    We relish the fullness, excitement and opportunity of modern life, but we all want to share it at a cost that the planet can bear.

    Now remember: this is the conservative party speaking. Of course this report was met with some snickering and skepticism, but not the howls of outrage you'd expect. The Conservatives are in opposition now, and the report has yet to be translated into policy, but it clearly does speak volumes of the way green issues are framed in the UK. The conservative leader David Cameron is a little hard to get a reading on, but he does seem to me to be trying to move his party well away from the asshole-flavoured brand of conservatism so prevalent in the US and Australia.

    IMHO, I think American environmentalists have a lot to learn from Britain. While it's no environmentalists' paradise here, you do get the sense of going in the right direction, unlike in the US. THe Big Supermarkets' voluntary "sustainability plans" announced earlier this year (and referenced in this post) were pretty remarkable, all things considered. More importantly, over here the debate is actually an exchange of ideas, rather than the bipolar ideological mud-slinging that colours, and ruins, every attempt to move forward in the US. On New book by Porritt argues that we need to reshape capitalism to deliver a sustainable future posted 2 years, 2 months ago 5 Responses

  • "Welcome to Crazytown USA"

    Thanks. Watcha got?

    "When are these scientists going to lose their arrogance?"

    What a...um... pertinent question.

    I wonder why Beck didn't "ask the hard questions" of Lomborg when he stated unequivocally that GW was happening, and that those arrogant euro-scientists--thousands of them!--at the IPCC are the unquestioned authority...

    I wonder why Lomborg, with his zeal to bring clear thinking to the climate debate didn't take Beck to task for that "Global Cooling" stunt...

    Thanks for posting this, BD. I think you've given me a migraine.On One show for dumb guys and one for smart guys posted 2 years, 2 months ago 3 Responses

  • more confusion...

    justlou, what exactly do you think the words

    Do not develop...sites that meet...the following criteria:
    +
    Previously undeveloped land that is within 50 feet of a water body

    mean?

    This house didn't get points for site selection. Nor did it get points for compact development, though it may have gotten points for being located near existing iinfrastructure or on a previously developped site (we don't know). It may have gotten points for using native plants and a low-maintenance lawn. But it likely got there because of the energy efficiency.

    Again, let's not forget that LEED is a voluntary system. In order to be effective it needs to be flexible. If anyone's upset about it, go look at some Platinum buildings. Those are the one's that USGBC really says are "green". It's just saying that this one is "slightly green" Feel better?

    For a workable system we can hardly expect to use as a criteria some standard of "absolute sustainability". Largely because no one alive can define what "absolute sustainability" is, in practice. But more importantly, in a complex and expensive industry like building, you need to learn to walk before you can run.

    Al Gore flies (and eats meat). Does that mean he's not green?On Should USGBC certify a 15,000-sq.-ft. home as green? posted 2 years, 2 months ago 40 Responses

  • misconceptions, pessimism, gradualism.

    Despite the way this post was worded, LEED is not pass/fail. It's a graduated system. "Certified" is the lowest grade. It implies that the building did well in some areas, not others. That seems to be the case.

    It's all too easy to use a pass/fail framework to adopt an unreasonably high standard. You focus on the what they got wrong, while ignoring what they got right--it tends to turn into unconstrutive criticism. That may seem like a harmless online pursuit, but I'm not so sure...all too often environmentalists seem so caught up in their own personal scenarios of doom'n'gloom (I blame PETA for the general funk that seems to have descended upon Grist the last few days) that they can't see "what's in front of their noses".

    Many environmentalists seem to be the intellectual equivalent of depressed, spending all day navel-gazing at the sorry state of humanity. What good does that do? Pretty soon, you begin to believe nonsense like "We need to do better than being less bad; we need to be good." rather than realizing that in order to be good, we usually have to be less bad for a while. "The perfect is the enemy of the good" is so true it's a truism. Why is it that we forget this so often?On Should USGBC certify a 15,000-sq.-ft. home as green? posted 2 years, 2 months ago 40 Responses

  • trock,

    eco means "pure as the driven snow"

    LEED certified means something else.

    While LEED does have certain criteria for things like size and siting, it's fairly weak in this area and it's likely that if it went down the route of judging people's lifestyle, it would probably be ineffectual.

    LEED focuses on building envelope and energy use, and that's the most helpful thing right now. It incentivises us to use technologies that have been available for 30 years now. If you insisted on using the same mechanism to change Americans' lifestyles at the same time, then you'd be holding these technologies up another 30 years. There is a separate LEED for communities in the works, I eagerly await it--hopefully it will have the success "LEED for homes" has had.On Should USGBC certify a 15,000-sq.-ft. home as green? posted 2 years, 2 months ago 40 Responses

  • let me guess...

    is it Al Gore's?

    Anyway...yes. Let's face it, rich assholes will always be with us. And this one just sank a lot of money into green building technologies. It's much more important to mainstream these (easily doable) technologies into the mass housing market than it is to heap our scorn upon one guy (or gal) who'd probably just jet off to Tahiti if he didn't get his rubber stamp.

    LEED isn't perfect, but it's been a very, very good thing for the world. One of those environmental good news stories that environmentalists hate. If LEED says it's OK, then it's OK. We should accept this as a victory, and follow it up with another victory tomorrow.

    Caveat: I don't know what "reduce energy consumption by 90 percent.", but if it means that the house will consume the energy a typical 1500 sqft would in the same location, then that's a considerable improvement on a standard American family home which is now up to...4000sqft? Since they're only getting "certified" (ie bronze) then is sounds like they're getting docked plenty for their habitat destruction...cause that energy performance is pretty good.On Should USGBC certify a 15,000-sq.-ft. home as green? posted 2 years, 2 months ago 40 Responses

  • He's got a point,

    but it's buried beneath layer upon layer of histrionics. And I already knew it anyway. There's really very little of any interest, or intelligence, in this piece.On Urban growth rates in Qatar and China leave Friedman skeptical about climate change mitigation posted 2 years, 2 months ago 11 Responses

  • RE: Cosmoclimatology

    Yeah...but weren't they predicting Global Cooling in the 70s?On Thursday event in D.C. seeks carbon questions posted 2 years, 2 months ago 15 Responses

  • Can I just point out...

    ...if limitting one's carbon footprint were the basis given--and it was--as a moral imperative to not eat meat, then surely we should have broken off this "conversation" long ago.

    Anyone participating in this discussion--ie. airing one's views indulgently and at length with no expectation of a useful result--must surely be guilty of wasting this planet's resources for a selfish end.

    If we're to have no moral choice in the matter of eating meat, then wouldn't that apply to futile internet pissing contests?On PETA VP argues vegetarianism is the best way to help the planet posted 2 years, 2 months ago 77 Responses

  • what I find interesting

    is that Galileo, with a lot more stacked against him, was listened to by the people who matter, and his message got out and was appreciated in an astonishingly short time, given the circumstances.

    The "skeptics" aren't oppressed, just ignored. This forum is insignificant in the grand scheme of things. They have had as much opportunity to communicate their ideas as anyone has had in the history of science, and yet they've failed to convince anyone much. 'Nuff said.On More on climate skepticism posted 2 years, 2 months ago 5 Responses

  • carnivore, omnivore, vegivore...

    "Throughout the spring, summer, and autumn, the chipmunk's diet is supplemented with insects, earthworms, flowers, berries, cherry and plum pits, mushrooms, and occasionally eggs or flesh of dead animals. Rare instances of chipmunks preying on birds or small mammals have been observed."

    "Snowshoe hares occasionally scavenge meat from the carcasses of other animals. Most small herbivores, including mice, voles, and rabbits, will eat meat occasionally if it is available--good sources of protein are rare in plant foods, so most herbivores eat meat when they can." Hinterland Who's Who

    The thing that best defines us as a species is not in our teeth, but our intelligence and social habits. The animal we're closest to is a chimp, a species that co-operates to hunt. The species with the best-developed organizational and cooperative abilities are predators like lions and wolves.

    It's been speculated that early hunter-gatherers occupied an ecological niche similar to that of a brown or black bear--80% vegetarian, not above scavenging, and with the ability to hunt when needed, and a nearly irresistable desire to hunt when particularly tender, helpless morsels--deer fawns and moose calves--are available. In the natural world too, interspecies relationships aren't pretty.

    Indeed, it's also been speculated that our species could not have differentiated without hunting. Our brains grew incredibly rapidly in a short period of time. The increased availability of protein brought about by primitive hunting techniques allowed for bigger brains, which were selected because they allowed for better hunting techniques.On On PETA's latest campaign posted 2 years, 2 months ago 256 Responses

  • and further to the point...

    on doing my own research, I've found to my delight that eating local, pasture-raised red meat is remarkably easy to do here in the UK. I'm still looking out for the carbon figures, but I'm now reasonably confident that my one or two beef/lamb/venison meals per week isn't what's responsible for the world's being such a bad place.

    Maybe that's a more useful piece of information than all the moral vitriol. I wouldn't normally say this, but maybe what Gristers should be concentrating on is making the US (and Canada and Mexico) more British.On On PETA's latest campaign posted 2 years, 2 months ago 256 Responses

  • Thanks Wiscidea

    #2 [whether meat is environmentally acceptable] should be discussed here... can it be done sustainably and to what extent?

    is an excellent point. A website like this should be about sharing ideas, and not touting one's actions or judging another's.On On PETA's latest campaign posted 2 years, 2 months ago 256 Responses

  • principle vs practise

    I'd say that one thing we have ample evidence of is this:

    If you want someone to go vegetarian, don't tell them to go vegetarian.

    This statement may offend your a priori reasoning, but can you really say there's no truth in it? No amount of being right can make up for the fact that you're not effective.

    Pardon me for being uncomfortable with moral clarity. But isn't it more useful, both philosophically and practically, to ask yourself why seemingly intelligent, intellectually honest people like David Roberts are willing to admit hypocrisy on this issue? Why people like me--at the very least, more engaged and better informed than most--actually find it easier to give up a car (and a home in the suburbs) than to give up meat?

    Of course it may be that ultimately I'm a selfish prick who's not willing to go very far for my convictions. I'm reluctantly open to that possibility, and the fact that I've not been completely honest with myself in this respect. But I'm not sure that an explanation this simple would do justice my situation, and those of the millions of other omnivores on this planet, some of whom are like me, others not... the truth is more complicated, and more wonderful than all that. Am I selfish? it's fine for you to say "yes". But it'd only be interesting if you said why.

    In the end, if you cared about all the things in Matt's list, you might consider ending your life, and take several others with you. Now, I know that's not fair to Matt's argument: I know that there's a fundamental difference between the two propositions. What I want to know is where the distinction liesOn On PETA's latest campaign posted 2 years, 2 months ago 256 Responses

  • I have seen Bjorn Lomborg...

    ...and he is us. Just reading through this thread of comments reminded me how often we use cherry-picked data and favour our own pet "particular"-case scenarios in sorting through information.

    I urge everyone to go back over the coments--here or anywhere--and count the assumptions, the unsupported assertions, the clear preferences for various imagined environmental outcomes. For example: "99.9999% of the coastal areas will become sacrificial landscapes..."

    We can't have debate without sloppy oversimplifications and implicit assumptions. But we should probably strive to. I think the best thing to do is what Joseph does: address the issues directly. Reading this post has helped me clarify an issue that is still a mass of confusing, disparate information to me, so I have reason to thank the Lomborg. And whatever his factual failings, I've always found his points about adaptation strategies and his economic rationales thought-provoking if not convincing.On Lomborg misrepresents possible sea-level rise posted 2 years, 2 months ago 27 Responses

  • 2 out of 3 ain't bad...

    the first 2 points were quite good, though I think number two needs to be talked about much more in the enviro community...

    But number 3 I have a problem with, and it too deserves to be expanded upon. It's far from given that the loudest voice in a crowded room is the most effective. That's one advertising strategy, but only one, and a somewhat discredited one at that. All advertising carry multiple messages: not just the "facts" but about the reliability and status of the messenger. A product that attracts the most attention can easily be flash-in-the-pan. Meanwhile, many more successful products market themselves quietly, to a small set of "early adopters" who turn out to be much better representatives for a product than anything the 40something ad execs can come up with.

    Of course, these arre products, and the marketing of environmental messages will be somewhat different. But some of the same principles will apply. I think that playing the moralising, nagging environmentalist (a 'narrative' many people are all too happy to buy into) risks doing more harm than good. In this case you have distaste for both message and messenger. We've all seen the cognitive contortions performed by those who simply can't believe that enviros can be right, or non-alarmist, about science, let alone economic policy. A good number of other, more "ordinary" folks keep enviros at arm's length, having no interest in identifying with people with such "extreme" values. And yes, for many people, vegetarianism is an extreme value. This campaign, in which we sacrifice one of our own, will serve only to reinforce the notion that enviros are extreme, and extremely unpleasant.

    Personally, I'm an environmentalist because it just makes sense. Try telling that to most people. It's a message you have to explain to people, not scream at them. Enviros are an alarmist bunch, because we've attracted the type of people who are attracted by screaming. Effective communication isn't defined by how many people hear your message today, but by what people will retain of it one year from now. For a "movement of conscience", it's important to make people think rather than react; to make people feel comfortable with you and not threatened by an overbearing presence; and unltimately to identify with you. I just don't think screaming and moralising achieves that.On On PETA's latest campaign posted 2 years, 2 months ago 256 Responses

  • the fourth position...

    I think this post downplays the significant success of organized consumer action. I'm talking about the organic, fair trade and FSC-style labelling--somewhere between the private and civil spheres, I guess. No, they haven't sovled the world's problems, and in some cases haven't even lived up to their own promises. But when put in a(n) historical context they have had a remarkable and surprising success during the few short years they've been existed. And please don't lump the labelling schemes in with different forms of green consumerism, like designer shopping bags and purchases of celebrity-endorsed CFLs.

    The fair trade standard is how old? About 2/3 of the coffee at my local el-cheapo corner store carries the label, and all of the cofffee at my supermarket does. The produce in my supermarket is about 40% certified organic, and they've pledged to do more in the future, on both fronts (and I actually believe them). This is a case where the consumer spoke, and the corporations listened. Remarkable. Then the politicians pricked up their ears, here in Britain at least. These movements are far from over: we need to think of the results ten/twenty years down the road, if such programs were to go from strength to strength, and if they worked in conjunction with other efforts--consumer, political, and "civil".

    Again, I'm not saying that such consumer efforts are sufficient to produce total sustainability. And they certainly didn't rise up in isolation of other societal factors. And I definitely agree that civil society is the way to go, for all kinds of reasons. But we'd be foolish to downplay the powerful sort of dynamic that's been demonstrated by the consumer-labelling movements.On It's not that individuals can't do anything about climate -- they just can't do it by themselves posted 2 years, 2 months ago 30 Responses

  • Stephen Colbert

    ...has the best job in the world.On Colbert does the Borg posted 2 years, 2 months ago 4 Responses

  • this is funny...

    ...except that it isn't. The guy's a lawmaker, for criminy sake. With power. He shouldn't be allowed to drive, let alone use a fork.
    On Alaskan senator invents new theory of global warming posted 2 years, 2 months ago 13 Responses

  • Hot Rocks

    Remember that MIT study that came out a while ago about "Enhanced Geothermal Systems"? The one that said:

    Based on growing markets in the United States for clean, base-load capacity, the panel thinks that with a combined public/private investment of about $800 million to $1 billion over a 15-year period, EGS technology could be deployed commercially on a timescale that would produce more than 100,000 MWe or 100 GWe of new capacity by 2050.

    and said:

    By almost any criteria, the accessible U.S. EGS resource base is enormous - greater than...130,000 times the current annual consumption of primary energy in the United States.

    Now suppose that some of that money you guys just spent on beating Love into the hearts and minds of Iraqis was invested in developing EGS? Like, $15 bn a year for 15 years, rather than the $1 bn/year proposed by the study? How much sweet baseload would you be pumping out by 2050? All of it Middle East- and pollution-free.*

    This could happen, but your government seems intent on letting the terrorists win.

    *Warning: may cause earthquakesOn It's time to stop accepting the claim that we 'can't' switch to renewable energy posted 2 years, 2 months ago 21 Responses

  • Well put.

    Bruce Nilles, I mean. Seems to me that

    these coal plants are the worst legacy we can leave to the next generation
    is a really good way of putting it. Not over-the-top, not all "your kids are going to DIE", just matter-of-fact. Grabs your attention and makes you think--"You know?What the hell are my kids going to do with this shit, anyways?" Seems like it'd be good for getting that all-important soccer Mom support.

    I dunno. Maybe I'm making too big a deal, but that phrase seems to speak volumes more than the shrill warnings and dour resignation that the environmental camp usually puts out. Even the celebs, when they spout their eco-drivel, sound a bit like they've been body-snatched. Not exactly deep thoughts.

    Enviros would do well to remember the power communication can have as an art--a subtle but potentially strong one. A turn of phrase that puts things succinctly and intelligently will connect more deeply than the usual litany, or the why-the-hell-don't-you-care-about-this-as-much-as-me-don't-you-know-you're-going-to-DIE?

    I mean, don't we remember what happened to Fat Homer when he did that?

    I'm just saying...On The coal industry's rush to build new plants is bumping up against reality posted 2 years, 2 months ago 5 Responses

  • been done before...

    http://www.theonion.com/content/node/30624On Al Gore on making room for outrage posted 2 years, 2 months ago 3 Responses

  • I agree with you there, cc...

    The "faulty paradigm" theory is one for which I have a great deal of sympathy. The climate is an incredibly complex subject, and we know that when confronted with the unfathomable, humans tend to see patterns that don't actually exist. I also have no doubt that such things can occur communally as well as individually, with solid work being built on insufficiently-tested previous assertions, slowly leading away from the truth...

    But I have reasons for thinking that this is not the case for AGW. One is that there's absolutely no evidence. This despite the fact that there are many people who would wish it to be true, including me. The faulty paradigm hypothesis, while plausible, doesn't have a lick of real evidence to support it.

    Another is that I believe that 'science' is in quite a good state now. With the internet, there are more possibilities than ever for scientists to talk to one another, and test each others work. This enables scientists to perform the checks and balances integral to the scientific method to an unprecedented degree. Make a mistake, and someone will find it, as happened two seeks ago. Also, scepticism, and "thinking outside the box" is as well-ingrained into our academic culture as it ever has been.

    While I hold out hope that the present state of climate science will indeed prove to be a scientific wrong turn, I'm not holding my breath. Given the stakes involved, I see no choice but to act on my thorouhgly thought-out position.
    On 'They predicted global cooling in the 70s'--But that didn't even remotely resemble today's consensus posted 2 years, 3 months ago 29 Responses

  • the debate is not online

    carboncat, our discussion here has little more relavance to the development of Global Warming theory than the stacks and stacks of porn that's also online.

    Now, for your evolution analogy: Do you have any idea how the theory of evolution was received in Darwin's time, and a long time after? It's been one of the most contentious, and most emotional scientific issues of the last 150 years, and continues today. Thank God (no irony intended) that scientists saw it for what it was, and science progressed, depsite the enormous resistance among the populace, politicians, and the church.

    As for respect, there are several authors who have explained Global Warming theory in deatil, with nuance and with respect. Try Tim Flannery or Chris Mooney, though I have only read excerpts.

    It would seem that Global Warming theory meets the standards you set in your post.

    Of course, there are differences between AGW and the theory of evolution, and any good analysis of this type would take that into account. AGW is still relatively new, and no-one important denies that there are areas of uncertainty and much more refining needs to be done. The "consensus" is on the fact that the main lines of the theory are agreed upon, and more than sufficiently certain represent a compelling case for action.

    If you want an intelligent, balanced view of Global Warming, written by knowledgeable people, then why not ignore the noise, and try the various testimonials written by NOAA, NASA, NAAS, the Royal Society... There are dozens of these online as well as those of individual scientists, speaking for themselves...On Why do documented liars and dummies get taken seriously about climate change? posted 2 years, 3 months ago 28 Responses

  • We HAVE won the debate,

    but you just can't convince some people. The people who count are convinced. If 'science' had to convince evey last curmudgeon, contrarian and flat-earther before moving forward, then we'd be stuck in the dark ages.

    And what a silly thing to say: "if the oceans rise by 20 feet, hurricanes increase in frequency and intensity, there are worldwide food shortages, etc etc" then we won't have won, we'll have lost. Oh, the irony.On Why do documented liars and dummies get taken seriously about climate change? posted 2 years, 3 months ago 28 Responses

  • where's the fallibility?

    Global Cooling was a (presumably) interesting and plausible hypothesis that was tested, and quickly rejected. This is science working precisely as it should. It speaks overwhelmingly not to the failings of scientific prediction, but its strengths. 'Science' can distinguish between the good guesses and the bad ones.

    It's a very good thing when scientists make strange or controversial predictions, or hypotheses, then lay them out to inspection by others. Because in science, all possibilities must be accounted for. Occasionally, these crazy ideas turn out to be revolutionary. More often they don't. Good science neither accepts nor rejects hypotheses uncritically, unlike the people who speak in its name.On 'They predicted global cooling in the 70s'--But that didn't even remotely resemble today's consensus posted 2 years, 3 months ago 29 Responses

  • Chest-style fridges...

    That's cool, but a frequent disclaimer that needs to be made about electricity-efficient off-gridders is that they usually live in the country, on acres and acres of land. The possibility for eco false economies abounds.

    My tight urban lifestyle is highly land- and transportation-efficient, and there's no way I could fit a chest-style fridge into my kitchen. I need every available square foot for chopping surfaces and appliance stacking. On Smeg me posted 2 years, 3 months ago 12 Responses

  • You're missing the point...

    which is:

    If she had the time and resources, Wilson...says she would have tried to "stop [the plant] dead in its tracks."

    Talk is cheap. Offsets exists precisely because time and resources are limited for all of us.

    The linked article was high on morals and short on details, but a few seem important:

    Texas is not a painless place to rein in polluting industries, and battles fought in court can be insanely expensive, with victories far from guaranteed. I'm not suggesting that stopping mighty coal is another easy day in the office. But giving coal the green light should never be done, even on the hardest terrain. No new coal means no new coal, regardless of the corporations' concessions.

    I see she's read the Charge of the Light Brigade...

    In this case, the concessions seem grand. NuCoastal has agreed to offset 100 percent of its mercury reductions by reducing emissions by 80 percent and purchasing mercury emissions credits. The corporation has also promised to offset 100 percent of its carbon dioxide emissions through a variety of credible-sounding avenues: funding energy efficiency programs, shutting down a comparable source of emissions, building wind turbines, or investing in carbon sequestration equipment.

    So, rather than get concessions from the company, they should pour valuable resources into a lost cause?

    There's a time when direct, symbolic action will be strategically effective. But there's also a time when it will bear high costs and low returns, and the best course of action would be to pursue your efforts elsewhere. From the information supplied in this article, it's impossible to say that that occurred in this instance, but it seems quite plausible.

    Let's assume that they were powerless to stop the plant: they got their concessions, and freed up resources to pursue more effective strategies, like, say, pressing for a moratorium, rather than fighting each plant individually. How on earth could that be: a) an indulgence, or b) a bad thing?

    Only if it could be proved that a deathmatch would yield a net positive result. Can you do that, Gar? Until we know better, shouldn't we trust "a group that otherwise does stellar work" to understand where their strategic interest lies?

    Again, an offset can be either an indulgence or a valuable strategic tool. Every case must be weighed on its own merits. On Because voluntary offsets are never, ever like indulgences posted 2 years, 3 months ago 19 Responses

  • "the climate-change alarm

    ...that now harms patients."

    That statement alone sets off my climate-fraudster alarm. I mean, it's really, really hard to determine the harm caused by most substances, yet alone psychological phenomena.

    I wonder if the harm done by "climate-change alarm" is as well-documented as that done by second-hand smoke? I'd be interested to know "Dr" Schulte's opinions on the matter of environmental tobacco smoke. I wonder what other unproven assertions lard this paper. Sounds like a bad joke to me.On Flawed new analysis purports to show that there's no scientific consensus on climate change posted 2 years, 3 months ago 34 Responses

  • Come on...

    No one listens to Karl Rove any more. He's one of the most hated people on the planet, reviled by left and right alike. He's made the Republican party synonymous with dirty, divisive politics. He's probably handed the Democrats victory in 2008. They'll be able to use his name to score easy points for a generation. His style of politics can be maddeningly effective when it works, but when it fails, it falls hard.On Karl Rove says history to view Bush as 'far-sighted leader' posted 2 years, 3 months ago 25 Responses

  • oops

    I meant to include in my comment that the denialists will change their tune in a second, once some nuance comes along that they can distort into "seems the science isn't settled after all".

    Andrew, you're right. I think that if my science profs in university had spent more time talking about science (and I don't mean "science in our world"), I'd have gotten much better marks. It's only later that I've come to appreciate the "greater" scientific method as this incredible disciplining and organizing force for individual or collective thought. If only writers in other fields cared about the difference between a well-tested and a poorly-tested hypothesis. On Thoughts on Chris Mooney's Storm World posted 2 years, 3 months ago 5 Responses

  • thank you for this

    What fascinates me about the cimate debate is how laypeople use and misuse science and scientists. The deniers are notoriously fickle: depending on what they're saying, 'scientists' are a bunch of greedy, fame-seeking idiots with a liberal agenda and a penchant for global governance. Meanwhile, the lesser-light defenders of AGW are constantly telling you that everything they say is backed by 'scientists' and can end any discussion with a simple "you know nothing about science." Sadly, the 'consensus' has become a crutch for the unthinking breed of environmentalist--one with which they will gleefully beat their opposition. Neither of these groups seem particularly interested in the scientific method.

    So, what does it feel like to be fought over like this?

    Personally, I think it's time people became more scientifically literate. By which I don't mean re-taking high school physics, but learning about the scientific method, and other systems of objective, critical thought. Chris Mooney seems really good on this topic. Can't wait til I can get a hold of this book.On Thoughts on Chris Mooney's Storm World posted 2 years, 3 months ago 5 Responses

  • I'm just saying...

    Interesting how it also coincides with hurricane week. Maybe that proves how "oil and water really do mix."On ... for real posted 2 years, 3 months ago 4 Responses

  • we should take this for what it is...

    that is, an honest reflection of human nature. Not as (we think) it should be, but what it actually is. And you don't win at cards by playing the hand you wish you had.

    I wouldn't take this as another example of how mean and low the human spirit is. People do lie in order to reflect, and protect, their personal aspirations, even in anonymous surveys. People lie in polls asking how often they attend church services. We make many of our consumer choices based on this same poorly-fitting couplet of aspiration vs. expectation. (For example, we may buy clothes or cars in an attempt to realize the more intangible qualities we desire in ourselves: confidence, status, beauty, got-it-togetherness; or relaxed, inpretentious, down-to-earthiness... But an over-reliance on external attributes may betray a sense of internal inadequacy)

    Anyway... what this study reveals is what we've always known: the spirit is strong, but the flesh is weak. But we need to remember that the eco-bandwagon is still in its cultural infancy. It is in no way surprising that, a mere 1.5 years after An Inconvenient Truth, people haven't yet managed to resolve their shallow but genuine eco-consciousness into their lifestyles in a more meaningful, consistent way.

    Does your lifestyle completely reflect your eco-aspirations? No, it doesn't. You do what can be reasonably expected of you, given the economic and societal constraints. Your lifestyle is moulded by the reality on the ground, as you see it. So is "theirs". The difference is only one of degree, based on the fact that you obtained your spiritual enlightenment (or whatever) earlier than they did, or you had the benefit of better eco-mentoring.

    Again, look at the eco-choices you've made. What do you do? Recycle? Not drive a car? Educate yourself? Post cathartic rants on the internet? Press for political change? All of these are worthy, in their measure, but none actually embody the change we want to see in the world. We all have a price which we will not pay, even if it means making the world a better place. The respondents to this survey are no different in that respect.

    On a positive note, this survey demonstrates that there is a will. Of course there will always be a number of hard-nut ideological refuseniks who will rationalize that pollution is good and altruism is bad (note: this group does not include Adam Smith, the philosopher.) But this is clearly a distortion of human nature. If they felt they could, most people would freely choose to do "the right thing". What we need to do is to not lose hope, to not let the perfect be the enemy of the good, and to press on with the very difficult and tortuous task of reconciling our immediate human needs with the greater human need of planetary balance. All in all, I believe that if you reconcile it, they will come..On Survey reveals truth about environmental fibs posted 2 years, 3 months ago 8 Responses

  • I'm with David on this one

    There was nothing in that letter would constitute inducement to shop more. The assumption that it does seems a little suspect. The desire to consume more was instilled in people a long time before this letter ever got to them.

    I also love how enviros throw around the 'need for people to consume less' as if it's as easily done as said: "Excuse me, Sir? Could you adopt a new paradigm? And get it done tonight? Thanks."

    We've got to get on top of this paradigm thing, and we need to think much harder about what consumption means to people... and we'll never understand it if we're looking down our noses at people whose choices have been different than ours. People have reasons for what they do. You or I might be right, but that doesn't make us better. Fretting about the great unwashed becoming complacent is just as indulgent as buying a designer shopping bag.

    Actually, when I first read that letter, I somehow came away with the impression that they had indicated the carbon footprint of every product listed. Now that would be paradigm-shifting. On Apparently no one is immune to greenwashing posted 2 years, 3 months ago 32 Responses

  • Great ad.

    Now, why don't they ask people to stop buying plasma TVs?On A simple video about CFLs posted 2 years, 3 months ago 2 Responses

  • Great News...

    Now what about the infrastructure? I'm talking about wind-powered rent-a-battery charging stations along the highways. Cause even if a 120 mile range would satisfy most people's needs, most of the time, I still see that as being a major barrier to widespread uptake. I realize the batteries would need to be standardized, and maybe the technology's not there yet... But shouldn't we be thinking about that?On Comin' 'round the bend posted 2 years, 3 months ago 12 Responses

  • Empty vodka bottle thrown from moving car...

    Kinda says it all.

    Even in bike-saturated Holland, they've found that the safety of cycling is correlated with the number of cyclists using the roads.

    I find that whenever I get behind the (steering) wheel, sooner or later my mind goes into autopilot: it seeks out the lowest possible level of concentration presumed necessary to keep me alive, and stays there. (This level of concentration may be somewhat lower than what is necessary to actually keep me alive. Sooner of later, every driver gets into an accident.)

    Even though I'm an avid cyclist, I still find that bikes are out-of-sight-out-of-mind when I'm driving. When the presence of a cyclist  on the road lulls me out of my complacency, I feel...well, guilty. But for most people the raction to such an inconvenience is probably that most common of progressions: annoyance leading to anger leading to flaming bags of fast food.

    All I can say is: get on yer bike and put yourself in sight. Yay to Critical Mass.On Watch out for that flaming bag of McNuggets posted 2 years, 3 months ago 6 Responses

  • Taking the Heat

    Joseph, I have to agree with JMG: after your absurd mis-review of Heat, I'm afraid you've shaken my confidence in your reviewing abilities. Two of your 'strikes' there were unfounded, and the third irrelevant. This was pointed out to you, and still you're unrepentant. So far, it's Monbiot 1, Romm 0.

    This is important because we all have limited time to be spending on climate-related reading. I'd much rather a book like Heat, that evaluates real-world scenarios in which various technologies would be applied, than yet another admiring roll-call of aspirational always-on-the-point technologies with no critical analysis of how they can be usefully incorporated into real solutions.

    I'll read this book on your recommendation, but consider yourself on strike one...On If you only read one book, pick this one posted 2 years, 3 months ago 10 Responses

  • Never realized...

    what a handsome guy you are, Dave. From your posts, I pictured some sort of a nerd. No comment on your nuts.On Taken by my parents at a Toronto Blue Jays game posted 2 years, 6 months ago 3 Responses

  • the Governator, hands down

    Schwarzenegger is very good news. There's been a lot of talk, confusion and consternation about how to tackle climate change. What the world needs now is love sw somebody who can take charge and say "This is a problem. This is what we have to do." If he does it wearing terminator shades and a leather jacket, so much the better.

    I'm not saying we know exactly what to do, but as everyone keeps saying, the technology is here or on the point of being ready. People would really respond if someone other than Amory Lovins were to give the issue clarity: put all the pieces in order, and chart a plausible course to a fossil-free future.

    I don't know Arnie's actual record very well, but he seems to be someone that people trust, and has a good deal of bi-partisan cred. When he does stuff like this (the letter), he really comes off as taking action on the basis of reason and pragmatism--a breath of fresh air compared to the usual demagogic bickering that seems to be monopolizing American political discourse currently, and global warming in particular.On The federal gov't is blocking state efforts to fight climate change posted 2 years, 6 months ago 4 Responses

  • Nazi threat

    Um... Phil: I like that quote but I'm not sure that ancient Chinese philosophy was quite what Bill had in mind.

    I think the big issue is not getting people to understand what's wrong, but the feeling that it can't be all that serious, can it? The elephant in the room thing. Apart from us misanthropic environmentalists, most people want to believe that things will slowly and inevitably get better, and so have a hard time imagining a fundamentally changed world. Personally, I grew up with the fear of nuclear holocaust, and well, we waited that one out(?) and so now it feels perfectly natural to do the same with GW.

    The "Nazi Threat" analogy provides an object lesson in the dangers of complacency and the real possibility of unimaginable catastrophic events actually coming true.

    Of course, it's been overused as well, but I think that in this case it's much more a propos than with po-dunk dictators like Milosovich or Saddam Hussein.
    On No more canaries in coal mines, please posted 2 years, 6 months ago 31 Responses

  • Yeah...

    The Day After Tomorrow. That'll shut up the critics.On FOX airs 'The Day After Tomorrow' after Murdoch's green speech posted 2 years, 6 months ago 3 Responses

  • "I am not a troll."

    Yes you are JaBailo, and the explanation is found in your next sentence:

    I am one of the few people on Grist who support their arguments with facts and scientific peer reviewed work.

    This self-serving statement is demonstrably and entirely untrue. With it, you signal that you've absolutely no intention to engage in honest, open-minded and respectful debate. You define your arguments to be supreior to any others (despite evidence to the contrary.) Your intention is to inform without extending that privilege to others.

    Being a troll has nothing to do with what position you hold. A troll is anyone who's not interested in, or not able to have, an open-minded, two-sided conversation.On A great profile posted 2 years, 6 months ago 42 Responses

  • Alexandra,

    I couldn't agree more. Skepticism is a process, not a position.

    I'd also like to pick up on something you alluded to, and take it a step further: With a few exceptions on the environmentalist side, the ones who are truly acting in a religious manner in the climate debate, are libertarians: CEI, the Fraser Institute, etc...

    Some deniers are simply ignorant, and don't believe AGW because they don't feel like it, or don't like environmentalists, or liberals, or whatever.

    But for libertarians, AGW is seen as a threat to several core tenets of their worldview. (I wouldn't call these "articles of faith" so much as basic assumptions that underpin the intellectual constructs of their worldview--it doesn't quite equal religious faith, but parallels it closely.) Anyway. These are the people you find acting in a genuinely duplicitous and propagandistic way.On A great profile posted 2 years, 6 months ago 42 Responses

  • War is Hell...

    ...that's why we generally try to avoid it. Doesn't make it any less real.

    Global Warming -- which is clearly due to natural causes.

    In order to believe that, you'd have to believe in monsters. Which you do, apparently. You'd even have to believe that 1000s of the world top minds, people who are much smarter than either of us, are completely incapable of objective, critical thinking. Then you'd have to believe that Gore and the IPCC have some kind of power over independent science academies worldwide. The list goes on...

    I know it feels good when you think you've got some kind of special knowledge that "those fools" around you don't. But it's almost never true. Most heretics are not Galileo.

    I suggest you re-read your posts the next time you accuse someone of irrationality, demagoguery or religious fervour.
    On A great profile posted 2 years, 6 months ago 42 Responses

  • Andrew,

    I take issue with your statement:

    ...they cannot compare to the IPCC in terms of credibility.

    After all, credibility is "The quality, capability, or power to elicit belief."

    The sources the sceptics link to clearly do have the power to elicit belief.On Don't fight it posted 2 years, 6 months ago 44 Responses

  • Circular logic

    JaBailo, you're right--IPCC is not primary research, nor is it a peer-review journal (not sure what "from" is doing here).

    It performs a secondary review of primary, peer-review-published work. So an assertion like the one you quoted can be taken as a peer-reviewed assertion. To reject the New Scientist article on that basis is clearly fallacious.

    I would assume that Svensmark's "book" is not a peer-reviewed journal, so citing it as evidence is clearly hypocritical.

    But still you're probably right. There's clearly no point in your reading the article. On Don't fight it posted 2 years, 6 months ago 44 Responses

  • Don't feed them, give them a new home...

    Hey John Bailo, They were looking for you when I was over at the New Scientist website. If you get a chance, why don't you pop in to see them at:
    http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/dn11462 ...

    (Please note: it's not written by the IPCC.)On Don't fight it posted 2 years, 6 months ago 44 Responses

  • Crisitunity...

    Why not enjoy the bold, crisp taste (TM) of Pure Glacier Water National Park (TM)?

    OK, without a glacier, the park would clearly have to close... but they're sitting on a marketing goldmine. More than twenty years of a cool, clean-tasting (TM) Pure Glacier Water (TM) resource that any number of beverage companies would be dying to get their hands on. And of course: it's organic!

    Best of all, by the time the meltwater resource finally gives out, all that transportation and bottling activity will have created opportunities at other glaciers further north.

    I think you should--no, must--take advantage of this uprecedented opportunity. We can't let dreary, misanthropic  environmentalists deprive millions of Americans their birthright to the clean, cold taste (TM) of Pure Glacier Water (TM).

    Of course, the park should be privatised and sold to a comapny that needs to diversify, Exxon Mobil, who could rename it American/Competitive Enterprise Park in honour of the entrepreneurial spirit of America. They could then sell the water consessions to some like-minded organisation that may recently have lost part of its funding...a perfect partnership.On Contest in need of Grist readers and their funny posted 2 years, 6 months ago 18 Responses

  • A convenient crutch...

    All this stuff could be avoided if science teachers would get off their arses and just teach the science themselves. What kind of university offers a feature film for a science lecture? Why doesn't the prof just tell them the facts? I seem to remember that in my science courses the teachers had no problem discussing disagreement or controversy about an issue, and putting it into proper context, without recourse to "leftist" or "rightist" arguments. I don't see why there has to be now. Teachers are unnecessarily creating controversy by getting Al Gore to do their work for them.

    Givent the controversy, I have no idea why anyone woudn't want to discuss, in detail, the context. It would seem very, very valuable for kids to see the hard facts about the numbers: proponents vs. deniers. And to discuss such things as the possilibility of this being a hoax, hype, or a mass delusion. That would provide the balance that FOX so craves.On Breaking news on Fox posted 2 years, 6 months ago 4 Responses

  • Dude...

    ...whatever.

    I've read some of your posts, ES, and I don't think I'm in a rush to read all of your posts anytime soon. Let's see...you've said the proles (us) aren't capable of understanding earth science, and the PhDs aren't capable of understanding earth science and that leaves...you, I guess.

    We should stop following "false science men" and start following you. Don't think so.

    Wake up, dude.On They don't get that climate is a security issue posted 2 years, 6 months ago 6 Responses

  • We should be so lucky

    Not so long ago, as I was beginning my big European adventure, I found myself in Amsterdam contemplating where I'd like to rest my boots for a while. It was 5pm and my girlfriend and I had just emerged from a few afternoon drinks at the cafe...being late november, the sun was setting and we paused on a bridge to catch the view of it along the canal. While we watched, a commuter--fortysomething lawyer-type in business clothes--biked past, noticed the sunset, and coming to the top of the bridge, grabbed the handrail and sat admiring the view for about thirty seconds before setting off again. This is rush hour in Amsterdam.

    What's best about the dutch cycling culture is how unself-conscious it is. No ridiculous racing gear for a simple commute--they wear their normal clothes and strap plastic bags on their feet when it's raining. On Excellent writing posted 2 years, 6 months ago 9 Responses

  • What are you talking about?

    This is great! I'm going to go take care of our planet right now!!!

    It's actually quite informative too, except for that scientifially-contentious bit about hurricanes...On The worst thing you've ever seen posted 2 years, 6 months ago 4 Responses

  • Excuses.

    Everyone's got one, and this is China's. If you really wanted to play the civilisation game, you could point out that the technology that underpins the lifestyle that China now claims as its birthright...as a higher priority than the climate...is about 95% from the Western World. But this sort of thinking is a trap. It's the type of thinking that makes the Chinese flat-out refuse to learn from the mistakes we made in the West. Cycling, anyone? We should all be concentrated only on achieving sustainable development. We can discuss "who deserves what" later.On Climate change justice is contentious posted 2 years, 7 months ago 5 Responses

  • high crimes and...what?

    I love how the guy says: '"High crimes and misdemeanors" means literally that: a high crime.'On SLC mayor takes on O'Reilly posted 2 years, 7 months ago 2 Responses

  • Good temporary solution

    No "data", unfortunately, but my personal observation is that offsets don't lull us into complacency. We've already got that in spades. Rather, if you look at the huge progress of the past year in societal awareness concerning climate change, and the fact that "carbon neutral" and "carbon offsets" have been some of the most visible aspects of it, then I'd have to conclude that offsets are functioning to raise awareness and empower people.

    I don't think that carbon offsets have prevented a single person from going CFL or picking any of the other low-hanging fruit of energy reduction. And the vast majority of people are not going to jump head-first into the larger changes (not necessarily sacrifices, but fundamental adjustments nonetheless) that will be exceedingly helpful for combating this problem. Retrofitting one's home is not a decision one makes (or can make) overnight.  Time is needed. Offsetting can fill that void, sort of, and wind up acting as a powerful gateway drug, for many...

    Of course, offests are far from perfect and "carbon neutral" is anything but. This sort of calculation simply isn't possible. We're comparing apples and oranges, and it's very difficult for an individual to know when to offset and when to do it oneself. I imagine we'll hit a point where carbon offsetting no longer makes sense. But we're not there yet. We're still in the tip of the tail of the learing curve on the climate issue, and offsets are helping us along nicely, says I.On Dueling assumptions posted 2 years, 7 months ago 18 Responses

  • How did you even know about this?

    David, are you a regular at patsajak.com?

    Anyway, I'm not so worried about what "Sajak Says"...On Vanna can't save you now posted 2 years, 9 months ago 5 Responses

  • Are you people kidding?

    From where I sit, there's been a huge change in the public mood. You never get "sea changes in consciousness at the grassroots", people's worldviews are more like huge battleships that take forever to turn around. I think you're too close to the glacier to see how fast it's retreating. Now, before I use another metaphor, consider some of the things that are new since Feb 6, 2006:

    • Cellulosic ethanol
    • George Bush admitting AGW
    • "Carbon neutral"--word of the year
    • an avalanche of previously skeptical or hesitant notables "coming out" on AGW
    • Al Gore is an admired public figure
    • the Vanity Fair "green" issue.

    Now I realise what these add up to is not: concrete action. But we're talking about the public consciousness.

    Details of the IPCC report have been trickling out for months now, and it's still not officially finished yet, and it's a really dry, detailed scientific document stuffed with abstruse concepts and a tangle of "likely", "very likely", "extremely likely", "more likely than not"... a story like this getting the lead in most of the media around the world is a pretty big deal. Did you expect fireworks?

    I don't expect people to talk about it much, but I think that for many this was the thing that quietly confirmed what they've been thinking about for a long time. It's the last nail in the coffin of the denial stage. That whole stupid debate is officially over, and that's HUGE.On It just ain't sexy posted 2 years, 9 months ago 16 Responses

  • OK, that was the diplomatic version

    you can find my real feelings here.On Just 'cause it's fun posted 2 years, 9 months ago 4 Responses

  • No question

    Canadians tend to be complacent about the environment--we rely a bit too heavily on the images of mountains forests and pristine lakes to create an identity for ourselves. We do relatively little to deserve that, and many Canadians are genuinely surprised to find out their country's carbon footprint, especially relative to the US.

    (A note on Canadians' anti-Americanism: we don't have an inferiority/superiority complex with respect to European countries. Like so many others, the US is the country we love to hate. It's shameful, I admit, but you guys don't exactly make it hard for us...)

    That bit about the emmissions/GDP is problematic. Unlike most rich countries, Canada is still a major producer of primary resources: industry+agriculture account for 32% of our economy to the US's 21%. This includes oil, the most polluting industry of them all. And guess where most of these resources go? When an American buys Canadian gas, that counts towards GDP in both countries. But the emmissions produced for pumping that oil get counted only in Canada. It's almost like exporting your emissions.

    I could add things like: our government didn't participate in a concerted effort to obfuscate the science of AGW, or our country didn't nearly scuttle Kyoto, or our country didn't elect George Bush, but that would be gloating. And I would never deny that our own response to Kyoto has been worse than abysmal. As for personal lifestyle choices, I can see little difference from Americans except more public transit and a slightly less car-oriented culture, and of course we invented curbside recycling.

    I will say that the supposed attitude shift you mention does seem surprisingly real, and I'm loving it. Feels like people are on the verge of actually doing something. I do think that Canadians on the whole are more progressive: more willing to try out good new ideas. We lack that hard core of anti-environmentalism that you have in the US.On Just 'cause it's fun posted 2 years, 9 months ago 4 Responses

  • Whose fault is it?

    If one man--an intelligent, reasonable one at that--can send the US down a path of unjustified war and generalized ignorance, just by exercising his constitutional rights, doesn't that mean it's the constitution that's wrong? I understand your frustration, but it does no good to blame the symptom and ignore the disease.On Friggin' Nader posted 2 years, 10 months ago 26 Responses

  • No Offense Dr X,

    But I'm going to go with the thousands of respected scientists on this one. I don't doubt your observations--I've seen it happen myself. But assuming that you caught on to something that the entire scientific community missed, is precisely what the denialists do.Let's remember that the beginning of any exponential curve is very shallow. The first couple years of compound interest don't get you squat.

    About getting the message out: I always say to myself "it's common sense, stupid". People still think of the earth as a charity. I just keep calmly reminding them of the fudamental calculus: "economy" + "climate chaos" = "oh shit" or "nuclear proliferation" + "tense international situation" + "climate chaos" = "oh shit"

    Bottom line is, if this were a military or terrorist situation and there was, say, a 30% chance of an enemy attack, the government would be out curtailing freedoms left right and centre, and the public would be loving it. Climate Change has a much better chance of succeding, and only a small chance of not causing chaos when it does, and yet we're incredibly complacent.

    People have had a bit of an avoidance-response to climate change so far, but I think that when people stop to ponder the facts, as they're beginning to do, then they'll appreciate that driving an SUV is roughly equivalent to dangling your 3-year-old  over the balcony railing of a Berlin Hotel. Playing games with your children's future.

    Al Gore's huge success came from talking calmly and straighforwardly about the risks involved. Then Katrina, warming-related or not, provided us with a concrete example of that risk. And that's what we've all got to do. Just lay out the facts as you know them. Leave it to them to be be alarmed.On The definitive word posted 2 years, 10 months ago 5 Responses

  • "organic cotton yoga outfits"

    organic cotton...good...but a yoga outfit? I've never done yoga, but somehow I always thought it was kind of the opposite of "outfit".

    Anyway, Walmart's sold 190,000 of them.

       head...spinning......so...many...mixed...messages

    ...But seriously. I believe the full credit goes to Amory Lovins and RMI for convincing Walmart to go "sustainable". Whatever that means.On All these green initiatives, oy posted 2 years, 10 months ago 9 Responses

  • Rebranding

    I agree with the need to package things in a constructive, useful manner, and that the doom n gloom approach rarely does anyone any favours (although it is important to get people to appreciate how serious the potential dangers of climate change.) But that's just a matter of principal.

    The problem with Luntz is he'll sell you the sizzle, even if the steak is poisoned. He doesn't care about the issues, just winning elections. I hope we don't try to sell the movement at the expense of watering down the issues.

    As luck has it, we don't have to. Environmentalism is all about creating a better world, humans included. For inspiration, I would look at the approach taken by Amory Lovins or Bill McDonough. They're both upbeat, great spinners, and they're backed up by rock-solid reasoning.On GOP strategist Frank Luntz argues enviros are failing -- and they're mean to boot posted 2 years, 10 months ago 35 Responses

  • He's right

    Environmentalists are a bunch of stuborn, self-righteous whiners.

    But guess what? Everybody's like that. Ever watched Bill O'Reilly? Rush Limbaugh? Ever read the comments on conservative blogs about climate change? What about George Bush himself?

    What "Dr" Frank Luntz forgets to mention is that it's not just environmentalists who do it to themselves. They're constantly sterotyped and vilified by many right-wingers in the US--not least of all George Bush Sr and Dick Cheney--to the point where the last thing that people want to be identified with is environmentalism. The coup de grace is that "Dr" Frank was able to perpetuate the stereotype in this interview.

    Personally I hate it when people think in stereotypes rather than the objective truth--that people are individuals, regardless of what "category" they happen to fall into. And when people allow themselves to be led around by their self-image, rather than the facts.

    But that's what "Dr" Luntz is selling. Nothing can take away the fact that he advised the President to obscure the facts and shut down rational discourse on an issue with serious security implications--facts he now blithely accepts. No doubt he advised GWB on how to sell Iraq, too.

    He gambled with the nation's security, to sell his product. That's not mean. That's evil.On GOP strategist Frank Luntz argues enviros are failing -- and they're mean to boot posted 2 years, 10 months ago 35 Responses

  • Good one...

    David, I just listened and I got to say you come of much better. Revkin's points about extreme voices are OK, but there's just not much there. Your portrayal of the debate was much more accurate, nuanced and useful.

    Interestingly, the best part of the discussion was the third part, when you both dropped the premise and just started talking freely about stuff. At that point I had no idea who was the "extremist" and who was the "centre". Some of Mr Revkin's points sounded like he was advocating a calmly alarmed response, while you were like you were advocating an alarmed but calm response.

    Ultimately, it's impossible and unhelpful to impose order on something like this. As long as reasonable and intelligent people keep speaking up, whatever their position, then the debate will sort itself out, though at any given time, to a single individual, it will appear chaotic. That's the brilliant thing about free, society-wide discussion: it can handle things that are much larger than any of us.On Debating the 'new middle' posted 2 years, 10 months ago 3 Responses

  • "Global Weirding"

    = Global Warming = Climate Change = Climate Chaos = Climate Crisis = "increase in severe weather events" = "changing global patterns"

    "Global Warming" is so 1998. Get into the 21st century.On Damn he's smart posted 3 years ago 12 Responses

  • Special Interests

    i say let Mr. Gore stick his albeit politically tainted one in as well.

    Absolutely agree, because the genie's clearly out of the bottle. The point I was making is that there should have been a much better cork in there in the first place. Maybe it's just me, but it seems positively insane--if this organization is what it sounds like(I'm too lazy to Google right now)--that it seems to have no ethical standards vz. funding, influence, etc.

    =<pretentious drivel warning>=

    But there's another point about special interests...They never look like special interests from the inside. No, the environment isn't a special interest, and neither is the cardiovascular system. But advocacy groups are. The Heart and Stroke Foundation is a special interest group. So is NRDC. Some people associate special interests with sleeze, but that's a misappropriation of the term.

    And the "rightness" of our cause shouldn't get you any special favours. Because when you're talking about national policy (or education), then you're not the judge on that. The entire nation is. You can be 100% sure that there are creationists out there who are every bit as convinced of their opinions as we are of ours. And their armed with videos. And if you believe in pluralism (and you should), then you have to accept the possibility that you're the crazy one. You need rules.

    Now you might say that the environment is a public, not a special, interest. OK, but we're not advocating for "the envrionment" but a particular approach to it. And there, the opinions can differ, just look at any of the discussions on this site. So yes indeed, environmental advocacy is a special interest. But that doesn't mean you're not right.

    (BTW if you're wondering what kind of person feels the need to spout off about ethics on the internet--it's someone who has some serious procrastinating to do!)

    </pretentious drivel>On Al Gore out, Big Oil in for public schools posted 3 years ago 11 Responses

  • David,

    Climate science isn't political, but Al Gore is. "Speical Interest" may not be the best term for it, but this is a personal account of the issue from the ex-next-president, there are serious political implications, and he hasn't even ruled out running again (no I know it's not likely.)

    I happen to think it's an excellent documentary, I think it's very fair and balanced, but that's not the point. From the point of view of ethics, a speck of sawdust is the same as a plank. If I don't let Exxon give their version of events, then I don't let Al Gore. Children should learn about the climate from a scientist.

    Look at it this way: if they'd just had a clear "no corporations/no politicians" rule, and adhered to it, we wouldn't be talking about  Exxon getting their oily hands all over a national teachers' organization.

    BTW- a lot of teachers will probably show the thing anyway, don't you think?On Al Gore out, Big Oil in for public schools posted 3 years ago 11 Responses

  • They did the right thing

    ...even if it was for egregiously wrong reasons. I'm for my public & educational bodies staying snow white on special interests, even good ones. It works both ways.

    Or it should--it seems to be going one way here. What I don't get is who these science teachers are, and why they should be receiving corporate funding. Things sure work funny, south of the border...On Al Gore out, Big Oil in for public schools posted 3 years ago 11 Responses

  • I've got an idea...

    Let's see how far we can stretch the word "organic" before it breaks!

    Maybe the concept "organic" just isn't meant to be applied to all things. Other labels would do, like MSC for wild-caught, and a different one for farmed.

    But broadening the term "organic" too much just turns it from something relatively specific--for people who know what they want--into something that people understand only on vague, general terms. It'll become (if it hasn't already) just a synonym for "good", "virtuous", "fancy" or "pretentious". Or "natural": Kate, your already confusing your terms.

    For another thing, it threatens to break the bond of "good for you, good for the planet" that I thought was the original idea.

    One good thing to come out of this...maybe...is if the certifying authorities hold themselves to very high standards, they could drive the development of a truly sustainable method of aquaculture. Because presently, I doubt that any commercial fishery, wild or farmed, is really sustainable.On But it could be organic posted 3 years ago 1 Response

  • rock stars

    Rock stars. Is there anything they don't know?On The pop-punkers team up with NRDC on a new campaign posted 3 years ago 9 Responses

  • bike-accident victims

    Sadly, all of the bike accidents I've witnessed--two real and two very near-misses--were the fault of the cyclist. None were fatal, fortunately, but two could have been. As a devout cyclist myself, I would love to blame the drivers, but unfortunately I have to chalk them up to a sort of self-righteous hubris that infects many in the cycling community. As is too often the case with us human-types, doing the right thing only serves to inflate our sense of entitlement.

    Of course, the bigger issue remains that our streets--and traffic laws--aren't thought-out from the point of view of cyclists. On Wacky and weird posted 3 years ago 4 Responses

  • naked bikers:

    Is that what you mean by biodiversity?On Wacky and weird posted 3 years ago 4 Responses

  • Lord, release me

    ...from the long, frigid English winter! There's only so much...drizzle... a man can take! Once we've conquered God's abomination--winter--the economy will be booming! Just like all those lucky countries in sub-saharan Africa! Screw off-shore windfarms, let's build desalination plants! That'll get the economy going.

    And another thing... why doesn't Grist cover Bush's stance on climate change? Compile a list of his statements and see just what that little monkey's been up to?

    Maybe you're trying to save him some embarassment? After all, his great interest in fuel cells and flex-fuel cars clearly threatens the winterless economic boom we have coming.On Press coverage of climate change is ... changing posted 3 years ago 4 Responses

  • we need leadership

    The Republicans are vulnerable right now. Dubya has got egg all over his face--he's increasingly being seen as ineffective and is no longer the "man of action" voters once assumed.

    The moment is right for the Democrats to capitalize on this sentiment (not very likely, unfortunately) and paint the Republicans' stance on Global Warming as backward and lacking in leadership and vision. They need to portray themselves as the ones taking action to protect the American public from this thorny security threat.

    The Republicans' stance (and Dingell's aparently) is weak and prevaricating. Bush agrees warming is occuring, says maybe it's anthropogenic...don't know...needs more study... Or Menezes' long, rambling, confused, and completely substance-less quote above. This are exactly the type of thing that conservatives have gotten huge mileage from in the past, in mocking liberals for being ineffectual, intellectual pussies. It's a time-honoured tradition. But if the Dems act fast, there's an oportunity right now for them to turn that logic on its head. Don't soft-pedal the issue, come right out and say that yes, it's a difficult, serious problem, and we're the ones for this job. We cleaned up the President's mess in Iraq (!pending!) and now we're cleaning up the mess he's made of New Orleans.

    Another way of putting this: Democrats need to be more like Arnold Schwarzenegger. Though somehow I have the feeling they're still cowed by 38 years of electoral failure and don't have the courage to lead the people to face up to an inconvenient truth.On Mixed reports posted 3 years ago 5 Responses

  • beware cliches

    like "environmental improvements must be made regardless of cost". It sounds good, it sounds strong, but like "stay the course" it doesn't really mean anything. It's encouraging that people are finally concerned about global warming, but most haven't really thought it through yet. The type of action necessary to tackle climate change are probably in conflict with one or more of the paradigms people use in daily life. It'll take time to resolve that conflict--I know it has for me. The situation is perfectly summed up by the phrase "inconvenient truth". People need to make a personal connection with it. Until such time, words in support of action on climate change will remain only words.

    Leadership and education are very important, of course. But this doesn't mean nagging, which is a temptation we environmentalists all too often give in to. Al Gore's movie was exemplary: Get a captive audience, then clearly and succinctly give them all the facts. THen leave them to do the math.

    What I think we need is a "March of the Penguins" for climate change. A movie about the consequences of climate change that hits people in the head and the gut simultaneously. Gets them to make that personal connection. The latest installment of David Attenborough's "Planet Earth" (do you get those in the States?) showed a polar bear stranded in a sea of melting pack ice that was too soft to support him. It was heartbreaking....David Attenborough's such a genius filmmaker... I'm thinking that if you throw those images on the big screen then market it to the point of media frenzy... you'd have the evangelicals at least with that one.On What does it all mean for the future? posted 3 years ago 5 Responses

  • not hubris

    and 100% non-political. I'm not partisan in this matter, as I'm not a democrat or even American. It was 100% joke, irony at the expense of a guy who seems like a bit of an arse. It was his personality, not his politics.
    On Webb wins in Virginia posted 3 years ago 7 Responses

  • Senator Allen,

    Welcome to post-election America, Macaca.On Webb wins in Virginia posted 3 years ago 7 Responses

  • what does "fungible" mean?

    If this is true, then add another $100 bn to the amount of annual subsidies given to the oil & gas industry.

    Or to put it another way, the addict analogy is more apt than ever. We've gone from the recreational, it's-good-for-my-economy stage to the desperate, self-destrutive, phase of addiction. This war has been a disater in so many ways... like the addict, America has lashed out at her friends who tried to councel her, her behaviour has brought shame and made enemies, and she's neglecting her international responsibilities...  It's quite obvious that with growing demand and tightening supply, not only will the price of oil increase, but so will the costs involved with "liberating" the international oil market.

    The economist will ask: when does the price of staying on oil exceed the price of quitting?

    The pseudo-psychologist (me) says that quitting cold turkey isn't as bad a thing as you normally think. You normally only find the strength to change when you really, really have to, but that's for another post...On Are the two connected? posted 3 years ago 6 Responses

  • Come on, be fair

    Arnie's had, like, 20 years of fun, riding jets and strutting around aircraft carriers. He was ready to settle down and do some real governing.

    It's all well and good for Arnie to tackle boring issues like global warming, because he's had an exciting life. But Bush hasn't.

    Admit it, if you were president, you'd do the coolest problems first. Ones with gunships and guided missiles and night vision goggles! All that confusing climate shit...or protecting the ports...BORING.On If so, what? posted 3 years ago 3 Responses

  • Look at a map of the world...

    How much water do you see? 75% and climbing. Doesn't it seem that the sea is something to work with, as we creep our way to ultimate sustainability. In a world whose human footprint is rapidly expanding, I think it's foolish to turn our backs on any source of food, let alone the sea, which supports some of the most productive areas on Earth.

    I'm not apologising for the status quo. It's a major problem. But the answer, as for most things, isn't just to avoid it. And I don't mean just because the problem isn't going away (which it's not); I mean I think that things--everything--are better seen as opportunities than crises. Just because the methods we use are unsustainable today, doesn't mean they can't be tomorrow.

    Of course you can make an ethical decision not to eat fish today, if you perceive your presence in the market to be more a part of the problem than the solution. But I personally think that a solution is both necessary and good, so I won't be turning my back on fish... In other words, I seem to agree completely with the flesh and flavour of this report.On Worldwatch releases a hopeful plan for saving the world's fish. posted 3 years ago 9 Responses

  • You're all a bunch of corporate patsies

    "The debate is over."

    Ever heard that before? Do you agree?

    Well then why the heck are you still debating?

    To put it another way: How many tonnes of CO2 were released while you went back online and researched and rehashed old arguments that have been made a thousand times before? How much CO2 were YOU responsible for, while you engaged in a petty squabble with someone (Mr Wojick) whose views you've written off anyway?

    I think Tokyo Tom's on the right track, it would be more interesting to consider the true motives of the few remaining skeptics. It's not really about the science, and not usually about taking money. Mostly it's about challenging worldviews and accepting what, for different reasons for different people, is indeed an inconvenient truth. Personally I think a review of the mentalities, not the science, of Global Warming would be both more interesting and more fruitful--and more difficult. Much more important, however, is to discuss solutions.

    Seriously, I think we should all take a look at what we're doing. Are we not falling prey to the latest distract-and-delay tactic of the deniers? By continuing to argue when the debate is over, by getting worked up at the slightest provocation by the first troll (Mr Wojick) that comes along, are we not just as guilty of inaction as, say, the Australian govt or the Bush administration? Isn't there something more useful we could do?

    The climate change blogs are full of "good news" stories regarding public and political opinion, as Tokyo Tom has pointed out. Why ignore those? Why listen to Inhofe, and ignore Glichrist? The politicians have shifted, the public has shifted. Yes, there's more work to be done...much more work... but that work has nothing to do with the science.

    And finally...please...PLEASE...recognize that while I stand behind the message, the tone of this post is decidedly tongue-in-cheek. In the spirit of good debate. I'm also well aware of my own hypocrisy; I'm getting sucked in every bit as much as you. Such is the nature of the blogoshpere, the opiate of the pseudo-intellectual masses.On A new series posted 3 years, 1 month ago 24 Responses

  • JS: economists are definitely not the enemy...

    ...the economy is our ecosystem, period. But you have to admit that your profession is sometimes guilty of not seeing the forest for the trees...theoretically speaking;-)

    But I definitely agree with you that it's time for addressing the consequences. That's the only thing that matters.

    Coby, jjwfmme:
    So what if a small core of nutjobs still insist on denying Global Warming? The majority of Americans don't. 60% (or whatever) are now "concerned" by it. In addition to  a much larger group of people internationally.

    I'll admit that Inhofe and his ilk did untold damage with their sabotage campaign, and don't get me started about George Bush... But that's over now, thank God. Haven't you noticed how lonely George W. looks this election? Haven't you noticed the republican defections on this issue? The republican state of California's lawsuit to the car makers?

    These are signs--signs that you're failing to read. Inhofe and his crew are being left behind by the great American centre, and you want to stop the boat and turn around because you've got a few things left to say to them? You want to go to the ends of the earth (ie Argentina) chasing down every last nutjob who denies Global Warming?

    It's about consequences now, and that's going to be a much fiercer battle. We need every right-thinking person's attention on that--on the future. The fence sitters and laggards will soon be taken care of by the mainstream consensus that's developping right now. And just forget the extremists, they're not worth it.On 'There is no evidence' -- Yes, there is posted 3 years, 1 month ago 59 Responses

  • What the Hell is a hairshirt?

    And what does it have to do with solutions to Global Warming? Seriously. Why does this dirty hippy image keep on getting raised when it hasn't been representative since the 70s, if then. So why do environmentalists feel the need to apologise before they make a point? It sets the movement back decades, and alienates the centre. (Unfortunately, I think it just goes to show a fundamental human reality: that self-image trumps truth, when it comes to choosing ideologies.)

    But anyway...while not knowing much about this book, I do sometimes worry about the issue being flooded by disorganized, cobbled-together compendiums of fact and lists of miraculous new technology. The thing that makes Amory Lovins stand out is that he seems to have a good grasp of nature, economics (which would be our ecosystem, btw), and has a very good grasp of design. He understands deeply that it's not the technology that's important, but how it dovetails with human culture.

    On the other hand, I recognise that it's still early days in the "adaptation" debate and that we're still very much in the brainstorming phase. We could still use plenty of opinions to chew on, even if they do wind up getting spat out.

    I will say, to anybody interested in solving the world's problems: please read liberally from Amory Lovins (RMI) and Bill McDonough. For their apporach, if not their actual solutions.On A new book says tackling climate change is doable posted 3 years, 1 month ago 19 Responses

  • Robert Ellison,

    If you want to be taken seriously, I suggest a method other than being a troll. It's just common sense.On A new book says tackling climate change is doable posted 3 years, 1 month ago 19 Responses

  • a little perspective...

    Good points, all...but I think it's good to remind ourselves just how far we've come. Climate Change is now front and centre in the media, at least where I'm from. Do you remember what things were like before, say, Hurricane Katrina? Could you have predicted all these Republican defections on the issue? We may still be far from our goal, but the public is moving fast.

    A few years ago, it was widely considered unpatriotic and dangerous to national security to criticise or even comment on Bush's Iraq policy. Now, I think people see him as having let them down in the security department. If Climate Change becomes the burning security issue--and I think that's just beginning to happen--then maybe we'll see the public take the government to task in a way we can't appreciate now.

    Again, I like all the good ideas and criticisms that people have put forward... it's an important discussion that we need to have now. But I think that in a year's time, our ideas will be couched in a very different way, because the framework will have shifted considerably. On When's Obama gonna do something? posted 3 years, 1 month ago 11 Responses

  • PS

    Further to my previous rant, I'd just like to say that I think TokyoTom and, interestingly, Paul Wolfowitz, are barking up the right tree. Less climate science, more social science...On Melting of Larsen B ice shelf connected to climate change posted 3 years, 1 month ago 12 Responses

  • Logical Leaps

    Can one of you climate-journal-contributors help me out here?

    When they say they're "able to demonstrate a physical process directly linking the break-up of the Larsen Ice Shelf to human activity", they're not talking about proof here, just that they were able to construct a plausible scenario.

    Cause if that's the case, then... I hate to say it... but Grist is guilty of precisely the same sins of the Inhofe gang: cherrypicking evidence out of its proper context in the long and complicated process of scientific debate.

    I'm not questioning the science in the report, or the integrity of the authors or the journal...because I have no grounds to. But my understanding is that there's plenty of room in a responsible peer-reviewed journal for controversial theories, good guesses, etc... they don't have to be right, just well-conducted. The whole purpose of scientific journals is to present interesting theories which can be taken up, and "proven" or disproven by repetition from other, independent researchers.

    We should never present a scientific article like this for "fact"--leave that to whackos like Inhofe. It's merely one more entry into a long scientific debate...a debate in which very few of us are qualified, even if we do read the original article.

    If you quote this article, and some part of the theory is proven wrong tomorrow, it probably won't reflect badly on the researchers--science can be "wrong" but still "good". But it will definitely discredit Grist.

    The Inhofe Alert is a clever idea, but I think you should choose your "facts" much more judiciously--stick to those items on which there is a clear consensus.

    Actually, on second thought, I think that the Inhofe Alert is a complete waste of time. The support around people like Inhofe is melting away faster than an arctic ice floe. You're letting yourself get distracted by a tiny lunatic fringe, and you're spending valuable time and energy rooting around scientific journals for mud to sling. Rididculous. That's yesterday's battle. We need all our energy for today's fights: eliminating carbon emmissions and adapting to the change that is inevitable. Attacking Inhofe like this amounts to fiddling on the roof while our planet's burning.On Melting of Larsen B ice shelf connected to climate change posted 3 years, 1 month ago 12 Responses