Comments Easterbunny has made

Yes - Smoked_galaxy (great handle, by the way) said exactly what I was trying to say earlier in the thread. I've tried the "voices and opinions" section a couple of times in the past week, and it's hopeless for that daily fix of commentary.

Still missing Gristmill. Coping better now with the withdrawal symptoms. Have discovered DeSmogBlog, and it works like methadone.

What have you done with gristmill? Can we have it back?

You missed the word "Americans"...

...other parts of the world have better education systems.

Another thought: the question used in the poll is part of the problem. Scientific theories are not things to "believe in". I was asked at a conference dinner recently whether I believed in global warming. It struck me that the question itself was just so wrong. Anyone who phrases the question in this way is unable to distinguish between science and religion. I patiently explained that it's not a matter of belief, it's a matter of whether you understand the evidence. Naturally, the person asking the question had no idea what I was talking about. On On the prospects for broad public understanding of climate science posted 9 months, 2 weeks ago 10 Responses

immediate feedback

Most of the discussions I've seen on this are nothing to do with opt-in vs. opt-out, but instead are to do with ways of providing people with good information at the point they are making decisions. E.g. immediate feedback on the energy & cost savings when turning down the thermostat. There's a nice article here that gives more examples:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/25/science/25tier.html
On Obama's pick to head regulatory oversight agency draws criticism, sends Dave on tangent posted 10 months, 2 weeks ago 3 Responses

I don't get the joke...?

Peter,

That's an interesting set of resources on the website, and I found some of the papers useful, as I'm just starting a study to compare how economic models are validated with how the physical climate models are validated (hint: the comparison is stark).

But the website has a strange smell. I think it's coming from the section entitled "consultants". As a scientist, I have to discount (!) any information offered by someone trying to sell consultancy services. Strange how you never see any (e.g.) atmospheric physicists pushing consultancy services alongside their publications.....

....or is that the "sense of humor" part?On Climate website combines economics with climate change realities posted 11 months, 2 weeks ago 1 Response

WSJ doesn't get it

Let's see - a whole article on a fall in demand for electricity, in which the cause is painted as a complete mystery. Are the folks at WSJ really this dumb? Is there editorial policy that they can't even mention the elephant in the room? Or are they just so cynical that they can't even consider the possibility that significant numbers of people are taking real action on energy use in response to what we know about global warming?On Unplugging posted 1 year ago 16 Responses

The Star...

The Toronto Star is normally a left-of-centre newspaper, with a strong emphasis on urban issues. It frequently campaigns on green issues, and does a nice line in investigative journalism, particularly on health issues. However, its coverage of the federal election has been pretty shallow this time round, and this particular article is really lacking in substance - it appears to be based on a partial quote taken out of context. Note that the original story doesn't tell you anything about the question that Dion was responding to. None of the other media outlets have picked up this story, which would be very strange if the story as reported in the Star is correct.

Oh, and the comment section on that page only indicates that the rightwing blogosphere has gotten excited about this story.On Hope dimming for Canadian carbon tax posted 1 year, 2 months ago 5 Responses

Nice of you to notice

I wondered when Gristmill would start to see beyond it's fascination with the US elections. The Canadian elections do matter, and not least because the Liberals (who like to describe themselves as the natural party of government in Canada) have adopted a carbon tax as the centerpiece of their policy.

First,  you missed an important detail about the argument over the televised debates. The fifth party trying to get access was the Green Party. Although they have polled between 8% to 10% in the last few elections, they had no seats in parliament (because of the first past the post system). However, a couple of weeks ago, they picked up a seat because a sitting MP left the Liberal party and joined the Greens. The media consortium that controls the leadership debates said it still wouldn't include the greens in the televised debates because the leaders of three of the other parties objected (and threatened to pull out). There was an immediate public outcry, which then led the other leaders to reverse their positions and agree to allow the leader of the greens into the debate. The strength of the public outcry indicates that something important has shifted in the Canadian political landscape.

Second, the liberals are trailing in the polls mainly because their new leader, Stephane Dion, has been consistently portrayed in the media as a weak leader. However, it was Dion who bullied the party into adopting the Carbon tax as their key platform, and it's interesting to watch how the idea is gaining traction. The result of the election will almost certainly be another minority government, but it's possible it might be the Liberals forming a coalition government rather than the Conservatives, certainly the trend in the polls this week indicate the gap is closing fast. This is most definitely not a dull election.On Canada has its own elections, which may shape future of a carbon tax posted 1 year, 2 months ago 10 Responses

fix science education then

The route of the problem is that science education in the US is totally broken.

Here's a useful primer on how to fix it:
http://coehp.uark.edu/pase/TheMythsOfScience.pdf
On CEI deniers praise Andy Revkin, diss Tiger Woods posted 1 year, 5 months ago 9 Responses

it is shoddy leadership

So, you construct an argument that high gas prices are not a result of Bush's shoddy leadership, because there's nothing he could have done to prevent it. That's only true if you have an extremely narrow view of the problem - i.e. that it's the prices themselves that are the problem, rather than the difficulties that high gas prices present to the majority of the population.

Bush had a clear set of choices over the past 7 years. He could have listened to clear scientific evidence about climate change and peak oil, and diversified the US's energy sources, demanding higher efficiency vehicles, investing in renewables and energy efficiency. Or he could have listened to the greedy, blinkered view of his oil company buddies, and helped line their pockets further.

He chose wrong. This is shoddy leadership at its worst.On We need to be freed from gas, not the gas tax posted 1 year, 7 months ago 9 Responses

"...to more rapidly slow the growth..."

Now there's a rallying cry we can all get behind.

Along similar lines:
"to more successfully fail to achieve any progress"
"to more clearly obfuscate the obvious message"
"to more proactively delay an interventionist strategy"On President Bush's speech on climate change, 16 April 2008, as prepared for delivery posted 1 year, 7 months ago 10 Responses

Give him a break

Oh come on. He was asked a sensible question and gave a sensible answer. An incoming president will need to get stuff kickstarted as quickly as possible on climate change, and getting Gore involved is the obvious thing to do.

BTW I was amused by the CBC's version of this story. It ended with the following paragraph

Gore is perhaps the single most coveted endorsement up for grabs in tight competition between Obama and Clinton, a New York Senator and former first lady who is married to Bill Clinton.

... that's just in case any Canadians have been living under rocks for the past 15 years.On Obama just can't quit Gore posted 1 year, 7 months ago 4 Responses

What does "efficiency" mean?

I too still don't understand why an "efficient" heater is better from a CO2 perspective? I imagine when people talk about relative efficiency of heating devices, they are concerned with things like how quickly can the device generate heat where it is desired. But as any energy loss must end up as heat somehow, then the argument that a more "efficient" heater is better from a CO2 perspective than a less "efficient" one depends on assumptions about whether the "waste" heat stays where it is needed or not.

Now, granted I'm an unusual case, but here it is:
I have zero-carbon electricity, but have a gas furnace for heating. I only use an airconditioner for maybe 2-3 weeks per year, but use heating for 6-8 months of the year. My house is reasonable well insulated.

If I replace all my incandescent bulbs with CFLs (and do nothing else) my carbon footprint rises, because I've switched some heating from (zero carbon) electricity to natural gas. Joe argues I could then also buy some high efficiency electric heaters to switch that heat back to electricity. Well sure, but now I've had to buy new bulbs and new heater(s), when I would almost certainly have been better off spending that money on better insulation, replacing the furnace with electric, swapping my car for a hybrid, etc. The lightbulbs seem to be irrelevant.

Or did I completely misunderstand what "efficiency" means for electric heaters?On Please don't use incandescent bulbs for heating posted 1 year, 8 months ago 12 Responses

Oh no. This is addictive. Can't stop.

Many fools. Ignoring the Evidence. We're doomed.

Or, if you want something more hopeful:

Act now. Reduce your footprint. Live sustainably.On Here's your chance to be the Pollan of climate change posted 1 year, 10 months ago 94 Responses

yes but...

are you sure you want to use aluminium rather than stainless steel?
http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/abstract/11346 ...On On battling (plastic) bottled-up rage posted 1 year, 10 months ago 5 Responses

well that was a waste of time

Pretty useless really. More proof that the youtube phenomena dumbs everything down. Get some "intellectuals", invite them to make youtube-sized soundbites, and you get, well, you get shallow soundbites.

Next.On Smart people talk about serious questions posted 1 year, 10 months ago 3 Responses

China vs. America?

China's extremely corrupt one-party government

How exactly is that much different from America's extremely corrupt two-party corporatist government?

Joe Romm put it nicely in his book: America and China have a mutual suicide pact with respect to climate change. Neither has the governance model they need to get out of this mess.On Stern says he underestimated climate risks posted 1 year, 10 months ago 28 Responses

global justice, equity *and* carbon taxes?

Okay, so now it becomes much clearer why the right wing in the US have been playing the climate skeptic game. They saw this coming:

...countries and sectors that have contributed the most to the climate crisis -- the rich countries and transnational corporations of the North -- must pay the cost...

That basically means the industrialized countries could be asked for reparations for 2 centuries of industrial pollution. You can put forward whatever rational arguments you like, but the rightwing will only ever hear it as "death to capitalism". And they will fight this with everything they can throw at it.On The Bali meeting, and the lessons learned posted 1 year, 11 months ago 11 Responses

that's food for thought

Nice to see some critical analysis of the assumptions around such purchase decisions.

I'm not sure I buy the argument you make initially that (given you have definitely decided to buy a new car) the money saved on the purchase of a cheaper, non-hybrid car will be spent on things that have a more beneficial effect than the extra fuel efficiency you are foregoing. Simple reason: the money will likely be spent on more consumer goods of some kind. Not buying at all is nearly always better than buying "green" products, unless any of those products are actually carbon negative (which seems unlikely). I suppose you could give all the remaining money to a (good) carbon offset scheme, but if you're the kind of deeply committed person who would do that, then you're probably going to find a way of avoiding car ownership altogether.

Does anyone know what the carbon footprint of the manufacturing process is? Does it make a significant difference to the calculation?

And shouldn't we be comparing the overall cost (both in temrs of carbon and dollars) of joining a scheme such as zipcar, versus owning your own car?On High gas prices make hybrids look even better posted 1 year, 11 months ago 45 Responses

exceptionalism = arrogance

What most of these people seem to be demonstrating is that America is so smug in its belief that it is the greatest nation on earth, that it cannot possibly accept that there is any problem with sustainability. Joyce Carol Oates and Bernard Lewis come the closest to saying this explicitly, the rest merely demonstrate it in their attitudes.

But between them, these people show very clearly why America appears to be the last nation on Earth to accept the urgency of the challenge of global waming.
On The intelligentsia isn't helping the public understand the urgency of the climate crisis posted 2 years, 1 month ago 10 Responses

don't throw away stuff you might need

I can't help but think that blasting even a tiny portion of the atmosphere into space might not be a good idea. Any what about those oxygen molecules that will be going along for the ride?On A new solution from a plasma physicist posted 2 years, 5 months ago 15 Responses

Your angry at me agreeing with you???

I am very angry with people such as the falsely so-called Easterbunny, who think that we Catholics have nothing to say of any value on anything.  True, we have been fuck-ups generally

I guess there's not much more to say.

But I'll say it anyway. Catholocism is a dangerous cult. How many people have died of AIDS because of stupid fucking dogma that says you can't use condoms if you're a member of the cult?
And they start the brainwashing with small children. I was brought up within this cult, but luckily for me I escaped in my teens. I had to unlearn a huge amount of crap that I had been taught by adults I had trusted.On Green the Pope way posted 2 years, 6 months ago 29 Responses

Hot SUVs??

But on the way to the article, I have to see a splash page advertizing a feature article on the "hot SUVs of 2007". Oh the irony.On Dingell promises climate legislation posted 2 years, 6 months ago 3 Responses

stop griping...

... and take your own food. In reusable containers. If more people did that, the airlines could finally end this wasteful charade.

A small, encouraging step: Air Canada now sells a variety of ticket options, one of which involves opting for no food service, in return for a small saving on the ticket price.On When is pizza not a turkey sandwich? posted 2 years, 6 months ago 13 Responses

sorry, out of eggs...

But I do have a British accent. And I eat far more chocolate than is good for me. Does that count as a lifestyle?

The politicians here in Ontario have been having fun with the Flick off campaign, which it turns out is partially funded by the provincial government. Who knew governments could be so playful?
http://www.thestar.com/article/207276On Unwanted babies: the worst kind of emissions posted 2 years, 7 months ago 6 Responses

important question

Actually, there's a very important ethical question here. What do we tell the children? Take my kids - currently 7 and 6. They have learnt quite a bit about green issues in school, and talk a lot about pollution, recycling, and saving energy. Which is great. But how much is it appropriate to tell them about what's really happening to the planet? On Oy posted 2 years, 7 months ago 9 Responses

a joke gone wrong?

Looks like it was all just a joke anyway:
http://today.reuters.com/news/articlenews.aspx?type=domes ...On Our prez nearly made a slip of the plug posted 2 years, 7 months ago 21 Responses

3.7 orders of magnitude??

A nitpick:
An order of magnitude is usually taken to mean multiplying by 10. Three orders of magnitude means a factor of 1000. Not sure if it makes any sense to have a "fraction" of an order of magnitude, but if it does, then "3.7 orders of magnitude more" should mean "about 7,000 times as much".On Extinction of an outdated industry on the horizon? posted 2 years, 7 months ago 7 Responses

It's crying out for a remix...

Like the ocean road crumbling into the sea as the car passes; those sunbathers on the beach reaching for more sunscreen, etc.On Evil ... posted 2 years, 8 months ago 7 Responses

public opinion

In your timeline, you missed the issue of public opinion. The fact that winter didn't arrive here until late January seems to have had a dramatic effect on public concern about global warming. The newspapers have been full of it for the last 3 months - the dailies have been running full page spreads about the effects of climate change.

The polls now show climate change is likely to be the biggest issue going into the next election. The Green party, which has had a candidate elected to parliament stands at 13% in the polls, neck and neck with the NDP which won 29 seats in the last election.

Whether this will last is anyone's guess, but it sure makes for interesting times in Canada.On Woe, Canada posted 2 years, 8 months ago 4 Responses

Arrogant? Moi?

Why not provide references so I can evaluate your criticism?  Do you want me to just accept your view with blind faith?  

If Godel's incompleteness theorum was only applicable to formal logic, then what is the point of it?  Mental masturbation?

Not quite sure why you need references, when all you have to do is look it up in wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gödel%27s_incompletenes ...

Far from being mental masturbation, Godel's work was a major blow to the mathematicians at the time who were seeking to encode all knowledge into a formal system. It's also hugely important in modern computer science, because a computer is also a formal system - hence Godel's work laid the foundation for deciding what is computable.

In one sentence you say that anything can be discovered through empiricism when we overcome physical constraints, but then you deny that I purified my senses and saw God.

I said nothing about physical constraints - I said "practical constraints". Sure, we could subject the voices in your head to some empirical tests to determine whether they are hallucinations or the voice of some supernatural being. There have been lots of scientific studies of people who hear voices
(e.g. see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hearing_Voices_Movement).

You'll have a hard time convincing anyone that "you heard god" is a better explanation than all the other well-documented reasons why people hear voices in their heads.

Which is more arrogant - claiming that you have a personal line to some supernatural being, or insisting that such claims be subjected to empirical evaluation?On Over global warming, of all things posted 2 years, 8 months ago 48 Responses

"pretending really hard"!!!

LOL!On Over global warming, of all things posted 2 years, 8 months ago 48 Responses

Godel's incompleteness theorem

I'm blown away. Using Godel to justify irrationality??

Godel's theorem is about formal systems (i.e. mathematical logic). Formal systems are not the same as rational scientific thought. In fact, most science doesn't use formal logic at all, and only the logical positivists of the early 20th century ever conceived of basing all scientific knowledge on formal logic.

"Revealed knowledge" is just another label for "made up sh*t".

The only reliable knowledge we have is that which is tested though empirical methods. It's not complete, and it's not always correct, but at least the system we have for obtaining it is self-correcting.

"made up sh*t" is not a good basis for policy making.On Over global warming, of all things posted 2 years, 8 months ago 48 Responses

people of faith

"People of faith"??? Where did that expression come from? Why not call them what they really are: deranged lunatics.

Apologies for those easily offended, but I've been reading Richard Dawkins of late, and am persuaded by his arguments that we should not tolerate anyone who tries to foist these irrational beliefs on anyone else, especially those who do it to children.On Over global warming, of all things posted 2 years, 8 months ago 48 Responses

Brilliant!

Now I don't have to explain to people how silly offsetting is!On If you are fooling around on your spouse, offset your cheating with CheatNeutral! posted 2 years, 9 months ago 8 Responses

get people to read it first, then debate

Gar,
Again I agree. My worry was only that I'd like to see people read the book first and then debate the solutions, rather than be put off reading it altogether by thinking there's an element of his solution that's wrong from the start.

BTW When is your own book coming out? I see from your website that your proposed book will cover much of the same territory as Monbiot's. It would be nice to read them back to back.On It's good posted 2 years, 9 months ago 8 Responses

"A deeply important book" - yes!

Coincidently, I just finished reading Monbiot's book, and I thought it was fabulous. Gar's review above is quite right, but in picking lots of nits with Monbiot's solutions, it seems to obscure the main point - that Monbiot sets a fabulous example of joined up thinking. The main point of the book is that we need a "whole system" review of how to achieve the necessary emissions reductions, based on rational analysis rather than wishful thinking. The book is pretty upbeat, considering the task he takes on: how to make a 90% reduction in carbon emissions that would be acceptable to most people - i.e. without sacrificing the comforts of modern life.

Monbiot points out that targets negotiated on the basis of what is politically acceptable are pointless - the only sensible target is one based on the best scientific evidence. He does a quick tour of some recent research, and concludes that 2 degrees is the crucial threshold, and for that we need an average 90% reduction in CO2 per person by 2030 (taking into account projected population growth). Whether this target is the right one might be debated, but that's somewhat beside the point for this book. The real point is that Monbiot shows how to construct a coherent set of constructive solutions to meet such a target.

By concentrating on quibbles with parts of Monbiot's solution, Gar comes across as quite critical of the book. But the point is not whether Monbiot has the right solution - the point is that he has the right approach to working out a solution. If enough people read the book with an open mind, Monbiot will have managed to raise the debate to a whole new level.

The book is full of good insights. Here's one that I'd never considered before: energy conservation on a per-household basis can result in a net increase in energy consumption, as people use the savings to carry out more energy intensive activities - e.g. if I get better fuel mileage in my car, I'll feel okay about driving it more; if I use low energy lightbulbs, I'll feel okay about leaving them on more.

Definitely the most thought-provoking book on cimate change yet.On It's good posted 2 years, 9 months ago 8 Responses