Comments Robco1 has made

Bill hit that one on the head, didn't he? Don't give up yet, though. That is largely how we wound up with the worst president in U.S. history; remember 2000? What we need is a strong FOUR party system on the libertarian-right and left to counter the corporatist (my word) influence of the establishment parties. In the short term I think we need to hold the Dems to account and support as many insurgent "green" primary candidates as possible, and support third-party options whenever feasible. We need to make the Dems understand that they can't coast their way into the corporate money their opponents enjoyed for the last couple of decades without consequences.

This is profound

This is huge. I have always thought that anti-environmentalism and political corruption were separated at birth. This may strip destructive industries of their ability to game the system. One can only hope...On Obama's early actions bode well for the environment posted 10 months, 1 week ago 5 Responses

You may be right

...but we need to push hard to make sure that the research is mostly put upon these wealthy industries to prove their effectiveness before they see serious tax dollars. The subtext I see in the admin. language on coal seems to indicate that strategy. One can only hope...On The four global warming impact studies Bush tried to bury in his final days posted 10 months, 1 week ago 16 Responses

Yea! No denier posts (yet)

New drinking game: Take one drink for every post on a global warming topic thread before the denier trolls come out of the woodwork...On The four global warming impact studies Bush tried to bury in his final days posted 10 months, 1 week ago 16 Responses

Hmmm...

Joe,

Are these posts meant to be traps for the deniers to come and peddle their BS, allowing other threads to go unmolested? If so, brilliant strategy . . .

Manaker: "The Arctic is shrinking (as your NOAA report confirms) and the Antarctic is growing."

Still not letting those pesky facts interfere with your spin, I see:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/02/080229075228 ...On The ocean is absorbing less carbon dioxide posted 10 months, 1 week ago 61 Responses

No Surprise

No surprise that an intellectually and morally bankrupt fossil fuel industry flack would trap himself in his own spin. On Marc Morano agrees that only experts in climate feedbacks can make judgments on climate posted 10 months, 2 weeks ago 18 Responses

Wow.

Kind of like saying "gravity has an inalienable right to make stuff fall down," but it is a huge conceptual leap for our culture. On Ecuador approves new constitution granting inalienable rights to nature posted 1 year, 2 months ago 6 Responses

Excellent post

Thanks for an excellent post to help clear away the BS. But doesn't an increase in noise over a long period of time also indicate that the climate is becoming unbalanced? I read that the mini ice age in the 1400s was preceded by wild shifts in temperature. On In 2008, did temperatures drop as much as they rose over the whole 20th century? posted 1 year, 2 months ago 71 Responses

Wolverine?!

Chicago is not the wealthy suburb of Evanston or the North Shore. To call Chicago "conservative" is almost as ridiculous as calling this country "evil."  Chicago is a relatively liberal island in a relatively conservative region of a self-identified "conservative" country (whether the country actually is as conservative as most think is an argument for another thread). While by no means perfect, the city has done a great deal to earn a "green" reputation, the @#$%$%^ blue bag recycling program notwithstanding.

I moved here from the DC area five years ago.  My youth in the suburbs of DC and visits to my Southern relatives gave me a good look at mainstream thinking, as well as a driving hatred of the suburbs. If you think Chicago is conservative, clearly you have never been to Halstead Market Days, or the Nude Bicycle Race. Sorry Wolverine, but I doubt there are many in the world you would find pure enough in their liberalism. Purism is a threat to progressive change because it excludes people from changing their ways and perceptions by setting up an exclusive clique mentality. "You aren't an authentic liberal, like me . . . "  

Most of the protest over the proposed Children's Museum revolves around preserving the green space buffer between the city and Lake Michigan, as written into the city charter. Many here fear that this is the "foot in the door" that will bring unwelcome development to the lakefront.

The land bridge plan is interesting as it includes wind energy, which we have in abundance. As we don't have real tides and all wave action is wind-driven, I don't think wave action is practical (waves average 1-2 feet most days, with a good bit of variance as any kayaker could tell you).

Back to Wolverine: stop picking on my adopted home man! We have a burgeoning green business community, a strong and vibrant progressive community, great mass-transit, and miles of green space next to one of the largest bodies of fresh water in the world. On Hot plans rile the Chicago waterfront posted 1 year, 5 months ago 13 Responses

Sean: Ideas or Marketing?

I agree with your comments in spirit, but I think you are speaking less about real ideas than about marketing, or framing. The Big failing of the Democratic party and the environmental movement has not been a lack of ideas, it has been an inability to communicate those ideas in ways that stick with the public. The Repubs, on the other hand, have been particularly adept at framing their "ideas" in a publicly-palatable fashion.  Sure, they had help from the corporate press, but most of their success in recent years can largely be attributed to better packaging, not a superior product.

Take global warming. Frank Luntz wrote his now-infamous memo outlining how his focus-testing research had identified "climate change" as the most non-threatening term to use, and promptly that became the term of choice in the corporate media and from the mouth of every republican politician and mouthpiece. Gingrich's "Contract on, er, With America" is another prime example. There were no real "ideas" there, just a laundry list of chicken-in-every-pot political promises. With a great gimick to package them and give them the appearance of being innovative.

I disagree with this article about the subject of "moral relativism." That too is a right-wing framing argument meant to play into the conservative mindset of certainty of belief. Amazingdrx covered that well.

So what should the environmental movement do to make their ideas stick with the public? On Well-informed Republicans are not concerned about climate change posted 1 year, 6 months ago 60 Responses

Conspiracy

The suit I read about in the June issue of Atlantic magazine is based on the grounds that the coal and oil industry conspired to deliberately mislead the public and policymakers through a   disinformation campaign. This is the same legal argument that succeeded against the tobacco industry.

The two lead counsels in the suit are the lawyers who headed both the plaintiffs and the defense in the tobacco suit.

I agree with you and David that this is not the ideal way to get responsible public policy, but when the policymakers and corporate media act like marionettes for the fossil fuel industry, this may be our best bet to reign in the corruption. The moral failure may become very expensive for them in the end; couldn't happen to a more deserving bunch. Makes me smile a little every time I read a sock-puppet's denial post on Grist now . . . On Suing energy companies for global warming damages posted 1 year, 6 months ago 10 Responses

Exactly what I expected.

The maturity level of a 12 year old. I guess right-wing PR firms are not attracting the best and brightest these days. Buh-bye, sock puppet.On Alaska legislature looking for polar-bear skeptics posted 1 year, 6 months ago 159 Responses

I said rational discussion.

Clearly no intelligent life in the right wing. Buh-bye.On Alaska legislature looking for polar-bear skeptics posted 1 year, 6 months ago 159 Responses

Never been there, have you?

Nice try, Bob. Not even close. Heck, this was even demonstrated on a Discovery Channel TV show with an infared monitor in the arctic circle. 23 hours of summer sunlight more than make up for the angle. Ice and snow reflect up to 70% of sunlight, but darker water only about 10%. Maybe BHP can send you to NZ's South Island in a month, and you can test it for yourself on a glacier? ;-)On Alaska legislature looking for polar-bear skeptics posted 1 year, 6 months ago 159 Responses

Anti-environmentalist stupidity.

"Once again you show why IF, repeat, IF the relatively small eco-system dependent on sea ice were to collapse, then there would be a new balance in nature."

Once again you show that you don't understand the first thing about the world in which you live, Bob. This "small ecosystem" is linked into most of the ocean ecosystems on the planet. And while you are right that there would be a new balance in nature, there is no guarantee that we will like the result, and very strong evidence that we wouldn't.

The irony of all your trolling is that you are raving against making changes in our policies that will prove tremendously beneficial to our economy. The only people who would possibly loose out from converting to a clean renewable energy economy would be those working for the fossil fuel industry... Oh.On Alaska legislature looking for polar-bear skeptics posted 1 year, 6 months ago 159 Responses

Yeah, brick wall.

Well, I'm not in the prediction business, but don't you think that loosing the reflectivity of all that bright white ice will have an, um, effect on global systems? What do you think will happen to foodstocks if the oxygen levels in cold water regions decrease because they are no longer cold? What will happen to the methane hydrates under the permafrost on the warming land near all that warming ocean?

Again, I urge you: remedial ecology 101.On Alaska legislature looking for polar-bear skeptics posted 1 year, 6 months ago 159 Responses

Like talking to a brick wall.

This is probably a waste of time, but I'll try again.  If there is no sea ice at the poles, the entire ecosystem collapses. We depend on that ecosystem for our survival as much as polar bears, or seals, or  zooplankton for that matter.

The bears are a "canary in a coal mine" (no pun intended. Okay, maybe just a little). If they go, we may very well follow.

Might I suggest a little remedial reading? Any junior high school ecology textbook will do the trick . . .

This little exchange is a perfect illustration of the fundamental difference in world view between environmentalists and anti-environmentalists.  Or how about a more forgiving term: "conventional thinkers." Conventional thinking sees mankind as the purpose of evolution, and that all living things and substances of any kind exist solely to be used by mankind.  Environmentalists recognize this attitude as the childish conceit a three year old. Children that age and younger can not yet recognize that the things around them exist when they are out of that three year old's sight.On Alaska legislature looking for polar-bear skeptics posted 1 year, 6 months ago 159 Responses

The problem is fundamental

I think that the fundamental problem here is social programing. Anti-environmentalists are conditioned to think of humankind as being separate from the natural world, not a part of it. They see nature as the enemy (the wilderness, wasteland, etc.) and humans as the rightful conquerors, or "tamers" of the wild. This "war upon the earth" mindset has informed the development of human civilization for thousands of years, and has only now reached its inevitable consequences. For this virulent idea is fundamentally at odds with the laws of the natural world.

This is the social programing that right-wing framers are tapping into when they pit protecting individual species against economic development. Unfortunately, the environmental movement has fallen into this framing trap all too often.

The truth is that we are only a small part of a larger system, that depends upon balancing forces and the redundancy provided by a diversity of living species to ensure the ultimate survival of all life on earth. This was never about just polar bears, any more than protecting the Pacific Northwest forests was about spotted owls. This is about protecting a critical ecosystem upon which we all depend. Polar bears control seal populations, which feed on fish. That we depend on for food, and that interact with many other living species that affect our ultimate well-being (photo and zooplankton, algee, etc.)

Can nature survive our disruptions? Sure. There have been dramatic disruptions of natural systems before, and life has found a way. But can we survive our own ignorance and bad ideas? That is an open question. If you ignore the laws of aerodynamics when building a flying machine, you die. If your civilizations ignores the laws of living systems in that civilization's structure, by promoting monoculture and changing the composition of the planet's atmosphere . . . On Polar-bear listing would hurt the poor, says industry posted 1 year, 6 months ago 19 Responses

Interesting

I just read an article in the June issue of Atlantic Magazine that a class-action suit is being brought against several major oil, coal and electric utility companies for using front groups to sew false doubt about the scientific consensus on global warming in order to slow preventive measures. The principal lawyers? The same ones who successfully sued the tobacco industry, joined by the lawyer from the tobacco side (who I suppose is trying to work off his bad karma).

Now every time you see a sock puppet for the oil industry post denier drivel on a site like Grist, smile and think about how their efforts WILL eventually bankrupt their paymasters. On Polar-bear listing would hurt the poor, says industry posted 1 year, 6 months ago 19 Responses

$40 Billion in profits

for their largest employer last year alone. Yeah, follow the money.On Similarities between the skin cancer and climate change 'scams' posted 1 year, 7 months ago 173 Responses

Deniers are not interested in rhetoric, not reason

Which becomes clear when following this thread. One troll repeatedly posts data from a UK climatologist site and tries to "prove" there is no global warming by urging readers to plot the information in an inaccurate and incorrect manor. Look for Mr.NiceGuy's post about this data, which clearly explains the inaccuracy. Instead of responding, the troll repeats his rhetoric ad nausium.

Deniers are not interested in reason or discourse. They are engaging in a propaganda war. Motivated by greed and ideology, they are interested only in perpetrating the notion that there is a controversy about global warming and its causes.

The good news is that the public and the media are finally on to them, and are no longer buying it.On Global temps may drop this year but, alas, world still warming posted 1 year, 7 months ago 132 Responses

Great post Rico; how did they receive it?

I'd be curious to hear how such a well-reasoned argument was received by right-wingers. My experience with that ilk has not shown them to be very receptive to concepts like "reason" or "critical thinking." On The implicit assumption in Pielke Jr.'s Nature commentary posted 1 year, 7 months ago 38 Responses

Max: I'm done with you.

Okay, Fill a plastic bag with CO2 from a tank (I know it doesn't come from the car's tailpipe; you just love the red-herrings, don't you?) and stick it over your head.

You are either delusional or a bald-faced liar if you believe the BS you are peddling here. It has been well-established that global temp. has increased dramatically over the past several decades.

What I am trying to say is that you are a liar who is spreading disinformation in the hopes that a rookie reporter will read this post and be influenced to write the following:

"...controversy still exists regarding climate change..."

Don't buy it folks. All these clowns either work for PR firms or spin...I mean, think tanks like the Heartland Institute, or are right-wing ideologues clutching their dog-eared copies of Atlas Shrugged while mumbling quotes from Leo Strauss lectures. Flat-Earth Society members have more intellect and credibility. On Similarities between the skin cancer and climate change 'scams' posted 1 year, 7 months ago 173 Responses

No more playing nice

If you deny the science of human-induced global warming in the face of over three decades of established scientific consensus, I have no need to play nice. Deniers are only interested in inaction.  That and making "ad hominem" attacks on Al Gore and Dr. Hansen.

As for cap and trade "schemes," yeah, they were so ineffective in reducing SO2 from smokestack emmissions . . . whops.

Got it?On Similarities between the skin cancer and climate change 'scams' posted 1 year, 7 months ago 173 Responses

Noise

Increased "noise" or fluctuations is also a sign of climate imbalance.  The deniers of course will never admit this and will constantly point to noise in climate data, even though the scientific community knows better.

The deniers are trying to sew uncertainty in the non-scientific community. Uncertainty that leads to inaction. Because they are being paid.

What I don't understand is why they are swarming all over this site. Do they really think they are fooling anyone? Seems, well, stupid. But then this is a group that is trying to refute reality smacking them in the face.On Global temps may drop this year but, alas, world still warming posted 1 year, 8 months ago 132 Responses

An "Ah-ha moment"

I've been reading this thread trying to comprehend why someone with scientific and technical background would be so passionately trying to deny the overwhelming science supporting global climate imbalance. And then I remembered an interview I heard on the radio several years ago. It was with a medical researcher and MD who had worked for 40+ years for Phillip Morris denying the link between cancer, lung and hear disease, and smoking. The amazing thing was that he still believed, after so many years of established science, that everyone else in the medical community was wrong and that his "data," which had never been able to pass the muster of peer review, was somehow correct.

The interviewer finally asked him how he could still believe there was no link between cancer and smoking. His reply? "How could I live with myself, knowing that my career and paycheck had come from a company who had caused so much sickness and death? That would violate my oath as a physician." (Paraphrased, of course).

The PR hacks who know what they are doing but are too self-absorbed and nihilistic to care are disgusting. But the "scientist" who refuses to face the truth? That's just pathetic.On The Heartland conference recycles the usual climate change skeptics in its speakers list posted 1 year, 8 months ago 287 Responses

Very encouraged

I'm very encouraged by this thread. While I think that a distributed power grid is ultimately our best bet, solar thermal is a great bridge and will probably prove to be an essencial provider of our energy needs for some time.

There are also some interesting developments in urban wind power with a company here in Chicago called Aerotecture. Their turbines use a helical structure to take advantage of relatively low gusting winds generated by skyscrapers in the urban environment and avoid the spin-off and ice-shedding problems of traditional windmills.  Coupled with local solar and augmented by solar-thermal, geothermal, ocean, etc. and we just might get away from fossil fuels in time. Here's hoping!On Solar thermal plants make a comeback posted 1 year, 8 months ago 24 Responses

The Heartland Institute Troll turning brown

Jabberllo:

If you were not so busy playing pattycake with your mouth-breathing Heartland/Cato Institute/ExxonMobil /RNC buddies you'd know that the anemic "research funding" in clean energy tech has produced several effective alternatives to your paymasters' products in spite of the obstructions of the fossil fuel industry and their lackeys (like you) in the RNC. Just look all over Europe and the rest of the world where your group has no political clout and you'd see the geothermal, wind and solar producing healthy megawatts of electricity.

Now I'm done suffering you and your ilk. Go away. You're wasting billable hours. Go jabber to Rush Limburger dittoheads who are susceptible to your drivel and lies.On Bush's refusal to consider clean technologies could be repeated by McCain posted 1 year, 8 months ago 7 Responses

The Trolls are doing their job

The trolls probably work for PR firms or think tanks, and this activity is part of their billable time on the job. Ignore the ethically-challenged; they have little real power any more. The majority of people in the country are finally waking up to what  anyone with an environmental background (who wasn't being paid to ignore the facts) has known for years.

But they lead me to make a point: scientists and environmentalists in particular need to learn from their tactics. Science is a language of equivocation and qualification, with constant questioning and critical analysis. Public relations and marketing, on the other hand, is a language of hyperbole and symbolic absolutism. When communicating to the public, science needs to find simple, concrete language and frame the need for action in that language, not the language of science.

Several years ago Republican pollster and "framing expert" Frank Luntz was asked by the RNC to test language describing global warming in language that would be least likely to cause public alarm and spur action to address the problem. His answer? "Climate change." Change is neutral, and can be a good thing. Global warming, on the other hand, sounds "dangerous."

So I propose new framing: "catastrophic climate imbalance."On Hansen throws cold water on cooling climate claim posted 1 year, 8 months ago 9 Responses