Comments plum has made
Try Monckton or Dennis Avery
I'm surprised you couldn't find anyone. I've been hearing on and off on the local sceptic sites that Al Gore won't debate, a fact that Heartland predictably trumpets for all it's worth:
http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=20873
Does your debate opponent have to be a Texas scientist? Because it seems that Monckton and Avery would be all too willing to fly over and debate you.On Search for local climate skeptic in Texas proves fruitless posted 2 years ago 61 Responses
Wow...
... I actually was inclined to give CCS a chance until you put it into perspective for me. Thanks! And thanks, too, for the touches of black humour. Much appreciated.On The many ways big money seeks to avoid reducing fossil fuel use posted 2 years, 1 month ago 11 Responses
Newsroom politics
"[C]oal, which is considered a major contributor to global warming"...
What's the bet there's some newsroom politics playing a part here? As a former copy editor, I know that stories can go through several eyes before seeing print. And when the deadline's rushing at you and you've got a denialist on the floor who's kicking up a fuss and won't back down, inserting weasel phrases like "which is considered" is part of the day-to-day negotiations you have to live with in the newsroom. Nobody likes it.On Rudy Giuliani's stance on climate and energy posted 2 years, 1 month ago 4 Responses
Yes!!
Sometimes Friedman is worth the space he takes up on the NYT op-ed pages, and this was certainly one of those times.
This is one of the gripes I have with how environmentalists are covered in the media, and with Al Gore, to be frank. We're constantly portrayed as urban liberal elites (sadly, that's mostly true), and Gore contributes to that with jet-setting and high-powered greenie chums. We need to reach out! Go, Van!!
(Not to mention that spreading the green good word to wider audiences gives us more influence at the ballot box and with our representatives.)On The Mustache discovers Van Jones posted 2 years, 1 month ago 5 Responses
Thank you
...for saying what I've long felt. Sure, the man's not perfect, but he's the most inspirational spokesperson the movement has at the moment. Stop carping on him for not effectively speaking to the South, and find someone who can speak to the South! This fixation on a single emblematic idol is counterproductive.
I like much of Krugman's take on "Gore Derangement Syndrome", and Jonathon Chait's idea of him being the anti-Bush. Gore has become symbolic not just of global warming activism, but of a broadly liberal world view. He's not perfect, but he's someone we on the left can be proud of.On Al Gore's commitment to public service in the face of cynicism posted 2 years, 1 month ago 15 Responses
Why is Nader even a choice?
(Unless it's possible to cast a negative vote.)On Gore thought likely to take home the Nobel Peace Prize posted 2 years, 1 month ago 11 Responses
On libertarians
Sorry, zacaroni, if my comment got your goat up. I admit, my attitude to libertarians is influenced in large part by those libertarians I know who are strongly in the climate change denial camp. Nice to see one who not only isn't, but is an ardent environmentalist! (Now, if you could just have a word or two with some of your fellows...)
On the India results in the survey, I took a gander at the pdf and noticed that only 48% of Indian respondents said they had heard or read about global warming (no time period asked), so I'm assuming this goes a long way to explaining why only 47% of Indians viewed human activity as a major cause of global warming.
Seems like the Indian media still may have a long way to go on this topic.On Poll finds people ready for action on climate change posted 2 years, 2 months ago 9 Responses
Re: India
India has an awful lot of libertarian Ayn Rand types. Could this explain their low scores? More to the point, what's with Germany & S Korea? And where's Japan?On Poll finds people ready for action on climate change posted 2 years, 2 months ago 9 Responses
Pointing fingers
I agree with Gar. It's massively counterproductive. If your kid spent every day pulling faces like that (from underneath a hoodie, no less!) and blaming you for how f****d up the world, wouldn't you feel like strangling him?On Greenpeace ad on climate change posted 2 years, 2 months ago 19 Responses
Go the All Blacks!!
Maybe this time round they'll actually win it again. Unless they get food poisoning like that other time. Or choke like those other two times.On A mysterious World Cup goes green posted 2 years, 3 months ago 2 Responses
Snap!
...like string theory.
Think Lubos was reading that?On Thoughts on the GISS temperature adjustment posted 2 years, 3 months ago 5 Responses
Spot the "balance" irony
... in that near the end of his interview, Romm called for the media to stop blessing the deniers with equal time through some misguided journalistic sense of "balance" -- and then the next section focussed on the deniers. And they were given more airtime!
Romm was spot on: they are deniers and delayers.
To tell the truth, I didn't even bother to watch it, I was that disgusted, I was. Did the interviewer at least catch Singer up on his shady tobacco-denying past?On Watch him on 'OnPoint' posted 2 years, 3 months ago 6 Responses
Yes, but did Mike...
... have a wet line up his bum?On Only cyclists and walkers remain calm posted 2 years, 3 months ago 4 Responses
And the hordes did descend
It didn't take long for the deniers to show up in the live chat and start peppering Begley with all the common talking points. To her credit, she was patient and polite, although a few of her "Why is this still an argument?" answers gave a glimpse into deeper frustrations.
Another point I've noted elsewhere, especially among the scientist types; she doesn't have the stereotypical hippie aversion to carbon sequestration. That alone should be enough to convince people we're not your granny's greenies.On Finally posted 2 years, 3 months ago 6 Responses
He's wearing make-up, right?
Nobody's eyebrows are like that naturally. (But at least it's not a monobrow...)On Wind: YouTube edition posted 2 years, 4 months ago 4 Responses
Great subversive ad!
Love the way the whole thing seems so real until you catch the guy coughing into his particulate mask. I like also the way it's poking fun not only at the coal industry but the shallowness of members of the public.
"My friend has a pool." "I don't vote."
Best. Lines. Ever.On I've watched this video four times now and I can't stop laughing posted 2 years, 4 months ago 4 Responses
Al Gore's vital political role
... is to stand out there and take the flak in order to advance the debate. It's a thankless task, but he's put himself forward time and again.
Sure, parts of AIT got criticised for being wrong (Kilimanjaro), or jumping the gun (ice sheet collapse), or over-simplifying (disease vectors, hurricanes) -- but when news channels devote inordinate amounts of time to Lindsay Lohan or Paris Hilton, you need to swallow a few pop cultural realities and adjust your commmunications strategy accordingly. And having Gore put himself out there means scientists can keep the academic objectivity they so prize.
That's why I'm baffled at why some (but not all!) science journalists snipe at him. When they're not judging him by impossible standards, they're imputing cynical political motives to him.On Game over posted 2 years, 4 months ago 13 Responses
Great footage!
... but how much did the whole thing cost you? And how long did it take for you to assemble? Since this is a DIY job, I have to ask: what special knowledge would I need to get something similar? (I'm not a tinkerer, so suspect I'd need to get out a book -- but are we talking bicycle mechanics PLUS electronics or what?)On Dumb and not so dumb questions answered posted 2 years, 5 months ago 51 Responses
Edit
By the way, that was from Heat, p. 165.On Skip it posted 2 years, 5 months ago 18 Responses
Here's the quote you missed
To follow on from what merrick / Bristling Badger said, here's the quote (from my copy of Heat, which I received just today!):
While mobile fuel cells might one day change the world, in other words, as far as my target is concerned they are pretty well useless. In lobbying for lower emissions, out time would be better spent demanding the mass production of a hypercar -- which faces no significant technical barriers -- rather than the use of hydrogen.
On Skip it posted 2 years, 5 months ago 18 Responses[In the next paragraph, Monbiot discusses how an electric vehicle powered by off-peak wind energy is far more feasible, ending the paragraph:] Given that the alternatives are so much easier to develop, our governments' obsession with hydrogen cars seems incomprehensible.
Regional is not global
There's certainly an upward trend there, when compared against the average percentage. Earlier decades, while showing a cyclic pattern, don't consistently stay above the black line.
Now, a global CEI would be very interesting. Does anyone know of such a thing?On And yet the media isn't reporting it posted 2 years, 5 months ago 13 Responses
Communicate, people!
You know, this is why I think Nisbet and Mooney are on to something. The vast majority of people don't have the years of training and natural inclination to keep up with the science (laypeople like me try, but hey we're obsessed). So you've got to learn to communicate! This is what N&M mean when they talk about frames. It's not spin: it's meaningful but buried shared meaning structures.
BTW, why does John Daly feel the need to explain what "Nineteen Eighty-Four" is? Is it because his target audience wouldn't have come across it otherwise?On Public presentations on global warming -- not as easy as you might think posted 2 years, 6 months ago 22 Responses
Good find, Steve
I've been looking for (academic) articles like that one.On Reality checking the polls posted 2 years, 6 months ago 43 Responses
Just couldn't help it, could he?
Y'know, I love Keith, and I get that people are going to ask Gore about The Question, but he just couldn't stop pushing, could he?On Another good one posted 2 years, 6 months ago 5 Responses
Peter G
Um, considering the IPCC said a THC shutdown was unlikely, I'd have to say, no.On FOX airs 'The Day After Tomorrow' after Murdoch's green speech posted 2 years, 6 months ago 3 Responses
Thank you so much
Uplifting, realistic, and inspirational. I'm ordering my copy today!On What would you like to ask him? posted 2 years, 6 months ago 4 Responses
I will be brief
- I sleep with the light on (and it's not a fluorescent).
- I don't own a car or bike, but I'll bus to a supermarket that's way out of my way (because they have the crunchy peas I like).
- I print out pdf files, even though by rights I should read them on the screen.
- I leave the computer on all night. If I turn it off, I'll only turn off the monitor half the time (Aaarrgh!)
- I buy bottled water.
- I sleep with the light on (and it's not a fluorescent).
Oh and one other thing ...
Not to mention if air miles are going to be targeted, that'll hit NZ exports like Maxwell's silver hammer. There's gotta be a compromise.On Something that destructive outside SHOULD be unpleasant inside posted 2 years, 7 months ago 22 Responses
Tony L
I'm of two minds about long-haul flights. If I lived in the States I don't think I'd mind so much not flying, but I live in New Zealand, and my girlfriend lives (temporarily) in Asia. I think those trying to lay a big guilt trip on people who fly are probably living on huge continents where rail is a realistic option -- and they're forgetting that there are people in uniquely placed countries that don't want to spend the rest of their lives confined to their prison island.
Just saying.On Something that destructive outside SHOULD be unpleasant inside posted 2 years, 7 months ago 22 Responses
Great job!
A bit off-topic, but I just wanted to say David, that your recent posts on communicating climate change have been awesome. They've really opened my eyes to the challenges facing communicators as well as scientists.On Mostly in the local papers posted 2 years, 7 months ago 15 Responses
Thanks Kit!
... for clearing that weather/climate thing up.
I think the problem I have as a non-scientist is that society puts such faith on scientists. When a few contrarians are held up by the media as balancing the AGW consensus, we stop and think, "Hang on a bit, what if they're right?" I think you know how it goes from there.
Andrew, you're doing a great job. Please don't stop exposing sceptics when they hog the spotlight. It's a valuable service to people like me, who aren't familiar with the science.On For shame! posted 2 years, 7 months ago 23 Responses
Weather and climate??
I am not a climate scientist, but I follow the debate carefully, and have a pretty good layman's understanding of the issue. I have two (well, three) questions about the op-ed.
- Lindzen goes on a bender about how climate scientists use untrustworthy models, "similar to those that cannot accurately forecast the weather a week from now". Now, I thought weather and climate were different things. Am I right in thinking this is a ridiculous statement on the face of it? (Again, I am not a climate scientist.)
- How much of Lindzen's peer-reviewed research actually attacks the notion of rising temperatures? I've looked through some of the databases and he's certainly published a fair bit, but I can't understand the jargon in even the abstracts. How serious is his science? (Again, IANACS.)
- My lay impression of the article is that Lindzen has jumped the shark. Anyone better placed to comment on that?
- Lindzen goes on a bender about how climate scientists use untrustworthy models, "similar to those that cannot accurately forecast the weather a week from now". Now, I thought weather and climate were different things. Am I right in thinking this is a ridiculous statement on the face of it? (Again, I am not a climate scientist.)
plum
Ethics. The concept is lost on these people, because ethics is fundamentally process-driven, and they don't seem well-equipped to think in process terms.On You have to read this to believe it posted 2 years, 8 months ago 5 Responses
Oops!
Sorry, mistakenly put my pseudonym in the subject box.On FOX News on Gore's testimony posted 2 years, 8 months ago 10 Responses
plum
My answer to David's question is: It's not a question of whether Hume understands science at a basic level -- he simply doesn't want to. After all, his purpose is not to elucidate the subject for the viewers but, as caniscandida implies, to muddy the waters.
Why else would a non-scientist scoff when Mort Kondracke admits (quite reasonably) that he doesn't know about the science but he'll ask the head honcho of the National Academies?
That's what climate scepticism amounts to: sowing doubt. We need to think of ways to cut their knees out from under them -- and laughing at them may just do that.
As for the demonization of Gore on Fox News, remember that 88% of Fox viewers voted for Bush in 2004. Whether you watch Fox is a better predictor of wingnuttery than whether you own a gun. These people are lost to us, so why bother to reach out to them? They obviously don't respond to rational arguments.On FOX News on Gore's testimony posted 2 years, 8 months ago 10 Responses
Fair and balanced
I agree the piece ended well for Gore, and it did include some quotes from James Hansen, but the bulk of the quotes were clearly marshalled against Gore. Note the rhetorical tactics Nagourney uses:
- Link negative language to Gore: "mocked Gore's assertion", "alarmists", "scaremongering", "shrill alarmism", "overselling", "exaggerated and erroneous".
- Portray sceptics as "centrists". This article is the first time I've seen the phrase "centrist detractors". This is a pretty formulation from a rhetorical point of view: it has the effect of moving the centre of gravity to the right.
- Let the sceptics attack Gore, but don't ask them to defend themselves. This makes Lindzen, Easterbrook et al seem reasonable.
- Get one of the sceptics (but only one) to proclaim they have no conflicts of interest with corporations. This both implicates consensus scientists as paid shills and allows other sceptics to bask in the righteousness of "being correct".
- Subtly undercut James Hansen, who "concedes" the sceptics' point. Elevate Gore's "minor inaccuracies" to the level that they balance out ALL the accuracies.
- Never indicate how large a section of the total number of scientists in the field are sceptics. At the same time, chip away rhetorically at the legitimacy of the consensus behind AGW.
- Link negative language to Gore: "mocked Gore's assertion", "alarmists", "scaremongering", "shrill alarmism", "overselling", "exaggerated and erroneous".