<![CDATA[Grist - Comment Feed for Finally]]> Grist Comment Feed en Comment #1 by Sean Casten http://www.grist.org/article/newsweek-takes-on-deniers-without-faux-balance/ Wed, 08 Aug 2007 05:29:40 -0700 http://www.grist.org/article/newsweek-takes-on-deniers-without-faux-balance/1 Wow

As you say, nothing new, but remarkable to see it in the major media.  

For those interested in lots more detail, check out Ross Gelbspan's 1998 book The Heat Is On, which was providing a pretty detailed overview of the denial industry almost a decade ago.

]]> Wow

As you say, nothing new, but remarkable to see it in the major media.  

For those interested in lots more detail, check out Ross Gelbspan's 1998 book The Heat Is On, which was providing a pretty detailed overview of the denial industry almost a decade ago.

]]> Comment #2 by sunflower http://www.grist.org/article/newsweek-takes-on-deniers-without-faux-balance/ Wed, 08 Aug 2007 05:36:05 -0700 http://www.grist.org/article/newsweek-takes-on-deniers-without-faux-balance/2 And to the point.

There is a well established zero-carbon (aka renewable) energy and efficiency propaganda out there in MSM.  The lies are so well entrenched over the decades that official sources become parrot heads.  The point would be to start telling the truth.

The Unseen Lies: Journalism As Propaganda

What I know, which is narrow, is that solar energy is cheaper than coal, five times cheaper than oil.

]]> And to the point.

There is a well established zero-carbon (aka renewable) energy and efficiency propaganda out there in MSM.  The lies are so well entrenched over the decades that official sources become parrot heads.  The point would be to start telling the truth.

The Unseen Lies: Journalism As Propaganda

What I know, which is narrow, is that solar energy is cheaper than coal, five times cheaper than oil.

]]> Comment #3 by plum http://www.grist.org/article/newsweek-takes-on-deniers-without-faux-balance/ Wed, 08 Aug 2007 06:03:39 -0700 http://www.grist.org/article/newsweek-takes-on-deniers-without-faux-balance/3 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.

]]> 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.

]]> Comment #4 by GreyFlcn http://www.grist.org/article/newsweek-takes-on-deniers-without-faux-balance/ Wed, 08 Aug 2007 07:18:56 -0700 http://www.grist.org/article/newsweek-takes-on-deniers-without-faux-balance/4 Hippy Aversion?

Me I have the Engineering aversion to carbon sequestration.

If the CO2 erupts onland near a city, everybody suffocates and dies.

If the CO2 goes down into the ocean floor, who knows what thats going to do to ocean chemistry.

And the ocean holds thousands more times the carbon thats currently in the air. You mess that up too far either direction and we are dead.

_

Besides which, much like cellulosic ethanol, the concept with "clean coal" is to sell people on building conventional coal plants NOW, with the faux promise of making it better in the future.

Even without the massive expenses of carbon capture, coal is already expensive compared to renewables, now that new plants have to comply with the clean air act.

]]> Hippy Aversion?

Me I have the Engineering aversion to carbon sequestration.

If the CO2 erupts onland near a city, everybody suffocates and dies.

If the CO2 goes down into the ocean floor, who knows what thats going to do to ocean chemistry.

And the ocean holds thousands more times the carbon thats currently in the air. You mess that up too far either direction and we are dead.

_

Besides which, much like cellulosic ethanol, the concept with "clean coal" is to sell people on building conventional coal plants NOW, with the faux promise of making it better in the future.

Even without the massive expenses of carbon capture, coal is already expensive compared to renewables, now that new plants have to comply with the clean air act.

]]> Comment #5 by odograph http://www.grist.org/article/newsweek-takes-on-deniers-without-faux-balance/ Wed, 08 Aug 2007 07:34:57 -0700 http://www.grist.org/article/newsweek-takes-on-deniers-without-faux-balance/5 thumbs

I co-worker bought that magazine, just so he could put his thumb over the bottom corner (with the "" explanation) and show me just "Global Warming is a Hoax"

He was disappointed when I asked him what was under his thumb.

]]> thumbs

I co-worker bought that magazine, just so he could put his thumb over the bottom corner (with the "" explanation) and show me just "Global Warming is a Hoax"

He was disappointed when I asked him what was under his thumb.

]]> Comment #6 by sindark http://www.grist.org/article/newsweek-takes-on-deniers-without-faux-balance/ Wed, 15 Aug 2007 05:14:00 -0700 http://www.grist.org/article/newsweek-takes-on-deniers-without-faux-balance/6 Costs

"We can profitably reduce carbon emissions."

While I certainly agree that climate change needs to be tackled, I do not think this is a realistic position. The Stern Review projects that mitigating climate change will cost about 1% of GDP per year. While a few companies - those making solar panels, for instance - will profit from the re-allocation of resources, it is unrealistic to expect that it will cause net growth in the economy.

This is especially true if we believe that deep cuts are required by 2020.

Arguing that mitigation will be low-cost and painless is also a strategy likely to come back and bite if and when it proves more costly than the most optimistic estimators expected.

]]> Costs

"We can profitably reduce carbon emissions."

While I certainly agree that climate change needs to be tackled, I do not think this is a realistic position. The Stern Review projects that mitigating climate change will cost about 1% of GDP per year. While a few companies - those making solar panels, for instance - will profit from the re-allocation of resources, it is unrealistic to expect that it will cause net growth in the economy.

This is especially true if we believe that deep cuts are required by 2020.

Arguing that mitigation will be low-cost and painless is also a strategy likely to come back and bite if and when it proves more costly than the most optimistic estimators expected.

]]>