Much of Left Blogistan rejects every person who does not agree with, or does not think politically possible, a 100 percent auction

is a knave or fool

or both.

The world we actually live in is complicated.

The duality of right - wrong, good - bad, left - right, loser - winner is so ingrained into political discourse that one has only to suggest a third way is at all possible.  Just try to interject the idea of any other answer, such as a 3rd political party, into the discussion and you arouse immediate hostility. I know because that is what I get as a Green.

On the subject issue, Climate Change, I have been a vocal supporter of Ed Mazria and the Architecture 2030 approach of forcing change through building codes, local permitting processes, etc.  It takes a lot more organizing to pull this off, but it does more to eliminated the need for future new coal fired or nuclear energy plants than any protest on the steps of the capital.

Even to start showing political opinion as a triangle would be a novel idea.  Another one would have been to use the recent Step Ip Up sessions to organize people for local action on energy standards for new / renovated building.  But that is not the way progressives organize protest.

Wes Rolley CoChair - EcoAction Committee Green Party US

sounds helpful

David -

Could you elaborate on the evidence in support of this "well-understood psychosocial dynamic in journalism" that you bring up? I know that it's been a useful framework for you in viewing this situation, but what evidence do you have to support this hidden motivation you're ascribing to Revkin and other journalists you're describing? And how might you distinguish between those who are "try(ing) to establish their bona fides among their peers" versus those who genuinely believe that what they're saying is a reasonable description of the world?

There's a point that needs to be made about Revkin's naivete regarding Lomborg and Gingrich.  One needs to consider the history of people like L and G in light of the range of plausible arguments (from the POV of, e.g., the Republican elite) to do as little as possible to mitigate climate change.  That range has shifted as the scientific case and public opinion has built over the course of time, but if someone's arguments have remained consistently in that range then they've shown themselves to be opportunist liars.  That their arguments might now reside in somebody's definition of the middle is not meaningful proof that they themselves do.  

Shellenberger and Nordhaus are a different case since their argument about the poor strategy being pursued by the U.S. "big enviro" groups is absolutely right.  I happen to think their particular solution is somewhat off the mark, but I don't doubt their sincerity.  (Just to note that one thing they have in common with "Big Green" is the need to dance around their relationship with the Democratic Party.  'Ware the fate of the environmentalist Liberals in Canada.)

It seems that the idea of an idealized middle came first and was followed by the need to shoehorn enough people into it (whether they fit or not) to make it seem credible.

To put forward what may be way too irreducibly simple a paradigm for some, IMHO there are people who sincerely want to avoid dangerous climate change and then there's everyone else.  There is no middle.  

Sorry to say, climate change opinion isn't linear, 2-D, or multi-dimensional.  Most people just aren't rational at all.  Most speak from other motivations such as the families, emotion, movies, upsetting incidents, schooling, church, neighbors, and perhaps even some biology that we don't understand yet (like why Republicans and Democrats have different brain scans). Sometimes I wonder if even us enviro types are completely rational.  Face it: we're nuts, some more than others.

Don't get me wrong, I like reading this stuff.  But I think people tend to relate to their world view and expertise and are much biased by their own opinions.  

Onward through the fog