Al Gore in the New York Times

Environment • Views: 5,972

I agree with almost everything Al Gore writes in his New York Times op-ed today, but we all know that people who despise Gore (and there are more than a few on the right) are going to reject it out of hand.

Gore is a very polarizing figure, partly because of his rather extreme attacks on George W. Bush during the Bush presidency (such as the red-faced yelling speech in which he accused Bush of betraying the country).

This animus from the right damages his ability to be a good spokesman for climate change, which is unfortunate because he has a pretty good grasp of the science, and a realistic assessment of the political issues, and can argue effectively on both fronts. But the populist hatred of Gore is fully exploited by Republican politicians, who relentlessly demonize him as a hypocrite, a liar, etc.

Even if you hate Gore, though, try to put it on hold long enough to give his article a chance. There are some thoughtful points in here that deserve to be discussed instead of dismissed, starting with the title: We Can’t Wish Away Climate Change.

(I checked the comments on Twitter’s conservative feed ‘#tcot’ just to see how bad the Gore Derangement Syndrome is, and it’s raging out of control. A typical tweet: “When do Congressional hearings start into Al Gore’s criminal fraud and the man-made #GlobalWarming lie?”)

Jump to bottom

395 comments
1 Fat Bastard Vegetarian  Sun, Feb 28, 2010 10:34:14am

Sarah Palin could back up some very important causes and be dismissed out of hand, because, well… she’s Sarah Palin.

Find a new spokesperson, Gaia.

2 Uncle Obdicut  Sun, Feb 28, 2010 10:36:53am

In before the ‘Al Gore is a hypocrite’ arguments:

That has no bearing on whether he is correct in what he says, and it should have no bearing on your own actions.

I personally wish he wasn’t, to many, the face of the AGW information campaign, but I have not known his actual message on AGW to be anything but good. For the amount of information he’s disseminated, he’s made very few mistakes.

And he always, always wants to talk about solutions, which puts him one-up on the majority of his detractors.

3 albusteve  Sun, Feb 28, 2010 10:39:30am

I do not reject science out of hand, I reject Gore out of hand….his time has passed and he is now a cartoon, a satire of himself…a laughable boob that maybe has his facts straight, but then so do a lot of others that can be taken more seriously….he should be mocked for his brazen hypocrisy til he crawls back to Green Acres and retires his Gore Express 737

4 Stanley Sea  Sun, Feb 28, 2010 10:40:22am

I’m reposting Locker’s Eleanor Roosevelt quote from downstairs:


re: #66 Locker

Well, it’s a judge the messenger rather than the message kind of thing. Makes me think of the Eleanor Roosevelt quote:

Great minds discuss ideas. Average minds discuss events. Small minds discuss people.

[Link: www.quotedb.com…]

5 Palmer_Eldritch  Sun, Feb 28, 2010 10:41:21am

Gore makes a good case. What’s interesting to me is the way right wing radio has twisted global warming science, arguing it’s a conspiracy designed to take away personal liberty. I would like to find someone who believes this, and then ask them how they would feel if it turned out, let’s say 100 years from now, that global warming is real and that they had been duped by a group of political and business groups with an interest in halting any legislation that might affect their bottom line.

6 albusteve  Sun, Feb 28, 2010 10:41:46am

re: #4 Stanley Sea

I’m reposting Locker’s Eleanor Roosevelt quote from downstairs:

I find that quote irrelevant…what am I missing?

7 Cato the Elder  Sun, Feb 28, 2010 10:41:48am

re: #2 Obdicut

It’s not so much the hypocrisy, even, it’s that goddamn voice.

Can you imagine being Tipper and having to hear that every day of your life?

8 Fat Bastard Vegetarian  Sun, Feb 28, 2010 10:43:36am

re: #7 Cato the Elder

“Yeah, Tipper. Just like that. Yeah. Oh. Oh. Tipper.”

*shudder*

9 Locker  Sun, Feb 28, 2010 10:44:31am

re: #6 albusteve

I find that quote irrelevant…what am I missing?

Talk about proving the truth of a quote. Your timing is immaculate.

10 MPH  Sun, Feb 28, 2010 10:45:31am

…not to mention the hundreds of millions of dollars he’s made through all of this.

11 Locker  Sun, Feb 28, 2010 10:45:36am

re: #7 Cato the Elder

It’s not so much the hypocrisy, even, it’s that goddamn voice.

Can you imagine being Tipper and having to hear that every day of your life?

Laugh I’m a teenager of the 80s so I’ve always had the though that I couldn’t imagine living with Tipper and having to deal with her slapping warning labels on everything.

12 Locker  Sun, Feb 28, 2010 10:45:56am

re: #10 MPH

…not to mention the hundreds of millions of dollars he’s made through all of this.

Prove it.

13 albusteve  Sun, Feb 28, 2010 10:45:57am

re: #9 Locker

Talk about proving the truth of a quote. Your timing is immaculate.

why do you stalk me?….what is your problem?

14 Locker  Sun, Feb 28, 2010 10:46:48am

re: #13 albusteve

why do you stalk me?…what is your problem?

It’s my quoted quote you are talking about buckethead.

15 Fat Bastard Vegetarian  Sun, Feb 28, 2010 10:47:27am

re: #14 Locker

C’mon… read your own quote then…

Geez..

16 srjh  Sun, Feb 28, 2010 10:48:01am

Meanwhile, there’s a very good youtube video on the evidence supporting global warming for the armchair crowd:

Youtube Video

No substitute for studying the scientific literature, of course, but vastly preferable to a head-in-the-sand approach to the evidence.

17 Charles Johnson  Sun, Feb 28, 2010 10:48:09am

A typical tweet about this article:

“When do Congressional hearings start into Al Gore’s criminal fraud and the man-made #GlobalWarming lie?”

19 albusteve  Sun, Feb 28, 2010 10:49:52am

re: #14 Locker

It’s my quoted quote you are talking about buckethead.

and so quick to call be names!…are you so insecure you have to target certain posters to slam, feed your ego?…I said your quote was irrelevant, and it is…you don’t have to get all pissy about it

20 Uncle Obdicut  Sun, Feb 28, 2010 10:50:23am

So, how many people have read the article and found any fault with the information contained therein?

21 jaunte  Sun, Feb 28, 2010 10:51:18am

re: #20 Obdicut

I think he may be a little overconfident about China joining in on emission limits.

22 Uncle Obdicut  Sun, Feb 28, 2010 10:52:44am

re: #21 jaunte

I think they’ll have to be bribed, as per usual— and threatened. So yeah, in that, I’ll agree.

I also would have rather he said somewhat more about funding for alt energy research and slightly less about cap and trade, but at least he emphasized the ‘true cap’ kind of cap-and-trade.

23 nbenhaim  Sun, Feb 28, 2010 10:53:12am

My only question is why doesn’t he debate some of the skeptics? He just dismisses them by calling them names, or sell outs that are paid off by Big Oil.

24 jaunte  Sun, Feb 28, 2010 10:54:40am

re: #22 Obdicut

There is so much potential for abuse of cap and trade I’d rather see the effort to plan for the effects of AGW put against alternative energy and agricultural research.

25 albusteve  Sun, Feb 28, 2010 10:55:13am

re: #23 nbenhaim

My only question is why doesn’t he debate some of the skeptics? He just dismisses them by calling them names, or sell outs that are paid off by Big Oil.

I asked that same question a while back and the general answer is that it would be beneath him to indulge his critics

26 albusteve  Sun, Feb 28, 2010 10:56:31am

re: #24 jaunte

There is so much potential for abuse of cap and trade I’d rather see the effort to plan for the effects of AGW put against alternative energy and agricultural research.

we could start by weening ourselves of our corn addiction

27 Racer X  Sun, Feb 28, 2010 10:56:36am

re: #12 Locker

Prove it.

Google “Blood and Gore”.

28 Fat Bastard Vegetarian  Sun, Feb 28, 2010 10:56:39am

re: #20 Obdicut

I read it on the earlier thread. Couple of minor problems, in my opinion.

A. Gore thinks if we do something, Chinese will kum bah yah and change their entire national corporate coverage. I find his opinion naive.

B. Gore thinks that Obama failed in Copenhagen, but he tried.

And in spite of President Obama’s efforts at the Copenhagen climate summit meeting in December, global leaders failed to muster anything more than a decision to “take note” of an intention to act.

I seem to remember the President being called out on a “failure to act” back then. I may be mis-remembering that though.

29 jaunte  Sun, Feb 28, 2010 10:57:22am

re: #26 albusteve

we could start by weening ourselves of our corn addiction

At least, not subsidizing it.

30 Fat Bastard Vegetarian  Sun, Feb 28, 2010 10:57:37am

re: #21 jaunte

Ya think?

Or India, for that matter.

31 Walter L. Newton  Sun, Feb 28, 2010 10:58:10am

Another interesting article… read it all at… mikehulme.org

—-

Is Climate Change, rather than being an inconvenient truth, in fact being used as a very convenient category because it offers us a psychological focus for our loss of the past, our fear of the future and our instinct for hubris? We are using climate change to act as a conduit for serving our deeper needs.

The function of Climate Change I suggest then is not as a lower case physical phenomenon to be ‘solved’. It really is not about stopping climate chaos. Instead, we need to see how we can use the idea of Climate Change (upper case) – the matrix of power relationships, social meanings and cultural discourses that Climate Change reveals and spawns - to re-think how we take forward our political, social and economic projects over the decades to come. We should use Climate Change as a magnifying glass in more forensic and honest examinations than we have been used to of each of these projects – projects of economic growth, free trade, poverty reduction, community-building, demographic management, social health, etc.

Let us use the magnifying power of Climate Change, the things that Climate Change teaches us – its focus on the long-term implications of short-term choices, its global reach, its revelation of new centres of power, its attention to both material and cultural values - to attend more closely to what we really want to achieve for humanity: whether this be affluence, justice or mere survival.

(mikehulme.org)

32 Racer X  Sun, Feb 28, 2010 10:58:52am

Next will come the “so you’re against capitalism?” retort.

33 Fat Bastard Vegetarian  Sun, Feb 28, 2010 10:58:54am

re: #20 Obdicut

re: #28 Fat Bastard Vegetarian

Very minor quibbles, though.

34 Shazam  Sun, Feb 28, 2010 10:59:15am

re: #1 Fat Bastard Vegetarian

Sarah Palin could back up some very important causes and be dismissed out of hand, because, well… she’s Sarah Palin.

Find a new spokesperson, Gaia.

But can she form a coherent sentence?

35 Fat Bastard Vegetarian  Sun, Feb 28, 2010 10:59:48am

re: #34 nonsense

Yes.

36 Cato the Elder  Sun, Feb 28, 2010 11:00:29am

OK, I’ve been contemplating this little quiz for a while now.

The Green Quiz by Cato

A. Your grandmother is dying on the other side of the country. She has been in a coma for a year and will not recognize you or even know you’re there. Do you
1. Fly there anyway to support your family.
2. Take a train and risk not getting there in time.
3. Stay home for the good of the planet.

B. You have a job interview, but your gut tells you you won’t get the position and you really wouldn’t want to work for that company. Do you
1. Fly there anyway just to say you tried.
2. Drive across two states just to say you tried.
3. Ask for a video-conference interview for the good of the planet.

C. You win a sweepstakes vacation to the island of Spetsis in Greece, all expenses paid, for two people and three weeks. Do you
1. Take the wife and enjoy yourself.
2. Take your mistress and enjoy yourself.
3. Ask for a cash payout instead and donate it to Greenpeace for the good of the planet.

D. You find your dream house on the coast of Maine. But it’s a drafty old nineteenth-century affair with an enormous carbon footprint because everything from windows to insulation to the cranky old oil-heating system has to be replaced. You can afford the house but not the upgrades for at least ten years. Do you
1. Live your dream
2. Ask Al Gore for a fixer-upper loan.
3. Stay in your crummy place in a city and climate you detest for the good of the planet.

I could go on.

If you answered anything but “3” to any of these questions, you are worse than a pedophile as far as the planet is concerned.

37 KingKenrod  Sun, Feb 28, 2010 11:01:09am

re: #20 Obdicut

So, how many people have read the article and found any fault with the information contained therein?

I don’t have a problem with any information, there’s not enough of it…some of Gore’s arguments are weak. Does he really trust the Chinese to keep their promises? He talks about using the rule of law as an instrument of human redemption, which is a very dangerous idea. And he whines about the move away from traditional media - well, boo-hoo, the Dems lost their monopoly on the flow of information.

38 Racer X  Sun, Feb 28, 2010 11:02:30am

Critics, mostly on the political right and among global warming skeptics, say Mr. Gore is poised to become the world’s first “carbon billionaire,” profiteering from government policies he supports that would direct billions of dollars to the business ventures he has invested in.

39 albusteve  Sun, Feb 28, 2010 11:03:31am

re: #36 Cato the Elder

I am pedophile scum, posting from N Korea….they got me

40 researchok  Sun, Feb 28, 2010 11:04:49am

Charles is especially on target when he notes that Gore would be a polarizing figure if were to do nothing but sing Happy Birthday. He is to the right what Gingrich is to the left, a marginalizing figure.

Says a lot about us when we attach more or less value to personalities rather than to the validity of arguments.

41 Red Pencil  Sun, Feb 28, 2010 11:05:18am

re: #39 albusteve

I am pedophile scum, posting from N Korea…they got me

OK, well, moving to N Korea WILL reduce your carbon footprint, THAT’S for sure. That option should be added to Cato’s quiz.

42 Ojoe  Sun, Feb 28, 2010 11:06:08am

re: #36 Cato the Elder

Regarding D, you could live in the old place in the old ways (warmer clothing, colder house, some wood stove heat (not fossil fuel heat) for the good of the planet. You could plant a vegetable garden for the good of the planet.

It is not always that the good of the planet means an unpleasant decision of deprivation.

People’s attitudes are stuck.

43 Walter L. Newton  Sun, Feb 28, 2010 11:06:26am

re: #38 Racer X

Critics, mostly on the political right and among global warming skeptics, say Mr. Gore is poised to become the world’s first “carbon billionaire,” profiteering from government policies he supports that would direct billions of dollars to the business ventures he has invested in.

Not just Gore… how about Dr. Pacharhi, head of the IPCC and his company TERI.

Ann Winterton: To ask the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change how much Government funding from all sources has been provided to (a) the Energy and Resources Institute (TERI), (b) TERI Europe, (c) the Asian Energy Institute and (d) the Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency Partnership in each of the last five years. [311809]

23 Feb 2010 : Column 468W
Joan Ruddock: The information is as follows.

(1) Funding for The Energy and Resources Institute (TERI)

The Department of Energy and Climate Change (DECC) has not funded TERI directly over this period. In 2009 DECC funded Phase 2 of a UK-India collaborative study on the barriers to technology transfer. This work was led by the Science and Technology Policy Research Unit at Sussex university (SPRU), which received £167,000 in funding. SPRU partnered with TERI on this study.

The following has been provided to TERI by other Government Departments: Foreign and Commonwealth Office Funding

£441,000 from FCO for seven projects through the strategic programme fund and global opportunities fund, 2004 to 2010, as follows:

See the chart at the bottom of the page.

publications.parliament.uk

44 albusteve  Sun, Feb 28, 2010 11:06:37am

re: #38 Racer X

Critics, mostly on the political right and among global warming skeptics, say Mr. Gore is poised to become the world’s first “carbon billionaire,” profiteering from government policies he supports that would direct billions of dollars to the business ventures he has invested in.

Other public figures, like Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Robert F. Kennedy Jr., who have vocally supported government financing of energy-saving technologies, have investments in alternative energy ventures. Some scientists and policy advocates also promote energy policies that personally enrich them.

that’s a sweet set up there….you don’t suppose…nah, never mind

45 Fat Bastard Vegetarian  Sun, Feb 28, 2010 11:07:31am

re: #36 Cato the Elder

Wouldn’t go see granny, tho. Waste of effort, money and is not ever going to be something I would ever want to remember. Not about saving the globe.

I’d change question one. But, it is excellent, IMO.

46 Walter L. Newton  Sun, Feb 28, 2010 11:08:40am

re: #36 Cato the Elder

Brilliant!

47 keloyd  Sun, Feb 28, 2010 11:09:00am

Elanor Roosevelt was right, but tactics and strategery are important too. Man and message cannot be separated in Gore’s case.

The center-right can evolve on this. I have, myself, in part due to poking around on this blog. If the center-right evolved on Iraqi WMDs, homosexual issues re the military and civil unions, then AGW is likely next.

When/if Gore has a sit-down with George Will, Colin Powell, and David Brooks and some scientists, behind closed doors, then uses his political talents to persuade the center-right, thru others’ voices that the right find persuasive, then I’ll give credit where it’s due. Put this content, with more logic and less emotional froth, in the Wall Street Journal editorial page, with a byline the right (or at least center-right) respects, then we make progress. Until then, Gore is preaching to the choir for his own aggrandizement.

48 Fat Bastard Vegetarian  Sun, Feb 28, 2010 11:09:01am

How does Katie Morgan feel about AGW?

She’d be a good spokesperson. People’d listen to her.

49 auldtrafford  Sun, Feb 28, 2010 11:10:13am

re: #5 Palmer_Eldritch

Gore makes a good case. What’s interesting to me is the way right wing radio has twisted global warming science, arguing it’s a conspiracy designed to take away personal liberty. I would like to find someone who believes this, and then ask them how they would feel if it turned out, let’s say 100 years from now, that global warming is real and that they had been duped by a group of political and business groups with an interest in halting any legislation that might affect their bottom line.

Suppose global warming is real, but natural - that humans have neither responsibility for it, nor the means to do anything to change it. Then suppose we realize that 100 years from now, but in the meantime have sacrificed our way of life to attempt changing that which we could not change. And we realize that we have, instead, enriched a group of political and business groups selling cap-and-trade credits - a group which knew the science was uncertain all along, but which stood to advance their bottom line …

Just curious.

50 Racer X  Sun, Feb 28, 2010 11:11:06am

re: #43 Walter L. Newton
re: #44 albusteve


I’m on board with the GW train. It is getting worse and it could turn really really bad. However, If anyone thinks there is no profiteering going on in the GW industry then they are sadly mistaken.

Where I am skeptical is how bad, how soon, and what can be done to slow it down. Clearly there is a lot more profit to be made, and if for some reason the climate were to suddenly shift the profits would dry up.

51 Stonemason  Sun, Feb 28, 2010 11:12:08am

re: #49 auldtrafford

do you think Al Gore is going to change his way of life? Nope, just the little people will have to change, in both scenarios. And that is why some have a problem with the hypocrisy.

52 jaunte  Sun, Feb 28, 2010 11:12:16am

More nuclear energy producton may be the only way out of this bind:

As countries around the world attempt to reduce emissions and produce cleaner energy, the need for structural steel will increase. Steel will be needed for support towers as well as reinforcing rebar toward the construction of new power generation facilities. In addition, the transmission infrastructure needed to transport electricity also will result in greater demand for steel. The expansion of clean energy production is expected to result in demand for many types of steel products.
bls.gov

Steel Industry Energy Consumption by Fuel:
eia.doe.gov

53 Walter L. Newton  Sun, Feb 28, 2010 11:12:16am

re: #5 Palmer_Eldritch

Gore makes a good case. What’s interesting to me is the way right wing radio has twisted global warming science, arguing it’s a conspiracy designed to take away personal liberty. I would like to find someone who believes this, and then ask them how they would feel if it turned out, let’s say 100 years from now, that global warming is real and that they had been duped by a group of political and business groups with an interest in halting any legislation that might affect their bottom line.

Could it have something to do with statements like this?

The function of Climate Change I suggest then is not as a lower case physical phenomenon to be ‘solved’. It really is not about stopping climate chaos. Instead, we need to see how we can use the idea of Climate Change (upper case) – the matrix of power relationships, social meanings and cultural discourses that Climate Change reveals and spawns - to re-think how we take forward our political, social and economic projects over the decades to come. We should use Climate Change as a magnifying glass in more forensic and honest examinations than we have been used to of each of these projects – projects of economic growth, free trade, poverty reduction, community-building, demographic management, social health, etc. Let us use the magnifying power of Climate Change, the things that Climate Change teaches us – its focus on the long-term implications of short-term choices, its global reach, its revelation of new centres of power, its attention to both material and cultural values - to attend more closely to what we really want to achieve for humanity: whether this be affluence, justice or mere survival.

Just a thought?

mikehulme.org

54 albusteve  Sun, Feb 28, 2010 11:13:49am

re: #46 Walter L. Newton

Brilliant!

picture Cato sailing across the desert in his Hot Rod Lincoln, canine buddy at his side…RayBans polished to a glow, NRA cap strapped on backwards, groovin to the Stones and searching for a spritual boner deep in the Mojave…I don’t think he gives a shit what Al Gore has to say

55 Cato the Elder  Sun, Feb 28, 2010 11:14:26am

re: #5 Palmer_Eldritch

Gore makes a good case. What’s interesting to me is the way right wing radio has twisted global warming science, arguing it’s a conspiracy designed to take away personal liberty. I would like to find someone who believes this, and then ask them how they would feel if it turned out, let’s say 100 years from now, that global warming is real and that they had been duped by a group of political and business groups with an interest in halting any legislation that might affect their bottom line.

The simple fact is that no human being is capable of processing hypotheticals more than two weeks from the present day.

No one cares about what’s going to happen 100 years in the future. They say they do, but it’s pious nonsense.

Proof? Ask what they’re willing to give up now for the sake of a futurity they’ll never see.

56 Walter L. Newton  Sun, Feb 28, 2010 11:14:42am

re: #54 albusteve

picture Cato sailing across the desert in his Hot Rod Lincoln, canine buddy at his side…RayBans polished to a glow, NRA cap strapped on backwards, groovin to the Stones and searching for a spritual boner deep in the Mojave…I don’t think he gives a shit what Al Gore has to say

Need to make a small correction… groovin to The Kinks

57 brookly red  Sun, Feb 28, 2010 11:15:39am

re: #54 albusteve

picture Cato sailing across the desert in his Hot Rod Lincoln, canine buddy at his side…RayBans polished to a glow, NRA cap strapped on backwards, groovin to the Stones and searching for a spritual boner deep in the Mojave…I don’t think he gives a shit what Al Gore has to say

/ugh, over inflate the tires & watch out for the bat zone…

58 Fat Bastard Vegetarian  Sun, Feb 28, 2010 11:16:56am

re: #55 Cato the Elder

I care about my children and my future grandchildren. My great grandchildren could be assholes, though.

59 The Sanity Inspector  Sun, Feb 28, 2010 11:16:56am

re: #40 researchok

Charles is especially on target when he notes that Gore would be a polarizing figure if were to do nothing but sing Happy Birthday. He is to the right what Gingrich is to the left, a marginalizing figure.

Says a lot about us when we attach more or less value to personalities rather than to the validity of arguments.

Which is why I keep saying that there’s a crying need for a sympathetic figure who enjoys the public trust to be the spokesman for the AGW issue. An Asimov or Sagan or somebody. Gore may be right in overview and in every particular. But, as Jonah Goldberg once cracked, his persona is that of “a human toothache.”

60 Fat Bastard Vegetarian  Sun, Feb 28, 2010 11:17:46am

re: #56 Walter L. Newton

Need to make a small correction… groovin to The Kinks

Who?

61 Ojoe  Sun, Feb 28, 2010 11:18:06am

Pessimism & dark attitudes about mitigating climate change will produce no useful results IMHO.

62 albusteve  Sun, Feb 28, 2010 11:18:17am

re: #56 Walter L. Newton

Need to make a small correction… groovin to The Kinks

cousins for sure

63 The Sanity Inspector  Sun, Feb 28, 2010 11:18:24am
64 avanti  Sun, Feb 28, 2010 11:18:40am

re: #10 MPH

…not to mention the hundreds of millions of dollars he’s made through all of this.

I missed the sarc tag. It’s not “100’s of millions” and was donated to climate causes.

65 Fat Bastard Vegetarian  Sun, Feb 28, 2010 11:18:54am

How do you tell Al Gore in a room full of Secret Service Agents?

He’s the stiff one.

66 Racer X  Sun, Feb 28, 2010 11:19:10am

re: #36 Cato the Elder

If you answered anything but “3” to any of these questions, you are worse than a pedophile as far as the planet is concerned.

I have to say (and I hesitate speaking about people when they are not present) the screeds posted by LVQ recently have turned me away from the AGW side a bit. Pedophiles? Killing brown babies? WTH?

67 Cato the Elder  Sun, Feb 28, 2010 11:19:13am

re: #61 Ojoe

Pessimism & dark attitudes about mitigating climate change will produce no useful results IMHO.

Make pessimism illegal!

(Hey, it worked in Russia.)

68 albusteve  Sun, Feb 28, 2010 11:19:20am

re: #61 Ojoe

Pessimism & dark attitudes about mitigating climate change will produce no useful results IMHO.

the no nuke crowd should take that advice

69 Ojoe  Sun, Feb 28, 2010 11:19:58am

re: #67 Cato the Elder

LOL

70 jaunte  Sun, Feb 28, 2010 11:19:59am

re: #67 Cato the Elder

In Russia, frown turns you upside down.

71 brookly red  Sun, Feb 28, 2010 11:20:36am

re: #67 Cato the Elder

Make pessimism illegal!

(Hey, it worked in Russia.)

kinda hard to enforce…

72 Ojoe  Sun, Feb 28, 2010 11:20:41am

BBL

73 albusteve  Sun, Feb 28, 2010 11:20:44am

re: #67 Cato the Elder

Make pessimism illegal!

(Hey, it worked in Russia.)

beat them til their attitude improves?

74 austin_blue  Sun, Feb 28, 2010 11:20:45am

re: #23 nbenhaim

My only question is why doesn’t he debate some of the skeptics? He just dismisses them by calling them names, or sell outs that are paid off by Big Oil.

For the same reason that no one wants to “debate the controversy” over Intelligent Design/Creationism/Religious Hokum.

Why argue with well-paid circus seals? It’s pointless.

75 jotalot  Sun, Feb 28, 2010 11:20:46am

re: #61 Ojoe

Pessimism & dark attitudes about mitigating climate change will produce no useful results IMHO.

We are each smiling broadly as we type. Does that help?

76 Racer X  Sun, Feb 28, 2010 11:20:59am

I blame the hippies. Seriously. The “No Nukes” crowd of the 70’s screwed us all.

77 Ojoe  Sun, Feb 28, 2010 11:21:37am

re: #75 jotalot

Yes it does!

Now I’m going to walk to the beach with the kids.

BBL

78 keloyd  Sun, Feb 28, 2010 11:21:56am

re: #49 auldtrafford

I agree in part. Correlation is not causation. We can prove warming; we can prove increased emissions. We cannot “prove” the connection in the rigorous meaning of the word used by scientists (which I am not) and statisticians (which I am, to some degree, in a different field). It’s a point of theory or belief. I say our fearless leaders cut a deal. Some global warming remedies feed other goals at the same time. Independent of AGW, it’s a good idea for the government to nudge us in the direction of more efficient cars/homes/offices, less oil imports from hostile nations, stricter building codes, more (locally sourced and maintained) windmills, smarter city planning, and less coal-related pollution, etc.

If we put aside the draconian measures that were only ever empty talk, we can do the rest under other agendas…then give Gore no credit at all(!)

79 albusteve  Sun, Feb 28, 2010 11:22:24am

re: #74 austin_blue

For the same reason that no one wants to “debate the controversy” over Intelligent Design/Creationism/Religious Hokum.

Why argue with well-paid circus seals? It’s pointless.

because the circus seals are gaining momentum against AGW…circus seals vote and pay taxes too

80 Cato the Elder  Sun, Feb 28, 2010 11:22:31am

re: #71 brookly red

kinda hard to enforce…

Not if you have a gulag archipelago.

81 keloyd  Sun, Feb 28, 2010 11:22:59am

re: #50 Racer X

I’m in the back of the GW train with the luggage. I don’t want my Republican friends to see me, but here I am.

82 avanti  Sun, Feb 28, 2010 11:23:33am

re: #25 albusteve

I asked that same question a while back and the general answer is that it would be beneath him to indulge his critics

My opinion, that would be like asking the Packers cheer leaders to play the Saints. He’s a promoter of the science, knowledgeable, but not a expert climatologist.

83 brookly red  Sun, Feb 28, 2010 11:24:19am

re: #80 Cato the Elder

Not if you have a gulag archipelago.

well for the record I am not a pessimist…

I am positive that we are screwed.

84 Racer X  Sun, Feb 28, 2010 11:24:52am

re: #48 Fat Bastard Vegetarian

How does Katie Morgan feel about AGW?

She’d be a good spokesperson. People’d listen to her.

When she speaks, I pay attention.

85 Uncle Obdicut  Sun, Feb 28, 2010 11:24:56am

re: #78 keloyd

It’s a point of theory or belief.

I’m sorry, this is incorrect. There is an immense amount of difference between the incredibly well-supported theory of AGW and a ‘belief’. Especially in a post where you take it on yourself to split hairs about the meaning of ‘proven’.

86 albusteve  Sun, Feb 28, 2010 11:25:20am

re: #82 avanti

My opinion, that would be like asking the Packers cheer leaders to play the Saints. He’s a promoter of the science, knowledgeable, but not a expert climatologist.

neither is J Inhofe…he was the adversary when the question was raised

87 austin_blue  Sun, Feb 28, 2010 11:25:31am

re: #79 albusteve

because the circus seals are gaining momentum against AGW…circus seals vote and pay taxes too

“Fat, drunk, and stupid is no way to go through life, son.”

-Dean Wormer

88 SixDegrees  Sun, Feb 28, 2010 11:25:47am

re: #59 The Sanity Inspector

Which is why I keep saying that there’s a crying need for a sympathetic figure who enjoys the public trust to be the spokesman for the AGW issue. An Asimov or Sagan or somebody. Gore may be right in overview and in every particular. But, as Jonah Goldberg once cracked, his persona is that of “a human toothache.”

Say “Al Gore” in any moderately crowded room, and someone within 20 feet will say “ManBearPig” within five seconds. Yeah, Gore has a huge image problem:

Al Gore is Super Awesome.

Not to mention the following season’s treatment, featuring Gore wearing his Nobel Prize medal around his neck and making “Whoosh!” sounds with arms outstretched, mimicking superhero flight while walking:

Al Gore Finds ManBearPig.

This is how my kids view Al Gore. Even those who support him guffaw and nod in agreement over these treatments.

Al Gore: self-aggrandizing douche. Not an optimal spokesperson for anything.

It’s like Pat Robertson making pronouncements on…well, anything at all. But particularly on how to run, say, relief efforts. The idea that he should be taken seriously is, itself, jsut ridiculous.

89 Cato the Elder  Sun, Feb 28, 2010 11:26:11am

re: #45 Fat Bastard Vegetarian

Wouldn’t go see granny, tho. Waste of effort, money and is not ever going to be something I would ever want to remember. Not about saving the globe.

I’d change question one. But, it is excellent, IMO.

OK, make it your mother’s funeral then.

Your mother is dead. She’s going in the ground. And you’re gonna kill the planet by flying 3,000 miles to witness an empty hole get filled?

Gaiacide!

90 el gringo  Sun, Feb 28, 2010 11:26:18am

Al Gore isn’t hated because he made a speech criticizing Bush, he’s hated because he’s a fool, a liar, and a hypocrite (on that whole “carbon footprint” thing, especially), and because he dragged the whole country through his personal melodrama over the Florida election.

I’m puzzled, too: AGW skeptics are not to believed unless they are “scientists” who have published “peer reviewed” papers, but a has-been politician who dropped out of divinity school is ok because he “has a pretty good grasp of the science”?

91 Uncle Obdicut  Sun, Feb 28, 2010 11:27:09am

re: #88 SixDegrees

It’s like Pat Robertson making pronouncements on…well, anything at all. But particularly on how to run, say, relief efforts. The idea that he should be taken seriously is, itself, jsut ridiculous.

Except that the vast, vast, vast majority of Al Gore’s statements on AGW are factually true, and Pat Robertson blames national tragedies on homosexuals.

This is an incredible false equivalence.

92 auldtrafford  Sun, Feb 28, 2010 11:27:25am

re: #78 keloyd

Independent of AGW, it’s a good idea for the government to nudge us in the direction of more efficient cars/homes/offices, less oil imports from hostile nations, stricter building codes, more (locally sourced and maintained) windmills, smarter city planning, and less coal-related pollution, etc.

Sorry to go all right-wing on you, but if these things are all good, they ought to be attractive economically - a “nudge” from the government is not the way to go in a free society. IMO

93 brookly red  Sun, Feb 28, 2010 11:27:48am

re: #89 Cato the Elder

OK, make it your mother’s funeral then.

Your mother is dead. She’s going in the ground. And you’re gonna kill the planet by flying 3,000 miles to witness an empty hole get filled?

Gaiacide!

/huh. In real word planet kills you.

94 albusteve  Sun, Feb 28, 2010 11:28:28am

re: #92 auldtrafford

Sorry to go all right-wing on you, but if these things are all good, they ought to be attractive economically - a “nudge” from the government is not the way to go in a free society. IMO

a ‘nudge’ these days is only a trillion or so

95 avanti  Sun, Feb 28, 2010 11:28:51am

re: #50 Racer X

re: #44 albusteve

I’m on board with the GW train. It is getting worse and it could turn really really bad. However, If anyone thinks there is no profiteering going on in the GW industry then they are sadly mistaken.

Where I am skeptical is how bad, how soon, and what can be done to slow it down. Clearly there is a lot more profit to be made, and if for some reason the climate were to suddenly shift the profits would dry up.

Assume you are like Gore and support climate change and have some money to invest, would you buy Exxon stock, or perhaps a more eco-friendly company ?

96 Uncle Obdicut  Sun, Feb 28, 2010 11:28:57am

re: #92 auldtrafford

Right now the true economic cost of using coal and oil is hidden; the true cost includes the damage done by their use.

So, the market is distorted.

97 ryannon  Sun, Feb 28, 2010 11:29:01am

re: #26 albusteve

we could start by weening ourselves of our corn addiction

You’ll have to pry my bottle of Jack out of my cold dead hands first.

98 keloyd  Sun, Feb 28, 2010 11:29:50am

re: #85 Obdicut

I said theory OR belief - which is a little misleading. I agree with the AGW theory in teh sense that I believe in the theories of gravity or thermodynamics. Others who don’t follow the science that closely take the thing as a matter of faith or belief or just going along with what the smart folks decided. Those who believe in AGW use either theory or belief. I didn’t mean to belittle the science, just be a stickler.

99 albusteve  Sun, Feb 28, 2010 11:29:53am

re: #97 ryannon

You’ll have to pry my bottle of Jack out of my cold dead hands first.

THERE IT IS!….took you long enough…haha!

100 avanti  Sun, Feb 28, 2010 11:29:59am

re: #86 albusteve

neither is J Inhofe…he was the adversary when the question was raised

Not that debate with Gore I’d pay to see, Inhofe is a idiot.

101 brookly red  Sun, Feb 28, 2010 11:30:16am

re: #90 el gringo

Al Gore isn’t hated because he made a speech criticizing Bush, he’s hated because he’s a fool, a liar, and a hypocrite (on that whole “carbon footprint” thing, especially), and because he dragged the whole country through his personal melodrama over the Florida election.

I’m puzzled, too: AGW skeptics are not to believed unless they are “scientists” who have published “peer reviewed” papers, but a has-been politician who dropped out of divinity school is ok because he “has a pretty good grasp of the science”?

/OK, I have a plan… we hire Palin to be the spokes person for AGW.

hey, it could work.

102 Cato the Elder  Sun, Feb 28, 2010 11:30:26am

re: #92 auldtrafford

Sorry to go all right-wing on you, but if these things are all good, they ought to be attractive economically - a “nudge” from the government is not the way to go in a free society. IMO

So nothing that is not attractive financially is good?

That’s not right-wing, it’s just idiotic.

103 SixDegrees  Sun, Feb 28, 2010 11:30:47am

re: #48 Fat Bastard Vegetarian

How does Katie Morgan feel about AGW?

She’d be a good spokesperson. People’d listen to her.

Amanda Peet has been making public service announcements promoting childhood vaccination.

I wish I had more children to vaccinate. I wish Amanda Peet were their mother.

104 albusteve  Sun, Feb 28, 2010 11:31:04am

re: #100 avanti

Not that debate with Gore I’d pay to see, Inhofe is a idiot.

then Gore should have no problem exposing him for one

105 auldtrafford  Sun, Feb 28, 2010 11:32:05am

re: #96 Obdicut

Right now the true economic cost of using coal and oil is hidden; the true cost includes the damage done by their use.

So, the market is distorted.

If you can prove it, the Courts are open to you. Bring a class action suit, and make a fortune on the way to straightening out the market.

106 Red Pencil  Sun, Feb 28, 2010 11:32:10am

re: #104 albusteve

then Gore should have no problem exposing him for one

Maybe it could be a case of double exposure.

107 Uncle Obdicut  Sun, Feb 28, 2010 11:32:51am

re: #98 keloyd

Trusting scientists, who operate in an environment of close scrutiny, demonstrable results, and empirical data is not just trusting the smart guys. Thus, Western civilization.

So no, believing that science works and other forms of belief are not comparable, in general.

108 albusteve  Sun, Feb 28, 2010 11:33:04am

re: #106 Red Pencil

Maybe it could be a case of double exposure.

I think you may be right

109 auldtrafford  Sun, Feb 28, 2010 11:34:07am

re: #102 Cato the Elder

So nothing that is not attractive financially is good?

That’s not right-wing, it’s just idiotic.

I think you’ve extrapolated my comments a bit beyond their context.

110 Uncle Obdicut  Sun, Feb 28, 2010 11:34:18am

re: #105 auldtrafford

Oh don’t be fatuous. It’s not a debate whether or not their true costs are exposed; they’re not. We have never been economically set up to actually charge companies for the true cost of pollution of almost any sort.

111 Racer X  Sun, Feb 28, 2010 11:36:04am

re: #95 avanti

Assume you are like Gore and support climate change and have some money to invest, would you buy Exxon stock, or perhaps a more eco-friendly company ?

I have no problem with green investments. Trading carbon credits is like masturbation in too many ways.

112 First As Tragedy, Then As Farce  Sun, Feb 28, 2010 11:36:05am

As a dirty, filthy, disgusting, baby-hating, more-or-less-liberal who voted for Bush in 2000, the main things that hugely turned me away from Al Gore were:

1) his habit of speaking as though everyone in his audience was 5 years old. Measured and deliberate Strunk & White-style speech is commendable when done well, but Gore makes me feel dumb just listening to him.

2) I couldn’t separate him in my mind from his wife and the PMRC. That bullshit has no place in my vision of the USA.

Aside from that, I generally find that Gore becomes more likable the farther he gets from Washington. I think the same goes for Bill Clinton, though there’s still something about him that pings my Distrust-o-meter.

113 auldtrafford  Sun, Feb 28, 2010 11:36:08am

re: #110 Obdicut

Oh don’t be fatuous. It’s not a debate whether or not their true costs are exposed; they’re not. We have never been economically set up to actually charge companies for the true cost of pollution of almost any sort.

Ever hear of Erin Brockovich?

114 brookly red  Sun, Feb 28, 2010 11:36:29am

re: #110 Obdicut

Oh don’t be fatuous. It’s not a debate whether or not their true costs are exposed; they’re not. We have never been economically set up to actually charge companies for the true cost of pollution of almost any sort.

That is kinda deep… so how do you put a price tag on true costs?

115 albusteve  Sun, Feb 28, 2010 11:37:01am

personally, I don’t really give a hoot about the guesses as to the effect on the human race…I would like to see the US disrupt the geopolitics surrounding the ME and their headlock on oil, not to mention the pot of gold developing and implementing an new energy technologies…

116 tradewind  Sun, Feb 28, 2010 11:37:53am

The sheer hypocrisy of this piece is stunning. For Gore to use and compare climate science to the tobacco debacle is hysterical, given his and his family’s history of growing it, suckering it, classing it, and selling it….. and for the NYT to classify him as ’ an investor in clean energies ’ hardly gives the whole picture, since the bulk of his and his family’s income was subsidized for years by Armand Hammer’s Occidental Petroleum…aka the dreaded Big Oil.

117 ryannon  Sun, Feb 28, 2010 11:38:03am

re: #56 Walter L. Newton

Need to make a small correction… groovin to The Kinks

With his inflatable Sarah Palin firmly buckled into the passenger seat.

118 First As Tragedy, Then As Farce  Sun, Feb 28, 2010 11:39:09am

re: #116 tradewind

I get your point, but nobody is accountable for their ancestors.

119 Walter L. Newton  Sun, Feb 28, 2010 11:39:59am

re: #107 Obdicut

Trusting scientists, who operate in an environment of close scrutiny, demonstrable results, and empirical data is not just trusting the smart guys. Thus, Western civilization.

So no, believing that science works and other forms of belief are not comparable, in general.

Really… according to Mike Hulmes… Professor of Climate Change in the School of Environmental Sciences at the University of East Anglia (UEA).

(2-25-2010)

“The problem is that in areas of science which are seeking to understand the behaviour of large complex systems which can’t be replicated in the lab, it is very hard if not impossible to apply the scientific litmus test of falsification through experimentation. And climate change is one such area of science. We have scientific theory, we have empirical observations. What we haven’t got are lots of different Earths that can be experimented on in controlled conditions. Virtual climates created inside computer models are the best we’ve got.

All of this means that climate scientists frequently have to reach their conclusions on the basis of the partial, and sometimes poorly tested, evidence and models available to them. And when their paymasters - elected (or non-elected) politicians - ask them for advice, as in the case of the IPCC, opinion and belief become essential for interpreting facts and evidence. Or rather, incomplete evidence and models have to be worked on using opinions and beliefs to reach considered judgements about what may be true. This approach is a well recognised for evaluating some forms of scientific evidence, and quite sophisticated procedures have been established to make it work.

Bayesian statistics and expert elicitation are two such methods, and they both lend themselves to consensus-making.”

mikehulme.org

120 Uncle Obdicut  Sun, Feb 28, 2010 11:41:17am

re: #114 brookly red

Well, that’s an intricate debate. Some people would say that the true cost is the cost of cleanup with available technology; since we have incredibly immature carbon capture technology, that one is pretty pricey. There is also the use to which energy is being put; if you’re using energy to, say, desalinate water, that’s a rather more important use than if you’re using it to power a goth-alt-nerdcore garage band’s overamped setup. Focusing the costs solely on the energy providers and not the energy users would also be unfair, as would be treating all uses the same.

So, basically, without having mature carbon capture technology, that answer mostly depends on the use the energy is put to.

121 keloyd  Sun, Feb 28, 2010 11:41:48am

re: #92 auldtrafford

no problem, I usually only get nudges from the left in here. A right-nudge is a welcome surprise.

We likely agree that the government, especially at the federal level, is always giving carrots and sticks to do what it likes - buy homes for the mortgage tax deduction, burn less gas for all the tax we pay on it, smoke less even though my lungs are no one else’s business, etc. On the other hand, idealism aside, we have a lesser of 2 evils thing here. A ‘free society’ is squeezed by busybody nanny state taxes, but our ‘free-ish society’ is also squeezed by foreign entanglements, air and water pollution, etc. Take high gas taxes as the example. If we all drive more efficiently due to market forces’ reaction to expensive gas, Hugo Chavez and the Saudi royal family can’t make as much trouble. It’s not idealistic, but the world is full of lessers of two evils.

122 albusteve  Sun, Feb 28, 2010 11:41:59am

re: #119 Walter L. Newton

ouch!

123 tradewind  Sun, Feb 28, 2010 11:42:31am

re: #118 negativ
It’s hardly ancestral. Al Gore’s first home and business ventures were financed with Oxy stock. His stock, not his family’s.
And understanding tobacco growing was cited by Gore in his congressional campaign as a qualification, since he had to counter the (accurate) perception that he was in effect a reverse carpetbagger, having grown up not in TN but in a suite of rooms at the Fairfax Hotel in DC.

124 Political Atheist  Sun, Feb 28, 2010 11:42:33am

re: #55 Cato the Elder
I’d like to add a dimension to the “what can we personally do”
Let’s ask our policy makers what they will give up. Not personally, but policy wise. Will they give up reflexive resistance to nuclear power, here and abroad? Will they give up the strident EIR reqirements for solar farms, wind farms, and geothermal?

Will they give up the practice of making the perfect the enemy of the good, so we can have more fossil free kilowatts?

125 Walter L. Newton  Sun, Feb 28, 2010 11:42:58am

re: #122 albusteve

ouch!

No kidding… and this is a really BIG PRO AGW scientist.

126 Uncle Obdicut  Sun, Feb 28, 2010 11:43:20am

re: #119 Walter L. Newton

I’m sorry, can you point to how that relates to my statement?

I’m saying that trusting science, and scientists, as a group, is different than trusting, say, a very smart politician or a very smart priest, because science is a domain with oversight, self-correction, and a proven track record.

How does what you bolded apply to that statement?

127 The Sanity Inspector  Sun, Feb 28, 2010 11:43:39am

re: #66 Racer X

I have to say (and I hesitate speaking about people when they are not present) the screeds posted by LVQ recently have turned me away from the AGW side a bit. Pedophiles? Killing brown babies? WTH?

No connection with Ludwig, but that reminds me of this bit of overreach. Seems Republicans are committing a Healthcare Holocaust, by not rolling over on Obamacare.

128 Merkin  Sun, Feb 28, 2010 11:44:06am

[blockquote]Suppose global warming is real, but natural - that humans have neither responsibility for it, nor the means to do anything to change it. Then suppose we realize that 100 years from now, but in the meantime have sacrificed our way of life to attempt changing that which we could not change. And we realize that we have, instead, enriched a group of political and business groups selling cap-and-trade credits - a group which knew the science was uncertain all along, but which stood to advance their bottom line …

Just curious…[/blockquote]Actually the worse scenario would be that the sudden increase in temperature is at least partly do to natural causes. (although this is not very likely, we are experiencing warming at a rate about ten times faster than ever observed in the temperature record due to natural causes.)

This because the effort to slow the heating will require much more man made carbon reductions to balance off the heating from the natural causes if the temperature increase is partially due to natural causes rather than due completely to man made carbon.

And an important point. We are not trying to save the planet, it already has a very effective way to deal with global warming. It is called mass extinctions of plant and animal life.

129 tradewind  Sun, Feb 28, 2010 11:44:21am

re: #124 Rightwingconspirator
Heh. Here’s what Pelosi wants ‘em to give up…….foxnews.com

130 Walter L. Newton  Sun, Feb 28, 2010 11:45:22am

re: #126 Obdicut

I’m sorry, can you point to how that relates to my statement?

I’m saying that trusting science, and scientists, as a group, is different than trusting, say, a very smart politician or a very smart priest, because science is a domain with oversight, self-correction, and a proven track record.

How does what you bolded apply to that statement?

It applies to this statement of yours… “So no, believing that science works and other forms of belief are not comparable, in general.”

Not the NEW statement above.

131 auldtrafford  Sun, Feb 28, 2010 11:45:35am

re: #121 keloyd

I certainly agree there is a balance that must be struck. As long as we don’t undertake to decide where the fulcrum is today … It’s almost lunch time.

132 Racer X  Sun, Feb 28, 2010 11:45:38am
But what a burden would be lifted! We would no longer have to worry that our grandchildren would one day look back on us as a criminal generation that had selfishly and blithely ignored clear warnings that their fate was in our hands.

Pure, unadulterated Liberal Guilt.

We could instead celebrate the naysayers who had doggedly persisted in proving that every major National Academy of Sciences report on climate change had simply made a huge mistake.

I win! Suck it deniers!

*awkward fistpump*

133 Walter L. Newton  Sun, Feb 28, 2010 11:46:08am

Be right back… Safari is acting strange… shutting it down and coming back.

134 brookly red  Sun, Feb 28, 2010 11:46:35am

re: #120 Obdicut

Well, that’s an intricate debate. Some people would say that the true cost is the cost of cleanup with available technology; since we have incredibly immature carbon capture technology, that one is pretty pricey. There is also the use to which energy is being put; if you’re using energy to, say, desalinate water, that’s a rather more important use than if you’re using it to power a goth-alt-nerdcore garage band’s overamped setup. Focusing the costs solely on the energy providers and not the energy users would also be unfair, as would be treating all uses the same.

So, basically, without having mature carbon capture technology, that answer mostly depends on the use the energy is put to.

OK. I want to come off badly on this, the term “carbon capture technology” is kinda weird to me… to me, carbon capture technology means trees. It’s kinda like spending billions of dollars to develop a synthetic compound to replicate the effects of an herb…

135 Uncle Obdicut  Sun, Feb 28, 2010 11:46:45am

re: #130 Walter L. Newton

Okay, how does it apply to that statement, then, Walter?

136 Velvet Elvis  Sun, Feb 28, 2010 11:46:51am

re: #112 negativ

As a dirty, filthy, disgusting, baby-hating, more-or-less-liberal who voted for Bush in 2000, the main things that hugely turned me away from Al Gore were:

1) his habit of speaking as though everyone in his audience was 5 years old. Measured and deliberate Strunk & White-style speech is commendable when done well, but Gore makes me feel dumb just listening to him.

That’s not even him. That’s how his handlers prepped him to be. I won’t go into details by I’m two degrees of separation from Al Gore. He’s not like that in person. He was one of the most mismanaged candidates in the history of politics.

137 Altermite  Sun, Feb 28, 2010 11:47:05am

re: #36 Cato the Elder

OK, I’ve been contemplating this little quiz for a while now.

The Green Quiz by Cato

A. Your grandmother is dying on the other side of the country. She has been in a coma for a year and will not recognize you or even know you’re there. Do you
1. Fly there anyway to support your family.
2. Take a train and risk not getting there in time.
3. Stay home for the good of the planet.

B. You have a job interview, but your gut tells you you won’t get the position and you really wouldn’t want to work for that company. Do you
1. Fly there anyway just to say you tried.
2. Drive across two states just to say you tried.
3. Ask for a video-conference interview for the good of the planet.

C. You win a sweepstakes vacation to the island of Spetsis in Greece, all expenses paid, for two people and three weeks. Do you
1. Take the wife and enjoy yourself.
2. Take your mistress and enjoy yourself.
3. Ask for a cash payout instead and donate it to Greenpeace for the good of the planet.

D. You find your dream house on the coast of Maine. But it’s a drafty old nineteenth-century affair with an enormous carbon footprint because everything from windows to insulation to the cranky old oil-heating system has to be replaced. You can afford the house but not the upgrades for at least ten years. Do you
1. Live your dream
2. Ask Al Gore for a fixer-upper loan.
3. Stay in your crummy place in a city and climate you detest for the good of the planet.

I could go on.

If you answered anything but “3” to any of these questions, you are worse than a pedophile as far as the planet is concerned.

Disagree. Number of dichotomies here that are absurdly contrived to drive home a point.

138 First As Tragedy, Then As Farce  Sun, Feb 28, 2010 11:47:06am

re: #123 tradewind

Noted. Thanks, actually.

139 albusteve  Sun, Feb 28, 2010 11:48:46am

re: #137 Altermite

yes, you understand

140 Uncle Obdicut  Sun, Feb 28, 2010 11:48:51am

re: #134 brookly red

Well, planting shitlaods of new trees, stopping deforestation, and buying the land to plant even more trees— as well as perhaps developing some algae-farms— would be a perfectly good way of going about it, but it’s rather slow. There are definitely biological ways to approach it, but in that case it’d be working out the math and the cost of deploying that biological solution.

Short answer: Trees are great at capturing carbon, but they don’t do it especially fast. An algae-based biological solution is more likely.

141 brookly red  Sun, Feb 28, 2010 11:50:17am

re: #140 Obdicut

Well, planting shitlaods of new trees, stopping deforestation, and buying the land to plant even more trees— as well as perhaps developing some algae-farms— would be a perfectly good way of going about it, but it’s rather slow. There are definitely biological ways to approach it, but in that case it’d be working out the math and the cost of deploying that biological solution.

Short answer: Trees are great at capturing carbon, but they don’t do it especially fast. An algae-based biological solution is more likely.

Agreed. So why call it “technology”? it is what it is…

142 austin_blue  Sun, Feb 28, 2010 11:50:30am

re: #128 Merkin

[blockquote]Suppose global warming is real, but natural - that humans have neither responsibility for it, nor the means to do anything to change it. Then suppose we realize that 100 years from now, but in the meantime have sacrificed our way of life to attempt changing that which we could not change. And we realize that we have, instead, enriched a group of political and business groups selling cap-and-trade credits - a group which knew the science was uncertain all along, but which stood to advance their bottom line …

Just curious…[/blockquote]Actually the worse scenario would be that the sudden increase in temperature is at least partly do to natural causes. (although this is not very likely, we are experiencing warming at a rate about ten times faster than ever observed in the temperature record due to natural causes.)

This because the effort to slow the heating will require much more man made carbon reductions to balance off the heating from the natural causes if the temperature increase is partially due to natural causes rather than due completely to man made carbon.

And an important point. We are not trying to save the planet, it already has a very effective way to deal with global warming. It is called mass extinctions of plant and animal life.

Okie dokie then. How about this:

We have two centuries of coal and oil left left to be mined. Than what?

No power, no plastics, no fertilizer.

It’s a finite resource, by definition. Why not start the changeover now? It’s inevitable anyway. The sooner we do it, the cheaper it will be in the long run. The future will thank us, irregardless of AGW.

143 Racer X  Sun, Feb 28, 2010 11:50:49am

I’m now curious.

If AGW is as bad as we are being told - and it may well be - why so much focus on health care right now? Is that all of a sudden more of a priority?

144 The Sanity Inspector  Sun, Feb 28, 2010 11:50:57am

Charles, today is the 17th anniversary of the beginning of the Branch Davidian standoff in Waco. It might be interesting to check your twitter sources and see what the chatter is, out there.

145 albusteve  Sun, Feb 28, 2010 11:50:59am

we need more robots, nuclear robots to do my beer runs…the carbons savings for me would be in the tens of dollars

146 Walter L. Newton  Sun, Feb 28, 2010 11:51:08am

re: #135 Obdicut

Okay, how does it apply to that statement, then, Walter?

You said…

“So no, believing that science works and other forms of belief are not comparable, in general.”

Mike Hulmes said…

All of this means that climate scientists frequently have to reach their conclusions on the basis of the partial, and sometimes poorly tested, evidence and models available to them. And when their paymasters - elected (or non-elected) politicians - ask them for advice, as in the case of the IPCC, opinion and belief become essential for interpreting facts and evidence. Or rather, incomplete evidence and models have to be worked on using opinions and beliefs to reach considered judgements about what may be true. This approach is a well recognised for evaluating some forms of scientific evidence, and quite sophisticated procedures have been established to make it work.

Belief does play a part in scientific research.

147 Uncle Obdicut  Sun, Feb 28, 2010 11:51:15am

re: #141 brookly red

Um, developing a new form of algae would be technology. It would be biotechnology, specifically. So I’m not sure what your objection is.

148 auldtrafford  Sun, Feb 28, 2010 11:51:26am

re: #128 Merkin

And an important point. We are not trying to save the planet, it already has a very effective way to deal with global warming. It is called mass extinctions of plant and animal life.

Well, I’ve heard there’s a bad moon on the rise, but this is the first I’ve heard we’re looking at mass extinctions of plant and animal life. From global climate change, anyway - black holes, meteorite strikes, etc. - yes, but from climate change, that’s a bit beyond Al Gore, I think.

149 Political Atheist  Sun, Feb 28, 2010 11:52:33am

re: #129 tradewind

Figures. Heres my feeling-If the right thing for me to do is change my ways to less fossil fuel combustion, fine. I’m all for it. The consumption side is my responsibility.

But they have to match my effort with fossil free or reduced infrastructure. Make my electricity fossil free. Let me use some of that at a fair price to split water so I can have clean gas heat for certain appliances.

To Speaker Pelosi I would say that none of the sheer structure is available for me to do the right thing at all, in fact the big issues are government reglation. Just try to get well water for your home. Just try to get permits to electrolyse water.

See government can help these efforts fast and cheap by sensibly removing/reducing the roadblocks they put in. Then they can get about the infrastructure.

To my local state and county authority-Get out of the way of my windmills in back yards, cisterns, water wells, and unsightly solar panels.

IMHO

150 TampaKnight  Sun, Feb 28, 2010 11:52:41am

Al Gore who? There is USA hockey about to start!!!

151 keloyd  Sun, Feb 28, 2010 11:52:53am

re: #107 Obdicut

Trusting scientists, who operate in an environment of close scrutiny, demonstrable results, and empirical data is not just trusting the smart guys. Thus, Western civilization.

So no, believing that science works and other forms of belief are not comparable, in general.

We’re at cross purposes I think. If an English Lit professor who’s never sat a minute in a statistics class believes in AGW, it is good for him. Much of the public has neither the tools or patience to go through the whole process. However, the thought process in his head is ‘belief’, not ‘scientific proof’. Some get to AGW one way, some the other, hence my original choice of words “theory or belief”. I do not mean to belittle either the science or the people with unrelated professions.

152 Velvet Elvis  Sun, Feb 28, 2010 11:53:07am

re: #140 Obdicut

Well, planting shitlaods of new trees, stopping deforestation, and buying the land to plant even more trees— as well as perhaps developing some algae-farms— would be a perfectly good way of going about it, but it’s rather slow. There are definitely biological ways to approach it, but in that case it’d be working out the math and the cost of deploying that biological solution.

Short answer: Trees are great at capturing carbon, but they don’t do it especially fast. An algae-based biological solution is more likely.

Of course trapped methane is what we really need to be worrying about now. Seabeds are already giving the stuff up.

153 albusteve  Sun, Feb 28, 2010 11:53:28am

re: #148 auldtrafford

Well, I’ve heard there’s a bad moon on the rise, but this is the first I’ve heard we’re looking at mass extinctions of plant and animal life. From global climate change, anyway - black holes, meteorite strikes, etc. - yes, but from climate change, that’s a bit beyond Al Gore, I think.

white people will eat brown people until they are extinct, I think that’s what he meant

154 Uncle Obdicut  Sun, Feb 28, 2010 11:53:37am

re: #146 Walter L. Newton

Newton, do you realize that Hulmes statement has nothing to do with scientific research, but instead has to do with deriving conclusions for action based on scientific research? He’s talking about drawing conclusions from the science and those conclusions being used by the IPCC. If you look at the rest of that quote:

This approach is a well recognised for evaluating some forms of scientific evidence, and quite sophisticated procedures have been established to make it work. Bayesian statistics and expert elicitation are two such methods, and they both lend themselves to consensus-making.

You’ll see the statement does not have to do with scientific research, but about talking about and presenting the results of scientific research.

155 brookly red  Sun, Feb 28, 2010 11:53:59am

re: #143 Racer X

I’m now curious.

If AGW is as bad as we are being told - and it may well be - why so much focus on health care right now? Is that all of a sudden more of a priority?

Raw, naked, unadulterated, absolute power.

156 Velvet Elvis  Sun, Feb 28, 2010 11:54:42am

re: #143 Racer X

I’m now curious.

If AGW is as bad as we are being told - and it may well be - why so much focus on health care right now? Is that all of a sudden more of a priority?

Both are bad. We can walk and chew gum at the same time. Health care will bankrupt the nation in a couple decades if something isn’t done to control costs.

157 auldtrafford  Sun, Feb 28, 2010 11:55:38am

re: #142 austin_blue

We have two centuries of coal and oil left left to be mined. Than what?
. . .

It’s a finite resource, by definition. Why not start the changeover now? It’s inevitable anyway. The sooner we do it, the cheaper it will be in the long run. The future will thank us, irregardless of AGW.

Yikes! Because we expect advances in energy technologies sometime during the next two centuries (like fusion technology)? And maybe it will be cheaper to switch after we develop those techs?

158 Racer X  Sun, Feb 28, 2010 11:55:39am

re: #156 Conservative Moonbat

Both are bad. We can walk and chew gum at the same time. Health care will bankrupt the nation in a couple decades if something isn’t done to control costs.

Hey I know - lets throw a Trillion Dollars at it!

159 The Sanity Inspector  Sun, Feb 28, 2010 11:56:10am

re: #142 austin_blue

Okie dokie then. How about this:

We have two centuries of coal and oil left left to be mined. Than what?

No power, no plastics, no fertilizer.

It’s a finite resource, by definition. Why not start the changeover now? It’s inevitable anyway. The sooner we do it, the cheaper it will be in the long run. The future will thank us, irregardless of AGW.

Claps hands over eyes, reels back in chair.

Sorry, do go on.

160 Walter L. Newton  Sun, Feb 28, 2010 11:56:14am

re: #154 Obdicut

Newton, do you realize that Hulmes statement has nothing to do with scientific research, but instead has to do with deriving conclusions for action based on scientific research? He’s talking about drawing conclusions from the science and those conclusions being used by the IPCC. If you look at the rest of that quote:

You’ll see the statement does not have to do with scientific research, but about talking about and presenting the results of scientific research.

And what’s with the condescending NEWTON. You can’t have a conversation with someone without attempting to act snarky?

I won’t go away.

161 brookly red  Sun, Feb 28, 2010 11:56:19am

re: #147 Obdicut

Um, developing a new form of algae would be technology. It would be biotechnology, specifically. So I’m not sure what your objection is.

why do you say I have an objection? we have trees. we have algae, they are good… why do we need new technology?

162 Uncle Obdicut  Sun, Feb 28, 2010 11:56:22am

re: #151 keloyd

My points is that if that Lit professor believes in AGW because he knows 98.5% of all climatologists and every scientific professional group on earth that’s issued a statement on global warming endorses the theory, it is a world’s difference than just believing something because the person who said it is smart. It is a different thing to ‘believe’ something that sources from the world of hard science.

163 Velvet Elvis  Sun, Feb 28, 2010 11:56:25am

re: #145 albusteve

we need more robots, nuclear robots to do my beer runs…the carbons savings for me would be in the tens of dollars

I’ve got an atomic dog trained to get beer out of the fridge

Youtube Video

164 Political Atheist  Sun, Feb 28, 2010 11:56:31am

re: #140 Obdicut

Part of the solution is get the carbon off before or during combustion, set it aside as a solid. Just burn the H and the O. Or make enough fossil free electricity to eat the energy loss in splitting water. Or both.

Methane powered fuel cells do this if I understand them correctly.

165 Altermite  Sun, Feb 28, 2010 11:57:42am

re: #143 Racer X

I’m now curious.

If AGW is as bad as we are being told - and it may well be - why so much focus on health care right now? Is that all of a sudden more of a priority?

Because environmentalists are not neccasarily the same people as health-care activists.

166 albusteve  Sun, Feb 28, 2010 11:57:51am

re: #163 Conservative Moonbat

I’ve got an atomic dog trained to get beer out of the fridge


[Video]

you rock dude!

167 Racer X  Sun, Feb 28, 2010 11:58:18am

re: #156 Conservative Moonbat

Both are bad. We can walk and chew gum at the same time. Health care will bankrupt the nation in a couple decades if something isn’t done to control costs.

I can see where individuals might suffer more, but what is bankrupting the nation (government) is not rising health costs. Yet.

168 Uncle Obdicut  Sun, Feb 28, 2010 11:58:33am

re: #161 brookly red

We would have to develop forms of algae that are much, much better at eating and storing CO2 than we currently have, and learn how to control them so they don’t go wild in the environment, and make sure there are no bad side-effects. That’s biotechnology. It takes a lot of work.


re: #160 Walter L. Newton

It wasn’t meant snarkily, Walter. I just typed it instead of Walter by accident. If it offends you for some reason— I’m not sure I understand why it would offend— I’ll try to be careful not to do it again.

169 windsagio  Sun, Feb 28, 2010 11:59:08am

re: #165 Altermite

Also, we could get both done (relatively) easily if it weren’t for the trends towards obstruction and obfuscation going on on both fronts.

170 albusteve  Sun, Feb 28, 2010 11:59:09am

re: #165 Altermite

Because environmentalists are not neccasarily the same people as health-care activists.

but congressmen are both….aren’t we lucky?

171 windsagio  Sun, Feb 28, 2010 11:59:50am

re: #167 Racer X

Oh god, there’s a liberal talking point I’m trying to hold in…

172 Walter L. Newton  Sun, Feb 28, 2010 12:00:40pm

re: #168 Obdicut

I’ve never seen you address me like that before, yes, I was surprised… not offended… it does not offend me in general.

173 Racer X  Sun, Feb 28, 2010 12:00:43pm

re: #171 windsagio

Oh god, there’s a liberal talking point I’m trying to hold in…

Thanks, I appreciate it!

;-)

174 windsagio  Sun, Feb 28, 2010 12:01:10pm

re: #173 Racer X

hehe :p

the initials are “W. I. I.”

and its not a game console >>

175 austin_blue  Sun, Feb 28, 2010 12:01:40pm

re: #157 auldtrafford

Yikes! Because we expect advances in energy technologies sometime during the next two centuries (like fusion technology)? And maybe it will be cheaper to switch after we develop those techs?

Oh, I see. It’s the deus ex machina argument. Science can’t be trusted to be correct about AGW, but it can be trusted to pull our fat out of the fire by using government funded research (industry certainly isn’t funding this sort of research!) at some fuzzy point in the future. Maybe. I hope.

Makes perfect sense, eh?

176 First As Tragedy, Then As Farce  Sun, Feb 28, 2010 12:02:09pm

re: #132 Racer X

This is not a ‘challenge’; I’m just digging for information.

How is acknowledging and deriding objectively immoral actions of ones forebears an act of “guilt”, itself deserving of mockery and derision?

I certainly don’t hold anyone responsible for actions other than their own, but is it never appropriate to acknowledge that people in times gone by might be correctly judged objectively immoral by future generations (e.g., us)?

I guess I’m bristling somewhat at your castigation of a similar sentiment as “liberal guilt”, which in my view oversimplifies and caricaturizes (is that a word?) the thought.

177 windsagio  Sun, Feb 28, 2010 12:02:40pm

re: #175 austin_blue

The true nature of the free market is forcing the government to spend money in companies place >>

178 brookly red  Sun, Feb 28, 2010 12:02:41pm

re: #168 Obdicut

We would have to develop forms of algae that are much, much better at eating and storing CO2 than we currently have, and learn how to control them so they don’t go wild in the environment, and make sure there are no bad side-effects. That’s biotechnology. It takes a lot of work.

Bio-technology? I am not feeling that so much… it kinda diss’is mother nature.

179 albusteve  Sun, Feb 28, 2010 12:02:47pm

as for HC, something will get passed eventually…it takes a long time to figure what the cut is and who gets it

180 The Shadow Do  Sun, Feb 28, 2010 12:03:24pm

About ready to drop the puck in Vancouver for the Gold.

I wish I could think of something rotten to say about Canadians.

It was so much easier to hate on the Ruskies!

181 Uncle Obdicut  Sun, Feb 28, 2010 12:03:31pm

re: #178 brookly red

You’re not ‘feeling it’? Are you, um, arguing that biotechnology is bad, as a whole field, or what? I can’t really tell the point of your statements on it.

182 windsagio  Sun, Feb 28, 2010 12:04:04pm

re: #181 Obdicut

Maybe he’s Wiccan. (no offense to wicca :p)

183 Altermite  Sun, Feb 28, 2010 12:04:08pm

re: #170 albusteve

but congressmen are both…aren’t we lucky?

Except that they aren’t. Whoops.

The majority of democrat politicians generally don’t give much more than lip service to environmental problems. They get a lot of support from environmental groups because lip service is still more than most republican politicians are willing to give.

184 Velvet Elvis  Sun, Feb 28, 2010 12:04:19pm

re: #164 Rightwingconspirator

Part of the solution is get the carbon off before or during combustion, set it aside as a solid. Just burn the H and the O. Or make enough fossil free electricity to eat the energy loss in splitting water. Or both.

Methane powered fuel cells do this if I understand them correctly.

The plan for carbon sequestration is a bit yuckier than that if you’re talking about “clean coal” technology. The idea is to store carbon dioxide gas in a cave or cavern deep underground and hope it stays there forever. I’m not a clean coal proponent.

185 windsagio  Sun, Feb 28, 2010 12:04:44pm

re: #180 The Shadow Do

Its easy to hate canadians! They’re so uppity and they think they’re as good as us ;)

186 The Shadow Do  Sun, Feb 28, 2010 12:05:03pm

Ok, I can hate on Don Cherry’s necktie for a while.

187 The Curmudgeon  Sun, Feb 28, 2010 12:05:13pm

I’ve gotten beyond my dislike of Gore. At this point I just dismiss him because he’s not particularly relevant to either politics or science. Worrying about what Gore says is like being concerned about the views of Harold Stassen.

188 Uncle Obdicut  Sun, Feb 28, 2010 12:05:16pm

re: #184 Conservative Moonbat

Clean coal is a marketing term the coal companies came up with.

189 brookly red  Sun, Feb 28, 2010 12:05:24pm

re: #181 Obdicut

You’re not ‘feeling it’? Are you, um, arguing that biotechnology is bad, as a whole field, or what? I can’t really tell the point of your statements on it.

My point is simple, if we are destroying the planet by killing trees & algae how about we just plant more?

190 Charles Johnson  Sun, Feb 28, 2010 12:05:32pm

I voted for Gore in 2000, then developed a slight case of Gore Derangement Syndrome when I was still hoodwinked by the denial industry, before I dug into the real science behind global warming.

It is possible to overcome GDS, but you have to want to recover, and even then it’s still a day-by-day, oped-by-oped process.

/

191 windsagio  Sun, Feb 28, 2010 12:05:42pm

re: #184 Conservative Moonbat

Clean coal (imo) is a scam perpetrated by (surprise) the coal industry and their beholden politicians.

192 brookly red  Sun, Feb 28, 2010 12:06:16pm

re: #185 windsagio

Its easy to hate canadians! They’re so uppity and they think they’re as good as us ;)

mayo on french fries…

193 Velvet Elvis  Sun, Feb 28, 2010 12:06:21pm

re: #167 Racer X

I can see where individuals might suffer more, but what is bankrupting the nation (government) is not rising health costs. Yet.

Yes, but addressing the problem of covering the uninsured saves us money in the long run. I don’ t know how to drive that home. The money spent up front will lead to a deficit reduction.

194 sattv4u2  Sun, Feb 28, 2010 12:06:25pm

G’Afternoon All

Just a quicky

I love our Canadian neoghbors.
I’ve vactioned in Montreal, Nova Scotia and Newfoundland
I spent some time up there between High School and College playing Junior “B” Hockey

I even lost my virginity up there

That all stated, when it comes to todays Olympic Hockey Gold Medal Game

GO USA!!

195 The Shadow Do  Sun, Feb 28, 2010 12:06:30pm

re: #185 windsagio

Its easy to hate canadians! They’re so uppity and they think they’re as good as us ;)

Unctious dogs, that is what they are, eh?

196 Charles Johnson  Sun, Feb 28, 2010 12:06:58pm

re: #191 windsagio

Clean coal (imo) is a scam perpetrated by (surprise) the coal industry and their beholden politicians.

I agree — “clean coal” at this point is a concept that’s very far from being executed in the real world.

197 Walter L. Newton  Sun, Feb 28, 2010 12:07:01pm

re: #191 windsagio

Clean coal (imo) is a scam perpetrated by (surprise) the coal industry and their beholden politicians.

Has Obama fallen for it… gadzooks… I hope not. Didn’t he make some positive statement about clean coal recently?

198 windsagio  Sun, Feb 28, 2010 12:07:11pm

re: #195 The Shadow Do

:D


/Well I also hate Vancouver personally so that’s enough reason for me. Local rivalry and all that :p

199 AuldTrafford  Sun, Feb 28, 2010 12:07:15pm

re: #175 austin_blue

Well, I hope so, too - because at some level, it does make some sense - imperfect, of course.

200 The Shadow Do  Sun, Feb 28, 2010 12:07:20pm

re: #188 Obdicut

Clean coal is a marketing term the coal companies came up with.

Also well on the way to coming true until the pilot plant funding was killed by our illustrious Congress.

201 Uncle Obdicut  Sun, Feb 28, 2010 12:07:39pm

re: #189 brookly red

No, you’re not understanding what I’m saying, then.

We can’t fix the CO2 problem just by planting more trees— there isn’t enough room, and they won’t grow fast enough.

We might be able to by developing— as in, genetically— a new form of algae that would be hypeefficient in CO2 uptake. But we’d have to develop it. With science. Thus, biotechnology.

202 brookly red  Sun, Feb 28, 2010 12:07:50pm

re: #197 Walter L. Newton

Has Obama fallen for it… gadzooks… I hope not. Didn’t he make some positive statement about clean coal recently?

don’t worry about it… he also promised tax cuts.

203 Racer X  Sun, Feb 28, 2010 12:07:56pm

re: #176 negativ

This is not a ‘challenge’; I’m just digging for information.

How is acknowledging and deriding objectively immoral actions of ones forebears an act of “guilt”, itself deserving of mockery and derision?

I certainly don’t hold anyone responsible for actions other than their own, but is it never appropriate to acknowledge that people in times gone by might be correctly judged objectively immoral by future generations (e.g., us)?

I guess I’m bristling somewhat at your castigation of a similar sentiment as “liberal guilt”, which in my view oversimplifies and caricaturizes (is that a word?) the thought.

I kinda bristled at the term “criminal generation”. I think all of us who now know that burning fossil fuels is bad are trying to reduce our impact. I would not call it immoral either. Previous generations were unaware their actions would be so detrimental.

204 windsagio  Sun, Feb 28, 2010 12:08:19pm

re: #197 Walter L. Newton

He’s not perfect :p The coal industry has alot of power and controls alot of votes in the Appalachians. It seems to me that his support is all about keeping those senators and reps in line.

205 austin_blue  Sun, Feb 28, 2010 12:08:26pm

re: #196 Charles

I agree — “clean coal” at this point is a concept that’s very far from being executed in the real world.

And Fusion power will save us!

Unless, of course, it doesn’t.

206 Altermite  Sun, Feb 28, 2010 12:08:46pm

re: #189 brookly red

My point is simple, if we are destroying the planet by killing trees & algae how about we just plant more?

Planting trees? There are groups and companies that do that (Chegg is a personal favorite, as a college student). But the rate of deforestation kicks their asses no matter how you look at it.

And deforestation currently accounts for ~1/3 of the carbon surplus.

207 Charles Johnson  Sun, Feb 28, 2010 12:08:50pm

Clean coal, as a developing technology, does show promise. It’s not totally a scam. But the problem is that a lot of the basic technological breakthroughs necessary to effectively sequester carbon emissions just aren’t there yet.

208 Political Atheist  Sun, Feb 28, 2010 12:09:32pm

re: #184 Conservative Moonbat

Me either as done now. My central point on todays topic is first the government can get out of the way of individual efforts. Thats many kilowatts right there in short order.

209 Walter L. Newton  Sun, Feb 28, 2010 12:09:47pm

re: #204 windsagio

He’s not perfect :p The coal industry has alot of power and controls alot of votes in the Appalachians. It seems to me that his support is all about keeping those senators and reps in line.

I hope so… I hope he just fools the pants off of them and makes them think he cares something about clean cola, and then when the time is right… dump them into the pits of Gaia. I hope they go to hell in a bobsled.

210 brookly red  Sun, Feb 28, 2010 12:10:08pm

re: #206 Altermite

Planting trees? There are groups and companies that do that (Chegg is a personal favorite, as a college student). But the rate of deforestation kicks their asses no matter how you look at it.

And deforestation currently accounts for ~1/3 of the carbon surplus.

so let’s plant a lot more… talk about shovel ready jobs.

211 jaunte  Sun, Feb 28, 2010 12:10:50pm

First commercial clean coal power plant opens in Germany
Sweden’s Vattenfall inaugurated a prototype coal-fired power station on Tuesday which it says is almost emissions-free, but environmentalists were unimpressed as it burns 10% to up to 40% more coal than existing designs and Vattenfall still plans to build more traditional coal-fired power plants.

Located at the site of the massive ‘Schwarze Pumpe’ (‘Black Pump’) power station in eastern Germany, Sweden’s Vattenfall said the new technology has the potential to allow coal to be burnt without releasing harmful greenhouse gases.

‘Today industrial history is being written,’ Vattenfall Europe’s chief executive Tuomo Hatakka told a news conference. ‘Coal has a future — but not the carbon dioxide emissions from it.’

The new method being developed by Vattenfall is called Carbon Capture and Storage, or CCS, which captures the greenhouse gases produced when fossil fuels are combusted. This prevents the greenhouse gases escaping into the Earth’s atmosphere and contributing to global warming. The captured carbon dioxide is compressed until it becomes liquid and then injected deep underground and safely sealed away, Vattenfall says.
blogs.physicstoday.org

212 windsagio  Sun, Feb 28, 2010 12:11:00pm

re: #209 Walter L. Newton

now now.

What’s likely to happen is that the tech won’t pan out in a reasonable amount of time, and we’ll go on to another solution having wasted some money on it.

213 Uncle Obdicut  Sun, Feb 28, 2010 12:11:10pm

re: #203 Racer X

I agree with this. It is hard for us post-Darwinians with modern scientific knowledge to understand previous worldviews. While it may seem obvious that dumping crap into the environment causes effects, previous generations were slowly putting together a picture of just how fragile and prone to change the environment was. They had just started to ‘master’ certain small portions of the environment, so the concept of changing the entire globe through human activity was pretty sci-fi.

That being said, the first theory of AGW was somewhere pre 1900, I think, but the understanding of how damaging it would be lagged behind that quite a bit.

Anyway: I agree. The only ‘criminals’ on AGW in this generation are those who know the truth about climate change but are attempting to suppress or distort that information.

214 sattv4u2  Sun, Feb 28, 2010 12:11:13pm

re: #190 Charles

This was a very good editorial by Al Gore. The only thing that would have been better is if he had this tonality all along. Human instinct. People don;t like being lectured, told their wrong, being yelled at, being told the subject is closed (when the person saying it won;t face questions)

Good for Gore (today). I hope he keeps on this path, and not the (as you aptly described it) his rather extreme attacks on George W. Bush during the Bush presidency (such as the red-faced yelling speech in which he accused Bush of betraying the country

215 Aunty Entity Dragon  Sun, Feb 28, 2010 12:11:22pm
The heavy snowfalls this month have been used as fodder for ridicule by those who argue that global warming is a myth, yet scientists have long pointed out that warmer global temperatures have been increasing the rate of evaporation from the oceans, putting significantly more moisture into the atmosphere — thus causing heavier downfalls of both rain and snow in particular regions, including the Northeastern United States. Just as it’s important not to miss the forest for the trees, neither should we miss the climate for the snowstorm.


That.

The idiocy on display when the Malkin-bots sneer about snowfall and Al Gore is depressing. The concept was floated 25 years ago in the mid 80’s that inially, global warming could lead to increased snow fall temporarily from more moisture in the air. I didn’t think it was a difficult concept when I was 16. I don’t see why people can’t grasp it now.

Oh, my bad…

Everything has to fit into the false blue/red culture war paradigm, no matter how serious the problem or irrelevant the problem is to culture war bullshit.

216 austin_blue  Sun, Feb 28, 2010 12:11:45pm

re: #207 Charles

Clean coal, as a developing technology, does show promise. It’s not totally a scam. But the problem is that a lot of the basic technological breakthroughs necessary to effectively sequester carbon emissions just aren’t there yet.

And what do states and countries without depleted oil fields do (I’m talking to you, Florida, Georgia, Virginia, China and India)? It’s an excuse, not a solution.

217 Racer X  Sun, Feb 28, 2010 12:12:00pm

Aren’t there currently large coal mine fires burning that have been glowing hot for decades because we are unable to extinguish them?

218 windsagio  Sun, Feb 28, 2010 12:12:56pm

re: #213 Obdicut

As an example, turn of the last century there was a common belief that we’d “master” nature, destroying almost all wildlife that we didnt’ need entirely (as seen famously in the ‘look mama, what is that horse cartoons).

Things like insects would be gone entirely.

219 Velvet Elvis  Sun, Feb 28, 2010 12:13:45pm

re: #190 Charles

I voted for Gore in 2000, then developed a slight case of Gore Derangement Syndrome when I was still hoodwinked by the denial industry, before I dug into the real science behind global warming.

It is possible to overcome GDS, but you have to want to recover, and even then it’s still a day-by-day, oped-by-oped process.

/

I voted for Nader because all the cool kids said there was no difference between the democrats and the republicans and the whole point was just to get 5% of the vote so the green could get matching funds the next time around so it wouldn’t really matter anyway….

I fucking hate Ralph Nader.

220 austin_blue  Sun, Feb 28, 2010 12:14:22pm

re: #200 The Shadow Do

Also well on the way to coming true until the pilot plant funding was killed by our illustrious Congress.

With government funding, you mean?

221 jotalot  Sun, Feb 28, 2010 12:14:42pm

re: #176 negativ

Honestly, I can’t stop staring at this. Caricaturize is a word. So is pompous.

222 Velvet Elvis  Sun, Feb 28, 2010 12:15:20pm

re: #197 Walter L. Newton

Has Obama fallen for it… gadzooks… I hope not. Didn’t he make some positive statement about clean coal recently?

I doubt he’s fallen for it. He just has to pay lip service to it to keep voters in coal states happy.

223 Political Atheist  Sun, Feb 28, 2010 12:15:30pm

Some legislative/regulatory expert should take a long hard look at the permit process for alternative energy projects at homes, apartment buildings etc.

Question-If we can not drill ANWAR can we geothermal Yellowstone? Serious question.

224 Altermite  Sun, Feb 28, 2010 12:15:46pm

re: #210 brookly red

so let’s plant a lot more… talk about shovel ready jobs.


Where do you plan on putting all of these trees?

Hint: Many of the places trees grow are places food grows too.

225 Uncle Obdicut  Sun, Feb 28, 2010 12:15:50pm

re: #218 windsagio

Good example; we had no clue how interconnected the ecological web really was until recently, though some could argue we should have.

I think that our technological development would have been much, much different, and much, much better, if we had Darwin a few centuries before the industrial revolution, rather than during it. If we had time to really understand how environments functioned, we might not have been so blithe about altering them.

226 Walter L. Newton  Sun, Feb 28, 2010 12:15:58pm

re: #222 Conservative Moonbat

I doubt he’s fallen for it. He just has to pay lip service to it to keep voters in coal states happy.

So… he will say things in public that he doesn’t believe in or agree with?

227 windsagio  Sun, Feb 28, 2010 12:16:09pm

re: #217 Racer X

famous examples:

Centralia, PA

Burning Mountain, NWS (6000 years, still burning)

228 windsagio  Sun, Feb 28, 2010 12:16:57pm

re: #227 windsagio

err “NSW” as in “New South Wales”. dammit.

229 Altermite  Sun, Feb 28, 2010 12:16:59pm

re: #226 Walter L. Newton

So… he will say things in public that he doesn’t believe in or agree with?

How would conservative moonbat know the answer to that?

230 claire  Sun, Feb 28, 2010 12:17:26pm

re: #210 brookly red

so let’s plant a lot more… talk about shovel ready jobs.


I think I read you’d have to plant about 150 trees to offset one cross-country plane trip, and there are billions of flights world-wide each year. So the world would have to plant, say, 600 billion trees a year, 100 trees per person per year just to keep up with CO2 produced by the airlines.

231 Uncle Obdicut  Sun, Feb 28, 2010 12:17:39pm

This seems a good time to plug the amazing book Darwin’s Dangerous Idea, by Daniel Dennett. It’s a great resource for anyone who wants to understand the progress of scientific thought in Western civilization.

232 lostlakehiker  Sun, Feb 28, 2010 12:18:22pm

re: #5 Palmer_Eldritch

Gore makes a good case. What’s interesting to me is the way right wing radio has twisted global warming science, arguing it’s a conspiracy designed to take away personal liberty. I would like to find someone who believes this, and then ask them how they would feel if it turned out, let’s say 100 years from now, that global warming is real and that they had been duped by a group of political and business groups with an interest in halting any legislation that might affect their bottom line.

Gore makes a good case in this piece. The case he made with “Earth in the Balance” was just terrible. Hyperbolic overstatement, broad-brush painting without any nod to uncertainties in the prospects, and flat-wrong assertions about hurricanes.

Gore is no scientist. If he has finally learned a bit about it, that’s good, but he’s not the man to be making this case. He’s been caught in too many lies, too many exaggerations, too much profiteering, and too much Glen Beck style blubber-faced hysteria to recoup his credibility. His city-block sized mansion is no example to the rest of us of how to behave. For the love of earth and our future on it, he should fade away and let his betters make this case.

As to the merits of the matter, economists agree that a plain old carbon tax leads to more CO2 reduction with less collateral damage than cap and trade, even assuming that C&T does not become a honey pot for specially connected players—-such as Gore himself. On top of this, any real answer to the problem cannot put conservation and constraints first, with measures for alternative energy sources second. It will have to begin with a big effort to supply alternative energy, and then, when that proves to be temporarily insufficient [pending futher construction] some austerity measures. Austerity for the time being, with a view to a brighter future, is something you can sell people. Maybe. Austerity for all time, while you the seller live like Croesus, I think not.

233 The Shadow Do  Sun, Feb 28, 2010 12:18:28pm

re: #220 austin_blue

With government funding, you mean?

Yes, would have been money well spent. Unlike some other dollar bloat we have seen lately.

234 sattv4u2  Sun, Feb 28, 2010 12:18:59pm

re: #224 Altermite

Where do you plan on putting all of these trees?

Hint: Many of the places trees grow are places food grows too.

HINT,,,, no there isn’t. There are vast areas in this country that are NOt farmland and are NOT industrialized and ARE bereft of trees.

ALSO, several years ago developers would clear cut acres of land for new subdivisions, selling the wood for extra profit. Local gov’ts could immediatly pass zoning ordinances stopping that practice.

235 brookly red  Sun, Feb 28, 2010 12:19:04pm

re: #224 Altermite

Where do you plan on putting all of these trees?

Hint: Many of the places trees grow are places food grows too.

personally I was thinking New Jersey… but hint: lot’s of food grows on trees… D’ouh!

236 AuldTrafford  Sun, Feb 28, 2010 12:19:06pm

re: #223 Rightwingconspirator

Some legislative/regulatory expert should take a long hard look at the permit process for alternative energy projects at homes, apartment buildings etc.

Surely, you don’t suggest people be allowed to put up windmills in their front yards? Why, that would be ….

Like they did tried at Martha’s Vineyard?

237 windsagio  Sun, Feb 28, 2010 12:19:49pm

re: #232 lostlakehiker

I’ve said it before, I’ll say it again.

The sad irony of Cap-and-trade is that it was originally thought of as a sop to the conservative/free market types, and ended up being just as much hated as the tax would have been.

238 Walter L. Newton  Sun, Feb 28, 2010 12:19:49pm

re: #229 Altermite

How would conservative moonbat know the answer to that?

I was really being serious. Will Obama make statements about things as serious as coal and clean coal even at the same time not believing in or agreeing with any of it? Is that what everyone is admitting too?

239 The Shadow Do  Sun, Feb 28, 2010 12:20:07pm

re: #223 Rightwingconspirator

Some legislative/regulatory expert should take a long hard look at the permit process for alternative energy projects at homes, apartment buildings etc.

Question-If we can not drill ANWAR can we geothermal Yellowstone? Serious question.

Doesn’t seem likely we will be hauling and hooking up generators with Old Faithful in the near future.

240 Velvet Elvis  Sun, Feb 28, 2010 12:20:25pm

re: #211 jaunte

That’s one of the ones that stores the CO2 in cave under the plant. It totally killed the land value around the area because nobody wanted to live on top of a huge C02 pocket that could leak and asphyxiate them.

241 windsagio  Sun, Feb 28, 2010 12:20:35pm

re: #235 brookly red

We’ll feed the world with htose cool trees that use cuttings to produce 5-6 kinds of fruit!!

242 Uncle Obdicut  Sun, Feb 28, 2010 12:21:03pm

re: #234 sattv4u2

The current rate of deforestation is such that it would be an enormous economic cost and an incredible political effort to reverse the trend. It’s well-worthwhile, but I do not think it is by any means the most efficient way to combat AGW.

And the algae is just cooler, anyway.

243 austin_blue  Sun, Feb 28, 2010 12:21:09pm

Errands. BBIAB.

244 Uncle Obdicut  Sun, Feb 28, 2010 12:21:35pm

re: #238 Walter L. Newton

I personally am admitting that I don’t know what Obama really thinks or feels. Shocking, I know: unlike many others, I lack telepathy.

245 brookly red  Sun, Feb 28, 2010 12:21:35pm

re: #241 windsagio

We’ll feed the world with htose cool trees that use cuttings to produce 5-6 kinds of fruit!!

and pecans… I love pecans.

246 windsagio  Sun, Feb 28, 2010 12:21:57pm

re: #242 Obdicut

I bet Michael Chrichton did a book about the dangers of your plan tho ;)


/dude hated science!

247 Altermite  Sun, Feb 28, 2010 12:22:07pm

re: #234 sattv4u2

HINT,,, no there isn’t. There are vast areas in this country that are NOt farmland and are NOT industrialized and ARE bereft of trees.

ALSO, several years ago developers would clear cut acres of land for new subdivisions, selling the wood for extra profit. Local gov’ts could immediatly pass zoning ordinances stopping that practice.

This country isn’t the place where most of the deforestation is occurring.

Also, some governments do pass laws like this. There also happens to be opposition to it in many other regions.

248 jaunte  Sun, Feb 28, 2010 12:22:19pm

re: #240 Conservative Moonbat

I guess they need to keep pumping it into depleted offshore oil and gas fields.

249 sattv4u2  Sun, Feb 28, 2010 12:22:32pm

re: #242 Obdicut

The current rate of deforestation is such that it would be an enormous economic cost and an incredible political effort to reverse the trend. It’s well-worthwhile, but I do not think it is by any means the most efficient way to combat AGW.

And the algae is just cooler, anyway.

It’s NOT the “most efficient way”. But if you combine many small measures they all add up

250 Velvet Elvis  Sun, Feb 28, 2010 12:22:42pm

re: #223 Rightwingconspirator

Some legislative/regulatory expert should take a long hard look at the permit process for alternative energy projects at homes, apartment buildings etc.

Question-If we can not drill ANWAR can we geothermal Yellowstone? Serious question.

No.

251 The Shadow Do  Sun, Feb 28, 2010 12:22:50pm

re: #240 Conservative Moonbat

That’s one of the ones that stores the CO2 in cave under the plant. It totally killed the land value around the area because nobody wanted to live on top of a huge C02 pocket that could leak and asphyxiate them.

Greenie scare tactic

252 Political Atheist  Sun, Feb 28, 2010 12:23:10pm

re: #236 AuldTrafford

I think given the changes we need, if I want to put a ugly (but safe) wind turbine up no body can stop me. If I want to put in a cistern or use my gray water, I should be able to without fines or a lawyer. If I cover up my pretty roof with ugly black solar panels, the neighborhood CC&R board can kiss my reduced carbon butt.

253 Political Atheist  Sun, Feb 28, 2010 12:23:29pm

re: #239 The Shadow Do

Why the heck not?

254 windsagio  Sun, Feb 28, 2010 12:23:31pm

re: #245 brookly red

Hell, there’s your protein!

re: #249 sattv4u2

Agree. We do what we can to help now, in the short run (as long as the cost/benefit works out)

255 Velvet Elvis  Sun, Feb 28, 2010 12:23:39pm

re: #226 Walter L. Newton

So… he will say things in public that he doesn’t believe in or agree with?

He’s a goddamn politician, what do you think?

256 Walter L. Newton  Sun, Feb 28, 2010 12:23:56pm

re: #252 Rightwingconspirator

I think given the changes we need, if I want to put a ugly (but safe) wind turbine up no body can stop me. If I want to put in a cistern or use my gray water, I should be able to without fines or a lawyer. If I cover up my pretty roof with ugly black solar panels, the neighborhood CC&R board can kiss my reduced carbon butt.

Tell that to the folks in Hyannis Port.

257 Uncle Obdicut  Sun, Feb 28, 2010 12:24:01pm

re: #249 sattv4u2

It isn’t a small measure, though. It’s an immense, huge, incredible venture. We have a limited pool of resources with which to combat AGW. We should be careful to try to use only the most efficient ones.

258 windsagio  Sun, Feb 28, 2010 12:24:07pm

re: #255 Conservative Moonbat

The question wasn’t really meant to be answered, but good answer :)

259 sattv4u2  Sun, Feb 28, 2010 12:24:21pm

re: #247 Altermite

This country isn’t the place where most of the deforestation is occurring.
Also, some governments do pass laws like this. There also happens to be opposition to it in many other regions.

So because of that, we shouldn’t take the measures I outlined?

260 Walter L. Newton  Sun, Feb 28, 2010 12:24:38pm

re: #255 Conservative Moonbat

He’s a goddamn politician, what do you think?

You mean he’s a lier :)

261 Charles Johnson  Sun, Feb 28, 2010 12:24:47pm

The energy industries do distort the issue of clean coal, though, with ads and PR campaigns implying the technology is ready to use. It’s very far from that point.

262 brookly red  Sun, Feb 28, 2010 12:24:54pm

re: #252 Rightwingconspirator

I think given the changes we need, if I want to put a ugly (but safe) wind turbine up no body can stop me. If I want to put in a cistern or use my gray water, I should be able to without fines or a lawyer. If I cover up my pretty roof with ugly black solar panels, the neighborhood CC&R board can kiss my reduced carbon butt.

note about turbines… WUP, WUP, WUP, WUP…

263 jotalot  Sun, Feb 28, 2010 12:24:55pm

re: #249 sattv4u2

I like your thought on this.

264 First As Tragedy, Then As Farce  Sun, Feb 28, 2010 12:25:07pm

re: #221 jotalot

Say “pompous” aloud over and over. It loses all meaning and soon becomes nothing more than a crazy mouth-sound emitted by yet another protein tube.

pompous pompous pompous pompous pompous pompous pompous .

“punch” works the same way.

265 The Shadow Do  Sun, Feb 28, 2010 12:25:33pm

re: #253 Rightwingconspirator

Why the heck not?

Just doesn’t make for a good family vacation photo op. For some folks anyway.

266 windsagio  Sun, Feb 28, 2010 12:25:34pm

re: #252 Rightwingconspirator

Hahaha… Personal wind turbines (the big ones) are one thing. The rest Hell yeah! Neighborhood groups be damned!


*also, let me paint my house ppurple!

267 Political Atheist  Sun, Feb 28, 2010 12:25:53pm

re: #256 Walter L. Newton

If any lurk here I just did. If not, oh well.

268 AuldTrafford  Sun, Feb 28, 2010 12:26:05pm

re: #252 Rightwingconspirator

I think given the changes we need, if I want to put a ugly (but safe) wind turbine up no body can stop me. If I want to put in a cistern or use my gray water, I should be able to without fines or a lawyer. If I cover up my pretty roof with ugly black solar panels, the neighborhood CC&R board can kiss my reduced carbon butt.

Think positive. Instead of fighting the government - get the government to require you to do these things (oh - and everyone else, too).

269 sattv4u2  Sun, Feb 28, 2010 12:26:05pm

re: #257 Obdicut

It isn’t a small measure, though. It’s an immense, huge, incredible venture. We have a limited pool of resources with which to combat AGW. We should be careful to try to use only the most efficient ones.

Having developeres not clear cut for new subdivisions IS a “small measure” on local scales. We successfully did it here in my county. Now, instead of seeing a tract of land with nothing but houses and lawns, you see the newer ones with houses amongst the mature trees

270 jotalot  Sun, Feb 28, 2010 12:26:10pm

re: #264 negativ

Say “pompous” aloud over and over. It loses all meaning and soon becomes nothing more than a crazy mouth-sound emitted by yet another protein tube.

pompous pompous pompous pompous pompous pompous pompous .

“punch” works the same way.

: ))

271 windsagio  Sun, Feb 28, 2010 12:27:08pm

re: #270 jotalot

Or from the book Hell’s Angels, “shunt”.

272 brookly red  Sun, Feb 28, 2010 12:27:21pm

MORE TREES, LESS SPENDING!

OK, I need to make a beer run….

273 Uncle Obdicut  Sun, Feb 28, 2010 12:27:42pm

re: #269 sattv4u2


Oh, sorry, I misunderstood you. Then yes, obviously that’s a good thing. However, the larger point remains unchanged: Biotechnology exists, it’s real, and if there’s a biological solution to AGW, it depends heavily on advances in biotech. It’s not as simple as simply planting more trees and not cutting them down so much.

274 Political Atheist  Sun, Feb 28, 2010 12:27:58pm

re: #262 brookly red

Yeah, true. But again, too darn bad pending a better non fossil solution.

Heh, AGW slogan for electricity-
Fissile, not fossil!

275 Racer X  Sun, Feb 28, 2010 12:28:15pm

I think “Clean Coal” is a misnomer.
Right now it is only “Cleaner Coal”.

276 Uncle Obdicut  Sun, Feb 28, 2010 12:28:19pm

re: #272 brookly red

Getting more trees would require more spending, so that’s a rather inconsistent statement.

277 Velvet Elvis  Sun, Feb 28, 2010 12:28:22pm

re: #251 The Shadow Do

Greenie scare tactic

That’s the truth of what happened with a couple of the German pilot programs. Existentially clean coal is worse than nuclear power because it also produces toxic waste (CO2) which must be stored longer than spent nuclear fuel (forever), and a lot more of it.

278 Walter L. Newton  Sun, Feb 28, 2010 12:28:33pm

re: #261 Charles

The energy industries do distort the issue of clean coal, though, with ads and PR campaigns implying the technology is ready to use. It’s very far from that point.

That’s no different than certain people who toot the horn about renewables. I was in the industry for 13 years (how many times have I mentioned that) and, as interesting and exciting as some of the advancement have been in the last 30 years, it’s far from ready for the grid.

Renewables shouldn’t be ignored, but its’ not off the shelf ready right now any more than clean coal is.

But, as long as you have a pretty word as “renewable,” the technology will be overstated and overrated by those who will benefit the most from doing that.

279 windsagio  Sun, Feb 28, 2010 12:28:41pm

re: #257 Obdicut

Also, R&D come out of a different pot usually than these other projects.

I’m all for the algae thing, but we shouldn’t dump everything for that anymore than we should dump everything to hope Fusion’s gonna work.

280 brookly red  Sun, Feb 28, 2010 12:29:33pm

re: #274 Rightwingconspirator

Yeah, true. But again, too darn bad pending a better non fossil solution.

Heh, AGW slogan for electricity-
Fissile, not fossil!

you know I live by a river and not a single (nice quiet) hydo-electric plant to be found…

281 Uncle Obdicut  Sun, Feb 28, 2010 12:29:54pm

re: #279 windsagio

Right— and the most obvious way of addressing the problem is making energy generation less CO2 intensive, rather than capturing the CO2 after release.

282 Political Atheist  Sun, Feb 28, 2010 12:29:59pm

re: #265 The Shadow Do

I figure Yellowstone can spare a couple dozen acres for geothermal and leave plenty of room for hiking camping and pretty pictures. Given the price of failure and runaway warming, its a no brainer.

283 AuldTrafford  Sun, Feb 28, 2010 12:30:18pm

Well, enjoyed it, but GG (gotta go).

284 jotalot  Sun, Feb 28, 2010 12:30:30pm

re: #271 windsagio

Or from the book Hell’s Angels, “shunt”.

Repetitions of all kinds have interesting effects…self-induced narcolepsy for instance.

285 The Shadow Do  Sun, Feb 28, 2010 12:30:34pm

re: #277 Conservative Moonbat

That’s the truth of what happened with a couple of the German pilot programs. Existentially clean coal is worse than nuclear power because it also produces toxic waste (CO2) which must be stored longer than spent nuclear fuel (forever), and a lot more of it.

And is a whole lot easier to engineer out than nulear waste. Charles is correct, the technology is not there yet. But there is also no effort to support development. Why? Coal is dirty. Everyone knows that.

286 Political Atheist  Sun, Feb 28, 2010 12:31:00pm

re: #268 AuldTrafford

No thanks. Not my style of how to do things.

287 jaunte  Sun, Feb 28, 2010 12:31:01pm

re: #279 windsagio

Given the comparative amounts of power we get now from carbon, vs. other forms, nuclear is in the best position as a replacement source.
eia.doe.gov

288 brookly red  Sun, Feb 28, 2010 12:31:15pm

re: #276 Obdicut

Getting more trees would require more spending, so that’s a rather inconsistent statement.

I could plant a whole lot of freaking trees for the salary of one gubermint paper pusher…

289 The Shadow Do  Sun, Feb 28, 2010 12:31:31pm

re: #282 Rightwingconspirator

I figure Yellowstone can spare a couple dozen acres for geothermal and leave plenty of room for hiking camping and pretty pictures. Given the price of failure and runaway warming, its a no brainer.

Nah.

290 windsagio  Sun, Feb 28, 2010 12:32:15pm

re: #280 brookly red

re: #281 Obdicut

Abso-freakin’-lutely.

And right now, that means Nuclear, wind, hydro, and solar.

All of which have limitations and tradeoffs of course, but they all have their places too. As I’ve said a million times, I’m a huge fan of home-solar technology.

291 Political Atheist  Sun, Feb 28, 2010 12:32:34pm

re: #277 Conservative Moonbat

Calling Co2 a toxic waste in the same breath as nuclear waste makes no sense to me. Solidify the CO2 and you have no problems.

292 sattv4u2  Sun, Feb 28, 2010 12:33:08pm

re: #276 Obdicut

Getting more trees would require more spending, so that’s a rather inconsistent statement.

Not really, not if you let the professionals do it. Take a company like Georgia Pacific. Allow them to go inot a region and break it up into (lets say) 20 plots. They can take all the trees out of plot one this year WITH the provision that they plant that many plus (say) 5% more. Next year they can cut in plot 2, then 3, etc etc. As each plot is cut, the previous ones trees become more mature. By the time they are at plot 20 plot 1’s trees are
A) mature
and
B) more abundant than 20 years ago

NO government money involved

293 Velvet Elvis  Sun, Feb 28, 2010 12:33:40pm

re: #282 Rightwingconspirator

I figure Yellowstone can spare a couple dozen acres for geothermal and leave plenty of room for hiking camping and pretty pictures. Given the price of failure and runaway warming, its a no brainer.

No.

Because I said so.

294 windsagio  Sun, Feb 28, 2010 12:33:46pm

re: #291 Rightwingconspirator

Its an interesting question. I wonder if there are any ways to safely preticipate CO2 without using a ton of power in.

295 Palmer_Eldritch  Sun, Feb 28, 2010 12:34:50pm

re: #49 auldtrafford

In that case, at least the world wouldn’t be uninhabitable and the human race eradicated.

296 windsagio  Sun, Feb 28, 2010 12:35:16pm

re: #293 Conservative Moonbat

I sometimes wonder if we aren’t close to the point of being able to generate our own artificial geothermal sites.

OF course the potential dangers are of scifi horror story proportions >>

297 Velvet Elvis  Sun, Feb 28, 2010 12:35:24pm

re: #285 The Shadow Do

And is a whole lot easier to engineer out than nulear waste. Charles is correct, the technology is not there yet. But there is also no effort to support development. Why? Coal is dirty. Everyone knows that.

Coal is dead. Everyone knows that.

298 jaunte  Sun, Feb 28, 2010 12:36:25pm

re: #297 Conservative Moonbat

Except when it comes to making steel for windmills.
eia.doe.gov

299 sattv4u2  Sun, Feb 28, 2010 12:36:50pm

re: #297 Conservative Moonbat

Coal is dead. Everyone knows that.

Should we send flowers? A Mass card !?!?

300 Uncle Obdicut  Sun, Feb 28, 2010 12:37:18pm

re: #292 sattv4u2

That plan is far too slow, however, and far too limited. No company has the financial resources to plant what would be needed. I am also uncertain if there is any market for the amount of wood that would be produced by such a scheme extrapolated to the global level.

There is also, then, the cost and spending of the regulatory oversight agency that makes sure they’re actually doing that, as well. Even if that was a minimal amount of spending, it’s still spending.

Spending is not an inherent evil, either.

301 Palmer_Eldritch  Sun, Feb 28, 2010 12:37:55pm

re: #55 Cato the Elder

re: #53 Walter L. Newton

That statement seems perfectly rational and sane to me. Don’t stop thinking about tomorrow…

302 windsagio  Sun, Feb 28, 2010 12:38:36pm

re: #300 Obdicut

Also, cutting the trees klils the offset, if you use them for anything >>

303 Velvet Elvis  Sun, Feb 28, 2010 12:38:56pm

re: #291 Rightwingconspirator

Calling Co2 a toxic waste in the same breath as nuclear waste makes no sense to me. Solidify the CO2 and you have no problems.

OK, fine, but presently there are no little effort to do that, just pumping the gas into caves and spent oil fields and expecting it to stay there forever.

304 brookly red  Sun, Feb 28, 2010 12:38:58pm

re: #297 Conservative Moonbat

Coal is dead. Everyone knows that.

someone should tell the Chinese…

305 sattv4u2  Sun, Feb 28, 2010 12:39:24pm

re: #300 Obdicut

re: #300 Obdicut

No company has the financial resources to plant what would be needed

You’re absolutely wrong

The scenario I laid out is EXACTLY what Georgia Pacific does on a daily/ yearly basis
The money they generate from the sale of this years wood pays for the re-planting of the trees they cut AND extra AND a profit

306 Uncle Obdicut  Sun, Feb 28, 2010 12:39:43pm

re: #302 windsagio

Only if they get burned or otherwise transformed.

307 windsagio  Sun, Feb 28, 2010 12:40:27pm

re: #306 Obdicut

Oh yeah good point. If you build something its fine >>

Lets make a wooden space elevator! We could also use all the clearcut wood from Brazil!!!

308 The Shadow Do  Sun, Feb 28, 2010 12:41:11pm

OK, now I’m getting my hate on. 1-0 for the Canadahoovians.

309 brookly red  Sun, Feb 28, 2010 12:41:15pm

re: #305 sattv4u2

re: #300 Obdicut

No company has the financial resources to plant what would be needed

You’re absolutely wrong

The scenario I laid out is EXACTLY what Georgia Pacific does on a daily/ yearly basis
The money they generate from the sale of this years wood pays for the re-planting of the trees they cut AND extra AND a profit

/and the wood is used to build houses where people can live and make more carbon!

310 Velvet Elvis  Sun, Feb 28, 2010 12:41:24pm

re: #296 windsagio

I sometimes wonder if we aren’t close to the point of being able to generate our own artificial geothermal sites.

OF course the potential dangers are of scifi horror story proportions >>

I worry that some idiot is going to set off the Yellowstone caldera trying to tap it for power.

311 Uncle Obdicut  Sun, Feb 28, 2010 12:42:03pm

re: #305 sattv4u2

No, you didn’t understand me, I said that no company has the financial resources to plant what would be needed— as in, needed on a global scale, for this to be a strong force combating AGW. you’d have to plant more than are being cut down from other areas, for example. And, as I said, I have no idea if that amount— which would be a gigantic increase in the available timber on the market— would be financially viable.

As a small-scale encouragement for sustainable tree usage, it’s great. As a solution to AGW, it’s very problematic, because of the scale of it.

312 Walter L. Newton  Sun, Feb 28, 2010 12:42:31pm

re: #301 Palmer_Eldritch

re: #53 Walter L. Newton

That statement seems perfectly rational and sane to me. Don’t stop thinking about tomorrow…

And so… if the statement by Hulme is rational and sane, then you admit, as Hulme does that AGW concerns are very useful for other things other than science and solving the climate change problem… things like…


“Let us use the magnifying power of Climate Change, the things that Climate Change teaches us – its focus on the long-term implications of short-term choices, its global reach, its revelation of new centres of power, its attention to both material and cultural values - to attend more closely to what we really want to achieve for humanity: whether this be affluence, justice or mere survival.”

Sounds like for Hulme, AGW can be used for social and political engineering too.

What say you?

313 Velvet Elvis  Sun, Feb 28, 2010 12:43:11pm

re: #304 brookly red

someone should tell the Chinese…

Their nuclear program is more advanced than ours is.

314 windsagio  Sun, Feb 28, 2010 12:43:57pm

re: #310 Conservative Moonbat

Yeah exactly.

On the other hand, the giant dust cloud would do wonders to combat global warming!!!

315 albusteve  Sun, Feb 28, 2010 12:44:35pm

re: #217 Racer X

Aren’t there currently large coal mine fires burning that have been glowing hot for decades because we are unable to extinguish them?

no. that’s used tires burning

316 The Shadow Do  Sun, Feb 28, 2010 12:44:46pm

re: #313 Conservative Moonbat

Their nuclear program is more advanced than ours is.

Actually that is true only in terms of deployment. Ask GE about the technology for example. It is there for the asking.

317 Charles Johnson  Sun, Feb 28, 2010 12:45:51pm

Gotta be honest - I’ve never understood the criticism of Gore’s house. Or the criticism of him using private jets, etc.

He’s actually spent a huge amount of money turning his house into something of a showcase for energy conservation technologies, but nobody gives him any credit for that. In any case, it’s his money, and I don’t begrudge him anything he spends it on. I don’t get the hypocrisy charge; just because he has lots of dough, that means he’s a hypocrite for talking about AGW policies? Nope, I don’t get that.

318 Velvet Elvis  Sun, Feb 28, 2010 12:46:06pm

re: #316 The Shadow Do

Actually that is true only in terms of deployment. Ask GE about the technology for example. It is there for the asking.

wired.com

319 sattv4u2  Sun, Feb 28, 2010 12:47:31pm

re: #311 Obdicut

Georgia Pacific is not the only company in the world that does this. They are also not the only company in the world that cuts trees, sells lumber and by-products. Make it financially advantagious for private companies to do it and you are on your way.
As I stated, it is not THE solution to AGW, but by grouping a dozen smaller scale solutions,,, well ,,

320 Charles Johnson  Sun, Feb 28, 2010 12:47:34pm

Nobody ever criticized Sen. James Inhofe for wasting an enormous amount of energy and generating lots of CO2 to fly from Washington to Copenhagen, just to show up at one poorly attended anti-AGW propaganda event, then fly right back.

You want to talk about waste and hypocrisy.

321 Walter L. Newton  Sun, Feb 28, 2010 12:48:22pm

re: #320 Charles

Nobody ever criticized Sen. James Inhofe for wasting an enormous amount of energy and generating lots of CO2 to fly from Washington to Copenhagen, just to show up at one poorly attended anti-AGW propaganda event, then fly right back.

You want to talk about waste and hypocrisy.

You could extend that to all who attended… what a waste.

322 windsagio  Sun, Feb 28, 2010 12:49:00pm

re: #320 Charles

That’s because its not about actual hypocrisy, but rather about doing anything you can to discredit someone you dislike.

(*note: general “you”)

323 The Shadow Do  Sun, Feb 28, 2010 12:49:21pm

re: #318 Conservative Moonbat

[Link: www.wired.com…]

There is nothing original in the technology. They choose to use it. We don’t. They win, we lose.

324 Charles Johnson  Sun, Feb 28, 2010 12:51:01pm

And that’s not even counting the CO2 and hot air Inhofe emitted while he was in Copenhagen.

325 keloyd  Sun, Feb 28, 2010 12:51:03pm

re: #317 Charles

Spending money is fine. If he filled his home with art and antiques, he wouldn’t be a hypocrite. My recollection is that he added the solar panels et al. much later, after he got flack from the bad publicity.

As for private jets, security concerns may keep him off commercial flights, so I’ll give him a pass on that, but it makes for a good soundbite.

326 Velvet Elvis  Sun, Feb 28, 2010 12:51:19pm

re: #317 Charles

Gotta be honest - I’ve never understood the criticism of Gore’s house. Or the criticism of him using private jets, etc.

He’s actually spent a huge amount of money turning his house into something of a showcase for energy conservation technologies, but nobody gives him any credit for that. In any case, it’s his money, and I don’t begrudge him anything he spends it on. I don’t get the hypocrisy charge; just because he has lots of dough, that means he’s a hypocrite for talking about AGW policies? Nope, I don’t get that.

Plus it’s not really even his house. It’s his political headquarters. I think he spends most of his time living in the bay area where his business ventures are located. The house is for entertaining and doing $500 a plate fundraisers and that kind of thing. I went to a $40 a head meet and greet fundraiser for Harold Ford’s senate campaign there. It’s a house appropriate for a former head of state to use for entertaining visiting dignitaries and things of that nature.

327 albusteve  Sun, Feb 28, 2010 12:51:42pm

re: #322 windsagio

That’s because its not about actual hypocrisy, but rather about doing anything you can to discredit someone you dislike.

(*note: general “you”)

all attendees and the conference itself was soundly condemned here….where were you?

328 keloyd  Sun, Feb 28, 2010 12:52:29pm

re: #320 Charles

Nobody ever criticized Sen. James Inhofe for wasting an enormous amount of energy and generating lots of CO2 to fly from Washington to Copenhagen, just to show up at one poorly attended anti-AGW propaganda event, then fly right back.

You want to talk about waste and hypocrisy.

It’s not hypocrisy if you don’t believe in AGW, just waste, and as a past resident of Oklahoma, I’m thinking they were perfectly happy to have him be somewhere else for a while.

329 windsagio  Sun, Feb 28, 2010 12:52:33pm

re: #327 albusteve

Soundly but not roundly.

It was just the normal jibba-jabba from the normal factions :p

330 albusteve  Sun, Feb 28, 2010 12:52:43pm

re: #324 Charles

And that’s not even counting the CO2 and hot air Inhofe emitted while he was in Copenhagen.

there should be a Verbage Tax on congressmen

331 albusteve  Sun, Feb 28, 2010 12:53:19pm

re: #329 windsagio

Soundly but not roundly.

It was just the normal jibba-jabba from the normal factions :p

well what do you want from us then?

332 windsagio  Sun, Feb 28, 2010 12:56:39pm

re: #331 albusteve

“US”? I don’t even know what you’re talking about.

If you misunderstood my point, its that the tendency to call people out as hypocrites, in general, has more to do with reinforcing people’s own dislikes than it has to do with actual reaction to any hypocrisy. Or alternatively, its method people in general use to try to discredit people they dislike to others.

If you took it as a personal attack on people on this blog, instead of a general truism, you might need to relax some >>

333 lostlakehiker  Sun, Feb 28, 2010 12:57:24pm

re: #279 windsagio

Also, R&D come out of a different pot usually than these other projects.

I’m all for the algae thing, but we shouldn’t dump everything for that anymore than we should dump everything to hope Fusion’s gonna work.

Fusion does work. We have a working fusion reactor already up and running. The trouble is we’re just letting its output hit the ground and bounce back into the sky without converting more than a piddling amount of it to electricity.

Scientific American’s most recent issue explains carefully why plasma confinement fusion isn’t going to work, and neither is blasting pellets of deuterium and tritium with lasers. In the lab, it can be done, but on a commercial scale, it’s doubtful that it can ever be done, and hopeless to do it in time to affect the global warming story.

334 sattv4u2  Sun, Feb 28, 2010 12:58:08pm

re: #324 Charles

And that’s not even counting the CO2 and hot air Inhofe emitted while he was in Copenhagen.

hell, if thats a huge contributing factor to AGW lets put a glass dome over the Washington Beltway and mandate all politicians cannot venture outside of it

335 windsagio  Sun, Feb 28, 2010 12:58:48pm

re: #333 lostlakehiker

Oh yeah, sorry ;)

By ‘works’ I meant ‘actually produces usable energy (at least in methods we can use)’. You seem to know more about it than I do, but last time I was reading on the subject they were questioning whether it ever would.

336 albusteve  Sun, Feb 28, 2010 12:59:21pm

re: #332 windsagio

“US”? I don’t even know what you’re talking about.

If you misunderstood my point, its that the tendency to call people out as hypocrites, in general, has more to do with reinforcing people’s own dislikes than it has to do with actual reaction to any hypocrisy. Or alternatively, its method people in general use to try to discredit people they dislike to others.

If you took it as a personal attack on people on this blog, instead of a general truism, you might need to relax some >>

I assumed your #322 was a response to Copenhagen….my rely had nothing to do with personal blog attacks….so I don’t know what you are talking about either

337 brookly red  Sun, Feb 28, 2010 12:59:23pm

re: #334 sattv4u2

hell, if thats a huge contributing factor to AGW lets put a glass dome over the Washington Beltway and mandate all politicians cannot venture outside of it

that is exactly the problem… they can’t see past it.

338 SixDegrees  Sun, Feb 28, 2010 1:00:59pm

re: #333 lostlakehiker

Fusion does work. We have a working fusion reactor already up and running. The trouble is we’re just letting its output hit the ground and bounce back into the sky without converting more than a piddling amount of it to electricity.

Scientific American’s most recent issue explains carefully why plasma confinement fusion isn’t going to work, and neither is blasting pellets of deuterium and tritium with lasers. In the lab, it can be done, but on a commercial scale, it’s doubtful that it can ever be done, and hopeless to do it in time to affect the global warming story.

Last time I checked, Sci Am was owned by a German company with strong ties to that country’s Gree Party. I tend to ignore their coverage of environmental issues, or anything tangentially related to them, for this reason.

Along with the reason that they gutted what was once a fine, popular magazine when they took over, and fired top-notch talent that had built the publication’s worthy reputation over a matter of decades.

339 Eclectic Infidel  Sun, Feb 28, 2010 1:03:21pm

re: #34 nonsense

But can she form a coherent sentence?

The real question is, would she be able to explain what just came out of her mouth? I’m sure some professional speech writer can always give her material to read.

340 windsagio  Sun, Feb 28, 2010 1:03:35pm

re: #338 SixDegrees

(sorry can’t resist)

Stupid Gree’s ruin everything!

341 albusteve  Sun, Feb 28, 2010 1:03:41pm

re: #337 brookly red

that is exactly the problem… they can’t see past it.

re-election trumps anything else

342 SixDegrees  Sun, Feb 28, 2010 1:05:12pm

The black pigment used in ink jet printers is almost pure carbon. I’m making massive amounts of copies for tax purposes today. That carbon is stable and sequestered. So by preparing my taxes, I’m helping to save the planet.

And paying more taxes will make the planet even better, I bet.

343 Political Atheist  Sun, Feb 28, 2010 1:06:25pm

re: #342 SixDegrees

Diamonds, graphite, carbon black-all harmless, in fact we need carbon black for filtration.

344 albusteve  Sun, Feb 28, 2010 1:06:42pm

re: #342 SixDegrees

The black pigment used in ink jet printers is almost pure carbon. I’m making massive amounts of copies for tax purposes today. That carbon is stable and sequestered. So by preparing my taxes, I’m helping to save the planet.

And paying more taxes will make the planet even better, I bet.

you should run for public office…you already have a solid plank there

345 SixDegrees  Sun, Feb 28, 2010 1:07:35pm

re: #344 albusteve

you should run for public office…you already have a solid plank there

This afternoon, I’m going to work on improving the Internet.

346 Stanley Sea  Sun, Feb 28, 2010 1:07:39pm

re: #317 Charles

Gotta be honest - I’ve never understood the criticism of Gore’s house. Or the criticism of him using private jets, etc.

He’s actually spent a huge amount of money turning his house into something of a showcase for energy conservation technologies, but nobody gives him any credit for that. In any case, it’s his money, and I don’t begrudge him anything he spends it on. I don’t get the hypocrisy charge; just because he has lots of dough, that means he’s a hypocrite for talking about AGW policies? Nope, I don’t get that.

Love the blog owner’s sanity.

347 albusteve  Sun, Feb 28, 2010 1:09:09pm

re: #345 SixDegrees

This afternoon, I’m going to work on improving the Internet.

can you get me my old 5 digit user name back?

348 Walter L. Newton  Sun, Feb 28, 2010 1:09:44pm

Very, very light snowflakes starting up. By morning 3 or more inches maybe… or maybe nothing… we’ll see…

349 albusteve  Sun, Feb 28, 2010 1:10:59pm

re: #348 Walter L. Newton

Very, very light snowflakes starting up. By morning 3 or more inches maybe… or maybe nothing… we’ll see…

bwa!…it’s a balmy 52 in the Rio Grande valley today

350 lostlakehiker  Sun, Feb 28, 2010 1:12:54pm

re: #326 Conservative Moonbat

Plus it’s not really even his house. It’s his political headquarters. I think he spends most of his time living in the bay area where his business ventures are located. The house is for entertaining and doing $500 a plate fundraisers and that kind of thing. I went to a $40 a head meet and greet fundraiser for Harold Ford’s senate campaign there. It’s a house appropriate for a former head of state to use for entertaining visiting dignitaries and things of that nature.

And that galls. Gore is not in fact a former head of state. The house is therefore exceptionally inappropriate. Not to mention that not one of our actual former presidents has built himself such an over the top spread. Nor has Gore come by his wealth all that honestly. He’s no Bill Gates or Warren Buffet. His monster fortune is a side effect of his being very well connected politically.

351 albusteve  Sun, Feb 28, 2010 1:13:58pm

News Blusters take on the GoreTimes thing….predictable
newsbusters.org

352 Fat Bastard Vegetarian  Sun, Feb 28, 2010 1:15:41pm

re: #348 Walter L. Newton

Hey, hope you’re okay, by the way.

You are a smart lizard.

You make this a better place.

353 brookly red  Sun, Feb 28, 2010 1:17:05pm

re: #350 lostlakehiker

And that galls. Gore is not in fact a former head of state. The house is therefore exceptionally inappropriate. Not to mention that not one of our actual former presidents has built himself such an over the top spread. Nor has Gore come by his wealth all that honestly. He’s no Bill Gates or Warren Buffet. His monster fortune is a side effect of his being very well connected politically.

well that is the bitch about class envy… preach it long enough and it come back to bite you.

354 albusteve  Sun, Feb 28, 2010 1:19:12pm

2-zip Canucks
how aboot that?

355 Walter L. Newton  Sun, Feb 28, 2010 1:19:48pm

re: #352 Fat Bastard Vegetarian

Hey, hope you’re okay, by the way. You are a smart lizard. You make this a better place.

You mean in general ok, or are you worried that the coming snow will be a problem. Three inches up here is nothing, although it can make driving a little scary for a few hours until the main highway get cleared down to Denver County.

One small benefit of being out of work, I don’t HAVE to drive anywhere in the morning if I feel it’s too slippery.

356 albusteve  Sun, Feb 28, 2010 1:20:30pm

re: #353 brookly red

well that is the bitch about class envy… preach it long enough and it come back to bite you.

you’d have to kill me before I’d live like Gore…I’m really underwhelmed

357 brookly red  Sun, Feb 28, 2010 1:22:02pm

re: #356 albusteve

you’d have to kill me before I’d live like Gore…I’m really underwhelmed

he too shall have his reward.

358 Jadespring  Sun, Feb 28, 2010 1:22:19pm

re: #354 albusteve

2-zip Canucks
how aboot that?

I can’t say anything aboot that, cause I don’t wanna jinx anything.

359 Fat Bastard Vegetarian  Sun, Feb 28, 2010 1:22:39pm

I could use a little global warming on the ice right now. Might slow Canada down a bit.

Canada - 2
U.S. - 0

360 albusteve  Sun, Feb 28, 2010 1:28:56pm

re: #357 brookly red

he too shall have his reward.

I grew up around wealth, bid ass money…I’m not impressed with ‘stuff’..I’ve had plenty myself

361 albusteve  Sun, Feb 28, 2010 1:29:21pm

2-1….fickle puck

362 Jadespring  Sun, Feb 28, 2010 1:30:09pm

Crap, just talking about not talking about it was enough to jinx it.

363 albusteve  Sun, Feb 28, 2010 1:30:30pm

tell you what..these guys can flat out skate

364 AlexRogan  Sun, Feb 28, 2010 1:31:22pm

re: #355 Walter L. Newton

You mean in general ok, or are you worried that the coming snow will be a problem. Three inches up here is nothing, although it can make driving a little scary for a few hours until the main highway get cleared down to Denver County.

One small benefit of being out of work, I don’t HAVE to drive anywhere in the morning if I feel it’s too slippery.

Whoa…what happened to your thrift store gig?

365 jotalot  Sun, Feb 28, 2010 1:33:09pm

Scene from Mad Men. Perfect Family picnic in a park. Idyllic, blanket spread, paper plates, boat-of-car belching exhaust in the background so they can run the radio. Then they clean up by jerking the blanket from under the mess they made and drive away from the trash and noxious cloud of engine funk.

The things that horrify us today used to be the more-or-less accepted norm until enough people realized that litter is BAD. First we gotta think good changes, practice what’s doable in our own sphere and teach our children to practice a new and better norm.

I hate I sound like a fucking Pollyanna

366 Political Atheist  Sun, Feb 28, 2010 1:34:40pm

BBL!

367 albusteve  Sun, Feb 28, 2010 1:34:55pm

re: #360 albusteve

I grew up around wealth, bid ass money…I’m not impressed with ‘stuff’..I’ve had plenty myself

but I am considering ‘investing’ in one of these….
Image: JamesBucks69Camaro.jpg

368 austin_blue  Sun, Feb 28, 2010 3:31:43pm

re: #333 lostlakehiker

Fusion does work. We have a working fusion reactor already up and running. The trouble is we’re just letting its output hit the ground and bounce back into the sky without converting more than a piddling amount of it to electricity.

Scientific American’s most recent issue explains carefully why plasma confinement fusion isn’t going to work, and neither is blasting pellets of deuterium and tritium with lasers. In the lab, it can be done, but on a commercial scale, it’s doubtful that it can ever be done, and hopeless to do it in time to affect the global warming story.

Yup. So when we run out of hydrocarbons, what are gonna do? Starve in the dark?

Alternative energy isn’t just a good thing. It is absolutely vital. And the faster we mature the technology, the better off we all will be. If we don’t the Chinese will.

Who made your TV? Your computer? Your clothes?

Wanna buy all your generators and solar panels from China, or do we develop the tech here and apply American efficiencies to be competitive and make something besides Derivatives? Wanna see a middle class revival in this country instead of the continued collapse caused by the loss of good manufacturing jobs?

Green power.

369 Unakite  Sun, Feb 28, 2010 3:37:48pm

I know it’s late and I may be accused of trolling a dead thread, but when I saw this:

“Even if you hate Gore, though, try to put it on hold long enough to give his article a chance. “

I decided I would give it a chance. But when the very first paragraph of the article was as follows:

“It would be an enormous relief if the recent attacks on the science of global warming actually indicated that we do not face an unimaginable calamity requiring large-scale, preventive measures to protect human civilization as we know it.”

It was very difficult for me to separate the science from the politics. Then again, not…There was no science.

370 Locker  Sun, Feb 28, 2010 4:51:49pm

re: #369 Unakite

You are confusing “politics” with “reality” in this case.

371 Aunty Entity Dragon  Sun, Feb 28, 2010 5:47:27pm

re: #310 Conservative Moonbat

I worry that some idiot is going to set off the Yellowstone caldera trying to tap it for power.

Well, that would solve the global warming problem…

372 Unakite  Sun, Feb 28, 2010 5:54:07pm

re: #370 Locker

You are confusing “politics” with “reality” in this case.

Sorry, no. AGW is confusing “politics” with “reality.”

373 mich-again  Sun, Feb 28, 2010 6:07:18pm

Al Gore likes to brag about all of the economic growth during the Clinton administration without mentioning that all that economic growth equated to an increase in energy consumption. Al was Veep for 8 years, during which time him and his boss got essentially nothing accomplished to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, in fact quite the opposite was happening as all those factories worked overtime to produce the goods people wanted to buy, and it was spun as good for the USA. Well, Clinton did eventually sign Kyoto while Hillary was in the kitchen pilfering the silverware on their last day in the White House, but we all know that was a meaningless gesture on his part.

So give Al Gore credit for making great speeches and bringing this important topic to the forefront, but the truth is, when he was in a position of leadership where he might have helped shape meaningful policy for the USA, him and his boss didn’t do a thing because it wasn’t politically popular at the time. And its funny how this point is completely dodged in “An Inconvenient Truth”.

On the whole, GWB probably did more to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in the USA by leading us into this major economic recession than Clinton/Gore ever did by just talking about things. Factories that used to run overtime are closed down for good and people who used to drive to work every day in pickups and SUV’s have nowhere to go.

374 Dr. Shalit  Sun, Feb 28, 2010 6:24:08pm

re: #17 Charles

Charles -

I VOTED for Gore-Lieberman in 2000. More Lieberman than Gore - Disclaimer, Tribal - Just as I voted for McCain-Palin in 2008 - More Palin than McCain, (Ideological). All of the above said - Prosecution for Political Beliefs is more Germany 1933, than America OR American. As was PROPERLY said by Sen. Al Cranston (D) CA - Sunlight IS the BEST disinfectant when it comes to Ideas.
THAT - is quite Enough. -S-

375 mph  Sun, Feb 28, 2010 6:26:22pm

re: #12 Locker

Prove it.

Seriously?

forbes.com
nytimes.com

376 Dr. Shalit  Sun, Feb 28, 2010 6:28:24pm

re: #373 mich-again

mich-again -

GWB got Schnookered, like the rest of America. Question IS - WHO did the Schnookering? Wonder Who, like DUH! -S-

377 Locker  Sun, Feb 28, 2010 7:10:09pm

re: #375 mph

Did you actually read those articles? And they are your proof that :

hundreds of millions of dollars he’s made through all of this

That’s right, you said he personally made hundreds of millions. Those articles do not, in any way, support that statement.

378 karmasherabwangchuk  Sun, Feb 28, 2010 9:45:10pm

Gotta be honest - I’ve never understood the criticism of Gore’s house. Or the criticism of him using private jets, etc.
re: #317 Charles
uh the hypocrisy comes from the fact that his carbon footprint is bigger than an apatosaurs ( you know them they lived in the garden of eden w/ Adam and Eve and that snake. ). He could live in a yurt w/ crummy solar panels as I have seen some hippies in Ncal doing. not holding my breath on that one.

379 karmasherabwangchuk  Sun, Feb 28, 2010 9:51:30pm

anybody ever read physics for future presidents? It has a section on AGW. I found it to be good. the author is not very political and gives a good rundown of the physics involved w/ the problem and possible solutions. incidentally he was on the review panel that found M mann’s hockey stick to be incorrect.

380 Charles Johnson  Sun, Feb 28, 2010 10:14:29pm

re: #379 karmasherabwangchuk

anybody ever read physics for future presidents? It has a section on AGW. I found it to be good. the author is not very political and gives a good rundown of the physics involved w/ the problem and possible solutions. incidentally he was on the review panel that found M mann’s hockey stick to be incorrect.

Michael Mann’s hockey stick graph was NOT “found to be incorrect.” On the contrary, Mann’s work has been exonerated by two independent reviews, and the hockey stick graph has been duplicated using completely different data sources.

The claim that Mann’s graph was shown to be false is complete bullshit.

381 karmasherabwangchuk  Sun, Feb 28, 2010 11:20:15pm

re: #380 Charles
go tell that to richard A. Muller. Physics professor. please tell me you are not supporting the hockey stick graph as an accurate representation of the Earth’s climate for the last millenium. anyone can look at it and that it is not. Phil Jones admitted there was a medieval warm period and that it was possibly warmer than it is now.

382 karmasherabwangchuk  Sun, Feb 28, 2010 11:39:25pm

incidentally remember M Mann published some idiotic op-ed in a newspaper a year or two ago about how the groundhog was going to be bummed out because spring came early and he would be out of a job. it was horrible hack work. so manipulative. after reading that insipid op-ed I was predisposed to disbelieve anything i ever heard from him after that. rightly or wrongly.

383 freetoken  Sun, Feb 28, 2010 11:50:46pm

re: #381 karmasherabwangchuk

please tell me you are not supporting the hockey stick graph as an accurate representation of the Earth’s climate for the last millenium.

That you use the definitive article illustrates how much you don’t know. Furthermore, you can pretend all you want that various groups, such as the National Academy of Sciences, have not investigated these claims about the temperature reconstruction, and validated the basic conclusions of Dr. Mann, but you are only lying to yourself.

You can also quote someone, such as Dr. Muller, who wrote a WSJ editorial which essentially argues that global warming is OK, but he is one who is part of the back-to-the-Cretaceous movement (as I call them) who doesn’t deny AGW but rather argues that it is a good thing… and all it shows is that you again have missed the whole point.

Try to learn something well, for once, and not just parrot that which trips your internal pleasure zone.

384 [deleted]  Mon, Mar 1, 2010 1:35:54am
385 karmasherabwangchuk  Mon, Mar 1, 2010 5:01:41am

re: #382 karmasherabwangchuk
wow! I am getting downdinged like crazy! and i have to tell you i am loving it. it is making my leg tingle. i am just disappointed that i have not hit double digits. perhaps some kind of cash incentive can be worked out. a penny per ding. although that willl probably cheapen the discourse on this site.

386 karmasherabwangchuk  Mon, Mar 1, 2010 6:05:08am

karmasherabwangchuk re: #383 freetoken

That you use the definitive article illustrates how much you don’t know. Furthermore, you can pretend all you want that various groups, such as the National Academy of Sciences, have not investigated these claims about the temperature reconstruction, and validated the basic conclusions of Dr. Mann, but you are only lying to yourself.


he says he was referee of a review by the national academy of sciences that found the hockey stick to be false. is this not so? i do know that it did not appear in the latest ipcc report and was featured prominently in the previous one. are you saying that it will return in the next one?

You can also quote someone, such as Dr. Muller, who wrote a WSJ editorial which essentially argues that global warming is OK, but he is one who is part of the back-to-the-Cretaceous movement (as I call them) who doesn’t deny AGW but rather argues that it is a good thing… and all it shows is that you again have missed the whole point.


I had not read his editorial but on your recommend I have. most of it simply seems like simple realism. his basic point is that even if the USA were to slash CO2 emissions that overall emissions are all but certain to rise and keep on rising due to ever increasing emissions from China, India and the rest of the developing world. cheap green energy is not going to be a reality anytime soon. he mentions large scale geoengineering solutions and the fact that those are quite dicey ( law of unintended consequences ). I don’t know that he argues that it is OK. worldwide there is minute to no chance of a reduction in emissions so we will have to adapt to whatever happens. i am not sure what in there you object to.

I don’t know what it is about this issue that brings out the politically naive but did anybody really think Copenhagen was anything other than a farce? an attempt by the poorer countries to extract money from the west? did anybody actually think there was some kind of statistically likely chance that Copenhagen was going to lead to actual large reductions in worldwide emissions of CO2? if so unbelievable.

Try to learn something well, for once, and not just parrot that which trips your internal pleasure zone.

this? i don’t know what to do w/ this.

karmasherabwangchuk

387 garhighway  Mon, Mar 1, 2010 6:07:25am

re: #3 albusteve

I do not reject science out of hand, I reject Gore out of hand…his time has passed and he is now a cartoon, a satire of himself…a laughable boob that maybe has his facts straight, but then so do a lot of others that can be taken more seriously…he should be mocked for his brazen hypocrisy til he crawls back to Green Acres and retires his Gore Express 737

Note the complete lack of any reference to anything Gore actually said.

388 garhighway  Mon, Mar 1, 2010 6:15:03am

re: #350 lostlakehiker

And that galls. Gore is not in fact a former head of state. The house is therefore exceptionally inappropriate. Not to mention that not one of our actual former presidents has built himself such an over the top spread. Nor has Gore come by his wealth all that honestly. He’s no Bill Gates or Warren Buffet. His monster fortune is a side effect of his being very well connected politically.

Do you have a series of tests one has to pass to build a really big house, Comrade?

389 MKELLY  Mon, Mar 1, 2010 7:35:41am

“Overall, our committee believes that Mann’s
assessments that the decade of the 1990s was the hottest decade of the millennium and
that 1998 was the hottest year of the millennium cannot be supported by his analysis.” Quote from Wegman Repot.

“Even less confidence can be
placed in the original conclusions by Mann et
al. (1999) that “the 1990s are likely the warmest
decade, and 1998 the warmest year, in at least a
millennium” because the uncertainties inherent in
temperature reconstructions for individual years
and decades are larger than those for longer time
periods, and because not all of the available proxies
record temperature information on such short
timescales.” Quote from NAS Report.

Both say Mann was wrong.

390 Charles Johnson  Mon, Mar 1, 2010 8:59:21am

re: #389 MKELLY

You are lying. Again.

These are the facts about the hockey stick graph: A Review of Michael Mann’s Exoneration.

In the endless - and senseless - assault on Michael Mann and his famous hockey stick graph, it is generally overlooked that the graph has withstood all of the criticism and, still today, stands as a perfectly accurate picture of climate over the past millennia.

Most convincingly, its results have been replicated by other methods, using other proxies on more than a dozen occasions.

As well, however, Mann’s conclusions were vindicated in two independent reviews, the second of which, by Edward Wegman, was particularly hostile in it conception, but ultimately exculpatory.

391 MKelly  Mon, Mar 1, 2010 9:59:45am

re: #390 Charles

So I quote from two reports on Mann’s work which both say the same thing and I am lying? So Wegman lied to congress and the NAS (National Academy of Science) also lies?

So what is wrong with the cited material?

Both say the same thing that Mann was wrong.

392 Charles Johnson  Mon, Mar 1, 2010 10:20:11am

re: #391 MKelly

So I quote from two reports on Mann’s work which both say the same thing and I am lying? So Wegman lied to congress and the NAS (National Academy of Science) also lies?

So what is wrong with the cited material?

Both say the same thing that Mann was wrong.

You’re lying about what the reports say.

The conclusion of the North report states very clearly:

“The basic conclusion of Mann et al. (1998, 1999) was that the late 20th century warmth in the Northern Hemisphere was unprecedented during at least the last 1,000 years. This conclusion has subsequently been supported by an array of evidence that includes the additional large-scale surface temperature reconstructions and documentation of the spatial coherence of recent warming described above (Cook et al. 2004, Moberg et al. 2005, Rutherford et al. 2005, D’Arrigo et al. 2006, Osborn and Briffa 2006, Wahl and Ammann in press), and also the pronounced changes in a variety of local proxy indicators described in previous chapters (e.g., Thompson et al. in press). Based on the analyses presented in the original papers by Mann et al. and this newer supporting evidence, the committee finds it plausible that the Northern Hemisphere was warmer during the last few decades of the 20th century than during any comparable period over the preceding millennium.”

In other words, they do not say “Mann was wrong.” They say the EXACT OPPOSITE.

393 MKelly  Mon, Mar 1, 2010 10:47:51am

Here is the quote from the NAS report.

“Based on the analyses presented in the original
papers by Mann et al. and this newer supporting
evidence, the committee finds it plausible that
the Northern Hemisphere was warmer during the
last few decades of the 20th century than during
any comparable period over the preceding millennium.
The substantial uncertainties currently
present in the quantitative assessment of largescale
surface temperature changes prior to about
A.D. 1600 lower our confidence in this conclusion
compared to the high level of confidence
we place in the Little Ice Age cooling and 20th
century warming. Even less confidence can be
placed in the original conclusions by Mann et
al. (1999) that “the 1990s are likely the warmest
decade, and 1998 the warmest year, in at least a
millennium” because the uncertainties inherent in
temperature reconstructions for individual years
and decades are larger than those for longer time
periods, and because not all of the available proxies
record temperature information on such short
timescales.”

Please note the word “plausible” which has a meaning with disbelief or distrust attached. Also you left off the last sentence about having “Even less confidence” in the statement of Mann’s about the 1990’s and particularly 1998.

The Wegman report says “…cannot be supported…” and NAS says “Even less confidence…” Both say his statement about the 1990’s and 1998 is wrong.

394 Lance o Lot  Mon, Mar 1, 2010 8:14:43pm

I’m still not tasting his kool-aide. The Boreacle would have a little bit more credibility if he weren’t such a hypocrite and didn’t stand to gain so very much financially through his selling of “carbon credits”. The idea that we will pay some unfortunate soul in an under-developed country to continue his meager existence to off-set our own luxury, while absurd, is Al Gore’s bread and butter.

Roughly 5000 years ago, a man laid down to die on an alpine meadow. Then, after that glacier retreated a little, his body was found in such a state that it was first thought to be a crime scene. Should not global cooling have been stopped when that lush pastureland was still available for Ostty and his tribe? I’m sure that somehow, all of the smoke created by their carbon-based fires must have caused the global cooling that deprived his family of a proper funeral.

The simple point is that environmental conditions are cyclical and that the earth has fluctuated between total desertification, ice-encapsulation, and immersion in carboniferous jungles. Man in his vanity assumes that he can manage those cycles. Cnut the Great recognized this folly for what it was and disabused his people of their delusion. The fact that our government tells the sun what time to rise proves that fools are still born who think nature can be tamed.

395 Charles Johnson  Mon, Mar 1, 2010 8:44:35pm

re: #394 Lance o Lot

Yet another sleeper awakes.


This article has been archived.
Comments are closed.

Jump to top

Create a PageThis is the LGF Pages posting bookmarklet. To use it, drag this button to your browser's bookmark bar, and title it 'LGF Pages' (or whatever you like). Then browse to a site you want to post, select some text on the page to use for a quote, click the bookmarklet, and the Pages posting window will appear with the title, text, and any embedded video or audio files already filled in, ready to go.
Or... you can just click this button to open the Pages posting window right away.
Last updated: 2023-04-04 11:11 am PDT
LGF User's Guide RSS Feeds

Help support Little Green Footballs!

Subscribe now for ad-free access!Register and sign in to a free LGF account before subscribing, and your ad-free access will be automatically enabled.

Donate with
PayPal
Cash.app
Recent PagesClick to refresh
The Pandemic Cost 7 Million Lives, but Talks to Prevent a Repeat Stall In late 2021, as the world reeled from the arrival of the highly contagious omicron variant of the coronavirus, representatives of almost 200 countries met - some online, some in-person in Geneva - hoping to forestall a future worldwide ...
Cheechako
3 days ago
Views: 118 • Comments: 0 • Rating: 1
Texas County at Center of Border Fight Is Overwhelmed by Migrant Deaths EAGLE PASS, Tex. - The undertaker lighted a cigarette and held it between his latex-gloved fingers as he stood over the bloated body bag lying in the bed of his battered pickup truck. The woman had been fished out ...
Cheechako
2 weeks ago
Views: 279 • Comments: 0 • Rating: 1