BusinessWeek praised "savvier media" for helping discredit global warming skeptics in an article focused on corporate support for carbon cap legislation, which will cost businesses and consumers.
"In addition, contrarians have taken a hit from a savvier media. Instead of just quoting a scientist on both sides of the debate, journalists increasingly have assessed the weight of the evidence and explained who was behind the opposing views," explained BusinessWeek in the April 23 issue.
The result was listed in the subhead of the story: "with the skeptics almost silenced." Note, it does not say silent. The skeptics still exist, and are still talking, but the media has "silenced" them.
The article also lauded corporations now lobbying for carbon limits.
While BusinessWeek was quick to applaud the media for investigating climate skeptics and their funding, no such information was provided for Greenpeace or National Resources Defense Council experts quoted by the magazine.
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
Silence
April 18, 2007 - 15:47 ET by iveseenitallSilence those critics! The truth be damned! What an open-minded propaganda machine, er, press America has. They not only want to crush the Second Amendment, the First Amendment must also go. And they're bragging about it.Some critics are calling that a "scandal".
NEVER,NEVER trust a liberal
On Dzugashvili
April 19, 2007 - 09:45 ET by UnsaneDzugashvili is NOT dead.
"HAV3 TH3 BRIDG3S OF INSANITY B33N CROSS3D AND FOR3V3R R3TRACT3D???." - Meshuggah, "3ntrapm3nt", from Catch Thirty Thr33 (2005)
Some thoughts on this article
April 18, 2007 - 15:50 ET by jdhawkSome thoughts on this article . . .
First of all, journalists have indeed done what they admitted to in this article. They rarely explain what the opposing views are, but readily explain the political and corporate affliations. The latter is often pitched as dark conspiracy. This is, in effect, silencing the opposition since their views are rarely, if ever, heard on the MSM outlets.
Business Week is a part of the Time magazine group. As such its views are as liberal as the rest of the cabal.
As an investor and employed at one of our country's largest national banks, I used to read Business Week years ago. I got fed up with their slanted liberal views and stopped subscribing. I see I haven't missed much.
What? "Savvier media?"
April 18, 2007 - 16:49 ET by RJWhat? "Savvier media?" I have NEVER seen or heard a media person win a debate with any knowledgable "skeptic"....NEVER.
The self-impressed fools think that because they toss softballs at each other, they "win" the debate.
Hell, I regularly have back and forth debates with the AGW columnist in Connecticut's state newspaper, the Courant...and even though I consider my knowledge to be only average here at NB, I regularly beat up on him.
"... journalists increas
April 18, 2007 - 16:50 ET by KC Mulville"... journalists increasingly have assessed the weight of the evidence ..."
We report. We decide.
I guess we should be grateful they took the time to tell us what they decided ...
I'm so glad that public affairs are now in the control of ... reporters ... Oh my God!!! When does the next boat leave?
See only the "Right"
April 18, 2007 - 17:19 ET by mattmOnly the "Right" has a hidden agenda, so we all must unquestioningly follow any whacked out lib with a theory and a plan...
BTW: Reuters Headline: Global warming may spur wind shear, sap hurricanes In other words, everything they told us about hurricanes, like Katrina, getting worse, was bunk.
I am thinking as hard as I ca
April 18, 2007 - 17:44 ET by Chris NormanI am thinking as hard as I can (no jokes, please) and I cannot come up with any other issue or any other time that the media has agreed that any debate on an issue is over - except for criticism from people who's opinions, somehow, don't deserve consideration. They may have treated other issues, in effect, the same (ERA, perhaps?). However, this has got to be the first time they have, for all pracical purposes, declared that something is settled - and in granite. This just boggles the mind. Is this part of a new and even scarier direction in media bias?
The dogs bark, but the caravan moves on.
- Arabian Proverb
Gee, Chris,That's probably th
April 18, 2007 - 17:48 ET by BlondeGee, Chris,
That's probably the ugliest and most disturbing question I've seen posted here.
I'm going to have to give it some thought.
But my first inkling is that you are right on the money with that one.
And if they succeed (which they apparently feel they are), what on earth is next?
Blonde,I know, the whole thin
April 18, 2007 - 18:00 ET by Chris NormanBlonde,
I know, the whole thing is very disturbing. The media, the institution that one would think is always open for debate has, in effect, declared that the debate is over and any further discussion is dangerous and must be either ignored or worse - discredited. What the heck is going on here?
The dogs bark, but the caravan moves on.
- Arabian Proverb
Remember the cartoon skunk na
April 18, 2007 - 18:07 ET byRemember the cartoon skunk named Savoir-faire (is everywhere)? pretty much our savvier media
Chris,I think you've nailed i
April 18, 2007 - 18:24 ET by BlondeChris,
I think you've nailed it.
If they've (MsM) obviously taken up Al Gore's cause, and declared the "debate over"....what is next on their agenda to brainwash the masses....that the "debate is over"?
In reviewing the history of the "media", I've now learned that they've really never been "open for debate". Further, the gigantic effort to discredit Fox News (and I watch it but I'm not a Fox advocate) comes into clearer focus as a way to discredit any dissent whatsoever.
The internet must drive them absolutely mad, though. They can't control it....yet.
Hmmm.
Blonde,Not to sound paranoid,
April 18, 2007 - 18:38 ET by Chris NormanBlonde,
Not to sound paranoid, but it makes me wonder under what guise would come a proposal to limit discussion sites on the internet. I've learned that there is no way to foretell the sneakiness and creativity of some people. They can sound so noble. I realize I am getting somewhat out there, but another thing I've learned is what sounds preposterous one day, is a proposal the next .
The dogs bark, but the caravan moves on.
- Arabian Proverb
Well, Chris,I would submit to
April 18, 2007 - 18:54 ET by BlondeWell, Chris,
I would submit to you (I was going to say propose, but you know)...
That a year ago, we were having interesting discussions about hurricanes, yes?
And the "global warming" banter was just as much silliness as the storm forcasters screaming from the top of the closest high rise. We discounted it...it was a distraction from the reality at hand. Yes?
But here we are, one year later, and the "debate is over". Global Warming is a fact. The President refers to it, as does John McCain. What is going on here?
It's NOT a fact. But the media has hit it so long and so hard that even people who should know better refer to it in their daily lives.
I, for one, always mention it with a totally denigrating comment....to everyone I possibly can....just to discount and plant a seed of doubt in the minds of those to whom I say this....I try to make them think.
But my point stands....it went from a "supposition" a year ago, to a "fact" (didn't you know the debate was over?) this year.
So, I must say that I agree with you.....what on earth is next?
This country has turned into such a flock of sheeple....and you're right, I am worried.
Admitting to being untrustworthy
April 18, 2007 - 17:55 ET by c5thenIt's amazing! The MSM has just admited that they are purposfully keeping one side out of possibly the biggest debate of our time. They have proven beyond any doubt that they are completely untrustworthy and guilty of forwarding their own agenda instead of reporting the news.
This should recieve the widest disemination possible.
The MSM apparently have for
April 18, 2007 - 18:14 ET by daveinbocaThe MSM apparently have forgotten everything they were supposed to have learned in journalism school. It's "cargo cult science" by frauds like Hansen at NASA and the Stanford prof who admits that advocacy is more important than science.
Big science wants the mega-bucks that carbon taxes will generate. And of course Democrats are excited at the prospect of taxing the very air citizens breathe.
What a farce.
Dave,I'm stunned, of course y
April 18, 2007 - 18:21 ET byDave,
I'm stunned, of course you are right. Twenty years ago i would have thought the idea of selling water to be ridiculous, but now we are going to have to buy air!
Didn't we used to regularly g
April 18, 2007 - 21:08 ET by dahliatraversDidn't we used to regularly get visitors to NB who advocated AGW? Interesting that they have not been coming around lately. Or they post one silly comment and run. Seems they don't like being confronted with evidence ... or the absence of it.
The evidence speak against AGW. That makes me cautiously optimistic that it will be exposed for the well intentioned mass hysteria that it has become.
Accomplished prodigy
April 18, 2007 - 21:32 ET by acumenWell I guess by this BW measure of positive attribution to silencing the opposition we can assume China's Xinhua News Agency is not merely savvy but an accomplished prodigy.
Global Warming Skeptics
April 18, 2007 - 21:58 ET by pocomocoI seem to remember a fellow by the name of Copernicus was silenced because he theorized that the earth was round, and that it was not the center of the universe.
But over time, the truth willed out, and he was vindicated.
So, too, will the silencing of the global warming skeptics be vindicated. It may take time not, I hope, as long it took the Catholic church to vindicate Copernicus, but it will happen.
In the meantime, many of us will suffer, primarily financially, and business will fail but, that’s the price we will have to pay before vindication occurs.
In the long run, the legacy of those who advocated the global warming scam will go down in history as nothing more than fools and charlatans. Algore, are you listening???
The skeptics are almost sil
April 19, 2007 - 01:25 ET by radiofitz34The skeptics are almost silenced eh? It's hard to hear a skeptic with your ears blocked with an Ipod. There's only one place to go as a skeptic. Radio. Conservative talk radio.
I noticed the Dow Jones hit a record today. If this GW stuff keeps going, that may remain the record. I hope I'm wrong.
As a side note I'd like to add something. When I was a courier in 1993, I made a delivery to the Natural Resources Defense Council in DC. The offices were small. Just a few rooms, not much out of the ordinary. Except one thing, there were books on display near the door in a case. The hardcover books looked a little odd. The book covers were distinctly plain looking. Right away, I realized the content of these books were likely communist.
I know that's not suprising but seeing it first hand was a bit chilling.
Don't forget Galileo...he was a "DENIER"
April 19, 2007 - 08:08 ET by cunservatyvehttp://en.wikipedia....
Galileo found the proof for the Copernican theory...and the Church was willing to castigate him for it. In essence, these two men were "deniers" in the face of "scientific consensus" of the time.
History repeats itself; don't forget these two figures of history when you're out there questioning AGW. Remember, REAL SCIENCE is about questioning theories and putting them to the test. Often, theories are modified or overthrown by such investigations. Science ≠ Consensus. Consensus (especially in this case) is a political precept; a group of people can agree all they want, but what of the proof? There are a group of scientists out there questioning the solidity of the advocate's "undeniable evidence," and many of these scientists are not connected to the petroleum industry, though the media continues painting that picture.
Why not publicly address the science espoused by the opposition instead of merely denigrating the "deniers"?
Cunservatyve military medical guy
If you rob Peter to pay Paul, you can always count on Paul's vote!
speechless
April 19, 2007 - 12:40 ET by MilesDThe issue has gone beyond the labels "liberal" and "consevative," and now treatment of it in the media borders on lunacy. I couldn't imagine anyone who labels themselves "liberal" advocating stifling discussion or pointining out inaccuracies in a subject that can (in principle) be objectively analysed. Aren't they the ones who support ACLU and the like to protect the rights of free speech? Does scientific discussion fall under the category of inflammatory rhetoric, character assault, advocation of violence, etc. and other controversial areas that might warrant consideration for publication?
Recall this is the publication that, almost weekly in 1999, heaped praise upon the inimitable Jeff Skilling and his "new models of business" at Enron - never once questioning possible fraud or even common sense supporting the incomparable deception. Never once did "Business Week" retract any of their reporting or interpretation on this. Caught up in the vanity of fashionablity, "Business Week" has never provided anything of lasting value to free market enterprise. The publication is a joke and those with interest in promoting sound business would do best to avoid it
The liberal media is also sil
April 19, 2007 - 13:59 ET byThe liberal media is also silencing these guys.
I don't know? This group allo
April 19, 2007 - 20:27 ET by danboI don't know? This group allows you to speak. So at least Newsbusters allows your group to speak. No matter how brilliant it is. Like Ice propped up by islands.
"The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule.” H.L. Mencken
Wow, you're still on that, hu
April 20, 2007 - 08:13 ET byWow, you're still on that, huh? You completely ignore the fact that Pat Michaels lied about what Gore said, as did our NB hero Noel.
You got that back asswards, wobbly-poo.
April 19, 2007 - 20:35 ET by RJYou got that bass akwards, wobbly-poo. Back in the day, it was the flat earthers who had the "consensus" and tried to stifle dissent, not the globalists.
Same thing today. The Anthropogenic Warmists are claiming "consensus" and trying to stifle dissent.
AGW advocates = flat earthers
April 19, 2007 - 21:09 ET by dahliatraversAGW advocates = flat earthers. Very good, RJ.
Prior global warming preceeds CO2 increases. (la la) NASA discovers sun/climate link. (la la la la la) April 2007 is coldest on record. (I can't HEAR you!)
Holy crap! April's over alrea
April 20, 2007 - 08:10 ET byHoly crap! April's over already! Where can I find the data for global temperatures for April 2007?
Mind your language, young ma
April 20, 2007 - 09:14 ET by dahliatraversMind your language, young man.
April is currently tracking as the coldest April in 113 years - a dramatic change from last years #1 warmest ever.
http://www.agweb.com/get_article.aspx?pageid=135336&src=gennews
You do realize those were US
April 20, 2007 - 10:40 ET byYou do realize those were US temps, not global?
You do realize December-February was the warmest on record GLOBALLY?
Yes, US Temps. Everyone kno
April 20, 2007 - 10:53 ET by dscottYes, US Temps. Everyone knows this TW. Being Americans we naturally would look to see how "AGW" would if at all impact us. The facts are in, it doesn't, as the NOAA website tracking US mean temps shows. The decadinal temp trend in fact from 1998 to now is downward, not upward as the CO2 AGW theory demands.
BTW-trying to make a case that the US which spans many time zones and climatic zones from Arctic to desert is not a representative sample of the earth is silly. We, the Europeans and China are the only regions who supply anything near reliable temperature readings.
“The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane.” – Marcus Aurelius
... uh, yeah, that's what I m
April 20, 2007 - 21:11 ET by dahliatravers... uh, yeah, that's what I meant. (Thanks, dscott.)
warmest on recordThat would b
April 20, 2007 - 21:10 ET by dahliatraverswarmest on record
That would be the last 150 years. The planet has effectively had climate for 550,000,000 years. Can we rush to judgment with a little more data, please?
Just like George Bush is sile
April 19, 2007 - 21:25 ET by NL207Just like George Bush is silencing this man?
Glad you could stop by for another dose of humiliation, wobbler.
Speaking of humiliation, I no
April 20, 2007 - 08:54 ET bySpeaking of humiliation, I noticed this old post of yours:
The accepted contribution of CO2 to the greenhouse effect is between 13% and 15%, but it hard to pin down exactly because of overlapping amongst the GHGs--something your calculation ignores. Your calculation also ignores feedbacks, especially WV feedback. Unless you have a peer reviewed cite that supercedes Ramanathan and Coakley (1978)?
I don't know what published article you refer to, or what observations you think don't match the calculations.
Another Friday an
April 20, 2007 - 12:06 ET by MilesDAnother Friday and another opportunity to waste time by
butting in and writing about my favorite stressful subject.
The absorbance of CO2 in the IR overlaps the IR absorbance
of water vapor – which is exactly why the “greenhouse” contribution of CO2 is
small. If the IR absorption spectrum of
water vapor is superposed on a blackbody solar radiation spectrum (intensity v
wavelength), then it is easy to identify the wavelengths at which radiant
exchange between the Earth and the surroundings take place.
If the absorption spectrum of CO2 is superposed on that, at the same relative concentration as water
vapor, say saturated air at 300 (K), then at a CO2 concentration of 0.01
mol% the CO2 contribution cannot even be discerned because of the overlap, and
at a CO2 concentration of 0.04 mol% the total additional contribution of CO2 to the total area of IR absorption
is about 5%, the total additional contribution arising from CO2 increased by a factor of about log4, related
to the Beer-Lambert Law.
How anybody can endorse a “greenhouse” contribution of CO2
as large as 13-15% is beyond me. Water
vapor just dominates the effect and everything else pales in relation and to
me, this is precisely why any concern about the effects of atmospheric carbon
dioxide on “global warming” are unwarranted.
As far as feedback from Water Vapor is concerned, why do you
believe the feedback mechanism is well represented by a linear model? Doesn’t it seem unlikely that the gain in
sensitivity (power increase per unit of temperature increase from concentration
effect) can become infinite as fast as the linear relation implies? There are few other known feedback mechanisms –
aerosols are evidently a negative feedback – but the assumption of linear
independence is untenable to me. Just
because it is easy to calculate with doesn’t make it right
Miles, Excellent analysis, he
April 20, 2007 - 12:37 ET by dscottMiles, Excellent analysis, hey do you happen to have a link that discusses this overlap of IR absorption between CO2 and water?
“The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane.” – Marcus Aurelius
Sorry, no link. I am an at
April 20, 2007 - 13:36 ET by MilesDSorry, no link.
I am an atmospheric pollution chemist and work for a US Goverment agency and all I have to say is part of my forthcoming book on atmospheric pollution chemistry - now under review and clearance for publication.
I want to do all I can to stop Mr Gore and the IPCC history re-writing revisionists from demolishing free market economies.
I wonder - where is the outrage over the IPCC completely revising in 2006 Earth's climate history that IPCC published in 1996? Were they completely ignorant in 1996?
Has world history ever witnessed anything that parallels this revisionism - for example, the Bolshevik revolution of 1917?
How long did it take the Soviets to correct what they did to themselves???
Ah, Miles, you're singing our song....
April 20, 2007 - 13:51 ET by RJAh, Miles, you're singing our song, especially the part about the left "demolishing free market economies."
What's the name of your upcoming book, and how long to publication?
"Did we think Kyoto would [reduce global warming] when we signed it? Hell no!" -Al Gore
Would this be the scientific
April 20, 2007 - 15:04 ET by dscottWould this be the scientific speak version of what you just said in English?
Here is a more comprehensive one on CO2 heat absorption in the atmosphere.
“The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane.” – Marcus Aurelius
Pretty much - there is no
April 20, 2007 - 19:13 ET by MilesDPretty much - there is no resonance enhancement of CO2 in the mixture of any kind. When an IR spectrum of humid air (15-30 deg.C) is taken at low resolution, carbon dioxide can't even be seen in the spectrograph. At high resolution (using FTIR), a band broadening from carbon dioxide near 5.8 micrometers can be seen, and some of the overtones of the carbonyl CO stretch can be discerned. To anyone questioning this - all I can say is, try it yourself!
The whole issue has really gotten out of hand as far as rational discussion or approaches go, and I really fault the IPCC for this. They jumped on a bandwagon to make the report and themselves relavant and I don't think they ever foresaw what the outcome of their hype would be. From what I understand, a lot of this rhetoric will be toned down in their next revision. I wonder if it will make a difference.
My monograph is titled Progress in Kinetic Modeling of Atmospheric Pollution 1985-2005 and treats pollution models of atmospheric pollution in separate chapters (available 2008 looks like now). There is a separate chapter on Other Constiuents in the Atmosphere, includes water vapor and carbon dioxide, because carbon dioxide is not pollution, ladies and gentleman, and never will be - not unless all plant life on Earth is also pollution.
To anyone with the message "The debate is over!!" - fine, call an end to the debate, I declare myself the winner of the debate, and if you don't want me to be the winner, then shoot me
The whole issue has really go
April 20, 2007 - 21:07 ET by dahliatraversThe whole issue has really gotten out of hand as far as rational discussion or approaches go
It certainly has. Welcome to the discussion, Miles.
Pretty much - there is no res
April 21, 2007 - 12:39 ET byThe problem is, of course, that doing this experiment on humid air is not indicitive of the way the atmosphere actually works. Most IR absorption takes place in the dry upper atmosphere. Further, the lower pressure and temperature of the upper atmosphere also affect the calculations. In other words, you can't do a simple mathematical equation of the atmosphere.
You might want to see the work of Gilbert N Plass in this area. Or take a look at this comprehensive site:
http://www.aip.org/h...
Thank you
April 21, 2007 - 13:29 ET by MilesDThank you, Sir, I thought I was going to have so spend another boring day with no one to challenge me about anything excepting my wife, who thinks I am very lazy. (I think she may have a good point.)
Radiant heat absorbed at the ground gives rise to turbulent natural convecton, and that heat is exchanged with ocean temperature gradients. Ocean heat is re-radiated (red shifted of course). I don't think life would be possible if most radiant exchange took place in a dry atmosphere, gghhaag, can you imagine how cold this place we call home would be.
Thanks to the water window in the IR, we can enjoy life here, and have the opportunity to discuss things with each other.
Remember now, tell all your friends, family, and neighbors ... the debate is not over! Shout it from the rooftops, carry the message everywhere, if you want to, be brave too, and tell people they have nothing to fear
I'm a bit confused by your co
April 21, 2007 - 14:10 ET byI'm a bit confused by your comments here.
You appear to think that simplistic equations should replace the radiative-convective models. But in 1979 (!), the NAS did a survey of all radiation models and found that they agreed with one another quite well despite being independently derived. The models are also backed up by the Earth's observed energy imbalance.
I'm kind of blown away by the
April 21, 2007 - 14:31 ET byI'm kind of blown away by these.
It's staggern=ing that these guys think they are smarter than climate scientists and they haven't even considered WHY their calculations are wrong.
Hey, we looked at IR bands and we concluded CO2 can't cause much warming!
But, if you want to trust 1940s science, by all means...
Ah, let a person stay in hi
April 21, 2007 - 15:30 ET by MilesDAh, let a person stay in his lab too long, the world starts to look like his lab.
Back in grad school I had my own little greenhouse, its own sun, I could control humidity, etc. Studying the kinetics of ozone formation from nox and the effects of pics, I burned fuel, heck of lot of CO2 in my greenhouse -
the temp in my greenhouse would rise, condense the water vapor out, saw just about nothing.
If someone held a gun to my head and told me to believe this carbon dioxide global warming thing - or else kill me - I couldn't do it, because I don't see the mechanism
Evidently a lot of people are as convinced of the validity of this idea as I am of its falsehood, it seems to appeal to the emotions of a lot of people who don't care much for the idea of taking petroleum and coal out of the ground and burning it so people can have a better life, and I don't know what to say.
Well if we're stuck we're stuck, but ... is it at all possible there is any good from the CO2 that has been added by burning fuel? I wondered if any plant or microbial functions have improved from it. For example, if plants don't have to expend as much energy in photosynthesis, perhaps some of their other functions can benefit. I don't know. I do know plants are exposed to a lot of air pollution, and somehow or other, they just keep going on and on, and more than I would expect I'll say that.
So, laugh, call me another naysayer and loser, a lot of folks would probably be happy to silence another one and make their world, maybe their climate, a little bit better
Look, you seem to at least co
April 21, 2007 - 16:05 ET byLook, you seem to at least come to this is good faith, but the evidence for explaining the mechanism is out there. The resource I posted above is a good one that shows how current theory came into place.
Certainly there will be some benefit to plant life from more CO2--we've already seen an increase in carbon in the biosphere. But more important limiting resources will dampen that effect.
OK, at least I see now wh
April 22, 2007 - 20:41 ET by MilesDOK, at least I see now why we differ, the ocean is not in equilibrium with the atmosphere (true), water vapor partial pressure in the upper atmosphere is very small (true). Looking at the IPCC and their rmodel of CO2 influence the projected rise in temp over the past 30 years was nearly 3 times the observed - which is about where my calculation would put it - the IPCC explained the discrepancy was probably due to aerosol (mostly sulfate). From my own expertise (pollution) I don't think aerosol explains it, but it is still open to discussion I guess. When open to discussion, somebody could make a good case either way.
II think the greatest danger from global warming and reaction to it is of course economic, and the real looming threat is China. They are poised to dominate the global economy because they like to manufacture and export, and they have no problem with taking a dominant influence over Mid East oil - especially when the US is backing away from efforts that would prevent a single country from doing it.
The Gore, Boxer, et al. message to "stop polluting with carbon dioxide" ignores the very bad position this puts the US economy, because the US has no answer except stop manufacturing, and regulating energy with taxes is about as counter productive as you can get, because taking money and giving to yourself only reduces your real GDP, coming from manufacturing, and exports. The US economy is real bad because of the negative balance of trade due to petroleum. But taxing petroleum some more is not going to get us out of the mess because that only reduces production.
If we lose our economic power relative to China, we really lose our freedom, because they will dictate supply and demand, and they will dictacte our foreign policy along with it. Once our dominant economic influence is gone it is gone for good, because we lose the means to get it back.
When we are in good shape economically, we are also in good shape to help the rest of the world with foreign aid and so on - just as any single family or wage earner. When we demand "solutions" to global warming by just plain old taxing energy or limiting it we are headed in the wrong direction.
Let's face it. The solar, wind, vegetable fuel, blah, blah, blah stuff is not an energy solution. Costs are way too hign relative to other means. These do have regional markets, and by all means in a very windy area, or in desert sun, it makes sense to use the resource - but it is no National strategy and everybody knows it and thinking other wise is just fooling yourself. And we can't tax ourselves to make it happen either - all the money in the world won't overcome the physical limitations of the thing.
So those are my thoughts and fears, and I don't fear for the climate, because it will be alright - little warmer maybe, but we'll be okay, and the Polar Bears will be okay too (I promise) ... but we will not be okay when we are owned by somebody else, because they don't believe in the same things we do. Exposure to diverse culture is a good thing, but not when it is your only choice in the way you will live your life
Yes. Every word. Yes.Make
April 22, 2007 - 21:33 ET by dahliatraversYes. Every word. Yes.
Make sure you circulate, Miles. Talk to people. Letters to the editor ...
Yeah, but ... I'm a US Gove
April 23, 2007 - 00:43 ET by MilesDYeah, but ... I'm a US Government employee, and we see what happens to these people when they get out there and mouth off about the climate and so on, and then their agency gets embarrassed, and the Administration starts to get involved, and somebody complains about somebody getting "silenced," and it hasn't worked in many cases.
I'd be out there with R Lindzen and the other few trying to point out where this is going, but right now I would cause some people some stress, and we'll have to see
Well, I agree with most of yo
April 23, 2007 - 10:10 ET byWell, I agree with most of your economic points, so we should certainly proceed cautiously. Phase 1 should be reducing wasteful emissions, which will actually strengthen the economy by increasing personal wealth. US corps should also use icnentives. A great exmaple is Texas Instruments, who told their engieers that unless they could knock off 120 million of a 600 million proposed factory, the factory and its jobs would move overseas. They contacted a green consulting firm and were able to knock the price down by 160 million, not including annual energy savings (which amounted to a million or so if I remember). All with existing technology.
Despite the rhetoric around here, enviromentalists are not out to "destroy the economy." As y'all know, poorer economies are harder on the planet in most regards, so it's unclear why environmetalists would wnat to move backwards.
Look, you seem to at leas
April 23, 2007 - 15:36 ET by MilesDLook, you seem to at least come to this is good faith, so I believe what you say about efficiency, nobody but a fool endorses waste. (China is too short sighted right now to invest in efficiency, compared with just getting stuff out as fast as they can.)
Big company efficiency in the US is very good, mid- and small size manufacturers is good but not as good as the big ones because they don't have the money relative to sales to invest in it. Big company efficiency would be better if so many of them hadn't thrown out R-D in their stampede to cut costs in the name of "increasing shareholder value."
You know damn well the message from Albert and his charming little sycophant, Barbara, isn't "Let's improve efficiency!"
They want to shut it down, plow it under, and make sure it won't have some Zombie-like afterlife. Albert in his theodicy wants America to look like it did when Lewis and Clark first saw it - so that he and a chosen few can enjoy paradise there.
You aren't fooling anybody if you try to sell the "environmental movement" as something other than this and you know it, and there is nobody who can sell themselves as a Greenpeace apologist to me.
So if you really believe your words go walk your talk, you know that environmental groups will eighty-six you fast, but you're going to have to live with it
precipitation and GW
April 20, 2007 - 13:00 ET by RJFollowing up, Miles, here's something I saw yesterday: Ex-NASA scientist says models that project Anthropogenic Global Warming are faulty, do not adequately consider that precipitation acts as a natural thermostat. http://www.al.com/news/huntsvilletimes/index.ssf?/base/news/1176974192195090.xml&coll=1