Comments on: The Climate Skeptic Playbook http://thinkprogress.org/2006/06/21/the-climate-skeptic-playbook/ Wed, 25 Nov 2009 22:16:30 -0500 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.5 hourly 1 By: ahnmryizmq http://thinkprogress.org/2006/06/21/the-climate-skeptic-playbook/comment-page-2/#comment-1508567 ahnmryizmq Tue, 23 Jan 2007 17:36:27 +0000 http://thinkprogress.org/2006/06/21/the-climate-skeptic-playbook/#comment-1508567 <a href="http://kpbrhowpu.com" rel="nofollow">vgkgg</a> vgkgg

]]> By: 80Wl163Qda http://thinkprogress.org/2006/06/21/the-climate-skeptic-playbook/comment-page-2/#comment-1435247 80Wl163Qda Fri, 12 Jan 2007 06:25:15 +0000 http://thinkprogress.org/2006/06/21/the-climate-skeptic-playbook/#comment-1435247 Hi! Very nice site! Thanks you very much! BHDCszRZ9u1v0 Hi! Very nice site! Thanks you very much! BHDCszRZ9u1v0

]]> By: JJ http://thinkprogress.org/2006/06/21/the-climate-skeptic-playbook/comment-page-2/#comment-634525 JJ Thu, 22 Jun 2006 18:42:43 +0000 http://thinkprogress.org/2006/06/21/the-climate-skeptic-playbook/#comment-634525 # 53-- Answered this comment in this thread: http://thinkprogress.org/2006/06/22/earths-temperature-highest-in-400-years # 53– Answered this comment in this thread:

http://thinkprogress.org/2006/06/22/earths-temperature-highest-in-400-years

]]> By: Tom http://thinkprogress.org/2006/06/21/the-climate-skeptic-playbook/comment-page-2/#comment-634101 Tom Thu, 22 Jun 2006 15:42:37 +0000 http://thinkprogress.org/2006/06/21/the-climate-skeptic-playbook/#comment-634101 *** You guys sound like a bunch of chicken littlies telling the farmer the sky is falling… Nature class 101, you should have been taught this in the first grade, but I will educate you non the less; You breathe out CO2… Trees breathe it in and produce oxygen… The circle of life, nature always provides a balance… Car combustion, be it Corn alcohol or oil based gasoline, both produce CO2… Switching to GREEN fuel will not stop this, actually it is 10 percent less efficient so it would POLLUTE(as you do every time you take a breath) more… So I say all you tree hugging nature nazis hold your breath… Sorry couldn’t resist… It would however lessen our dependants on foreign oil so I am for it… The earths temp has always been changing and will always do so… i.e…. Past oceans are now deserts. Lets suppose you are sitting on your coach and your house began getting to warm. Would you sit there and swear that there was to much CO2 warming the house? No, you would get up and walk to the thermostat and turn down the heat! Why would you do that? Because it is your furnace heating your home… Guess what, we get our heat from the sun, the solar cycles match our past hot and cool stages… Hmmmm… Sounds logical to me… Hotter sun = Warmer Earth… That makes as much sense as a “scientist” telling half the truth or declaring worst case scenarios to recieve his grants… Many are just trying to collect thier paycheck and look for “science” to justify thier existence while ignoring conflicting facts to thier belief system… That being said you may have a valid point about CO2 holding in the heat. The solution then would be to plant more trees, or let nature take its course and let the plants catch up with our CO2 output… Unless all that shade led to global cooling… PS; CO2(Carbon Dioxide, the global warming gas) is also used for carbonation in soda so fear the poison, and please consider holding your breath… *** You guys sound like a bunch of chicken littlies telling the farmer the sky is falling…
Nature class 101, you should have been taught this in the first grade, but I will educate you non the less; You breathe out CO2… Trees breathe it in and produce oxygen… The circle of life, nature always provides a balance… Car combustion, be it Corn alcohol or oil based gasoline, both produce CO2… Switching to GREEN fuel will not stop this, actually it is 10 percent less efficient so it would POLLUTE(as you do every time you take a breath) more… So I say all you tree hugging nature nazis hold your breath… Sorry couldn’t resist… It would however lessen our dependants on foreign oil so I am for it…

The earths temp has always been changing and will always do so… i.e…. Past oceans are now deserts. Lets suppose you are sitting on your coach and your house began getting to warm. Would you sit there and swear that there was to much CO2 warming the house? No, you would get up and walk to the thermostat and turn down the heat! Why would you do that? Because it is your furnace heating your home… Guess what, we get our heat from the sun, the solar cycles match our past hot and cool stages… Hmmmm… Sounds logical to me… Hotter sun = Warmer Earth…

That makes as much sense as a “scientist” telling half the truth or declaring worst case scenarios to recieve his grants… Many are just trying to collect thier paycheck and look for “science” to justify thier existence while ignoring conflicting facts to thier belief system…

That being said you may have a valid point about CO2 holding in the heat. The solution then would be to plant more trees, or let nature take its course and let the plants catch up with our CO2 output… Unless all that shade led to global cooling…

PS; CO2(Carbon Dioxide, the global warming gas) is also used for carbonation in soda so fear the poison, and please consider holding your breath…

]]> By: JJ http://thinkprogress.org/2006/06/21/the-climate-skeptic-playbook/comment-page-2/#comment-633896 JJ Thu, 22 Jun 2006 12:30:28 +0000 http://thinkprogress.org/2006/06/21/the-climate-skeptic-playbook/#comment-633896 There's a good interview with NASA scientist James Hansen (the one that was muzzled by the Bush administration) and author Elizabeth Kolbert that aired yesterday. They've got a podcast you can listen to with Realplayer or Windows Media: http://www.onpointradio.org/shows/2006/06/20060621_b_main.asp There’s a good interview with NASA scientist James Hansen (the one that was muzzled by the Bush administration) and author Elizabeth Kolbert that aired yesterday. They’ve got a podcast you can listen to with Realplayer or Windows Media:

http://www.onpointradio.org/shows/2006/06/20060621_b_main.asp

]]> By: Zookeeper http://thinkprogress.org/2006/06/21/the-climate-skeptic-playbook/comment-page-2/#comment-633659 Zookeeper Thu, 22 Jun 2006 03:43:57 +0000 http://thinkprogress.org/2006/06/21/the-climate-skeptic-playbook/#comment-633659 Hey Judd, 206 pledges so far, but only 50 comments. Excellent lurker detector you have there. ;) Hey Judd,

206 pledges so far, but only 50 comments.
Excellent lurker detector you have there. ;)

]]> By: Kermit the Freedom Frog http://thinkprogress.org/2006/06/21/the-climate-skeptic-playbook/comment-page-1/#comment-633402 Kermit the Freedom Frog Wed, 21 Jun 2006 23:39:04 +0000 http://thinkprogress.org/2006/06/21/the-climate-skeptic-playbook/#comment-633402 <i>Our approach to the situation is just different. YOu want our government to fund research and substidize the production and marketing.</i> No, I just want our government to fund research. Private companies can choose among the results of that research. Just like the vast majority scientific and technological advances of the past 100 years. Look into the energy requirements for nuclear fusion research, and tell me any entity other than a consortium of governments can afford it. As energy prices go up (supply & demand) the price of research goes up. You won't get there without federal funded research. Our approach to the situation is just different. YOu want our government to fund research and substidize the production and marketing.

No, I just want our government to fund research. Private companies can choose among the results of that research. Just like the vast majority scientific and technological advances of the past 100 years.

Look into the energy requirements for nuclear fusion research, and tell me any entity other than a consortium of governments can afford it. As energy prices go up (supply & demand) the price of research goes up.

You won’t get there without federal funded research.

]]> By: JJ http://thinkprogress.org/2006/06/21/the-climate-skeptic-playbook/comment-page-1/#comment-633215 JJ Wed, 21 Jun 2006 21:18:21 +0000 http://thinkprogress.org/2006/06/21/the-climate-skeptic-playbook/#comment-633215 # 44-- Tim Lambert does a good job with that article: <blockquote>"The author of the article, Tom Harris, works for the High Park Group, a consulting firm that "focuses largely on energy issues" is "retained by the Canadian Electricity Association". The Canadian Electricity Association appears to oppose Kyoto and has helped fund a Canadian anti-Kyoto astroturf group.</blockquote> http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2006/06/an_embarrassment_to_australian.php Lambert addresses Harris's science as well. # 44– Tim Lambert does a good job with that article:

“The author of the article, Tom Harris, works for the High Park Group, a consulting firm that “focuses largely on energy issues” is “retained by the Canadian Electricity Association”. The Canadian Electricity Association appears to oppose Kyoto and has helped fund a Canadian anti-Kyoto astroturf group.

http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2006/06/an_embarrassment_to_australian.php

Lambert addresses Harris’s science as well.

]]> By: Roger_Roger http://thinkprogress.org/2006/06/21/the-climate-skeptic-playbook/comment-page-1/#comment-633208 Roger_Roger Wed, 21 Jun 2006 21:16:18 +0000 http://thinkprogress.org/2006/06/21/the-climate-skeptic-playbook/#comment-633208 #47 The Free market wouldn't wait until Oil was that scarce to start research. I am sure research has already started to be proposed. We currently have lots of Oil which will scare alot of research away however. To be sitting on the AnWAR oil supply in Alaska alone is problematic. We also know that the shores of Florida and California have solid stocks of Oil. Canada may have the futures largest supply of Oil once we figure out how to economically get the oil out of the massive fields of Oil Shale. These things will take care of themselves as we eventually use them (we will regardless of what the environmentalist think). Either way, the research will be more then complete before we ever run out of Oil. We will actually never truly run out of Oil BTW. It will just get so expensive, normal people will just stop using it. The research will be complete and the company or compaies will start to market it. Don't think for a second that our free market will simply run out of energy. There is to much money at stake for that /wink. Our approach to the situation is just different. YOu want our government to fund research and substidize the production and marketing. I feel that will ultimately fail since those situations almost always do fail. The Free Market will produce a fuel, we know that. It will just be down the road a bit. Besides, if the government started a large substidy for some "other" fuel, a funny thing would happen. Big Oil would certainly fight back. One of there firt tricks of course would be to reduce the price of Oil to make it more atractive. They could do this by simply ramping up Oil drilling even more (and they would). Heres the deal: You can't give the Oil companies a chance to beat down a new product. The only way to do that is by making sure that the Oil companies don't have Oil they can drill. That merely means we need to wait for the free market to use up more Oil so it is closer to a Luxary item instead of its current commodity status. #47 The Free market wouldn’t wait until Oil was that scarce to start research. I am sure research has already started to be proposed. We currently have lots of Oil which will scare alot of research away however. To be sitting on the AnWAR oil supply in Alaska alone is problematic. We also know that the shores of Florida and California have solid stocks of Oil. Canada may have the futures largest supply of Oil once we figure out how to economically get the oil out of the massive fields of Oil Shale. These things will take care of themselves as we eventually use them (we will regardless of what the environmentalist think).

Either way, the research will be more then complete before we ever run out of Oil. We will actually never truly run out of Oil BTW. It will just get so expensive, normal people will just stop using it. The research will be complete and the company or compaies will start to market it. Don’t think for a second that our free market will simply run out of energy. There is to much money at stake for that /wink.

Our approach to the situation is just different. YOu want our government to fund research and substidize the production and marketing. I feel that will ultimately fail since those situations almost always do fail. The Free Market will produce a fuel, we know that. It will just be down the road a bit.

Besides, if the government started a large substidy for some “other” fuel, a funny thing would happen. Big Oil would certainly fight back. One of there firt tricks of course would be to reduce the price of Oil to make it more atractive. They could do this by simply ramping up Oil drilling even more (and they would). Heres the deal: You can’t give the Oil companies a chance to beat down a new product. The only way to do that is by making sure that the Oil companies don’t have Oil they can drill. That merely means we need to wait for the free market to use up more Oil so it is closer to a Luxary item instead of its current commodity status.

]]> By: redneck hick http://thinkprogress.org/2006/06/21/the-climate-skeptic-playbook/comment-page-1/#comment-633140 redneck hick Wed, 21 Jun 2006 20:38:42 +0000 http://thinkprogress.org/2006/06/21/the-climate-skeptic-playbook/#comment-633140 #46 That is exactly the wrong approach. Think about the research required to develop alterative sources of energy. That research itself requires tremendous amounts of energy. The longer we wait, the more energy costs, the higher the price to develop alternatives. Eventually we will reach a point where energy is too scarce to put into research. What then? Global economic collapse and a return to agrarian society. Now think about the last major new source of energy developed: nuclear. That was 100% developed by the federal government, as it should be. Would you want something with that kind of power in the hands of the highest bidder? #46 That is exactly the wrong approach. Think about the research required to develop alterative sources of energy. That research itself requires tremendous amounts of energy. The longer we wait, the more energy costs, the higher the price to develop alternatives. Eventually we will reach a point where energy is too scarce to put into research. What then? Global economic collapse and a return to agrarian society.

Now think about the last major new source of energy developed: nuclear. That was 100% developed by the federal government, as it should be. Would you want something with that kind of power in the hands of the highest bidder?

]]> By: Roger_Roger http://thinkprogress.org/2006/06/21/the-climate-skeptic-playbook/comment-page-1/#comment-633109 Roger_Roger Wed, 21 Jun 2006 20:22:57 +0000 http://thinkprogress.org/2006/06/21/the-climate-skeptic-playbook/#comment-633109 Oh, we will research other fuels. The time, in a free market sense, just isn't here yet. Oil needs to become to become close to a Luxary item first. At that point, our free market will start to invest heavily in different fuels simply because they group that finds the new fuel and figures out how to market it will become the next Bill Gates. Letting the free market get it straight is always a good thing in my book. Oh, we will research other fuels. The time, in a free market sense, just isn’t here yet. Oil needs to become to become close to a Luxary item first. At that point, our free market will start to invest heavily in different fuels simply because they group that finds the new fuel and figures out how to market it will become the next Bill Gates. Letting the free market get it straight is always a good thing in my book.

]]> By: redneck hick http://thinkprogress.org/2006/06/21/the-climate-skeptic-playbook/comment-page-1/#comment-633087 redneck hick Wed, 21 Jun 2006 20:07:54 +0000 http://thinkprogress.org/2006/06/21/the-climate-skeptic-playbook/#comment-633087 <i>We also are 25% of the world’s economy. No wonder we have the highest emissions. The only way to really get us a better rating is to reduce the size of our economy. Is that what you want for the US? Comment by Roger_Roger </i> If we don't plan for the future, if we continue guzzling gas and don't develop for the day it runs out, then that certainly will reduce the size of our economy. We also are 25% of the world’s economy. No wonder we have the highest emissions. The only way to really get us a better rating is to reduce the size of our economy. Is that what you want for the US?

Comment by Roger_Roger

If we don’t plan for the future, if we continue guzzling gas and don’t develop for the day it runs out, then that certainly will reduce the size of our economy.

]]> By: DWyatt http://thinkprogress.org/2006/06/21/the-climate-skeptic-playbook/comment-page-1/#comment-633085 DWyatt Wed, 21 Jun 2006 20:05:25 +0000 http://thinkprogress.org/2006/06/21/the-climate-skeptic-playbook/#comment-633085 I've not seen any reference or comments, by any blog supporting action on mitigateing Global Warming, on the recent article on CanadaFreePress.com by Tom Harris, <a href="http://www.canadafreepress.com/2006/harris061206.htm" rel="nofollow"> 'Scientists Respond to Gore's Warnings of Climate Catastrophe'</a>. I'd be very interested in seeing a reasoned rebuttal from someone with a broad grasp of the issues. I’ve not seen any reference or comments, by any blog supporting action
on mitigateing Global Warming, on the recent article on
CanadaFreePress.com by Tom Harris,

‘Scientists Respond to Gore’s Warnings of Climate Catastrophe’.

I’d be very interested in seeing a reasoned rebuttal from someone
with a broad grasp of the issues.

]]> By: madashell http://thinkprogress.org/2006/06/21/the-climate-skeptic-playbook/comment-page-1/#comment-633061 madashell Wed, 21 Jun 2006 19:50:37 +0000 http://thinkprogress.org/2006/06/21/the-climate-skeptic-playbook/#comment-633061 <em>I am simply saying that the Oil compaines are simply defending and protecting there investment.</em> Investments for who? Who ultimately benefits? It is certainly not humanity. I like to think of a world without war. And our dependence on oil is the number ONE reason for the whole issue of war and terror. I am simply saying that the Oil compaines are simply defending and protecting there investment.

Investments for who? Who ultimately benefits? It is certainly not humanity. I like to think of a world without war. And our dependence on oil is the number ONE reason for the whole issue of war and terror.

]]> By: calscientist http://thinkprogress.org/2006/06/21/the-climate-skeptic-playbook/comment-page-1/#comment-633022 calscientist Wed, 21 Jun 2006 19:33:09 +0000 http://thinkprogress.org/2006/06/21/the-climate-skeptic-playbook/#comment-633022 As reported earlier, and enunciated by Krugman in the NYT, Michaels did much the same to James Hansen. Michaels is a scientific pygmy--in his whole career 310 papers have cited his work. By comparison, the single most cited paper of Hansen's out of 50 has been cited by over 1000 other papers. Michaels also lives off the soft money from his benefactors as a research professor at Virginia. As reported earlier, and enunciated by Krugman in the NYT, Michaels did much the same to James Hansen. Michaels is a scientific pygmy–in his whole career 310 papers have cited his work. By comparison, the single most cited paper of Hansen’s out of 50 has been cited by over 1000 other papers.

Michaels also lives off the soft money from his benefactors as a research professor at Virginia.

]]> By: JJ http://thinkprogress.org/2006/06/21/the-climate-skeptic-playbook/comment-page-1/#comment-633008 JJ Wed, 21 Jun 2006 19:21:56 +0000 http://thinkprogress.org/2006/06/21/the-climate-skeptic-playbook/#comment-633008 There are really two problems. There's the fact that we're dependent on oil, which has its effects unrelated to CO2 emissions--At some point oil will become too scarce for the world's population to consume economically, and also it comes from politically volatile parts of the world. And then there's the CO2 problem. The government is (supposedly) trying to respond to both. I'm not sure how much the agriculture based fuels help from any perspective. You have to run a tractor to farm the crops (it seems a really inefficient way to go). And from a climate point of view, again, you burn fuels to farm. And the crops would absorb CO2 in order to grow, but I have no idea how much they'd absorb. I would guess it's not that much. You might be right, RR. Some of the hype behind biofuels might be related to politics. It's certainly helpful to farmers, which you can tout to Iowa farmers during the presidential primaries. But I'm afraid I'm out of my depth on this one... There are really two problems. There’s the fact that we’re dependent on oil, which has its effects unrelated to CO2 emissions–At some point oil will become too scarce for the world’s population to consume economically, and also it comes from politically volatile parts of the world.

And then there’s the CO2 problem.

The government is (supposedly) trying to respond to both.

I’m not sure how much the agriculture based fuels help from any perspective. You have to run a tractor to farm the crops (it seems a really inefficient way to go). And from a climate point of view, again, you burn fuels to farm. And the crops would absorb CO2 in order to grow, but I have no idea how much they’d absorb. I would guess it’s not that much.

You might be right, RR. Some of the hype behind biofuels might be related to politics. It’s certainly helpful to farmers, which you can tout to Iowa farmers during the presidential primaries. But I’m afraid I’m out of my depth on this one…

]]> By: Roger_Roger http://thinkprogress.org/2006/06/21/the-climate-skeptic-playbook/comment-page-1/#comment-632956 Roger_Roger Wed, 21 Jun 2006 18:46:40 +0000 http://thinkprogress.org/2006/06/21/the-climate-skeptic-playbook/#comment-632956 #38 What did I say that was wrong? I agree with the experts 100%. I agree that global warming is a very bad thing. I am simply saying that the Oil compaines are simply defending and protecting there investment. I am also saying that trying to simply regulate or subsidize Oil and other fuels is not the answer (IMO). Biodiesal and E85 sound like really bad investments (especially our government) as they are just as bad for the environment. Why the Dems support such fuels is beyond me as they both release Co2 just like Oil. It is all political and it is all pointless. #38 What did I say that was wrong? I agree with the experts 100%. I agree that global warming is a very bad thing. I am simply saying that the Oil compaines are simply defending and protecting there investment. I am also saying that trying to simply regulate or subsidize Oil and other fuels is not the answer (IMO). Biodiesal and E85 sound like really bad investments (especially our government) as they are just as bad for the environment.

Why the Dems support such fuels is beyond me as they both release Co2 just like Oil. It is all political and it is all pointless.

]]> By: JJ http://thinkprogress.org/2006/06/21/the-climate-skeptic-playbook/comment-page-1/#comment-632944 JJ Wed, 21 Jun 2006 18:39:23 +0000 http://thinkprogress.org/2006/06/21/the-climate-skeptic-playbook/#comment-632944 Another thing is that the federal government is presently trying to block even <em>states</em> from enacting limits on greenhouse gasses. So much for the Republicans' supposed states rights philosophy, right? Bush's EPA is proposing to block California and other states from regulating tailpipe CO2 emissions under (ironically) the Clean Air Act. Other states want to follow suit with California but may not be able to if the EPA gets its way. (Nice "Environmental Protection", no?) Senators from these states and Governor Schwarzenegger have written to the EPA to get this straightened out: http://www.net.org/warming/docs/pavley-letter-060331.pdf http://www.net.org/warming/docs/pavley/president_bush_exempt.pdf http://www.net.org/warming/docs/pavley/president_bush_arb.pdf Another thing is that the federal government is presently trying to block even states from enacting limits on greenhouse gasses. So much for the Republicans’ supposed states rights philosophy, right?

Bush’s EPA is proposing to block California and other states from regulating tailpipe CO2 emissions under (ironically) the Clean Air Act. Other states want to follow suit with California but may not be able to if the EPA gets its way. (Nice “Environmental Protection”, no?)

Senators from these states and Governor Schwarzenegger have written to the EPA to get this straightened out:

http://www.net.org/warming/docs/pavley-letter-060331.pdf

http://www.net.org/warming/docs/pavley/president_bush_exempt.pdf

http://www.net.org/warming/docs/pavley/president_bush_arb.pdf

]]> By: madashell http://thinkprogress.org/2006/06/21/the-climate-skeptic-playbook/comment-page-1/#comment-632902 madashell Wed, 21 Jun 2006 18:16:26 +0000 http://thinkprogress.org/2006/06/21/the-climate-skeptic-playbook/#comment-632902 Comment by Roger_Roger — June 21, 2006 @ 1:43 pm that's right, keep spewing the same old rhetoric - but like I said, I will LISTEN TO the EXPERTS with CREDENTIALS, over the likes of someone like you. Comment by Roger_Roger — June 21, 2006 @ 1:43 pm

that’s right, keep spewing the same old rhetoric – but like I said, I will LISTEN TO the EXPERTS with CREDENTIALS, over the likes of someone like you.

]]> By: JJ http://thinkprogress.org/2006/06/21/the-climate-skeptic-playbook/comment-page-1/#comment-632886 JJ Wed, 21 Jun 2006 18:06:56 +0000 http://thinkprogress.org/2006/06/21/the-climate-skeptic-playbook/#comment-632886 <em>With the pretext of global warming being the problem, wouldn’t you guys be very opposed to yet one more thing wrecking the envirnment? </em> Believe it or not, the environment (as you'd normally think of it) is a secondary consideration here. Certainly, it's terrible that we're seeing the species extinctions and disappearances of ancient forests and reefs. If we had the right priorities, we wouldn't let that happen. But this is a problem for human beings, not just an environmental problem. Just look at this document prepared by the insurance company Swiss Re: http://www.climatechangefutures.org/pdf/CCF_Report_Final_10.27.pdf With the pretext of global warming being the problem, wouldn’t you guys be very opposed to yet one more thing wrecking the envirnment?

Believe it or not, the environment (as you’d normally think of it) is a secondary consideration here. Certainly, it’s terrible that we’re seeing the species extinctions and disappearances of ancient forests and reefs. If we had the right priorities, we wouldn’t let that happen.

But this is a problem for human beings, not just an environmental problem. Just look at this document prepared by the insurance company Swiss Re:

http://www.climatechangefutures.org/pdf/CCF_Report_Final_10.27.pdf

]]>