This is Climate Progress post #5000

Posted on  

"This is Climate Progress post #5000"

WordPress says this is the 5,000th post on Climate Progress.

When I started at the rate of one post a day, I certainly never imagined I would be posting several times a day and hosting countless first rate guest bloggers.  Certainly, I wouldn’t have increased the post rate if so many people weren’t reading Climate Progress, so thank you all for that.

I’ll have more to say retrospectively about the blog in the fourth anniversary of CP’s launch this summer.

Let me take the opportunity of this post to ask you:  What you would like to see in future posts.  Obviously, a lot of my time has been taken up posting on the BP oil disaster, but readership is up significantly, so I know people want CP’s kind of reporting and analysis on this crucial subject — and its connection to our fossil fuel dependence and the possibility of action on climate change.

I am trying to post as much on the science and bad media coverage as possible and that means perhaps not as much on the solution side as I would like to — so I’ve been relying on guest posts for that.

Still, you the readers make this blog, so let me know what topics — and perhaps even what guest bloggers — you’d like to see more of at CP.  See you at #10,000 in a couple of years!

« »

59 Responses to This is Climate Progress post #5000

  1. linzel says:

    I’d like to see more direct refuting of Spencer’s work. An example being his last post: http://www.drroyspencer.com/2010/06/warming-in-last-50-years-predicted-by-natural-climate-cycles/ He does a good deal of mathematical manipulation I don’t have the skills or knowledge to refure or challenge.
    Maybe a review of his new book about climate being less variable to CO2 than thought.
    Or maybe Niche Modelling: http://landshape.org/enm/best-fit-integrated-model-of-global-temperature/

    Thanks

  2. Brewster says:

    I’d like to see a series on Climate Solutions.

    In particular, a cost / benefit comparison between Nuclear Gen IV / Solar / Wind / Geo / Coal, etc.

    Or are the numbers changing too fast to make any comparison useful?

  3. Jay Turner says:

    I’d like to see posts on signs of progress and reasons for hope. It can be pretty gloomy around here.

  4. Matt says:

    As much as I like reading CP, there is a lot of information to take in every day (especially considering most readers will be following several other blogs as well). As such, it would be nice to have other subscription options such as a feed with only the most “important” posts of the day to cut down on volume. Obviously, “important” is pretty vague and ambiguous, but I leave that definition up to you.

  5. Ominous Clouds Overhead says:

    Joe, OT for this post, but a new study you may find interesting is mentioned in this article:

    http://www.telluridewatch.com/view/full_story/7722313/article-Global-Warming-Will-Make-Colorado-Hotter–Right–But-Will-It-Also-Get-Drier-?instance=local_news

  6. Daniel Ives says:

    Hi Joe,

    I have found this site to be a valuable source of information, especially since its topic is the most important one facing mankind. There is so much disinformation out there, so it is great that you present facts and call out the BS from others.

    I have really enjoyed your coverage of the BP disaster, so future posts on major energy/climate related environmental disasters would be welcome. It was great that you were reporting on the higher rate of oil release weeks before the MSM did. I also enjoy your posts that analyze and critique what politicians, reporters, and talking heads say about energy and climate, so keep them coming.

    Your daily news posts are useful for following up on topics of interest, but I think it would be helpful if you could do a monthly “State of the Earth” update that could summarize key developments in specific climate science and energy policy issues. This would make it easy for readers to track the progress and history of important milestones (such as the American Power Act, arctic sea ice, global temperature, etc.) Just a thought.

    Most importantly I think you need to keep giving readers the truth about climate and energy topics. This way they can be confident when discussing these topics with friends or family, and thus the truth can spread. Defeating the disinformation campaign must involve spreading the truth.

    Thanks again for your tireless work.

    -Dan Ives

  7. Kelley Meck says:

    In short, more posts please!

    For me, and I think for many of your audience, the blow-by-blow of who is denying what or how much is being spilled or whether Obama is handling it well or how embarrassingly anti-science a certain OK senator is–it’s like trying to understand radio commentary about cricket if you know nothing of the game. I’ve been reading the blog for three years, but sometimes I still feel like a total outsider to climate change politics.

    Climate Progress as a news source functions very well–but to continue the sports analogy, sometimes it’s much more useful to have an explanation of the rules and a quick history of each team and any important rivalries, than it is to have a running narrative of what passes for a surprise or an interesting play to those who already know the game.

    There’s obviously an ongoing effort to front-page the more beginner-friendly or central-idea posts (Hell and High Water, An Introduction to Climate Progress). I think that’s been very helpful, but even more accessibility to those posts–and more of that sort of post–would improve the site. Maybe you could also do 100-year, 20-year, and 5-year timelines of important developments in the science and politics of climate change, so that it’s easier for a hobbyist to organize their thoughts about it. Maybe you could do a team-roster for important scientists and their respective organizations (NASA, NORA, etc.), and a team-roster for important anti-science FAKERS, and their respective funding sources.

    Whatever you do, keep posting.

  8. prokaryote says:

    “I’d like to see a series on Climate Solutions.

    In particular, a cost / benefit comparison between Nuclear Gen IV / Solar / Wind / Geo / Coal, etc.”

    Yes. And it should be stretched that we need carbon negative affords – sequestration (biochar, reforestation etc ).

  9. James says:

    More cowbell.

  10. prokaryote says:

    Daniel Ives, #6 ” … update that could summarize key developments in specific climate science and energy policy issues. This would make it easy for readers to track the progress and history of important milestones (such as the American Power Act, arctic sea ice, global temperature, etc.) Just a thought.”

    Summarize of the key developments would be nice. I like “the global climate dashboard” at http://climate.gov

  11. Hey–congrats. That’s a lot of work

  12. robhon says:

    You’re making a dent. Keep doing what you’re doing!

  13. john atcheson says:

    At the risk of turning people off and limiting readership, there are two areas I would like to see more articles on.

    1) I think it’s important — if not enjoyable — to stress the science, including the more dismal outlooks. I also think we need some sort of clock that measures when we have or will irrevocably pass tipping points —

    2) And I’d like to see more policy discussions. The technological solutions are there, in most cases; what’s missing is the means to get them into the market in a wholesale way.

    These strategies exist, of course but they’re not nearly as well known as the techno fixes they would enable.

    For example, point of sale audits for efficiency upon sale of commercial and domestic buildings with guaranteed, low interest loans for those improving efficiency by 30% would dramatically accelerate the efficiency of our built environment AT NO NET COST TO PURCHASERS.

    Or requiring forward capacity markets and auctions in utility capacity decisions to assure least cost alternatives such as efficiency compete on an even footing with generation (and no, decoupling does not do that — not even close);

    Or PACE funding for retrofits and on-site renewables (and not at 7%), feed-in tarriffs etc.

    These kind policies, work, but they don’t seem well known, and they are getting only anemic support in legislation.

    OK, Joe, I know my suggestions would bore half your readers — and turn the rest off with the doom and gloom stuff, but, hey, you asked.

  14. john atcheson says:

    Oh, And congratulations — this is, hands down, the most important, informative and enjoyable climate blog on the web. Great work!

    If you pay no attention to my suggestions, it will likely stay that way.

  15. Sam says:

    Congratulations! I love the daily “Energy and Global Warming News” posts, and would also love a monthly summary of most important developments, which could be organized maybe like this:
    Science: Impacts/threats and solutions
    Politics, legislation, agency actions and legal issues
    Media and stupid noblemen, politicians and/or other disinformers
    Good news (as suggested by a reader above)

  16. climateprogressive says:

    Joe,

    Since I found this place I have visited it twice daily on average – it’s the best regular portal on the net for climate & energy related news. The Oildrum also do a good job with the latter, and RC do a good job with the former – as do Deltoid, Tamino, DeSmogBlog and Sceptical Science among others, but it is the sheer frequency of updates that I like here! And in all fairness to some of those other sites I mention – they analyse in other ways, but what climate politics has always required is its antidote to the constant stream of nonsense that emanates elsewhere, WUWT busily going down in history as the all-time classic example of the latter!

    I recommend this one among these sites above (except WUWT obviously) to anybody who asks where to look as a key info-point. High time we brought this about in the UK too. Here, our media is frankly lame, with the exception of a few notable writers, and even they slip up at times, as was seen over the CRU affair.

    Keep up the good work my friend, and if I can find a way of replicating the same effort this side of “the pond” then by God I will!

    Best wishes!

  17. Daniel Ives says:

    @ prokaryote #10

    Thanks for the link!

  18. HHove says:

    First of all let me say that I love the blog and it is indispensable. I read it every day. Thank you for your tireless efforts!!

    Going forward I’d love to see a series, as others have suggested, on climate solutions. It would also be great to see a discussion of the contributions that the field of psychology can make to climate change policy design and communications. There is a lot of interesting new research in this domain, perhaps the views could be represented through a guest blogger. Finally, cities are often the incubators of low-cost, high-impact, scalable solutions to climate change, and in the absence of federal leadership have a massive role to play. It would be great to see a column drawing attention to these initiatives, as they are often under-reported.

  19. prokaryote says:

    John Atcheson, #13 “I also think we need some sort of clock that measures when we have or will irrevocably pass tipping points —

    2) And I’d like to see more policy discussions. The technological solutions are there”

    Humans doing an experiment including the entire planet. The induced climate changes and it’s tipping points will be reached if we do not get rid of the greenhouse compounds in order to invoke the balanced climate state again.

    Our species, our civilization have grown so big that we breaking now the boundaries of our ecosystems. In order to establish the means necessary to counter a runaway climate state we need to see the earth as one single entity “global” – not just though artificial borders.

    A jump in evolution is required – will we act accordingly? Can we learn new ways to handle energy? Or will we keep fueling the energy system? I think this is an evolutionary circumstance for any species which uses fossil energy on a planet it inhabits. The earth on it’s orbit has created the perfect atmospheric conditions to sustain life. It took millions of years for the earth to sequester biomass to reach the ice age – climate state, we currently seem to leave.

    “Quaternary glaciation, also known as the Pleistocene glaciation, the current ice age or simply the ice age, refers to the period of the last few million years (2.58 Ma to present)[1] in which permanent ice sheets were established in Antarctica and perhaps Greenland”
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quaternary_glaciation

    Something similar conditions on other comparable planets are likely happen anywhere throughout the universe.

    ” The temperature of the uppermost layer of Venus’s clouds averages about 55 degrees F (13 degrees C). However, the temperature of the planet’s surface is about 870 degrees F (465 degrees C), higher than that of any other planet and hotter than most ovens.

    Most astronomers believe that Venus’s high surface temperature can be explained by what is known as the greenhouse effect. A greenhouse lets in radiant energy from the sun, but it prevents much of the heat from escaping. The thick clouds and dense atmosphere of Venus work in much the same way. The sun’s radiant energy readily filters into the planet’s atmosphere. But the large droplets of sulfuric acid present in Venus’s clouds — and the great quantity of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere — seem to trap much of the solar energy at the planet’s surface.”
    http://www.nasa.gov/worldbook/venus_worldbook.html

    We need to update our technology, to use ways which not do harm to our environment. And with peak oil and the need for a new economy motor there is really no logic to stay on current emission path.

  20. I would like to see more climate science – accessible summaries and assessments of the latest climatological research, models, paleoclimate, etc (e.g. the recent paper by Sherwood & Huber on future heat stress and spreading “zones of uninhabitability”).

    I’m not so much interested in fisking the deniers or skeptics like Monckton and other quacks. On this venue, this is preaching to the choir. Proposed energy solutions (with assessments of their likely capital and environmental costs, EROEI & energy density calculations, etc) would be a good idea to expand upon.

  21. Matt says:

    Linzel

    I’d like to see more direct refuting of Spencer’s work. An example
    being his last post: http://www.drroyspencer.com/ 2010/ 06/ warming-
    in-last-50-years-predicted-by-natural-climate-cycles/ He does a
    good deal of mathematical manipulation I don’t have the skills or
    knowledge to refure or challenge.

    That’s a good one… rife for a debunking. Basically it boils down to this… if you knew the AMO, SOI, and PDO in the future then yes you could say something about the global climate. Just like you could say something about the DOW Jones if you knew several major stocks. It isn’t cause and affect because they aren’t independent from what is being predicted.

  22. Leif says:

    “Main Line Kill” revisited. There are current reports of significantly higher flow rates than reported in the past and used in our original math to kill this well.
    http://climateprogress.org/2010/06/04/pictures-bp-oil-spill-media/
    Our solution of just getting past the high velocity BOP restriction and injecting high density shot to sink to the bottom and piling up and euthanizing the bitch would not work with very much higher flow rates. Not to worry.

    Our present solution disregards increased flow speeds. We required a 1″? id metal pipe, welded tube?, with a friction fit shouldered tip plug to pass the BOP restriction. By feeding this “catheter” thru the existing “suck tube” which needs to be a mile long, and increase to ~three miles and reach close to the true bottom. Once in position we start to drop in Depleted Uranium 3/4″ marbles. We require an air lock at the top to add marbles and not deal with pressure differences and thus flow problems. As the column builds up it will overpower the end plug and be injected into the rising column of ejaculate. Within minutes we will have injected many tons of marbles increasing the density of the flow many times over. Removing energy! We have miles to work with and many minutes before we start losing bearings to the volume of the upper well. And eve then it would make no difference. However I contend that submission will happen way before.

    Suggestions of failure mode requested. In the mean time it is off to the CG response team again.

  23. christopher yaun says:

    The EAARTH MATTERS

    Solutions, Solutions, Solutions

    Passive House, Net Zero Energy Homes are now tested proven solutions.

    The Passive House and Net Zero Energy Home needs a champion to spread the message.

    We can now build homes with standard building materials avaiable at your local supplier, built by your favorite contractor and for an average cost that are net zero energy.

    Will you be a champion and help spread the message in 2010?

    Chris

  24. christopher yaun says:

    The EAARTH MATTERS

    If all new construction were built to a net zero energy standard starting today then by 2040 half of the buildings that we live and work in would be NET ZERO ENERGY.

    This can be done at no additional cost, will eliminate your utility bill, increase your energy security and reduce your carbon footprint.

    Will you be a champion and help spread the message in 2010?

    chris

  25. Mark Shapiro says:

    What would I like to see? Hmmm . . . do you mean besides “Next post” and “Previous post” links at the top of each post?

    By now they would have saved me at least 5,000 mouse clicks!

  26. Raleigh Latham says:

    Climate Solutions, and a highlight of Short term 10-20 years U.S. areas at risk from climate change.

    You’re my hero Joe, we need people like you now more than ever!

  27. paulm says:

    well done joe… more humor, more on how we are going to adapt to 2C+.

    (nice link #10)

  28. AlCrawford says:

    Personally I would like to make as many posts as possible educate me about the current state of climate science. All phases of climate science. Links to more information about the post’s topics are always welcome. While refuting deniers false statements are important it should be done as a teaching tool in getting correct information out. There have been studies that show repeating falsehoods even when showing them to be false actually re enforces those falsehoods to people.

  29. Rabid Doomsayer says:

    Great work Joe, it is obvious you put in considerable time on this project. Hey it takes a while each day just reading your posts.

    I would like to see more of what we have to do to prepare as a society. So many unpleasant changes are now inevitable. When we see the true cost of preparation, then the cost of doing nothing becomes clearer.

    If we do nothing by way of mitigation then those changes are going to be catastrophic. Your current emphasis on reducing emissions is still top priority.

  30. Wit's End says:

    At the risk of repeating myself, okay, I’m repeating myself…but you did ask!

    PLEASE let’s pay some attention to the unfolding, ongoing, invisible disaster in our atmosphere! It’s the Gulf contamination writ large – we are breathing the products of fuel emissions every day, every where, and it is demonstrably killing people, animals and plants.

    http://witsendnj.blogspot.com/2010/06/goldman-sachs-and-anthropocentrism.html

  31. Joe1347 says:

    How about adding some sort of supplemental forum or a ‘diary’ (using DailyKos terminology) to the site for more visitor contribution? I guess what I’m envisioning is a climate change/alternative energy site with a format fairly similar to DailyKos.

  32. Dan B says:

    Joe;

    Congratulations. Previous comments have covered what I’d like to see more: Solutions.

    More specifically I’d appreciate your analysis, and the analysis of “experts you trust” on what’s likely to work, what should be done – but might not be, cost-benefits, and most importantly – since political decisions are rarely made upon clear rational cost/benefit metrics – what moral and philosophical changes need to be achieved to realize those changes.

    It seems to me that we will soon be at a tipping point in renewable energy. Unless the far-frightened-of-any-change-fringe turn the US neo-fascist we’ll be living in a world of new, exciting, and confusing options. Your analysis of Nuclear was a world changer for me. The same lens applied to existing and emerging energy technologies and GHG reduction technologies would be much appreciated if for no other reason than to make sense of the huge number of options.

  33. Joe,

    BRAVO ZULU FIVER K! Now if only you wouldn’t hold back so much & tell us what you really think.

    ~IANVS

  34. knoxkp says:

    Congratulations and many thanks for all your hard work! The depth and amount of information in your posts makes 5,000 a very large number and I’m extremely grateful.

  35. MarkB says:

    The “Energy and global warming news” daily post could be presented a little better. I think a lot of people just read the first headline. Maybe have the post show all headlines with a plus (+) symbol next to each that allows you to expand to get more info.

    (+) Offshore green energy could make UK net exporter by 2050
    (+) Etc….

  36. villabolo says:

    Monthly updates on the Arctic Sea Ice Age Change maps such as the one presented in the post “Arctic Death Spiral”. That particular tri-colored one (purple, blue, green) is my favorite one because its colors contrast better against each other. Much better than some other ghastly ones (shades of gray!).

    In particular if you could provide the very high resolution one which allows you to distinguish right down to the pixel level.

    More posts on any on site exploration such as expeditions or ships.

    Perhaps you, Mr. Romm, could take a vacation walking on the Arctic Ice Cap and give us an eyewitness report.

  37. David Smith says:

    Call me crazy, but CP is the only site that I view every single day. Keep up the good work and thank you.

    The political investigations focus attention on what the government or corporations and what they should or should not be doing to solve the problems of AGW. I wish there could be some focus on what we should be doing to help. I dont mean drive less or change our light bulbs to LEDs. I mean using our creative skills and knowledge to make solutions, creat new businesses and technologies, to move people to act, etc. The alternative to getting government to make laws to rid us of the dirty unsustainable businesses (Big energy, for example) is to make those businesses obsolete and unnecessary.

    Thanks again.

  38. Dan B says:

    To clarify my comment about “solutions”: Most sites that list new technologies don’t put them through much analysis (in some cases there really is no analysis). As anyone in communication knows if people are presented with too many options, even if they’re all wonderful, they tend to freeze and choose none.

    Joe – your communication skills would add some much needed clarity and direction, particularly in separating immediate solutions, near term solutions, and future opportunities.

  39. darth says:

    Joe,

    I’ve been reading your blog since its inception and check it several times a day (finally got the RSS feed to save time!) I love the news posts, updates on the arctic ice cover, smack downs of TVMOB and the like.

    Would love more articles on solutions – how are things progressing on the wedges, etc. An easy way of seeing all posts on a subject, say arctic ice cover would be nice. Or updated monthly graphs of things like CO2 levels, wind power, solar power, etc. Or post a link to sites that have those things updated.

    Keep up the good work!

  40. Chris Dudley says:

    I think the work you are doing on the connection between extreme weather events and climate change is very important for two reasons. First, the media is completely cowed on this issue. Revkin, for example, can’t get his head around the idea that warming has already killed people. Second, we need some frequent warning about how the edges of risk are expanding. There are buildings and infrastructure being built now that have what was once a thousand year flood risk now a near certainty within the expected life of the structure. We need to be requiring insurance in these cases but we won’t unless we can break through the media miasma on this.

  41. Leif says:

    “Main Line Kill” revisited. (Second attempt. First stuck in moderation 3+hr. There are current reports of significantly higher flow rates than reported in the past and used in our original math to kill this well.
    http://climateprogress.org/ 2010/ 06/ 04/ pictures-bp-oil-spill-media/
    Our solution of just getting past the high velocity BOP restriction and injecting high density shot to sink to the bottom and piling up and euthanizing the bitch would not work with very much higher flow rates. Not to worry.

    Our present solution disregards increased flow speeds. We required a 1″? id metal pipe, welded tube?, with a friction fit shouldered tip plug to pass the BOP restriction. By feeding this “catheter” thru the existing “suck tube” which needs to be a mile long, and increase to ~three miles and reach close to the true bottom. Once in position we start to drop in Depleted Uranium 3/4″ marbles. We require an air lock at the top to add marbles and not deal with pressure differences and thus flow problems. As the column builds up it will overpower the end plug and be injected into the rising column of ejaculate. Within minutes we will have injected many tons of marbles increasing the density of the flow many times over. Removing energy! We have miles to work with and many minutes before we start losing bearings to the volume of the upper well. And eve then it would make no difference. However I contend that submission will happen way before.

    Suggestions of failure mode requested. In the mean time it is off to the CG response team again.

  42. Mike #22 says:

    5,000 and you are just getting warmed up.

    What the Devil’s Chaplain said–let it rip.

    Please do more TV and radio.

  43. Leif says:

    Chris, Leif here. I posted on your blog my latest rendition of the “Main Line Kill”. I tried to post here but I am stuck in moderation for 3+hours. Joe may be on a plane. I do not think that Joe’s computer likes my language. Increased flow rates are not a factor any more. We just run the catheter to the bottom of the well and inject high density stuff at that point We could get many tons in before the first might be carried to the top of the lower well.

  44. Mark S says:

    I agree with Jay T #3: there is a ton of bad news out there. And it only seems to be getting worse. I would do a running series called ‘The Good News’ that emphasizes positive developments, signs for hope, solutions, etc. I would like to hear solutions that individuals can participate in, vote on, purchase, etc.

  45. Sarah says:

    Great work with the first 5000.

    One suggestion is to occasionally feature some immediate action items. E.g. “call NYT and complain about this article”, “talking points to bring to your senator or rep’s town hall meeting”, how to confront your local utility and what to demand, how to find the pressure points for renewable energy support in your state government, list of non-profits that are effective at truly changing the energy landscape.

    Keep up the excellent work!

  46. Will says:

    I know you have purposefully avoided this, but don’t be afraid to pump up the climate movement, as in marches, demonstrations, rallies. People already know you are a climate activist, so it won’t change your reputation. Why not give a call once in a while to Greenpeace, Energy Action, or Rainforest Action Network and see if you can’t help organize a mass rally and keep people up to date on direct actions in their area.

    As a Greenpeace volunteer it is my belief that we will never get the ambitious climate goals that the science calls for (ie: 40% cut in emissions from 90’s levels by 2020) without a mass direct action climate movement. We may get the paltry 4% target without it, but that is very likely not enough, as you have concluded in the past. Keep up the great work, we love you at Greenpeace despite some perceived disagreements.

  47. Jeff Huggins says:

    Networking and Creative Change Catalysis!

    Joe, I have a suggestion that wouldn’t require even a single additional word on the daily blog, and could even benefit from one fewer posts every now and then, to give you more time.

    In your position, please spend a very healthy amount of time thinking, networking, and creatively catalyzing change!

    Although additional info is always very nice and helpful, and it helps inform change, and so forth, and goodness knows the science continues to progress, nevertheless, our much larger challenge now is encouraging and catalyzing and prompting positive change. Unfortunately, if we are all honest about it, we are only a small fraction of the way toward doing that, to the degree necessary. So, we need (from all of us, and from each other) more imagination, more vision, more oomph, more networking, and more coffee — or whatever.

    As we know, there is no question that we have a big problem. And as we know, we have to dramatically reduce our GHG emissions. And, we know the largest sources of those emissions. And, we know that the media are, for the most part, dropping the ball. And, we know that Obama has said “make me do it” more than once. So, my suggestion is that somehow, in the posts AND in your spare time networking and thinking, you and we and the Good People of the Climate Progress Galaxy get creative and catalyze change.

    If we are all to celebrate at a happy party fifteen years from now (and that’s the goal I have in mind; how about you?), then it will need to be because humankind has somehow “gotten it” and has energetically embarked on much more positive and sustainable paths, not because you have made 25,000 posts by then. I’m sure we will all settle for only 20,000 posts, or even 15,000, in coming years if you and your network and creative thinking can somehow prompt the positive change necessary.

    Also, I would suggest a guest post — perhaps a poem or song — or an encouraging and motivating video short — by Neil Young, and another by Joan Baez, and another from Pete Seeger, and from folks who can help motivate us.

    Also, wouldn’t it be great to get statements directly from some of the corporate leaders who actually genuinely “get it”! I don’t want to hear from folks who fake getting it, or who tell us they get it and then support the Chamber of Commerce anyhow. No, I’d like to hear concrete statements from leaders who really do get it and who are taking action on a positive path.

    I appreciate all the great work you and the others at CP are doing. Bravo! I’ve learned a lot from you folks and from the commenters. Thanks for all you do!

    Cheers,

    Jeff

  48. asterisk says:

    Joe, I’m a daily reader of your blog (often several times/day) and I just want to thank you. I have read your books and I can say with some authority that you are truly one of the few people out there who really and truly tell it like it is. That’s all I have to say.

    I hope someone at the White House keeps and eye on your blog. It just freaks me out that things are so incredibly dire, and yet people go along planning for their newborns college fund, as if everything were just ‘hunky-dory’! How we as human beings could be so incredibly short-sighted is just one of those mysteries that will be debated for centuries to come…that is if there is anyone around to debate.

    Thank you so much and please don’t stop what you do.

  49. Heraclitus says:

    Thank-you Joe, this site is invaluable.

    I’d like to see an even greater focus on challenging the lazy media, both directly by you and indirectly by giving ideas, models and encouragement to help us to challenge false-balance journalisms ourselves. The media are pivotal to attitudes and need to be shamed into more responsible reporting.

    I’d also like to see more comment on the implications of new science – discussion of the science itself is covered in detail elsewhere, but I think this is the forum for highlighting the alarming (not alarmist) nature of many of the recent developments, particularly for the most vulnerable societies.

    A third area that you already do very well is discussion of the viable solutions that are already available and developing further at an amazing pace. Keep reminding us all of these.

    Oh and finally, though I can’t really justify this, perhaps a more global, less american-centric focus. Although having said that it does give me an insight into American politics, which ultimately are probably going to be crucial in our future chances of maintaining civilisation.

  50. Raul says:

    Don’t know how long it will take before the waste disposal of the tar
    balls deposited into the landfills will qualify the landfills as superfund
    sites. But it will certainly widen the areas that the water management
    people distance from the water supply wells. As far as gov. authority
    but people living nearby the landfills with home wells.
    Such a different topic though than world climate.
    Good luck Joe, Blog is great for spreading ideas and information.

  51. Lewis W. says:

    Jay Turner says:
    June 8, 2010 at 3:12 pm

    I’d like to see posts on signs of progress and reasons for hope. It can be pretty gloomy around here.

    I’ll second this. But keep doing what you’re doing, particularly, continue to call out the MSM on their preoccupation with drama over facts.

  52. Max says:

    Congratulations and thanks for doing such a great job.

    As has been mentioned above, comparisons of the relative advantages and costs of the newest forms of wind/solar/geothermal/wave etc. would be really useful. The numbers and technology change so rapidly it is tough to keep up. Which do you see being predominantly relied upon in a decade, two decades?

    All the best.

  53. Matt R says:

    Thanks for all your hard work, Joe. Your blog is a must-read stunner!

  54. Dan L. says:

    Congratulations, Joe, and thank you for Climate Progress.

  55. MikeK says:

    Just want to add mine to the congrats and thank yous and urgings to keep up the great work!

  56. John Baez says:

    It’s a great blog. I don’t think we need more ‘good news’. I think we need true news.

    And yes, I think we need buttons to click, to read the ‘next post’ and ‘previous post’. It can’t be very hard.

  57. Gabe Petlin says:

    Congrats –its a great blog. Honestly the volume of information makes searching for past posts like looking for a needle in a hay stack. How can the archive be more searchible? Sometimes I feel like the spin is overly optimistic on the chances for climate/energy legislation.

    Could you do a story on the Renewable Energy Markets Association (REMA)? see website:www.renewablemarketers.org They have some interesting analysis of the role of voluntary green power under the APA and all previous energy and climate bills. I don’t believe you have covered this issue. Disclosure: I am a member of REMA and its founder and former President. Thanks!

  58. What a great job you have done!

    Keep up the good work cuz we need you!

  59. re: #45

    I agree with Sarah. Helpful links to point us in the direction of sending e-mails to elected officials when the occasion arises would be great!