This may be perhaps the first time I’ve embraced an article from the Yale Environment 360 forum, the opener reads:
Environmentalists have long sought to use the threat of catastrophic global warming to persuade the public to embrace a low-carbon economy. But recent events, including the tainting of some climate research, have shown the risks of trying to link energy policy to climate science.
Al Gore’s latest book where he had to photoshop in some hurricanes comes to mind.
The NCDC sponsored climate change report where they photoshopped in a flooded house also comes to mind.
And, yes even the snowstorms reportedly caused by global warming this winter are also reminders of how common this bogus linkage to weather is.
From:
Green think tank tells environmentalists: Leave climate change science behind
By Ben Geman
Leaders of a contrarian environmental think tank, The Breakthrough Institute, have a way to get beyond the climate science wars: Break the link between global warming research and the push for low-carbon energy.
Ted Nordhaus and Michael Shellenberger, in a new essay in Yale Environment 360, [Titled: Freeing Energy Policy From The Climate Change Debate] argue that environmentalists are too eager to link natural disasters and dangerous weather to man-made climate change.
…
They write:
Climate science, even at its most uncontroversial, could never motivate the remaking of the entire global energy economy. Efforts to use climate science to threaten an apocalyptic future should we fail to embrace green proposals, and to characterize present-day natural disasters as terrifying previews of an impending day of reckoning, have only served to undermine the credibility of both climate science and progressive energy policy.
The essay also suggests that climate advocacy and research have become too intertwined, with environmentalists seeking to represent the science as “apocalyptic, imminent, and certain.” The science has been harmed as a result, they argue, stating:
Greens pushed climate scientists to become outspoken advocates of action to address global warming. Captivated by the notion that their voices and expertise were singularly necessary to save the world, some climate scientists attempted to oblige. The result is that the use, and misuse, of climate science by advocates began to wash back into the science itself.
…
The Yale Environment 360 website has a comments section below the articles. Look for a lively response to their new piece.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Have to agree Anthony, pretty level headed story. Sure wish more environmentalists were not so over the top and full of…………..HOT AIR
Sincerely,
John
Luboš Motl says:
http://motls.blogspot.com/2010/03/black-body-limits-climate-sensitivity.html#more
Amen. Stop scaring the children!
There’s no reason for environmentalists to have any say on energy anyway, especially when they don’t know one thing about science and oppose nuclear. Our energy use has been decarbonising for generations as explained by many scientists and writers from Dr Patrick Moore to Michael Crichton.
Whenever environmentalists do get involved, it is to try to steal credit for what is happening anyway or to do the dirty work of western governments in persuading poor nations, especially black people, not to develop or to bribe the political elite of those nations to keep their people in a state of backwardness. They also purchase land for cheap in the name of conservation to prevent productive use of those lands, then after a while sell them on to favourable corporations.
Apart from Patrick Moore’s Greenspirit I can’t think of any environmental organisation which isn’t damn dirty.
I definitely agree. Energy conservation, sustainability, minimizing pollution, etc are good things, but the repeated tying of these things to global warming messes things up royally.
I was trying to explain how CAGW is, at best, a possible hypothesis that is doubtful and he countered with something like – well cutting back on fossil fuels is a good thing. Of course it is (my wife works in a lab working on alternative energy…I don’t know how he could think I didn’t realize this)! I tried to explain to him how the two are very different and shouldn’t be linked (CAGW demands immediate/crazy action, whereas sustainable solutions will likely creep slowly over decades), but I don’t know if he got it.
I’m glad more people are starting to discern between the two.
-Scott
I agree with the message of this particular essay. However, after reading the authors’ 2004 article, The Death Of Environmentalism, it appears they simply blow in the political winds. My kingdom for a progressive who is capable of critical thought.
Well if it smells like a duck, and sheds feathers like a duck; it’s a duck !
So what’s with this LOW CARBON ENERGY GIMMIC; if it is supposed to be divorced from “Climate Science” or “Climate Change”.
The very words LOW CARBON mean they haven’t got the message.
It isn’t the carbon;IT’S THE WATER; STUPID !
So let me understand, they were using climate change nee’ global warming merely as a ploy to get an environmentalist agenda through? In other words, THEY are not even certain whether it’s true, they were using it only to get their agenda through.
What next, the threat of cute polar bears starving to death?
Oh wait, they already used that one.
So, essentially: The fraud isn’t working, time to throw in the towel, and just admit the real motive..>…… an irrational hatred of hydrocarbon fuels…. oh, and a death wish to shut down all civilization.
… the first in a 12 step process?
“George E. Smith (16:55:28) :
[…]
It isn’t the carbon;IT’S THE WATER; STUPID !”
Yeah. We need a low water economy. Dewaterize the economy! No Evian for you.
must’ve been swallowed by the spam filter..
The irony of all this is if you understand economics there is nothing to focus on, free markets will take care of our energy needs. All government does is increase costs and delay technological innovation. If they want to see a transition to clean energy, then they need to get out of the way.
Interesting, they are going back to their original ‘green’ idea. But how will civilisation change to their will when there is no doom to avoid? Are these people a bunch of wingers that cannot accept that progress means destroying old ideas like the sun revolving around the earth or that the earth is flat. In order to make an omelette you must break some eggs – releasing a little bit of plant food into the atmosphere is a good thing 🙂
Getting the most out of fossil fuels: Globlal Trade should mean exchange of goods for goods, not pure transfer of wealth at the greatest expenditure of energy.
Excessive importation is the epitomy of energy inefficiency. That stuff doesn’t travel on sailboats, it requires lots of bunker oil to get it here.
Internal transportation should rely most on rail, which is far more energy efficient than semi. It’s out-of-balance.
“Poptech (17:13:02) :
The irony of all this is if you understand economics there is nothing to focus on, free markets will take care of our energy needs. All government does is increase costs and delay technological innovation. If they want to see a transition to clean energy, then they need to get out of the way.”
Actually, no. Energy companies would go for the cheapest energy, and that is hydrocarbons for at least the next 500 years or so (oil, coal, gas, and now huge amounts of shale gas becoming economical).
If you want clean, you have to regulate. (Personally, with clean i don’t mean CO2-free but other people have different ideas of clean; in both cases, the same applies: without regulation, no company will do it – it harms their competitiveness)
If one notes trends, one will observe that expanding energy use correlates to HUGELY expanding energy reserves.
(This is one case where correlation may indeed equal causation.)
We now have a climate caste system. The enlightened
progressives and their fear mongering minions.
This is fun; more popcorn please!
One might even ask if carbon-based energy use cannot be convincingly connected with AGW why there is a particularly pressing imperative to reduce use of carbon-based energy in the first place . . .
This is a major step in the right direction. I think the concept of the intertwining of advocacy & science has fired up many of the scientific types on this blog because the degradation of science in general was apparent. This is a good 1st step in separating politics & science & restoring the credibility of science.
To those who still seem offended by the term “low carbon” energy, it is perfectly acceptable to use that term & not imply a global warming link. The other way to interpret it is “high efficiency” energy (ie more work per btu is equivalent to more work per net carbon molecule). Higher efficiency is always better- both personally & societally – regardless of your personal politics.
Well the trouble with that Yale site is they don’t have somebody like Chasmod who is awake at the switch.
When it comes to placing a comment on that site; their moderator process is about as slow as postal chess.
If they ever post my short comment; it will be into its second or third half life.
[Hey! ~dbs, mod]
Uhmm, subtext reads, “change tactic” not common goal. There’s nothing wrong with “carbon free” energy. Except that it won’t happen in my lifetime nor yours. Neither, is there anything wrong with carbon based energy. Yes, we’ll probably run out, eventually. But, again, not in my lifetime nor yours, nor your children’s. I would like to say that I don’t understand the obsession with carbon based energy, but it seems clear to me, that there are too many humanists hell bent on taking humanity out of the human race. Like it or not, human progress and standard of living can still be measured in terms of carbon emissions. Call me strange, but I see upward movement in both as a good thing. Further, I see that the laws of energy/physics/nature still apply to mankind. As far as I know, we still cannot create energy. Find the “perpetual motion machine”, and we should all be living in a utopia soon. Until then, there’s no need to rush efficiency, it’s man’s nature to strive for it. It continually happens regardless of the tactic employed.
My take anyway.
Don’t ethanol and biodiesel have carbon in them … how does their use equate with a low carbon economy? And if we are able to synthesise transport fuel from hydrogen (produced from off-peak nuclear generated electricy) and CO, produced by pyrolysis of biomass, would that count as part of a low carbon economy.
Methinks, if they want to focus on alternative fuel sources – good idea. But they need to forget this nonsense about carbon.
Layne Blanchard (17:02:24) : “So, essentially: The fraud isn’t working, time to throw in the towel, and just admit the real motive..>…… an irrational hatred of hydrocarbon fuels…. oh, and a death wish to shut down all civilization. … the first in a 12 step process?”
Step 1: “Admitted we wanted the world to be powerless
—that we were trying to make everyone’s lives unmanageable….”
It’s a shame the environmental movement has been taken over by such a shoddy argument. There are plenty of real reasons to do many (not all) of the things the AGW preachers want us to do. If the whole environmental movement is discredited, bad things will result.
And then there’s this:
http://arctic-roos.org/observations/satellite-data/sea-ice/observation_images/ssmi1_ice_area.png
Don’t overreact; this doesn’t prove we’ll have a big recovery in the summer minimum, but it’s a nice start. The facts are “inconvenient” for the AGW faithful right now.
Predicting the end of the world always works well for a while. But when the world doesn’t end as predicted, the preacher’s following melts away.
evanmjones (17:29:45) : “…if carbon-based energy use cannot be convincingly connected with AGW why there is a particularly pressing imperative to reduce use of carbon-based energy in the first place . . .”
Good question. Answer: The United States has the largest reserves of coal in the entire world. China covets these reserves and would like to buy them at 5 cents on the dollar. OPEC would like to increase our dependence on foreign oil and gas. By making coal illegal, our enemies can ruin the US in one fell swoop. US allies (if there are any) will be over-run. Obama will bow.