Judith Curry and Ross McKitrick on Demon Coal

Wayne Delbeke writes in with:

There was a very good CBC radio program referenced in one of the comments today and I thought I would bring it to your attention here.

http://www.cbc.ca/ideas/episodes/2012/03/12/demon-coal-part-1/

===========================================================
coal.jpgCoal is dirty, toxic, abundant and cheap. Mining it disfigures the earth. Using it for fuel or electricity generation is unsustainable. Burning it emits deadly pollutants and greenhouse gases, and is the major cause of global warming. Right?  Max Allen talks with environmentalists and energy scientists about why much conventional wisdom about coal in the 21st century is just plain wrong. Part 2 airs on Monday, March 19.

============================================================

Normally CBC is kind of left biased but this was a very balanced program – part 1 of two parts. WUWT is referenced as a source for further reading. The list of participants includes Judith Curry and Ross McKitrick to name just a few.

The first part is a bit of a listen as it talks about the negative aspects of coal, but then it gets into CO2 and Climate and it is shockingly unbiased and scientific as well as pragmatic with respect to what we should do. It even identified water vapour as the major GHG, CO2 as possibly a minor player with perhaps the sun having more impact than has been attributed to it; and that there is a lot we do not know about how the climate system works.

I liked what I heard in some of the presentations to the Canadian Senate committee. Who knows what the second episode will bring but listening to part 1 gave me hope that people are coming to their senses and looking at priorities in an appropriate way.

About these ads
This entry was posted in Current News and tagged , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

67 Responses to Judith Curry and Ross McKitrick on Demon Coal

  1. Every now and again the CBC produces a surprise.

  2. UK Sceptic says:

    BBC – please take note.

  3. kwik says:

    Perhaps Obama flirted with the greenies just to get votes. You know how it is.

    They have special groups checking how many votes you loose if you say this and that.

    “If I say what I really mean about this Globull Warning hoax, how many percent votes will I loose?”

    50%, sir.

    “Holy crap! Can’t have that! lets support this [snip]“.

    Yessir!

    And now; Hey, look! noone believes in this [snip] anymore after those darned meteorologist’s and so called bloggers intervened ! We must abandon that crappy idea!

    Yessir! But EPA won’t go away, Sir. What is you advice regarding EPA, NOAA, NASA and all those other government institutions, Sir?

    Replace the leadership just before the next election.

    Yessir.

  4. Alex the skeptic says:

    Skepticism: The worm that turned and faced a monster that turned out to be a coward not wanting to face the real science and the truth. Now the monster is running and his edifice is crumbling. All over the world scientists are coming round to accept, even publish the truth. Die Kalde Sonne is the latest example. This CBC surprise another…. Have the flood gates been opened?

    It’s just that our politicians have not noticed due to their blindness. It will take a US president to turn the political side of AGW around and slay the dragon.

  5. Doug UK says:

    Is it possible that the backlash against the moonbat minions is underway?

  6. This is a very good program worth listening to although it’s rather long. Will make the climatists furious…

  7. Gary Mount says:

    Now if Peter Mansbridge would stop using the word “wacky” * whenever a non average weather event occurs, I might start watching the CBC National News again. I have enjoyed watching Rex Murphy in the past. I currently have to settle with reading him in the National Post.

    * wacky weather is code for the weather we see today is unusual and is a result of climate change. That is the impression I get when the word is used. Same with the word “extreme”.

  8. Gary Mount says:

    Now that I think about it, I wonder if the upcoming federal budget has anything to do with this. The federal government (Canadian taxpayers) funds the CBC with about 3/4 of a billion dollars annually. The current federal government is run by the Conservative party, with a 3 year mandate still left in their current term, and they are looking for a lot of ways to cut spending.

  9. Michael Larkin says:

    As I said over at Judith’s, I thought this was a terrific programme – very balanced and sensible. If only the BBC would take note!

  10. Brad says:

    I do not think media, or the people, ever really lost track of what was right here. The politicization of basic discussions drove the left and the right to say a bunch of stuff that was wrong, and both sides are too blame for the lack of centrist rational policy.

  11. Terry Warren says:

    Australian ABC – please take note.

  12. Greg Holmes says:

    Again we have to appreciate the clear thinking on the part of Canada. They have seen the light, and are doing something to re-align the thinking. I cannot for the life of me understand why Gov’ts araound the world fund organisations that do nothing but “fight” Gov’t policy. It appears that this also is being addressed in Canada. In the Uk there is also a glimmer of hope, but not on the BBC as yet. Advocacy is a big deal at the BBC, check out the website Biased BBC for an informed view of the “fix”.

  13. Oldseadog says:

    UK Sceptic, I wouldn’t hold your breath.

  14. Walter says:

    I wish they could come to their senses in Australia.

  15. E.M.Smith says:

    Canadians are generally bright folks. It’s well within their powers of observation to have noted:

    1) It’s darned cold in Canada and the promised Tropical Warmth has not shown up. Deep cold snow and frozen tundra are not warming…

    2) They make a large part of their total national budget and exports out of sales of coal, tar oil, natural gas, etc. Not to mention one heck of a lot of the energy they use to hold the cold at bay…

    3) The proposed “climate fix” of intense poverty and privation does not keep you from freezing.

    4) Warm is good, cold is bad; especially for their other major export: food crops.

    5) Did I mention it gets cold in Canada?…

  16. John V. Wright says:

    UK Sceptic – we should be so lucky!

  17. David A says:

    Brad says:
    March 14, 2012 at 1:35 am
    I do not think media, or the people, ever really lost track of what was right here. The politicization of basic discussions drove the left and the right to say a bunch of stuff that was wrong, and both sides are too blame for the lack of centrist rational policy.
    ====================================================
    Humm>, care to share your view of “centrist policy”, and what “bunch of stuff” sceptics, not necessarily “right” did or promoted that was wrong?

    @E.M. Smith, yes indeed, I would think any rational Canadian would be seriously questioning the CAGW advocates, well aware that a little more warmth is a good thing, and cognizent of the economic destruction wrought by “watermellon” energy policy around the world.

  18. Crispin in Johannesburg says:

    Eschewing cold Waterloo for Johannesburg gave me a spot of relief but means I unfortunately missesd the CBC stunner. But I was told by my son that it was very informative, and a complete break with their usual unbearable warmism. I have to take this as a sign that reality is peeping through the doors of the CBC Directors.

    The problem is the two-part series might be a set-up – to have Dr Suzuki come during Part II and tell us about how misdirected the skeptics are and how it is all settled ‘climate science’ as he has been doing for decades. His access to the CBC transmiters and devotion to The Cause has distorted the views of an entire generation. Even a two part series of proper science and fact is not going to easily undo literally thousands of ‘original carbon sin’ CAGW articles.

    I do appreciate that this could be a momentous event. Perhaps our letters to the CBC calling for more recognition for the Canadian heroes to be afforded the airtime they have rightfully earned were actually read.

  19. John Marshall says:

    According to BBC News we are running out of fossil fuels at such a great lick that next week they’re all gone. I suspect that they will ignore this CBC report as they do all others that fail to repeat the alarmist call.

  20. Michael T in Craster, UK says:

    I fear that there will be no such public debate at the BBC as long as Richard Black (international man of mystery and environment correspondent) and David Shukman (BA geography and ‘first’ BBC science editor) are holding the microphone.

    Pity…the BBC will probably be the last bastion to fall (or maybe the ABC?) and we are obliged to pay our taxes for it, no less.

    MT

  21. richard verney says:

    Coal could make a come back.

    China are helping with the experiment. If warmists are right that the warming effect of all the increasing CO2 being emitted by Chinese coal fired stations is counter-balanced bu aerosol emissions, perhaps the key is to have no more stringent clean air regulations than those appled by the Chinese Authorities.

    However, that said, the future increasing looks to lie with shale gas which should be sufficient to power us until fussion becomes a reality.

  22. Philip Bradley says:

    Coal is dirty

    So is soil, but I don’t hear anyone advocating we stop growing food crops because soil is dirty.

    The ‘coal is dirty’ argument is asinine and childish.

  23. Ww says:

    CBC is having Michael Mann on this morning on The Current. For balance?

  24. b_C says:

    Crispin … points well taken about Suzuki doubtlessly coming up in Part II to set us all straight on the righteous path of The Cause. However, one can’t discount the looming 10% state-funded budget cuts at CBC – details of which will be available after the 29 March federal budget is delivered – to concentrate their little leftist minds wonderfully.

  25. beng says:

    “They” need to visit a modern (or even an older retrofitted plant) and see how much money, equipment, time & manpower go into the “cleanup” aspect of coal-burning. A coal plant w/a scrubber spends as much or more time maintaining that than the rest of the entire plant!

    To childishly say it’s “dirty” is an insult to all those involved in the continuous efforts & is just willfully ignorant.

  26. b_C says:

    Ww … Mann Part I; Gleick Part II?

  27. Cassandra King says:

    Coal is in fact a gift from the Gods themselves, it has allowed our civilisation to flourish as no other in human history. Without coal we would have not had the industrial revolution, there would be no industry, no technology, no comforts that an advanced civilisation takes for granted.

    There should be a lump of coal on a statue in tribute for what that substance has done for humanity. Apart from oil the human race has not been gifted with a more essential and wonderful and useful raw material. The tragedy is that we always fail to appreciate the things around us that have helped us the most.

  28. higley7 says:

    I would like to see more said about how the IR interaction by nitrogen and oxygen can be simply ignored when it is the vast, vast majority of the atmosphere. The warmists pretend (by omission) that these gases are IR transparent, but they are not. IR spectra are available for these and their absorptions are clearly present in the atmospheric IR spectrum.

    So, if all of the gases in the atmosphere are IR active, how can a small change in a bit player (CO2) cause any changes. Short answer: it doesn’t.

  29. Jimbo says:

    They have referenced WUWT???? What is the world coming to?

    Almost everything man-made we enjoy today is as a result of the burning of fossil fuels or nuclear power. From bringing biscuits to the supermarket and powering your computer or car or hospital. I’ll take dirty coal and warmth in a bitterly cold winter over ‘clean’ bird choppers and almost certain death from hypothermia.

  30. I was on the CBC??

    The CBC is still on the air???

    Geez I got to start paying attention.

  31. Allan MacRae says:

    I have avoided the CBC and the Globe and Mail for a decade, ever since they embraced global warming fraud as their mantra: “Like, I mean, y’know: Everything bad in the world is caused by CO2! Like, Carbon, y’know, like, Totally!”

    According to CBCNewsSpeak, “nice people” actually do not exhale CO2 – they breath “Gaia Vapours”… …and nice plants to not take in CO2 either.

    The actual CBC audience is so small, it can be counted on the fingers of one thumb.

    The CBC, aka PravdaKanada, survives only because of huge government subsidies.

    Note to PM Harper – “Please sir, I want NO more.”

  32. mkelly says:

    Demon Coal. The title of the program to me indicates a bias. Why not just Coal? Or Coal friend or foe? But Demon Coal says lots.

  33. Steve from Rockwood says:

    Meanwhile the Ontario provincial government is aiming for “zero” coal by 2015 for electricity generation in order to reduce CO2 emissions.

  34. Jeffrey says:

    higley7 says:
    March 14, 2012 at 5:31 am

    When I was doing IR spectroscopy in grad school we used N2as a purge gas because it was IR inactive. O2 is similar.

  35. JT says:

    Folks, this was an IDEAS program. IDEAS a long record of giving fair coverage to alternative thinking. Don’t imagine that this program signals anything for bulk of CBC productions.

  36. Mike From Canmore says:

    John Marshal
    BBC wrong again. We ran out of fossil fuels in 1990. Just ask club of Rome.

  37. Wayne Delbeke says:

    Guess who is on the CBC program “The Current” today?

    Whining Mann. Guess this is how the CBC is getting their “balance” into the system. Going to go take a shot of pepto-bismol and gravol before I listen to it. Should have known it was too good to be true but at least there is the Ideas follow next week.

  38. John in L du B says:

    This is the same CBC with their science guy, the integrity-challenged Bob McDonald, who let a guest rant about climate science deniers just two weeks ago on his Saturday science program Quirks and Quarks? Really?
    I regret that I gave McDonald a morning of my time for a project I was working on at the time. You might attribute his and the CBC’s bias to ignorance, but don’t be fooled. All these consensus proclaimers are completely aware that WUWT is not the top science blog because of hits off of teanagers huddled in their bedrooms and parents’ basements visiting the site. They know perfectly well that its because hundreds of thousands of working scientists and engineers like myself visit it daily for sound, reasoned climate science information.
    Glad that the CBC who, incidently, is way too far overinvested in Suzuki to be rational let alone unbiased, finally said something that’s at least balanced but don’t hold your breath for very much more very soon.

  39. Wayne Delbeke says:

    Ross McKitrick – it was “Ideas” and I believe they used a tape of your presentation to the Senate … and even though Max Allen, like Rex Murphy, may not reflect the political consensus views of the CBC, it was a breath of fresh air listening to you and others talk rationally. Much better than the usual psycho babble the CBC broadcasts.

  40. “Normally CBC is kind of left biased”

    Greatest understatement of the last 19 or 20 years.
    Too bad the Conservatives are in power; our cultural elite will claim they strong armed the CBC into broadcasting this.

  41. polistra says:

    Shows an advantage of a directly gov’t-owned broadcaster. Clearly the Canadian gov’t has turned solidly toward sanity, and thus their broadcaster follows.

    Won’t happen here in America, because PBS and NPR are non-profits with small gov’t subsidies. Like all other non-profits, they rigidly obey the will of Wall Street. Even if a Santorum Administration turned solidly toward sanity, it couldn’t turn PBS and NPR. Only Wall Street can do that.

  42. Jay Davis says:

    Brad, there is no such thing as “centrist rational policy”. For policy to be truly “rational”, it can be neither left, right or centrist – it must only be correct.

  43. Allan MacRae says:

    Wayne Delbeke says: March 14, 2012 at 8:05 am
    Guess who is on the CBC program “The Current” today?
    Whining Mann…
    ___________________________

    Please Wayne, show a little respect. Mann’s first name is Piltdown.
    ___________________________

    Jay Davis says March 14, 2012 at 8:46 am
    Brad, there is no such thing as “centrist rational policy”. For policy to be truly “rational”, it can be neither left, right or centrist – it must only be correct.
    ___________________________

    Agree Jay. Both sides of the political spectrum are too fixated on ideology – perhaps because It is easier than thinking.

    It’s not about right and left. It’s about right and wrong.

    Global warming mania is not wrong because it is leftist dogma, it is wrong because the science is wrong – there is no global warming crisis. We (Dr. Sallie Baliunas, Dr. Tim Patterson and I) confidently stated this conclusion in an article published a decade ago.

    Since then there has been no net global warming.

    Since then the ClimateGate1&2 emails have provided incontrovertible evidence of conspiracy and fraud by the global warming “science” elite.

    How much more evidence do rational people need?

    OK, there is more to come. I also predicted in an article published in 2003 that global cooling would soon resume.

    Bundle up!

  44. D. J. Hawkins says:

    mkelly says:
    March 14, 2012 at 5:56 am
    Demon Coal. The title of the program to me indicates a bias. Why not just Coal? Or Coal friend or foe? But Demon Coal says lots.

    Maybe someone is playing “bait & switch”. Your typical eco-loon tunes in to have his worldview validated, and is sucker-punched by reality. ;-)

  45. John in L du B says:

    Jay Davis said:
    “For policy to be truly “rational”, it can be neither left, right or centrist – it must only be correct.”

    Exactly! That’s why it’s useless to try to make points either for skeptics as “right wingers” or against warmists as “left wing commies”. It only lets the greenshirts say that it’s just angry old self-serving white men who don’t aligne with the supposed “consensus”. I personally want to choose my politics carefully and left wing and right wing is just way too restrictive. I don’t want to end up being the poster child for the Teaparty or any liberal cause or any political movement for that matter.

    Science is either correct or not. Stick to the science.

  46. Ian D. says:

    Don’t give Canadians too much credit – even though I like to think we’re a sharp crowd. I know folks that are educated professionals who are cool-aid drinking true believers and if it wasn’t for the fortunate circumstance of having a prime minister from Alberta, tar-sand territory, we would be pretty much in Australia/UK spiral. If the NDP or other benighted individuals, e.g. Trudeau’s spawn, were in power you would see activity like here in Nova Scotia were the big push is on for sustainable energy coming from the usual losers like wind (not much good in Winter), tidal (fraught with all kinds of issues and unknowns), etc. and push back against gas/oil exploration.

  47. Betapug says:

    Mann’s “interview” with a very sympathetic Anna Maria Tremonti is here: http://www.cbc.ca/thecurrent/episode/2012/03/14/climate-activist-michael-mann/

    The famous CBC balance is provided by a clip of Rick Santorum. As DeSmogger James Hoggan offers: “We help clients identify the optimum frame and establish it in the public mind. In a crisis, we can help lift a story out of a frame that might have been set up by critics.”

    Interestingly, he describes the Hockey Stick as “an extension backwards” from instrumental temperature records.

  48. Mike M says:

    We built our country on coal used for cheap energy and steel. Even if if we had not made the slightest effort to mitigate the pollution from burning it we stand here today in debt to those who mined it, still mine it and for what it did for us. It made the steel to build our cities, transcontinental rail service and the arms to win 2 world wars. It made the electricity to light homes that helped save the whales, (in addition to kerosene). It powered locomotives to save our forests. It brought us air conditioning, refrigeration and mass production to increase our standard of living to heights never before imagined over a century ago blessing us with things like better health, more fresh food, clean water supply all which increased life expectancy more than any other single factor in history and with more years added than at any other time in history.

    These puking liberals IGNORE all that, IGNORE the fact that pollution from coal was brought down to less than that from forest fires over 40 years ago and IGNORE the fact that we have plenty of known coal left to power us for another hundred years by itself – longer with natural gas and crude oil. They are completely wrong and I spit on them.

  49. RockyRoad says:

    Mining coal disfigures the earth? Nothing compared to the vast system of highways that scar the world.

    But the CAGWCF crowd drives on highways so they excuse their excessive Earth disturbance–they don’t have a clue where their electricity comes from so they harp on mining instead.

    Talk about clueless hypocrites.

  50. Ted G says:

    Even as we speak there is a top level climate, renewable,s and sustainability conference in Vancouver BC Canada. The BC provincial Government are meeting the Washington, Oregon and California state governments planning out the new green economy with the promise of cheap sustainable energy and at least ONE Million green jobs to be generated by this wonderful Navana.

    Question: Do these people/ politicians and rent seekers live in a warmist VACUUM.

    Don’t they look at the Endless failures and equate it to reality? Here in BC we have the Salmon farm (wild fish killing) farms that pollute the oceans with massive amount of antibiotics and fish shit that is overwhelming the ocean and produce huge schools sea lice that can and do kill baby wild Salmon as they swim past on there way to the open ocean.
    There is a serous crisis just being reported the BC Run of rivers hydro projects that have/are littoraly destroyed Salmon runs and river use recreation, as well as enriching a few with sky high kwh feed in tariffs to our efficient low cost /kwh Hydro dams.

    BC Eco fanatic Liberal government crackpots introduced the first and only money sucking Carbon tax in Canada on energy and gas even to the school system. In Washington and Oregon you have the wind power fiasco that pays them not to produce. What can I say about California that doesn’t boil the blood of any sane rational person. These are our governments that have Learn’t nothing about the real state of the Climate or the Phony renewable power industry that is failing world wide.

    Please fill in the blanks with examples of where you live, I am to furious to carry on!!.

  51. Mike says:

    CBC’s Anna Maria Tremonti lost her journalistic credibility a long time ago she is as big a cheerleader for CAGW as Richard Black (IMHO).

    Not a coincidence that this Mannian puff-piece (the politest term I could come up with) aired in conjunction with the neutral IDEAS show. My belief is that the CBC in general is not allowed to promote CAGW (like the ABC or BBC) thanks to government oversight (an expectation of some level of professionalism) but individuals are still free to show their biases.

    The only Canadian media outlet that comes close to fairly/accurately covering this topic is SunTV. They are good for multiple pieces per week so they also the most prolific.

  52. Science is either correct or not. Stick to the science.

    The issue of whether or not a certain data set demonstrates warming would be about “the science”. The issue of what causes warming (now, throughout history, or even in the future) might be about “the science” depending on how the individual in question went about looking for such knowledge. The debate about Global Warming (& its children, Climate Change & Global Weirding) has never been about “the science”.

    You, of course, may choose to look only at the science, but I will remind you that a fairly large bloc of purported individuals wants to take your money, your liberty, your ability to publish, your artificial lighting, your automobile, your house, your warmth in Winter, your right to procreate, & even up to your life itself, and they’re using your “the science” to do it, whether you’re right or wrong. The other side of the debate (a fairly large bloc itself) wants to keep the money they’ve earned, live their lives in peace, read what they want to read and read it at night, drive places, live under a roof, heat their houses in Winter, raise a family, and mostly stay alive, & they don’t care what “the science” supposedly tells them they out to do.

    A whole lot of us frankly don’t care if it’s warming. A good number of us have lived in 40°C weather & -40°C weather & we think the whole debate over 1.6°C over a century is stupid. And the whole debate over causality is even stupider since it assumes an undemonstrated effect. Nail “the science” down, just like y’all managed to do with the first three laws of thermodynamics, & then we can talk about causes & effects.

    As for me, I’m frankly happy to oppose the eugenicists & malthusians on a purely personal basis.

  53. mwhite says:

    “abundant and cheap” and int the next sentence “Using it for fuel or electricity generation is unsustainable”

    Makes you wonder.

  54. Jabba the Cat says:

    I thought Judith Curry came across very well…

  55. TRM says:

    If it weren’t for hockey games the CBC would have ceased to exist a long time ago. I think the vast majority of their viewers are for that icebound sport. That is probably the only money making part of their operation. Maybe the CFL as well (3 down football, pass-pass-punt).

  56. Monroe says:

    Please go to the CBC website and comment or support more of this kind of programing. After hearing it I had a dream that the debate had been won and there was no more endless talk of Global Warming. When I awoke I realized if there was no more endless debate on CAGW we would have to look at all the real problems. Then I got depressed.

  57. David A says:

    i find two concepts under emphasized in the debat about Co2. One is the clear benefits of CO2 which enables every crop on the planet to grow 10 to 15 percent more food on the same amount of land and water as compared to what would be grown if the world still had only 280 PPM CO2. The other is that all the carbon tax and alternative “green energy” substainable BS done, has virtualy ZERO affect on the planets temperature when China and India continue with their common sense developement of resources, including coal.

  58. Mike says:

    Monroe…I agree. Unfortunately only a 100-200 people seem to concur although given the CBC’s ratings and this had nothing to do with ice it is to be expected (hockey, figure skating, and curling are just about their only profitable productions)

    My personal favorite comment from one of the alarmists: “I point out that when I was in high school, we learnt that CO2 comprised 0.03% of the atmosphere – as indeed it did, at that time. After 50 years, it is now, rounded to the same level, 0.04% – a 33.33% increase.” Given this degree of accuracy, this person is clearly a climate modeler (/sarc).

  59. TRM says:
    March 14, 2012 at 1:07 pm
    If it weren’t for hockey games the CBC would have ceased to exist a long time ago.

    Ha! Fat chance. The CBC is the pork conduit for a sizable chunk of the arts and leftie intelligentsia community in Canada, especially in Toronto. I suspect it’s Quebec’s chief source of income, after equalization subsidies from the other provinces. It wouldn’t matter if a 100 people watched it; they’d still feed the Leviathan its billion per year.

  60. Allan MacRae says:
    March 14, 2012 at 9:43 am
    ……It’s not about right and left. It’s about right and wrong…..”

    It’s a cool, snappy line, Allan…I like it…alas, it’s not the case in the real world. Debunking junk science…which is what this battle is really about… is, as you can see, hard, tiring, expensive, time-consuming, politically costly and sometimes impossible. Culture will always over-rule knowledge. You can keep on trudging away at exposing lies, trying to showcase the truth…and don’t get me wrong, it;s a crucial activity… but if the majority has been swayed by propaganda, it won’t matter one wit in the end. A new administration in the US, a more sober Conservative party in the UK, the turfing of Gillard’s Labour in Aussie-land and another Conservative term in Canada will kill the beast more certainly than all the proof against the scam you can muster in a century.

    And hark and mark, when this bloated AGW teat stops giving milk, it will be the political and economic players who will determine and switch to the next urgency and as always, science, or to be more exact, many scientists, will jump to play the bum-boy who makes it all possible. It’s not pleasant to think of science as another human cognitive activity that has been corrupted by politics, but that’s the way it is.

    I think Stark Dickflüssig puts it well, “You, of course, may choose to look only at the science, but I will remind you that a fairly large bloc of purported individuals wants to take your money, your liberty, your ability to publish, your artificial lighting, your automobile, your house, your warmth in Winter, your right to procreate, & even up to your life itself, and they’re using your “the science” to do it, whether you’re right or wrong.”

  61. Allan MacRae says:

    Allan MacRae says: March 14, 2012 at 9:43 am
    Jay Davis says March 14, 2012 at 8:46 am

    Brad, there is no such thing as “centrist rational policy”. For policy to be truly “rational”, it can be neither left, right or centrist – it must only be correct.
    ___________________________

    Agree Jay. Both sides of the political spectrum are too fixated on ideology – perhaps because It is easier than thinking.

    It’s not about right and left. It’s about right and wrong.
    ___________________________
    Peter Kovachev says: March 14, 2012 at 6:44 pm ….

    Peter, I am not saying quite what you think. I gave up writing “only about the science” circa 2005, when I became convinced that the “global warming elite” were not only scientifically incorrect, but deeply corrupt.

    Some of the events that led me to conclude they were corrupt are described in the following article, published in E&E in early 2005. The article’s title, which is decidedly unscientific, is “Drive-by Shootings in Kyotoville”.
    Full article at http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/11/28/the-team-trying-to-get-direct-action-on-soon-and-baliunas-at-harvard/

    The point I am trying to make is that real science is neither left or right, and real scientists should simply go where the facts lead them.

    I know people from all parts of the political spectrum who are adamantly opposed to global warming mania. They recognize the junk science and crass political opportunism of the global warmists, and understand that this attempt to gain political power through warmist scare-mongering is destructive to our prosperity and our civilization.

    That is what I mean when I say “It’s not about right and left. It’s about right and wrong.”

    (BTW, I used a similar line in an article which I wrote in July 2003 for the Calgary Herald – but the line too good to be original – someone must have used it somewhere before – I just googled this exact phrase and found over 5000 hits.)

  62. Larry in Texas says:

    I must commend CBC for the first part of this program. It was fairly balanced, for the most part. My only quibble with Max Allen is that he somewhat glibly sidesteps a lot of the political dynamics of the issue and spends an insufficient amount of time on that aspect. We will see next week what CBC has to say.

    I still believe that a large part of the reason for the hysteria on the issue of climate change is that many of the warmistas, especially at the IPCC, are trying to justify their jobs. In particular, the IPCC, which is a clique of bureaucrats who, with the rest of the UN bureaucracy, are attempting to increase their power and influence throughout the world. You can call it world government or whatever, but it is a fact of political life in the world these days. I think Judith Curry really did well to speak of the fact that weather effects are variable naturally and predominantly local or regional, and I compliment her on her rational, thoughtful, statements in the program. The kinds of things that could be done by policymakers to adapt to changes in climate are best left to local and regional governments, not to worldwide consortiums or even to national governments. If you have an urban heat island effect, why not deal with it locally? That is one of the reasons why I have generally supported things like green building codes on a local level – if, in fact, those who make such codes study well and apply their standards on the basis of what is happening locally in regard to climate as well as what is best locally in terms of sustainable development. The politics of this is geared to expanding power to a handful of bureaucrats, scientists, and politicians at the expense of the rest of us.

  63. PiperPaul says:

    The tides are turning.

  64. Brian H says:

    David A says:
    March 14, 2012 at 2:50 am
    ..
    @E.M. Smith, yes indeed, I would think any rational Canadian would be seriously questioning the CAGW advocates, well aware that a little more warmth is a good thing, and cognizent of the economic destruction wrought by “watermellon” energy policy around the world.

    When it announced it would not participate in Kyoto II, the Cdn gov’t explicitly said it would not destroy the economy and impoverish the population to contribute to a minuscule hypothetical reduction of a trend which was probably favorable for the country, Canada was in line for huge multi-billion dollar “penalties” for missing targets …

  65. London247 says:

    Cassandra King is spot on.
    The other thing that coal teaches us is that during the Carbonfierous Period, especially, the climate was stable for millenia allowing the coal deposits to form. And that the insects hadn’t evolved to digest lignin.
    Reference The Nature and Origin of Coal and Coal Seams, Raistrick A. , Marshall C, EUP London 1939

  66. Neo says:

    Q: Have you ever wondered why laser printers don’t get any better than 1200 dpi resolution (2400/4800 dpi addressability) .. you know the way it’s been to 20 years now ?

    A: The answer is that if they make the toner particles any finer and some were to be released to the air, the particles would float in the air and be inhaled and land in your lungs, giving you the same symptoms as asbestosis.

    My point is that, like coal and asbestos, there are many other particles that can be bad for your lungs. You can stay up at night worrying about them, or you can learn to live around them.

Comments are closed.