I always have to chuckle when somebody uses the phrase denier/delayer to label somebody for even the slightest transgression on climate /action/justice/activism/alarmism/pick a word.
Briefly, this appeared on Google News:
That was the original title of the piece. Somebody must have complained, because it didn’t last long: Look what The Guardian changed the title to:
Whether the hopes are fading or in “tatters”, it seems that the hope and climate change movement is falling apart.
Climate Change, who are the deniers now? By Timothy Ball (must read)
http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/16913
When good companies go Alarmist.
http://oregoncatalyst.com/index.php/archives/2810-When-Good-Companies-Go-Alarmist.html
This discussion, if I can call it that, has been a strange experience.
I suggest that the combustion engine is 130-year old technology that needs replacement: it causes heartburn and protestations.
I suggest that solar will become viable for residential applications in the future: growls and snarls ensue.
I suggest that progress will continue as it always has, through private/public sector collaboration: people bring up Stalin and the command economy.
I get to be called “a sheepish lefty.” (The person then goes and apologizes to others, but not to the one he offends. I suppose characters like that will never get it.)
People directly ask about and comment on other people’s political affiliations, with the clear implication that anyone to the left of James Inhofe cannot be trusted with a keyboard.
People keep talking about “World Government,” without for a second acknowledging the fact that the Copenhagen meeting is falling apart precisely because we have no such thing and never will.
The Fed and its nefarious activities are regularly brought up, along with rumors of press censorship and arrests of Bjorn Lomborg, of all people.
Democratic politicians that qualify as barely left of center in the real world are reviled and associated with dark schemes of world dominance, if I can assume that Agenda 21 is a dark scheme of world dominance?
This is turning into a twilight zone of paranoiacs and fist biters.
I don’t know what to do, because I acknowledge the necessity of discussing some political and media aspects of the AGW debate. But where the hell do these people come from?
George E. Smith,
you hear a foreign name, and you suppose I am a foreigner.
I live and vote in the United States. Please get a clue.
Reply: I used to work with a Tor Hansson. Do you live in S? ~ ctm
Where is S?
Reply: oops. SF ~ctm
Re: Tor Hansson (10:12:01)
By taking the bait some here are tauntingly dangling before you, you are (perhaps inadvertently) making yourself an accomplice in the movement to artificially polarize illogical conflation (described at Paul Vaughan (01:56:06)).
“”” Tor Hansson (11:06:19) :
George E. Smith,
you hear a foreign name, and you suppose I am a foreigner.
I live and vote in the United States. Please get a clue.
Reply: I used to work with a Tor Hansson. Do you live in S? ~ ctm “””
I don’t believe I said anywhere in my post that you were a foreigner; but you did raise the issue of how Obama is viewed around the world. My comments were directed very specifically to people in other parts of the world who think they should tell the USA what we should do.
If you took that personally because you feel you have a foreign name; just as I do, then you need to realize that the USA is a conglomerate of foreign names; so I don’t pay much attention to names; well so long as I can pronounce them.
The issue was how people in other parts of the world expect our President to behave or perform; I thought that was rather clear in my post; which was addressed to those people; not any one person in particular.
What sort of clue did you have in mind for me to get?
Paul,
I don’t believe it is necessary to confound anything. Neither do I see that suggesting that party affiliation often has a bearing on one’s position to AGW alarmism makes me an accomplice to anything.
My position is simple: you can be a liberal democrat and oppose AGW alarmism. That’s the bottom line.
It’s all good George. Your post read as if you asked me to admire the American democratic process from afar.
Tor Hansson (10:12:01) :
This discussion, if I can call it that, has been a strange experience.
I suggest that the combustion engine is 130-year old technology that needs replacement: it causes heartburn and protestations.
Well Tor, I would suggest that horses were a rather more mature technology than motor cars but I do not remember everyone killing their horses the day the first motor car trundled down the road with a man waving a flag out in front.
The technology needs to come first. Give us this new technology to replace the combustion engine (not an electric car + power station) and people will willingly move to it because it is better and more efficient. Vapourware does not really count for dick. Now where can I find some garbage for my ‘Mr Fusion Home Energy Reactor’ (other than your posts).
Homo proponit, sed Deus dispronit.
Ron de Haan (10:04:18) :
Climate Change, who are the deniers now? By Timothy Ball (must read)
http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/16913
Nice to see Dr. Ball getting his deserved comeuppance.
Tor Hansson
The reason the Fed is brought up is because the power, wealth and sneaky maneuvering behind the creation of the Fed and the steady gain in power through over 100 revisions until the Fed now answers to no one, is an excellent lesson in politics. These very Wealthy Banker Families are still alive and well and very active in politics. If the strategy used to saddle us with the Fed worked so well, do you not think we would be very foolish not to study it? If you would READ instead of blindly defending you would see the grab for the control of Money, Food and Energy. They are interlinked.
I gave you links to material straight out of the Congress of the United States as well as a very well documented article, where 5 out of the 10 pages are a listing of references, and another article written by a member of the staff of the Library of Congress. These are not weird far out articles by extremists.
I really suggest you take a very hard look at the World Trade Organization and its affiliation to the UN before you state there is no attempt at world government. This is what the United States FDA has to say:
International Harmonization
http://www.cfsan.fda.gov/~comm/int-laws.html
The harmonization of laws, regulations and standards between and among trading partners requires intense, complex, time-consuming negotiations by CFSAN officials. Harmonization must simultaneously facilitate international trade and promote mutual understanding, while protecting national interests and establish a basis to resolve food issues on sound scientific evidence in an objective atmosphere. Failure to reach a consistent, harmonized set of laws, regulations and standards within the freetrade agreements and the World Trade Organization Agreements can result in considerable economic repercussions.
If dumb farmers have figured out the bills we are fighting come straight from the World Trade Organizations/ UN attempt to take control of our farms, why can’t you see it.
Heck Maurice Strong is a member of the United Nations Commission on Global Governance. That is a pretty blunt statement of intent.
Farmer Websites:
http://xstatic99645.tripod.com/naisinfocentral/id115.html
http://nonais.org/techdocs/AGuidetotheStructureofNAIS.pdf
http://farmwars.info/?p=1241
http://ppjg.wordpress.com/2009/04/27/apathy-and-greed-the-world-trade-organization/
Re: Tor Hansson (13:31:48)
You’re losing ground by defending “alternate” energy. I have a background in conservation ecology & parks and from this perspective I will offer a blunt assessment: I see serious risk for the environment on the “alternative” tracks being proposed; furthermore, I am convinced that most others who see such risks are opting to keep their mouths shut about them, possibly for political reasons and perhaps also more importantly because they are confused about what to do – and do not want to project this lack of leadership capacity publicly.
Chillybean says: “the technology needs to come first.” You mean like the Manhattan Project? Or the Apollo program?
There are several technologies in play to increase the efficiency of cars. Fuel cell comes to mind, hybrid (nobody really cares if you don’t like it, it may be the solution, or the current version may be an intermediate stage towards something better). Rotary engines (I know the issues), turbines, etc. It could still be a combustion engine, but it’s not likely to be a piston engine.
The U.S. car industry used to be the innovation leader. Can we say that today? Are you OK with Toyota and Honda taking the lead away and making the biggest profits?
And yes, in case you thought we disagreed, change is gradual. The piston engine will be with us for years, but it its limitations will render it obsolete.
P.S. People may like you better if you cut out your snarky tone.
And along the same lines as Gail Combs has mentioned, why is the Senate resolving that soil is a natural resource that must be managed by soil experts?
Why does the Sentate even have time to recognize “the important role of soil scientists and soils professionals…[to] develop and implement…long-term use of the Nation’s soil resources”?
Senate Resolution 440
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=sr110-440
Re: Indiana Bones (14:02:22)
Thanks for the heads up.
I’ve seen Suzuki get fairly hysterical during interviews. I can see how this could be construed (by some) as affecting oil politics & the perceived value of oil (in Canada at least, since he attracts prime media spotlight).
…but to be fair:
Can anyone verify this? (from the article)
“David Suzuki Foundation, a political environmental group that receives funding from oil and energy companies”
Paul,
I am not defending “alternate” energy. I am pointing out the obvious: technology will not stand still, and one of the issues we have today is increased energy demand. We need to get better at generating it as well as using it. These are technological challenges.
Oil and gas will not be the answer forever. Nuclear is very likely to be in the mix. So is better distribution of utility-generated power. So is better architecture, home, and office design (anyone heard of the zero-energy house? It’s practical today in large parts of the country.)
Re: Tor Hansson (14:51:05)
For a very large proportion of the population, this message does not resonate.
Tor Hansson.
And yes, in case you thought we disagreed, change is gradual. The piston engine will be with us for years, but it its limitations will render it obsolete.
Well I think that is the argument in a nutshell. I think everyone would be happy if we could replace all the power stations and all the cars with super efficient clean energy solutions. The problem is that we can’t, the technology is not there. For cars, the hybrid is a non solution causing more problems than it solves. Taxing cars and energy will not speed up progress just cause it to stagnate.
I’m not anti renewables, I have a wind turbine and solar panels on my boat. I’m also a realist and know that they produce insufficient power and need a nice diesel genny to do the ‘real work’ just as electric cars need a nice coal fired power station to charge their batteries. Probably nuclear+electric cars with better battery technology is a workable solution but nuclear is also a non starter for the alarmists.
The alarmists need to come up with a viable solution or drop the whole thing. If CO2 is having no real effect on climate why not just stick with what works well.
Paul:
Take a look at the statistics for car sales today. What do you see?
Here’s a quote from a 2008 article:
“April Car Sales: U.S. Consumers Flock to Cars, Gouging Detroit Three
May 02, 2008
By Dale Buss
Americans rushed to swap their thirsty trucks and SUVs for fuel-efficient cars in April, making the month a turning point for the industry’s biggest segment shift in memory.
The stampede to cars left in the dust a Detroit Three that simply weren’t ready for its magnitude because of their reliance on truck-based vehicles, while it lifted Japanese automakers whose traditional strength has remained in small cars.
As U.S. consumers definitively reacted to $3.50-a-gallon gasoline, passenger cars outsold truck-based vehicles for the first time in at least 20 years. The move comprised a shift of six percentage points for the industry compared with last April, to 54 percent car sales.”
Chillybean:
Is someone working on nuclear cars? I haven’t heard of it.
Re: Tor Hansson (15:22:52)
Car sales statistics do not interest me. I walk &/or sea-kayak 95% of the time when I travel.
Paul:
Oh, sorry.
I suspect that’s not going to work out so well for soccer moms, though.
“”” Tor Hansson (15:22:52) :
Paul:
Take a look at the statistics for car sales today. What do you see?
Here’s a quote from a 2008 article:
“April Car Sales: U.S. Consumers Flock to Cars, Gouging Detroit Three
May 02, 2008
By Dale Buss
Americans rushed to swap their thirsty trucks and SUVs for fuel-efficient cars in April, making the month a turning point for the industry’s biggest segment shift in memory.
The stampede to cars left in the dust a Detroit Three that simply weren’t ready for its magnitude because of their reliance on truck-based vehicles, while it lifted Japanese automakers whose traditional strength has remained in small cars.
As U.S. consumers definitively reacted to $3.50-a-gallon gasoline, passenger cars outsold truck-based vehicles for the first time in at least 20 years. The move comprised a shift of six percentage points for the industry compared with last April, to 54 percent car sales.” “””
Tor, According to a news report I heard just this last weekend, a sizeable fraction of the cash for clunkers transactions invloved owners of trucks adn other gas guzzlers trading in their old trucks and gas guzzlers for brand new trucks and gas guzzlers, that they would have bought anyway; but leapt at the chance to get the taxpayers to foot a big part of the bill.
There’s not much evidence that this scam either boosted the economy, or reduced the country’s carbon footprint one iota.
If you were in the market for a new car anyway; why wouldn’t you take a stupid administration up on their equally stupid idea. Of course a lot of dealers who promoted the concept, are still trying to get their money out of the Treasury.
Amtrack, the Post Office; and the DMV are all examples of the eficiency of Government run operations.
And the H1N1 vaccine debacle is a good example of government socialized medicine coming soon to a clinic near you; well if you want to stand in line long enough.
I’ll pass; I’ll have what they are having.
For the first time I really believe we DO need a new amendment to the US Constitution.
A very simple one. “The Congress and the Executive Branch; and ALL agencies of the Federal Government shall make NO law or regulation from which any Federal Government employee is exempted.”