This is from Tom Nelson, who took notes on yesterday’s Google hangout between Andrew Revkin and David Roberts
[1-hour video] Andrew Revkin from Dot Earth Blog and David Roberts from Grist.org chat about climate change topics
My rough notes on this hangout are below. Nothing outside of double quotes below is a direct quote; I wish our super-organized, well-financed climate cabal had a couple hundred dollars to spend producing a good transcript of this Google hangout.
—-
10min Revkin: Serenity prayer; Lots of things policy-wise not going to change; realism/fatalism?
12.5 min: Revkin: Colorado fires not caused by CO2; Sandy floods not caused by CO2; Get out of harms way
Revkin has had fights with Mann and trenberth
Revkin: Tornadoes not caused by CO2
16 min Revkin: Sub Saharan Africa has had century-long droughts; tweaking CO2 has no real relevance to problems there
Roberts admits that giving a dollar to a sick child now might be better than trying to use that dollar to prevent CO2-induced bad weather
20 min: Revkin: no confidence in global social global warming movement. He’s tired of too many noes (nuclear, fracking)
25 min Roberts wants his grandchildren to have well-sharpened axes and hatchets to deal with CO2-induced problems
29 min Revkin Republicans don’t care about science
2009 cap and trade bill wouldn’t have done much good if passed–would hand out credits to farmers for doing things that wouldn’t actually prevent bad weather
39 min Roberts wants to “Force people to behave differently”. Wants a certain class of people (“His class”, “elites”) to force people to behave differently
Maybe we can get the policy that Roberts wants by going after elites, or doing what Gore did–trying to influence super-rich people
Revkin not a fan of Hansen’s “Death trains” rhetoric: Roberts: “more extreme the rhetoric, the better”
44 min Revkin: Some of that extreme rhetoric can backfire
45 min Roberts on social proof: Really nobody is acting as if they really believed in global warming alarmism.
Roberts: burning coal is like slavery
Revkin: but cheap energy has its benefits. I just flew here; we have climate-controlled room and electricity for our computers etc
Roberts: What to do about deniers?
48:55 Revkin: There’s one watching us right now! (turns his computer in an attempt to show some of my tweets from above).
Revkin: There are professional naysayers, but money isn’t as big a factor in climate skepticism as Roberts thinks.
Some lawyers use FOIA to stymie scientific activity.
Revkin: Deniers can use social media just like we do–they can find each other.
Revkin tried for decades to “change things” via his journalism. Got out of journalism when he decided it wasn’t working.
52 Roberts: hard-core deniers know more about climate than casual believers; the deniers would do better on a climate quiz
53 Revkin: There’s more uncertainty in climate science than the popular conception
Revkin: Obama dropped ball on climate
Roberts: Thinks the best way to get his preferred policy is via Machiavellian means
johanna says: “Roberts’ lack of self-awareness is truly remarkable. Slavery, death trains – there is no absurdity that seems to strike him as the least bit wacky, not to mention offensive.”
Roberts thinks of himself as a liberal, i.e., unfettered by convention. Unlike old-style ‘liberals,’ the ‘conventions’ his sort of liberal discards include good taste, the scientific method, logic, good sense, facts, ethics, human rights, and even sanity. The hubris is thick enough for an elephant to trot on.
RESPONSIBLE
What worries me is that with David Roberts’ insistence that oil executives control the Earth climate,
we would have to give them gigantic bonuses since they kept the temperature growth in check for 16 years now.
With extras for the recent start of the temperatures decline 2002-present.
Unlike Mr. Roberts, many of us find such rewards unnecessary, given that those executives do quite well for themselves.
What with all the demand for their products growing.
Tough times ahead for all enviros, they all have to fly coach without exception. Let’s see if they live up to it. When is Hansen and Mann going to ask for the death planes to have business and first class seating removed, it’s time for the environuts to give up the good life.
How can one be sure that Roberts isn’t a stand up funny fellow?
After all his predictions failed spectacularly, in the middle of 16 years of no warming in spite of high CO2 levels, the man says:
I have a new one: 6C by very soon….
Even his Nuremberg trials for oil executives went funny:
climate “scientists” are the ones who are desperately trying to get from the UN blanket immunity from prosecution – they know something – alas, with no success so far.
As to no debates – every wannabe professional comedian keeps his jokes for the hoped for stand up breakthrough.
It is absurd to claim that Republicans don’t care about science. What is true is that republican policies are no less bizarre than democrat policies.
Txomin says:
“Republican policies are no less bizarre than Democrat policies.”
Well, I wouldn’t go that far [and IANAR].
OMG the liberal dolts are trying to talk about energy infrastructure.
That’s the sound of a convert finally looking at the actual data and maybe thinking whats us horrible skeptics and deniers have Been arguing might well have valid points. The fact that he is saying the skeptical ones are the most well informed people in the debate should ring alarm bells. Revkin seems to be waking up to the fact that the skeptics are winning because they have the facts and data in their side. But can’t quite bring himself to convert to the dark side of climate skepticism just yet. It’s almost like watching a cultist being removed from a cult and trying waking up to the reality of the world is completely different from what his leaders have been preaching for a decade or more.
I won’t waste time watching these people. But:
1. The Democrats are the real anti-science fanatics. Anybody remember the IQ and race debates of the 1960’s? The current climate debate is a re-run of that stupidity, only on a global scale, since only the USA ever obsessed over that issue. The Democrats never recovered from that. They have been living a lie ever since. I know. I lived through this.
2. About evolution. What Democrat do you know who understands and accepts evolution? My Democrat friends think we will evolve bigger brains in the future, for example. It’s like they don’t have a clue.
joel says:
June 16, 2013 at 3:32 am
“2. About evolution. What Democrat do you know who understands and accepts evolution? My Democrat friends think we will evolve bigger brains in the future, for example. It’s like they don’t have a clue.”
Do you deny the photographic evidence?
http://www.flickr.com/photos/expd/8313639399/
(Krugman Of The Ivy)
“Roberts: Thinks the best way to get his preferred policy is via Machiavellian means”
Climategate revealed that has been what “well-meaning” left of centre environmentalist warrior “scientists” have been doing since the mid 80’s.
Fake “inquiries” and lack of a prosecution of for criminal fraud shows that the governing establishment blesses that kind of activity, though likely not for the same reasons as our naive co-warrior academics.
I’m usually curious to hear what Andy Revkin has to say, but his best isn’t brought out in dialogue with this overblown fabulist. Take note, Andy, get real.
==========
It’s not just Sub Saharan Africa and it ain’t just century-long droughts. Here are just a few more.
braddles says:
June 15, 2013 at 6:17 pm
People who become journalists because they want to “change things” are some of the most dangerous people in the world.
==================
Back in 1996 I was trying to run a small startup – really small, just a couple part-time employees working for me. One was a friend of my step-daughter who was a senior in high school. One day we were talking and he indicated he planned to go into Journalism. I asked why. His answer was “I want to change the world”. As we spoke further and he talked about the courses in the curriculum, it was clear that the academic world encouraged this thinking and I knew right then that true journalism was being lost.
Revkin is showing why he “can’t be trusted” among the Climatist brethren. He has a rational side, and rationality is their enemy.
Better coal than people. Mechanisation of farms helped reduce the need for slave / and or low paid labour. Fewer farmers today feed many more people than in 1925.
I can’t believe Roberts had the audacity to throw out the “6C” of CO2 induced warming.
It’s like these liberal zombies believe if you worry, complain , cajole, berate, tax, spend, regulate and repeat something often enough, just out of sheer will, it will come to fruition; regardless of whether empirical evidence shows it impossible.
I felt Roberts’ real concer wasn’t whether CAGW exists, but rather people, including Revink, have stopped believing in the gloom and doom CAGW dogma.
The body language between the two was very defensive. Roberts was VERY defensive with his arms locked firmly accross his chest and showed real anxiety many instances of axiety by making quick and sharp changes in seating posture during the discussion.
The CAGW grant whores appear to be much more worried about their beloved theory than they are letting on.
I think this truly is the beginning of the end; even the grant whores are losing faith in “The Cause”.
I used to go to DotEarth on a regular basis. I usually didn’t agree with Andy or many of his regular blog contributors but it was one of the few places where people with strong differing opinions could exchange them with little censorship. It’s also a blog that is not just about climate change but many other environmental issues and global population growth. While Andy came to many issues with a strong point of view you got the feeling that was taking a lot in. At the most fundamental level, I suspect Andy realized that many green zealots were quite loathe to see opposing opinions presented. I also suspect he saw many green solutions weren’t without unintended consequences of their own, particularly biofuels. There are no questions with respect to what side he’s on in this battle but I think he recognizes the extraordinary collateral damage of some of the weapons his compatriots want to use to fight it.
Revkin at 15:40 “… two different climate models show for Sub-Saharan Africa, coming decades, one was wetter and one was drier …”
I find it interesting that they both seem to accept this as valid uncertainty in what higher CO2 may bring to sub-Saharan Africa, but they both seem rather certain that CO2 will cause a warmer earth and there is no uncertainty from any balancing effects. The models that show doubling CO2 will jack the temperature up 6 degrees are certainly no less complicated then that of CO2 effects on drought verses flood in Sub-Saharan Africa.
Roberts at 52:00 “… people tend to choose their beliefs, and then go out seeking evidence to bolster those views.”
He says this just before he fesses up that climate deniers likely know more about climate than the middling warmists, and implies that this is a bad process. Basically that’s how the scientific method works. You stake out a position and try and substantiate it. Then typically you get into it and see some surprises. If you have an open mind you learn something and you alter your views to what you learned. If you always just take in other peoples claims and don’t research against a hypothesis you are not a very capable assessor of fact verses fiction.
milodonharlani says:
June 15, 2013 at 6:05 pm
“…The only bad rap of which the GOP is probably more guilty than Democrats is opposition to evolution, but the difference isn’t as great as commonly thought in elite circles. ”
In terms of PRACTICAL application of the theory of evolution, the difference is zero, or possibly even in favor of fundamentalists. Try applying the theory to big government. The conclusion from applying the theory of evolution would be that those in big government would be chiefly interested in propagation their OWN genes at the expense of all those unrelated to them who are NOT a part of that big government. The conclusion for fundamentalists would be that those in big government, like everyone else, are imbued with original sin, and are apt to be lousy promulgators of the good life. Leftists on the other hand believe in the inherent “goodness” of people- those in big government will altruistically use their power to help unfortunate total strangers unrelated to them- completely at odds with the theory of evolution.
Revkin “Republicans don’t care about science”
—
LOL. I thought it was the other way around. I’ve never understood why Democrats always think that Republicans are anti-science. If anything, they’re just more skeptical based on what they’ve experienced in REAL life, not just on a piece of paper. I’ve learned pretty early in my life about it. I love learning about science but I’m pretty obsessive about learning every detail before I come to a conclusion of how things are run. Just because what they teach you in college doesn’t mean they are the best or most up to date. Try saying that sun is good for you to a dermatologists and they will freak out. Try saying that saturated fat is harmless to registered dietitians and they will freak out. Try saying that vitamin D deficiency is widespread and responsible for so many types of chronic diseases to the medical doctors and they freak out. I’ve spent enough time on CNN and FOX websites to notice a big difference. People on CNN website are very stubborn and refuse to listen to facts I provided that are not generally accepted by “mainstream” academia. People on FOX seemed to be more open minded. Funny how that works…
And on this muddle we are expected to salute and march. A coalition is active to unseat the senior operations man for the cabal that continues to use funding to bend science. Republican Senator Lamar Alexander recently postulated a “new” vision for energy. In it he called for “more research” He’s talking about funding for more Marcott style public relations blasts spewing from ORNL supercomputers. In many ways Alexander is our Tim Yeo although his methods are more subtle and his goals much broader. I believe you will see a sharp media focus on climate policy if we manage to get him into electoral trouble.
At around 2:56, Revkin places the issue of what’s happening with elephants above the climate issue. The expression on Robert’s face says it all: utter disgust and exasperation. LOL.
Did Tom get libeled by Revkin there?
“In what I saw, they were totally unprepared, unfocused and it appeared that they were just blurting out gibberish to fill in dead airtime.’
In other words, perfectly typical leftists.