The latest IPCC report proves that scientists are unwavering in their view that human carbon emissions are causing dangerous climate change. In the scientific world, climate denial has no traction. It isn’t gaining traction in the judicial or congressional worlds either.
First, the judiciary. A three-judge panel of the D.C. Circuit, headed by a conservative judge, brushed aside objections to EPA’s finding that carbon emissions endanger human health and welfare. On the full court, several judges objected to other parts of EPA’s climate policy, but not a single one thought it was worth discussing the objections of climate deniers. The Supreme Court agreed to hear other aspects of the case, but not this one. There just wasn’t enough substance to views of climate deniers to justify taking up the Court’s time.
Second, Congress. You might recall that there was a government shutdown awhile ago. It was sparked when Senator Cruz decided that Republicans should refuse to fund the government unless implementation of Obamacare was put on hold. That strategy failed. But the interesting thing is that Cruz’s target was health insurance, not carbon regulation. The House GOP is opposed to most regulatory initiatives, and there’s no doubt that if they got the chance they’d block EPA climate regulations. But when it comes down to it, it’s not their core issue. Somewhere along the way, Obamacare became the defining issue for House Republicans, not climate change or financial regulation. Climate deniers failed to get to the top of the priority list, and became just one of several dozen second- and third-level priorities for Republicans.
This doesn’t mean that House Republicans have now decided to embrace modern science. That may be too much to expect given that many of them haven’t yet caught up with 19th century advances in biology. But the crusade against climate science seems to have taken the back seat for right now in their priorities.
In both cases, there was no resounding victory against climate science. But climate deniers quietly to get any traction in the courts and has been seemingly been eclipsed by other conservative causes. And in the meantime, EPA continues to move forward in addressing climate change. Overall, you’d have to say it was a bad year for the deniers.
Because I had several people to ask me about ostriches and head in the sand.
We tend to betray people who deny reality as head in the sand like ostriches. But apparently most people don’t know that ostriches do not stick their head in sand. The myth came from their self-defense of hiding; threatened, the ostrich will fall forward in the sand and lay its head to the ground, so that its body will resemble a bush to passing predators.
Nevertheless, we cannot become complacent.
Idiots tend to prevail because they’re usually too stupid to know when to give up.
hey! I resemble that remark!
how often has Obama given up on climate change?
good for him 🙂
Obama is a politician who for years failed to see how stubborn the idiots in opposition are.
Now, if those idiots start to believe in global warming as fervently as they believe in profit, Spaceship Earth will look like the Garden of Eden within a generation.
Dogged stupidity has its uses.
Blaming the opposition for being the opposition is senseless…try something else pls
Don’t be an idiot. Make that your resolution for 2014, and you’re already quite pig…er, stubborn enough.
There’s a difference between being the Opposition and just being in unreasonable opposition to everything.
Everyone knows the rules of the game -explain which one’s been broken by the Repubs or just shut up.
Rather than ask how you can be so blatantly ignorant of the well-known details of such a significant presidency, I’ll simply assume that you’re just not that into it.
After all, it might seem a bit banal next to the some others around the world, the saber-rattling of North Korea, the bunga-bunga shenanigans in Italy, whatever pomp & circumstance the Brits get up to or the antics of the cracksmoking blowhard in Toronto.
Nevertheless, since global warming is constantly on your radar, the actions of the American leadership is of primary importance.
So, compare John McCain’s concession speech in Nov 2008, the dinner meeting featuring over a dozen GOP bigwigs on the night of Obama’s inauguration, the recordsetting filibustering of every piece of legislation or judicial nominee, and the GOP flip flop on global warming of almost very 2012 presidential wannabe.
You might argue that’s par for the course in politics but if you propose that the disrespect shown to Barack Obama ( and the 1st Lady ) both in & out of Washington is merely typical behavior of recent American politics, then I’ll refer you to Joe Wilson’s famous outburst
MorinMoss – everything looks special when the past is an undiscovered country.
For the rest of us, there are the Presidencies of Grover Cleveland, Richard Nixon, Jimmy Carter. And Reagan and George W Bush. And Clinton constantly harassed by investigations. John Quincy Adams had to deal with disrespect, like Lincoln and Johnson.
Kennedy could not get anything out of Congress. FDR was a figure receiving constant hate.
Some presidents we don’t even recall their names.
So enough with puerile crying. If a President can’t do what he set out to do, it’s his problem.
It’s not clear if you’re aware of the limits of presidential powers, the role of the Houses of Congress, the upheaval of mid-term elections and the sharp rise in the use of the filibuster in the past few years.
Or the precedent-setting filibuster by the Republican Minority Leader – of HIS OWN BILL.
This might be commonplace wherever you call home but not in America.
And it’s not “his problem” – it’s everyone’s problem.
Like it or not, what happens in the USA has significant impacts globally.
No really you’ve got no idea about American political history, including this http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Era_of_Good_Feelings
I’ve lived through more of it than you and the ups & downs and shifts have likely had far more direct impact on me & mine than you & yours.
I only need convincing 20000 people then I’ll single handedly win the Super Bowl thanks to their reasonable opposition
Many climate deniers are paid for what they do (read “Merchants of Doubt”). Legions more follow along without a cent of compensation.
What’s really sad is that other legions follow some of the subterfuges of the climate deniers, supporting the fossil-fuel interests without understanding what they do.
“Many climate deniers are paid for what they do. Legions more follow along without a cent of compensation.”
And into which of those two categories do you fit, E-Pot? I ask because your constant harping on nuclear power is like advocating for “clean coal”, or saying sea level rise is not accelerating, or talking about a ship getting stuck in antarctic ice—–all are “subterfuges of a climate denier, supporting the fossil-fuel interests”.
I think you are likely a paid denier—-if not, you surely have some sort of OCD that drives you, and that’s what is sad.
Great exchange showing why Oreskes should never be mentioned
Your logic (?) once again escapes me.
Please tell us why Oreskes should NOT be mentioned? It would seem that we are talking about something that has gone right over your head.
“Okay, I’ll bite. How is it like climate denial?”, says E-Pot. (Asked after a gratuitous and oh-so-clever-with-the-caps “DOGgie-doo” assault. How will “Arcus-poo” and I ever recover from the verbal thrashings we receive at E-Pot’s hands?)
I will repeat—-“subterfuges of a climate denier, supporting the fossil-fuel interests”. Although nuclear energy CAN “essentially” decarbonize entire national electrical grids IF the countries are small enough, wealthy enough, and started way back when NE was “cheaper”, AND Hansen thinks we need more nuclear (and I agree), Christopher has beaten you to death on the issue and you haven’t even noticed (too busy admiring yourself in the mirror, perhaps?).
IMO, We do not have the time to ramp up nuclear in tjme to hold CO2 within limits. We need to rely on renewables starting right now, and begin to cut our use of fossil fuels drastically. Your “harping” on NE is a distraction from that goal, and is a “But-But” argument that causes us to lose focus, THAT’s how it is “like climate denial”.
Thereby admitting that you can dish it out, but you can’t take it. Most folks abbreviate my nom de guerre as “EP”, which is even less typing for you. Do feel free to save your arthritic fingers the extra keystrokes.
Since you’ve actually gotten down to brass tacks in the remainder, I’ll treat it seriously just to see if you reciprocate. I’ve re-parented the bulk here for readability, etc. etc.
A classic narcissistic response from E-Pot, full of the pretentiousness, arrogance, and condescension that makes his posts so nauseating to read. His saying that he has a “nom de guerre” is a true indication of his reasons for commenting on Crock. He simply just likes to argue (wage war), and Peter’s forbearance for fools has given him a wonderful forum for his DB-like Gish gallops. I do hope that Peter examines his troll policy very soon.
PS It must be very hard for E-Pot to type and watch himself in the mirror at the same time. Perhaps “practice makes perfect” is a true saying?
Oh, there’s an “O” that should never be seen or heard but it sure as hell isn’t Oreskes.
sOlar
“The previous post was brought to you by the letter O, the site OmnOlOgOs.cOm & myOpia”
DOGgie-doo claims that advocacy of nuclear energy—which has multiple existence proofs that it can essentially de-carbonize entire national electric grids—is “like” various forms of climate denial.
Okay, I’ll bite. How is it like climate denial?
<goes off to make popcorn>
Somehow my reply appeared above rather than below the comment it was directed to.
I had also told the REAL story behind , but it didn’t “take” for some reason. Here it is again:
Will E-Pot continue to try to “get smarter” by microwaving his head? (He has already said radioactivity is “good for living things”). Stay tuned.
I have just discovered that one cannot copy and paste “goes off to make popcorn” with the marks around it. Let’s see if it will take with “….” around the “real story” about the popcorn..
“E-pot goes off to make popcorn, fails to read instructions, puts head in microwave instead of popcorn bag, eyeballs pop a little but popcorn doesn’t, E-Pot comes out with slightly higher IQ and more ideas for climate denial subterfuge”
Will E-Pot continue to try to “get smarter” by microwaving his head? (He has already said radioactivity is “good for living things”). Stay tuned.
Amazing. You ARE capable of learning something! Now, can you figure out how I did it in the first place? <smirk>
Given your resistance to education, it continues to escape you that microwaves are not ionizing radiation and do not activate the mechanisms of repair which cause hormesis. Also, there is an optimal dose, just like phytonutrients and vitamins.
“… climate deniers, supporting the fossil-fuel interests … “
(http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/germany-addresses-problems-with-renewable-energy-subsidy-system-a-852549.html):
“… [green] power-hungry industries receive generous subsidies – the country’s largest industrial consumers use some 18 percent of the electricity produced but pay only 0.3 percent of the extra costs generated by the mandated feed-in tariffs. German consumers have to COUGH UP the difference.”
“… understanding what they do …”
– We know what we do – protect the interests of simple citizens, certainly not “fossil-fuel interests” .
On UNIDO website:
“STATOIL is an international energy company and is currently involved in three large CCS projects, one of which is the Sleipner platform field in the North Sea.”
…
(http://www.bp.com/sectiongenericarticle.do?categoryId=9040837&contentId=7074218):
“BP has been involved in CCS for more than 10 years, focusing on a continuing programme of research and technology development, as well as full-scale projects such as In Salah, Algeria, one of the few operating industrial-scale C02 storage facilities in the world.”
…
“SHELL is involved in a number of demonstration projects around the world, but GOVERNMENT SUPPORT IS NEEDED […] to allow CCS to become financially viable and widespread.”
“Chevron is leading the Gorgon project, with Shell and ExxonMobil as partners [!!!]. Gorgon is the world’s largest CCS project.”
“In September 2012 Shell and partners made the final decision to begin construction, with $865 million [!!!] in funding from the governments […] of Alberta and Canada to support the project.”
( http://www.shell.com/global/environment-society/environment/climate-change/ccs/shell-ccs.html).
…
Tracing the Greenhouse- Icehouse Transition Environmental Reconstruction Through Integration of High Latitude Organic Geochemical and Palynological Records; with special emphasis on the Eocene-Oligocene boundary., Funded by Statoil-Hydro.
Increased seasonality through the Eocene to Oligocene transition in northern high latitudes, Eldrett, Greenwood,, Harding,, Huber – these Shell is funding …, etc.
AGW theory, without fail, does not reduce the extraction of fossil fuels, but only raise their prices – profits oil and gas and coal companies.
Can additionally earn big money for CCS. AGW also for the fossil fuels companies is: “business as usual …”
Not too moral, but business …
Responding to DOG up here:
Wait just a minute there. Is France “small”? Was it “wealthy” when it was being bled dry by spending for OPEC oil to run its electric grid before it got the nuclear plants operational? And why, after all we’ve learned in the mean time, isn’t nuclear energy “cheap” today?
world-nuclear.org reports that France has 58 operational nuclear powerplants, somewhat more than half the total the USA had before the recent shutdowns. Its carbon emissions per kWh are very low. Yet “greens” eschew France as an example to the world. The climate scientists (e.g. Hansen) and heretic environmentalists (e.g. Lovelock) who promote nuclear energy are condemned by the “greens” despite it being the only proven solution to the GHG problem besides total collapse.
He’s been beating straw men to shreds. The problem with straw men is that they were never alive to begin with. I refuse to dignify the bulk of his afactual nonsense with a response. If he would respect facts (like bothering to look up the 40-60 kWh/kgSWU energy demand for centrifuge enrichment, and admitting the figure is accurate), I’d engage him seriously.
France built out its nuclear generation in a mere 16 years. What don’t we have time for? Well, we don’t have the time for “intervenors” to be paid by generators to quibble and cavil about the need for building stuff to replace coal and gas. Eliminating the legal standing of “intervenors” would get rid of that waste of time. We can do that with a stroke of the pen. We cannot change engineering limitations but slowly, and physics not at all.
You also assume that renewables can actually bring carbon emissions down by the minimum 80% reduction required. So far none of the “green” nations have gotten close to that. An analysis from Argonne National Laboratories suggests that wind cannot achieve even 60% reduction while the backup is fossil-fired… and that’s just for the electrical grid. Do you have a “renewable” proposal for de-carbonizing the rest, like space heat and industrial energy?
You can’t argue that “these things will go away”. They haven’t, and so long as they are required to finish your “renewable” build-out or supply its backup requirements, they can’t. Asking people to do without for the sake of “purity” has never worked. Substituting something carbon-free where they can’t tell the difference sidesteps the resistance.
But focus on what? You treat “renewables” as an end in themselves, not a means to decarbonization. No “renewable” measures have decarbonized a grid that wasn’t already carbon-free (e.g. hydro-powered). The grids with the least carbon emissions were created almost by accident, seeking to minimize fuel costs. As it turns out, fuel costs track very closely to fossil-carbon consumption.
If you focus on the wrong thing, you get the wrong picture and try to achieve the wrong end. Try again, starting over from first principles. How do you get the carbon and other GHGs out? That is the ONLY important thing.
Oh bloody hell… “awaiting moderation” again. Gonna split it in two so I don’t have to wait until the morning for the rest.
a little long. please economize.
Responding to DOG up here (part 1/2):
Wait just a minute there. Is France “small”? Was it “wealthy” when it was being bled dry by spending for OPEC oil to run its electric grid before it got the nuclear plants operational? And why, after all we’ve learned in the mean time, isn’t nuclear energy “cheap” today?
world-nuclear.org reports that France has 58 operational nuclear powerplants, somewhat more than half the total the USA had before the recent shutdowns. Its carbon emissions per kWh are very low. Yet “greens” eschew France as an example to the world. The climate scientists (e.g. Hansen) and heretic environmentalists (e.g. Lovelock) who promote nuclear energy are condemned by the “greens” despite it being the only proven solution to the GHG problem besides total collapse.
He’s been beating straw men to shreds. The problem with straw men is that they were never alive to begin with. I refuse to dignify the bulk of his afactual nonsense with a response. If he would respect facts (like bothering to look up the 40-60 kWh/kgSWU energy demand for centrifuge enrichment, and admitting the figure is accurate), I’d engage him seriously.
France built out its nuclear generation in a mere 16 years. What don’t we have time for? Well, we don’t have the time for “intervenors” to be paid by generators to quibble and cavil about the need for building stuff to replace coal and gas. Eliminating the legal standing of “intervenors” would get rid of that waste of time. We can do that with a stroke of the pen. We cannot change engineering limitations but slowly, and physics not at all.
You also assume that renewables can actually bring carbon emissions down by the minimum 80% reduction required. So far none of the “green” nations have gotten close to that. An analysis from Argonne National Laboratories suggests that wind cannot achieve even 60% reduction while the backup is fossil-fired… and that’s just for the electrical grid. Do you have a “renewable” proposal for de-carbonizing the rest, like space heat and industrial energy?
You can’t argue that “these things will go away”. They haven’t, and so long as they are required to finish your “renewable” build-out or supply its backup requirements, they can’t. Asking people to do without for the sake of “purity” has never worked. Substituting something carbon-free where they can’t tell the difference sidesteps the resistance.
(continued)
Dammit, screwed up again with 3 links… just trash the parent.
Responding to DOG up here (part 1/2):
Wait just a minute there. Is France “small”? Was it “wealthy” when it was being bled dry by spending for OPEC oil to run its electric grid before it got the nuclear plants operational? And why, after all we’ve learned in the mean time, isn’t nuclear energy “cheap” today?
world-nuclear.org reports that France has 58 operational nuclear powerplants, somewhat more than half the total the USA had before the recent shutdowns. Its carbon emissions per kWh are very low. Yet “greens” eschew France as an example to the world. The climate scientists (e.g. Hansen) and heretic environmentalists (e.g. Lovelock) who promote nuclear energy are condemned by the “greens” despite it being the only proven solution to the GHG problem besides total collapse.
He’s been beating straw men to shreds. The problem with straw men is that they were never alive to begin with. I refuse to dignify the bulk of his afactual nonsense with a response. If he would respect facts (like bothering to look up the 40-60 kWh/kgSWU energy demand for centrifuge enrichment, and admitting the figure is accurate), I’d engage him seriously.
(continued)
Part 2/2:
France built out its nuclear generation in a mere 16 years. What don’t we have time for? Well, we don’t have the time for “intervenors” to be paid by generators to quibble and cavil about the need for building stuff to replace coal and gas. Eliminating the legal standing of “intervenors” would get rid of that waste of time. We can do that with a stroke of the pen. We cannot change engineering limitations but slowly, and physics not at all.
You also assume that renewables can actually bring carbon emissions down by the minimum 80% reduction required. So far none of the “green” nations have gotten close to that. An analysis from Argonne National Laboratories suggests that wind cannot achieve even 60% reduction while the backup is fossil-fired… and that’s just for the electrical grid. Do you have a “renewable” proposal for de-carbonizing the rest, like space heat and industrial energy?
You can’t argue that “these things will go away”. They haven’t, and so long as they are required to finish your “renewable” build-out or supply its backup requirements, they can’t. Asking people to do without for the sake of “purity” has never worked. Substituting something carbon-free where they can’t tell the difference sidesteps the resistance.
But focus on what? You treat “renewables” as an end in themselves, not a means to decarbonization. No “renewable” measures have decarbonized a grid that wasn’t already carbon-free (e.g. hydro-powered). The grids with the least carbon emissions were created almost by accident, seeking to minimize fuel costs. As it turns out, fuel costs track very closely to fossil-carbon consumption.
If you focus on the wrong thing, you get the wrong picture and try to achieve the wrong end. Try again, starting over from first principles. How do you get the carbon out? That is the ONLY important thing.
Are you writing a book or responding on a blog? The subject is climate denials failure.