Raise the Vision

November 9, 2016


21 Responses to “Raise the Vision”

  1. Tom Bates Says:

    How about spending a little time actually looking at the actual science data you claim to love. The political BS in the climate change debate by the AGW crowd is unending. What you folks actually want is a redistribution of wealth from you to the third world thugs which on its face is insane. here is the actual warming from increased CO2, 0.034F per NASA expressed as 2/10ths of a watt per square meter. That is 340 times less than the warming NASA modeling shows is coming from changes in earths tilt and orbit. Another study found that increased CO2 increased plant mass by 8 percent which means 415 million people are alive who would otherwise by dead.

    • More grandiose claims from MasterBates with nothing concrete to back it up.

      • Allow me, on “… a redistribution of wealth from you to the third world thugs …”, courtesy of one of the largest heroes in the whole AGW side:

        “What is Ross Gelbspan’s Raison d’être?” http://gelbspanfiles.com/?p=1822

        Remember, friends, I don’t make up lies out of the blue, and I don’t get marching orders from the Kochs, Exxon or Heartland, I make my own informed decisions and I quote your own dear leaders’ material, with direct links straight to it, and or screencaptures showing the website urls.

        But wait, there’s more. Top post at GelbspanFiles today. (hint, elections matter)

        • dumboldguy Says:

          Go away, Russell, you useless POS. And you will never get any hits on GobsofS**Tfiles.com until you open it to outside comments. Your bullshit needs to be addressed there where it lives, and not here on Crock where it is a meaningless distraction.

          Your pleading reminds me of the scene in The Fugitive where Harrison Ford tries to plead his case with the marshal played by Tommy Lee Jones. As the marshal said, WE DON’T CARE!

    • Having a figure of 0.034 in once sentence, and a figure of 340 in the proceeding one, makes a figure of 3/4 watts per square metre sound like too much coincidental bullshit had have you put that. Which is really funny. Because the first 2 figures are bullshit but the third one would have been close to the truth.

    • Gingerbaker Says:

      “What you folks actually want is a redistribution of wealth from you to the third world thugs which on its face is insane.”

      I agree. That’s insane!

    • otter17 Says:

      “What you folks actually want is a redistribution of wealth from you to the third world thugs which on its face is insane.”

      Your caricature of AGW solutions is probably the primary reason why you deny AGW. If every solution is unpalatable to you, then it stands to reason you would just deny the problem and come up with flawed reasoning to justify that stance.

    • A request for Management:

      Could you consider blocking Tom Bates from posting here until he retracts the lies he’s told about the NASA/GISS global temperature work? I’ve asked him to retract those lies at least twenty times and he has completely ignored all of those requests.

      Just something to consider…

      • dumboldguy Says:

        I’ll second that—-Tommy Poo is a waste of space and a distraction. His science is abysmal, and he lacks the strength of character to admit his errors with the temps, even after you asked him 20+ times to do so. He isn’t even a useful idiot or “good bad example” like Russell Cook.

        • By copying links to my comments here at my Twitter & FB pages, I’ve steered perhaps a number of people into these blog comment sections who wouldn’t have seen them otherwise. Probably a good wager to make that many of them have long since stopped holding their breath that “d.o.g.” here will be able to explain with any specificity how I’m a “useful idiot” when it comes to defining what alleged climate deniers are supposed to resemble, or offer any specific examples he can take apart from my GelbspanFiles blog or online articles which prove conclusively that I knowingly lie about particular points, or offer a scintilla of evidence proving I’m paid illicit money to do anything I do. Here I’m supposed to be some kind of example of (who knows what?), while “d.o.g.” continues to be the face of enviro-activists who are all show and no go when it comes to backing up accusations.

          • dumboldguy Says:

            So, Russell now admits to “steering” people to Crock “via copying links to his comments here on his Twitter and FB pages”. Yes, and they are likely the useless climate deniers and morons who keep popping up on Crock and wasting our time—-the Tom Bateses of the world, since no one with a brain or any understanding of climate science would bother to read Russell’s deluded BS on social media. Just another reason for banning him from Crock. He has outlived his usefulness as a resident idiot and bad example.

  2. andrewfez Says:

    I started a local fight with a WVian who decided to post some denialist talking points on my facebook page:

    I also had a scrap with a lawyer for the local WV/PA anti-wind front group a week or so ago. You know – the Wind Turbine Syndrome, infra-sound guys…

    • Thanks for posting this. Some real science. Quite informative!

      • andrewfez Says:

        Thanks Bryan. I’m not as entertaining as Peter, and my oration does little to recommend me, but felt compelled to respond when a particular friend of a friend decided to invite himself onto one of my facebook postings. Talking to select people in WV (my home state) feels like I’m revisiting the post-climategate era once more, where a bunch of smug trolls, bleeding Dunning-Kruger inspired overconfidence, try to play offense with climate disinformation. The election has brought them back out of the woodwork.

  3. OK… so Trump has won.. and the Paris agreement is dead ( my view was it was going to be has effective as the League of Nations… another Paris “solution” that failed)…

    The US will be ungovernable and chances are most environmental protection laws will be rolled back… however, one thing you need to appreciate is that laws are meaningless if they are not enforced and many of the US environmental laws are NOT enforced. (or enforced selectively to promote a concept called “regulatory capture…”).. so it remains to be seen what comes of this.

    The way I see this election is that it was a commentary on two things,

    1: the ignorance of the American population. Ignorance is very different than stupidity… ignorance can be addressed with education and knowledge.

    2: the corrupt manipulation of the political system….. .

    Stopping CO2 emissions and confronting climate change will not happen until the two issues above have been addressed.

    As we have seen throughout this election process and with climate change, the media has become a source of propaganda… To address this you have to ask yourself how did this happen and why…. Perhaps this might be something worthy of further exploration on this site? (you have touched on it several times but maybe need to go into more depth..)

    There is much anger in the “flyover” states… and it is a “just and righteous anger”, that should be taken very seriously….. I would liken it to a wounded animal that will lash out at those who try to help…..

    I believe addressing climate change comes down to who pays… TODAY… because the people in the flyover states live on a day to day basis and are just hanging on.. and while people on this site might want to scoff at them and call them stupid.. etc etc… they are the ones you need to reach out to. I would caution the appearance of a sanctimonious “liberal elite”

    I did not vote for Trump nor do I believe he will be an effective president.. I also believed the same of Hillary, for very different reasons…

    However I do understand why Trump won… Micheal Moore put his finger on it… So did Chris Hedges, Noam Chomsky and Ralph Nader etc etc… voices that are not heard via mainstream media.

    • dumboldguy Says:

      I agree with Louise’s two “root causes”, and especially with “stopping CO2 emissions and confronting climate change will not happen until these two issues have been addressed”.

      “1: the ignorance of the American population. Ignorance is very different than stupidity… ignorance can be addressed with education and knowledge”.

      “2: the corrupt manipulation of the political system…”

      I would add to that:

      1) Willful ignorance (the kind we have) eventually becomes just plain self-destructive stupidity, and the self-absorption and cognitive dissonance of much of the American population is going to make it next to impossible for education and knowledge to prevail, to say nothing of the impact of the ‘backfire” effect. It’s too late.

      2) The “corrupt manipulation” has been going on for 40+ years, and it’s getting worse, not better. Unless the election of The Hump and the disastrous actions he will take wakes up the public and produces a real POSITIVE revolution that turns things around. It’s too late.

      If you believe in God (and think he cares at all), it’s time to start praying. Otherwise, bend over and kiss your ass goodbye.

      • toddinnorway Says:

        “Willfull ignorance” is just one of several behaviors people choose in order to strengthen their tribal identity, which is a deeper human problem, hardwired into our DNA. The alternative is cognitive dissonance, knowing that what we do to demonstrate loyalty to the tribe is wrong, which is normally deeply debilitating; or to be cast out of our tribe, which for many means constant insecurity and resulting stress in different forms and degree. I suspect this explains to a large extent why Tom Baits and his ilk spread the nonsense they write and speak.

        So our existential challenge of choosing the rational path to species survival must somehow leverage our tribal instincts in order to succeed, or AGW mitigation will end up like the rational choice of voting for Clinton versus choosing tribal security of voting for Trump.

        • dumboldguy Says:

          As I said, it’s too late.

          We took a fall foliage trip up into the Hudson River valley, and stopped in Hyde Park to visit the FDR museum and his home. Great experience and very informative, especially for one who is old enough to (barely) remember FDR. The country had a small chance at perhaps starting a new New Deal with the Democrats, but instead chose to cut off its nose and elect The Hump.

          The path of human evolution has made us TOO successful, and we have become our own worst enemy. Pogo was right when he said “We have met the enemy and he is us”.

          I would love to hear anyone’s ideas for “leveraging our tribal instincts in order to succeed” at AGW mitigation. The only leveraging of tribal instincts that seems to have succeeded lately is the Trump campaign (you know, that tribe of ignorant, racist, misogynistic, and xenophobic pussy-grabbers?)

  4. Andy Lee Robinson Says:

    Don’t get mad, divest.
    Deprive the Republicans of their fossil fuel funded gravy train and go renewable in any way you can. Help to make them worthless.
    The renewable future is inevitable, but it needs hurrying up faster than ever.

    Money, or lack of it, is the *only* thing they listen to.

    • Yes Andy, I agree with this. But for proactive courses, it now looks like the only ones left to us are local actions and market-based approaches. Just went on the Rocky Mountain Institute’s website and made a contribution. Sign up for their weekly email and read their studies. Also, got some hope from listening to Joe Romm’s lecture which Peter linked to on this site on 11/4.

      Regarding the earlier comment by toodinnorway and dumboldguy. I think ‘tribal instincts’ are part of the reason that there was such a groundswell for Trump but it is more complicated. This election is part of a larger shift to the right in Europe and the US and elsewhere that has been going on since the 1970’s. I was listening to Zacharia’s (GPS) joint interview of the historian Anne Applebaum (always worth reading) and Nigel Farage (of Brexit fame) in which she flattened him in my opinion. She said that the one common feature of these movements is their advocacy of highly simple solutions to complex problems–often tried in the past and never worked. Immigration problems? Simple, build a $70 Billion wall (for free). This is why I always thought that a revenue-neutral carbon tax would appeal if you could only get the right wing behind it. Very simple and obviously to most voter’s personal benefit.
      To get back to tribalism, there are solutions. First, it is not an instinct. It is learned. Just as an example, read Chapter 5 in Rupert Brown’s old book (Prejudice: Its Social Psychology). The solution? There are many techniques (and many, many programs and books about them) but I think most of them come down to broadening the tribe. This happens through interaction with those that are perceived as different and learning about commonalities. But here is the problem: unlearning prejudice is a long term process that is very difficult to implement across millions of citizens. It would be wonderful but as a solution to climate change?, we do not have that luxury.
      Unless Trump changes (which he can and has, on a dime, while denying that he ever thought differently), the course on the national level will be backwards. So, only market-based solutions and local solutions are left. I would be interested in any other ideas that people might have.

      • Regarding the right wing shift, a 2011 essay by Matthew Lyons (online: https://matthewnlyons.net/works-hosted-on-this-site/right-wing-101/), really brought this home to me:
        “To help put this in perspective, here’s a little exercise: Imagine a president who expands affirmative action, actively promotes school desegregation, enacts important new laws in social welfare, environmental protection, occupational health and safety, and consumer protection, supports comprehensive health insurance and a system of guaranteed income for all citizens, and whose Justice Department opposes the RICO Act on the grounds that it gives the government powers that are much too broad and sweeping for prosecuting criminals. In 2011, such a president would be considered far to left of Barack Obama and far to the left of almost everyone in Congress. Forty years ago, such a president was called Richard Nixon. That’s the shift I’m talking about.”

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: