If you missed the Virginia Energy Consumer Conference last week, here’s your chance to catch up. The highlight is Steve Haner’s interview of Michael Shellenberger, author of “Apocalypse Never.” Addressing the energy debate from a national perspective, Shellenberger makes the case that renewable energy sources are no panacea for the environment. Subsequent presentations in the conference provide conservative perspectives on Virginia-specific issues. — JAB
The Environmentalist Case Against Renewables
Share this article
ADVERTISEMENT
(comments below)
ADVERTISEMENT
(comments below)
Comments
129 responses to “The Environmentalist Case Against Renewables”
-
I listened to some of the podcast and I agree with Larry. Some of Shellenberger’s points about nuclear power are worth exploring but then I did look hm up. He is not a scholar but a PR person. I also am suspect of anything the Thomas Jefferson Institute for Public Policy puts out. They are a group of present and former lobbyists. They are NOT a group of authentic scholars that you might find at AEI or Cato on the right wing. Is this ad hominen? Great! Have at me?
-
Prostitutes.
They all lie for money. Check the source of funding. It’s all dirty fossil fuel money:
http://www.desmog.com/thomas-jefferson-institute-public-policy/
-
You are, of course, assuming that everyone considers fossil fuel money “dirty”.
-
Well, oily at best.
-
“You are, of course, assuming that everyone considers fossil fuel money “dirty”.”
I’m sure the people grabbing the cash would say it’s quite clean!
They’d say whatever you pay them to say.
That’s what makes them dirty.
No one is so stupid they cannot figure that out.
“Koch Family Foundations have spent $145,555,197 directly financing 90 groups that have attacked climate change science and policy solutions, from 1997-2018.”
http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/ending-the-climate-crisis/climate-deniers/koch-industries
-
You clearly do not think it appropriate for billionaire businessmen to give money to causes which they support, but which you oppose.
Do you also think it inappropriate for billionaire businessmen to give money to causes which you do support?
If you do not think it inappropriate, will you please explain why?
-
“You clearly do not think it appropriate for billionaire businessmen to give money to causes which they support, but which you oppose.”
I do not.
I oppose lying.
Do you support it?
If you do, where does the conversation go from there besides putting you on mute?
“Exxon Knew about Climate Change almost 40 years ago. A new investigation shows the oil company understood the science before it became a public issue and spent millions to promote misinformation”
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/exxon-knew-about-climate-change-almost-40-years-ago
-
Lie smarter
-
This is the down side to the internet for the new sukas.
Absolutely anyone can visit the link I have so graciously provided you and see that I am not lying; that it says precisely what I claimed it said.
That leaves you with expressing “skepticism” of well-known facts… with absolutely no justification presented to support that “skepticism”.
As more and more people come to identify these tells that mark you as a misinformer, you’ll burn through accounts faster and faster. It’s a diminishing return on investment.
“ExxonMobil tried to systematically mislead the public about climate change for 40 years.”
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/scientific-study-concludes-exxon-mobil-misled-climate-change
-
-
What exactly did Exxon know that it denied. Even the IPCC identifies a number of uncertainties some 30+ years after Exxon supposedly knew. Cherry picking.
-
You and the companies you work for have known for many decades that the fuel you sell will cause catastrophic changes to the climate we depend on for survival.
I will give you the most obvious example: You have set in motion the destruction of all coastal cities on Earth, just because of the fossil fuel you have already sold.
There is no example in Earth’s history of polar ice sheets withstanding CO₂ so high.
“If the Greenland Ice Sheet melted, scientists estimate that sea level would rise about 6 meters (20 feet). If the Antarctic Ice Sheet melted, sea level would rise by about 60 meters (200 feet).”
nsidc.org/cryosphere/quickfacts/icesheets.html
-
I do not work for any companies and my association with the oil industry ended 20 years ago. Have you read the latest IPCC report, not the SPM, but the report itself. It under cuts your ideological narrative.
-
-
Climate change was predicted 1890-ish. Arrhenius made a big deal about around by 1900-1903. He thought warming could be better than cooling, so he was not quite alarmist. by 1960 the CO2 data from Mauna Loa showed several years of the upwards CO2 trends we still see today. So to say some company hid it is silly. Coal was worse issue at the time 40-50 years ago.
-
I’m not sure what your point is. No one denies that global warming is real or that CO2 warms the planet. The debate is and has been about the extent of human influence. Even today, the IPCC offers a range for climate sensitivity which reflects the extent of uncertainty.
-
I was agreeing with you and adding on
-
-
It was discovered for certain that the fossil fuel companies Mr. O’Keefe works for are warming the surface of the planet with their waste exhaust all the way back in 1856!
That actually makes it worse for them, not better. The premeditation of the crime is far more clear.
“Overlooked by modern researchers is the work of Eunice Foote, who, three years prior to the start of Tyndall’s laboratory research, conducted similar experiments on absorption of radiant energy by atmospheric gases, such as CO₂ and water vapor. The presentation of her report at a major scientific convention in 1856 was accompanied by speculation that even modest increases in the concentration of CO₂ could result in significant atmospheric warming.”
http://www.searchanddiscovery.com/documents/2011/70092sorenson/ndx_sorenson.pdf
-
-
I think everyone should be able to give their money to any cause they choose, whether or not I agree with their politics, religion or taste in music – or even their favorite bourbon.
Contrarian payrolls can be quite lucrative. Some people can make good money simply by switching sides.
RJR had doctors who raved on the benefits of ssmoking.
Book review: Bad science and bad arguments abound in ‘Apocalypse Never’ by Michael Shellenberger
A new book that critiques environmentalism is ‘deeply and fatally flawed.’
-
You should do some research before making dumb statements. He is a Time Magazine “Hero of the Environment,” and Green Book Award Winner. Tom Wigley who is a well known climate scientist has praised his book.
-
And I’d say the same for you – dumb comments – uninformed comments… based on beliefs and not facts.
-
Tell your story walking. I doubt if you know many facts because of a comical bias.
-
says the fossil fuel industry guy.. go sit down .. you have no credibility at all.
-
Didn’t anyone tell you that virtually all generalizations are wrong?
-
and you? what’s your excuse for who you are now?
-
Larry, people like you who engage in ad hominem attacks and nonsensical generalizations do so because they don’t have the depth to engage in serious discussion.
To quote John Maynard Keynes, “When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?” -
Geeze guy. If it were JUST ME – you MIGHT have a point. But it’s not and your response is just pathetic but understandable given your “background”. I totally understand.
-
But of course, you don’t!
-
Oh I very much do. I know who you are!
-
Very doubtful. Who are you? Why do you hide behind a psuedonym?
-
Kinda of a bad question from someone who lacks basic integrity, don’t ya think?
-
Let’s see, you didn’t answer the question and you made a judgment with no evidence. That’s what Barbara Tuchman called “woodenheaded”
-
You know a fossil fuel industry hack who masquerades as something else is not really in a position to demand transparency from others.
You can’t even debate on the actual issues and points but rather make personal attacks?
Pretty lame guy. That’s all you got to show for your age?
-
Hack? Masquerades as something else?
I’ll follow Mark Twain’s guidance, “never argue with stupid people, they’ll drag you down and beat you with experience.”
So long. -
“You can’t even debate on the actual issues and points but rather make personal attacks?”
Statements as such indicate clearly his lack of self-awareness.
-
-
-
Generally speaking?
“dumb comments”? Really?
That is NOT a ad hominin attack, by the way, because LarrytheG wrote it and LarrytheG never makes ad hominin attacks…
Just ask him – he’ll tell you himself…
“In this engaging and well-researched treatise, Michael Shellenberger exposes the environmental movement’s hypocrisy in painting climate change in apocalyptic terms while steadfastly working against nuclear power, the one green energy source whose implementation could feasibly avoid the worst climate risks. Disinformation from the Left has replaced deception from the Right as the greatest obstacle to mitigating climate change.”
— Kerry Emanuel, Professor of Atmospheric Science, MIT
PS – Sorry about the all-caps in my initial posting of the comment.
-
Well, not quite as full throated as the dust jacket blurb would imply…
https://yaleclimateconnections.org/2020/07/mit-climate-scientist-kerry-emanuel-on-energy-and-shellenbergs-apocalypse/
Birds of a feather flock together, or in this particular case, one good tern deserves another.
-
There’s a bird store in NoVa with that name, you know?
-
I did not. Can you buy a turducken there?
-
Haner. I think you look great, Sweetie!
-
uh…. “sweet”? He needs a refund from his parents… 😉
HEY! HEY! HEY!
C’mon folks, let’s not just attack each other. Innuendo! Let’s keep it bitingly satirical.
Steve, you look great! Assuming you’re not in your 60s.
-
mind and body. mind and body. 😉
-
Pick one.
-
Eeny, meeny, miny, moe
-
-
Remarkable — 56 comments so far, and not one substantive comment addressing a single argument Shellenberger made. Nothing but snark, name calling and appeals to authority. If you wonder why there are so many skeptics of Climate Change orthodoxy, that may explain it.
-
That’s 57. Inanity begets inanity.
Okay, some substance. 150 years of generating electrical power without rubbing lamb’s wool on a resin rod. It took 1000 years to perfect the sword and plowshare.
All but one method involves rotational forces. All but two generate toxic waste. Each has a cost consisting of production, impact, waste, material acquisition, etc., etc.,
All can be used simultaneously on a grid. There is an optimal solution at any given time, for a given time interval. It will be a changing mix.
-
Indeed.
. -
I suppose if we tried to go the lamb’s wool and resin rod route the animal rights activists would work themselves into a tizzy.
And PETRR would be all over us about the resin rods.
I guess there IS no permanent solution.
Actually, though, I can think of one permanent solution – but it’s not predicted to happen for a few billion more years.
-
Peace and quiet at last.
-
-
Sometimes an ad hominem is the nicest thing you can say.
BTW, if Carol, Sherlock, Harvie, and I suddenly go quiet, here’s why.
https://www.accuweather.com/en/weather-news/canary-islands-spain-volcanic-eruption-la-palma/1020286
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cumbre_Vieja_tsunami_hazard
You guys on the east side of Richmond might want to step back.
-
Sometimes an ad hominem is the nicest thing you can say.
Sounds like a twisted greeting card slogan. Or a message from one of those de-motivational posters.
It don’t take but 5 minutes of listening to this idiot to understand what JAB and Haner like him….
He’s like a Conservative anti-renewable trope-machine…
lordy!
-
He’s worse than just an idiot!
He’s also a prostitute, like Mr. Bacon himself.
These people take money from the polluters and in return lie about pollution.
Mr. Shellenberger is a bit unique in that he’s been mostly underwritten by the nuclear energy industry. With his recent focus, it looks more like he’s going the more standard route of taking cash from the fossil fuel industry.
“the Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI) said that it “engaged third parties to engage with media through interviews and op-eds, including… Michael Shellenberger””
-
Oh.. be careful here.. JAB may “moderate” you and even if not, you’ll likely be attacked personally…
-
It’s his site!
If he thinks it furthers his agenda to censor people pointing out the conflict of interest, he’s welcome to do so.
It would be a little like North Korea, but some people are into that…
-
check the comments. If they disagree , they do Ad Hominems… including JAB.
-
“: appealing to feelings or prejudices rather than intellect
an ad hominem argument
2: marked by or being an attack on an opponent’s character rather than by an answer to the contentions made”Calling someone an “idiot” instead of addressing their argument is an ad hom at all times. A vast majority of your comments constitute this, as well as a good number of hasty generalization fallacies.
-
-
-
But calling someone a prostitute is not attacking them personally?
-
Nah. Didn’t you ever see “Irma la Douce”?
-
Thanks! That made me laugh.
I don’t care what anyone else says, I like you, man.
I [very] often disagree with you, but it’s clear you don’t take yourself as seriously as some people around here [including myself at times] and I like that. Thanks for lightening things up.
-
Like the man said, Wayne, “Life’s too important to be taken seriously.”
As to the other, I’ll buy any man here a drink (including Matt, he has to take it in a roadie though), but there are damned few with whom I’d sail. You strike me as a man who knows not to spit or piss to windward. Feeling’s mutual.
-
re: “sailing” – I wonder how many understand what you are saying.
-
I should think the reference to windward will clarify. Then, there are those here who would have to test it.
-
-
Thanks. I haven’t been sailing since my mid-twenties, but I do remember windward from leeward.
-
The word refers to someone who lies for money.
It’s not unrelated to the argument, it’s entirely related to the argument.
An honest actor discloses the financial interest in the subject matter!
These people never do.
“Founded in 1985, the Thomas Jefferson Institute has been a member of the State Policy Network (SPN)… SPN and its member think tanks share ties to the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) and the Koch brothers.”
http://www.desmog.com/thomas-jefferson-institute-public-policy/
And you consider desmog a reliable source? Talk about hacks.
-
You are welcome to provide your own, of course!
There’s a very good reason you won’t.
Evidence does not help the misinformer mislead.
“Bill [O’Keefe] served as… Executive Vice President and CEO of the American Petroleum Institute”
cei.org/experts/william-okeefe/
Wow, that was a devastating rebuttal. After listening to Shellenberger for five minutes, you declare him an “idiot.” Very persuasive indeed.
That’s pretty much par for the course. You don’t bother to learn the other side’s arguments. You just know they’re wrong. And just you know they’re idiots.
-
Careful, Larry will block you for “ad hom” attacks.
-
Done some reading on him also. And yes, I DO KNOW his arguments. THey start out BAD and get worse!
He blames Texas on Wind , claims the money spent for wind would have been better spent on “winterizing” natural gas.
What kind of idiot makes that kind of argument?
Texas CHOSE to invest in wind and not winterizing natural gas?
And you guys just suck that guano up!
Yes. He’s an idiot and yes, I understand why you like him. He says what you want to hear and what you believe.
He’s another example of “smart people” who have no background or knowledge in a field – he’s a PR guy.
-
And he hits this other totally disreputable canard about solar panel disposal – like it’s a real issue different from say… coal ash or nuke disposal or any number of other similar things like EV battery disposal.
It’s a totally lame and discredited narrative.
Solar is no different than cars, or appliances, or used tires, or used motor oil or batteries…
The market will use them just like it does all the other stuff we dispose of.
So he starts off with this stuff – that’s his entry narrative.
You guys are truly sad. You can’t even make a principled argument at times. geeze.
-
Hey Larry, have you ever heard the quote, “Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak and to remove all doubt.”
I doubt that many who read this blog take you seriously because of the nonsense that comes out of your mouth .-
All you can manage is Ad Hominins Bill?
geeze guy.. you might want to check other viewpoints..
I am a SUPPORTER of nukes by the way – but I want Nukes that are not 60-year old designs.
-
One would think the oilcos could afford better liars.
All of them taking money from the polluters.
None of them disclosing the conflict.
“[William] O’Keefe served as the Executive Vice President and Chief Operating Officer of the American Petroleum Institute (API) from 1974 to 1999.”
-
Yep. Been masquerading in BR as a principled person.
-
The only problems with that line of reasoning are that I retired 20 years ago and it is juvenile to claim guilt by association. I could go on but for what purpose?
-
-
But accusing other people of lacking principles is not an Ad Hominem argument?
-
Larry’s problem is that he doesn’t know what constitutes an ad hom attack.
-
My impression is that he knows what they are, but assumes they are only appropriate for use against people he strongly disagrees with.
Sadly, the use of ad hominem attacks to insult and belittle opponents and dismiss an opponent’s arguments without offering any counterargument has been documented as being used as long ago as ancient Greece and ancient Roman times.
-
I will say that I’m not above doing them, however most times they come from a point of frustration where the individual seems incapable of even engaging in what you’re saying.
-
Bloggers
The Bacon’s Rebellion blog tracks public policy issues in Virginia.We don’t do politics — just policy. Moreover, this is not a partisan blog. We entertain a broad spectrum of views.
Blog Rules and Etiquette
We request, though we don’t require, readers to use their real names when they comment. For those unwilling to reveal their real name, we ask that they use a consistent pseudonym so others can more easily track who is saying what.
We have managed, so far, to avoid posting elaborate rules for participating in this blog. We simply urge contributors and commenters to maintain a collegial atmosphere. Direct all the fire and fury you want at another person’s argument, but do not engage in ad hominem attacks
https://www.baconsrebellion.com/the-blog/
ad ho·mi·nem
/ˌad ˈhämənəm/
adjective
(of an argument or reaction) directed against a person rather than the position they are maintaining.in a way that is directed against a person rather than the position they are maintaining.
-
What’s your real name?
-
Jim B knows it. That’s sufficient for the likes of you.
-
Well, it’s not like half the population has them.
Yeah, I’d say about half. So it’s a coin flip, then.
But a principled coin flip…
So, a Swiss Franc.
The pot is black, vis-a-vis the kettle.
Solar panels are much different than cars, appliances, batteries. You can’t just disassemble a solar panel. The recycling techniques are not well established, and certainly not in the volume to deal with umpteen thousand panels. Maybe in 20 years, but at this point, the activity doesn’t generally pay for itself or recapture the metals (besides the frames) . 3 cents a pound for glass with everything ground up in it plus whatever the aluminum frames bring? If you think I’m wrong, list 10 companies in the US who have a profitable operation recycling the elements that make up a solar panel. We’ll need a lot more than 10 for 490 miles of panels in Va alone!
-
How about LED TVs and computers?
My point is that there are all kinds of things that we buy that will go bad and will need to be recycled or landfilled and I don’t see that big a difference between solar panels and a lot of other things.
Do we landfill old fridges or recycle them? Do we capture their refrigerant? How about junk cars? Do we capture the oil, antifreeze, gasoline , etc? Who pays for that? Is it included in your purchase price – up front?
It’s just not something unique to solar panels.
Compare that to coal ash or nukes for instance or for that matter substations where transformers with toxic materials and such go bad.
Or for that matter an old power plant like the one they’re closing just outside of Fredericksburg. Are we making that a similar issue? Was dismantling it and disposing of that plant part of it’s approval process?
It’s just a disingenuous argument that targets renewables politically, and it’s a lame argument and has no real place in an honest discussion.
I know when that becomes part of someone’s argument against renewables, that they’re “reaching”.
-
MY point is you’re ignoring all the ways that have been developed to handle recycling of difficult materials. Solar panels aren’t there yet. My personal argument about solar is the excessive loss of agricultural lands and forests and how solar factories (I like that term!) plan to keep vegetation from in between and under the solar panels. My expectation is they will use soil sterilants or herbicides that can get into waterwaya or drinking water sources..
Dominion does say they recycle refrigerators and freezers:
“Dominion will pick up the old units and take them to an appliance recycling facility operated byRecleim, which recycles 95% of the materials for reuse into products like laptops, cell phones, concrete mix and soda cans.” There’s a huge business in old car parts from junkers. Of course motor oil is recycled: “Used oil can be re-refined into lubricants, processed into fuel oils, and used as raw materials for the refining and petrochemical industries.Additionally, used oil filters contain reusable scrap metal, which steel producers can reuse as scrap feed.” Refrigerants are recycled: “Once the refrigerant is removed from the system into a separatecontainer, the HVACR contractor can then decide whether to recycle therefrigerant on site for reuse by the HVACR equipment owner or send it to an off-site reclaimer to restore it to industry AHRI-700 purity
specifications.” -
Actually, I’m NOT ignoring it. It is underway and will play out similar to other things that we recycle – like auto tires and batteries.
We won’t lose AG land either. I’m sure you are well aware of how vast land is even in Mathews. Drive a back road and you’ll see thousands and thousands of acres of land no longer farmed lying fallow.
I am surrounded by thousands and thousands of unused land where I live. Used to be farmed. Is no longer. Used to have dairy and cattle across the county. They’re now 3 bedroom homes.
It’s yet another false narrative in my view.
All the existing recycle stuff you point out is PROOF that we will recycle solar also.
The solar farm in Spotsylvania – 5000 acres worth posted a bond for dispoal, it’s included in the cost.
I ask you when you bought your car, did you pay a disposal fee?
When Dominion closes down a plant, do they have to dismantle it and return the land to prior condition so it can be used or farmed?
They don’t. These plants sit there, abandoned, for decades and no one is complaining about it or demanding that they be dismantled.
In fact, some of those plants actually can’t be resold unless there is environmental cleanup.
All I’m saying is we already deal with these issues for a wide variety of stuff and we’re employing a double standard when we do “what-a-bout” for solar.
What do people like you and me do about dead solar panels if we have them? Did we have to pay money up front for disposal? Nope.
There is nothing particularly unique or problematical with solar panels that different from a lot of other existing stuff.
It’s just a political canard.
-
I am very proud to live in a county with only 3% hardscape. This is a watershed discharge zone and it’s not meant to be covered in glass and metal, even though DEQ has forgotten its purpose. Even fallow, the land fills a purpose… green things grow and use carbon dioxide and process water so it doesn’t all run off at the same time. Bees forage and pollinate crops. Forests collect rainfall on their leaves that gradually reaches the ground, they use water and carbon dioxide to grow and sequester carbon until harvested. Both provide habitat for wildlife–and soul-renewing for humans as a side benefit.
I think I’ve given you enough responses and attention for one day./done
-
All good. Agree. Thanks for conversation.
-
3% is basically all we’d need!
A relatively small percentage of land is all that would be required to power the entire world on solar energy alone.
“If solar is 20% efficient (as it has been in lab tests) at turning solar energy into power, we’d only need to cover a land area about the size of Spain to power the entire Earth renewably in 2030.”
http://www.businessinsider.com/map-shows-solar-panels-to-power-the-earth-2015-9
At the front, he engages in this lie about what happened in Texas this winter.
Started in WSJ , got repeated through Conservative social media including in BR where the problem in Texas was blamed on wind.
WSJ came back and admitted the truth:
And I think even JAB came back and admitted it was a lie.
But then this guy just plows that same discredited lie again.
He then extends it to say that money was invested in renewables instead of “winterizing” the natural gas plants.’
Like Texas explicitly chose to build wind and not winterize the gas.
Does he even realize that the folks that did wind are not the folks who did natural gas in Texas?
This is the kind of dumbass ‘logic” he uses that both Steve and JAB seem to admire.
He starts off with this stuff and it gets worse from there.
It’s one thing to make a principled argument one way or the other, pro or con, but this is just lame-ass canards… that have nothing to do with realities and the TJ folks highlight him as if he actually knows something! His background is what? PR?
Jim,
Maybe you should tell us all what’s really
going on with this blog. You send out provocative material and your loyal bandits
(me, Larry, Eric, Nancy and others) rip it apart. Then we have the counterattack
from Haner, Matt Adams, Publius, Gillispie another other conservatives. Some
have no idea what journalism is.
Haner is linked to a paying job at the TJ
whatever. There is an obvious link here among the State Policy Network, ALEC
and other well-coordinated right wing influence peddlers.
Meanwhile, you seem to be raking in dough
from these obnoxious ads that take so long to load (Was Trump a great President?
Do you want him back?”)
On your Website, you state that
BR is non-aligned. But otherwise, you say it is conservative or libertarian.
Which is it? Does it depend on revenues? How much are you getting from our
collective work? Plus, you are dealing
with obnoxious, for profit groups like the “Jefferson Council.”They pay in?
As long as you keep this up, you are going
to see some views chewed up by smart people with different attitudes.
Hope
-
The ads on Bacon’s Rebellion generate about $200 a month in revenue. I plow the money back into Facebook ads to grow readership.
Bacon’s Rebellion is non-aligned from a partisan perspective. We do not endorse political candidates. While most contributors sympathize with the Republican Party, we don’t all agree with everything Republicans do and stand for. We reserve the right to side with Democrats on some issues, as we occasionally do. Furthermore, we solicit contrary views. Democrats are more than welcome to submit guest columns… and sometimes do.
The only money we get is from readers. Their contributions (a few thousand dollars a year) cover our IT expenses and some advertising to promote readership. I don’t pocket a dime.
As for the Jefferson Council, I serve as vice president-communications (mainly in charge of the website). The Council is a registered nonprofit organization. No one affiliated with the organization makes a dime. To the contrary, we donate our time and money.
I have been, and always will be, totally transparent about our affiliations and finances. More than you can say for, say, The Virginia Mercury.
As for the Thomas Jefferson Institute for Public Policy, I’ll let Steve speak for himself. I will say that I am happy to collaborate with TJI because we share the same fiscal conservative/free market outlook on Virginia issues.
You see, when the entirety of the Virginia media establishment is on one side of the major issues, when the other side generates about 10,000 times the page views and media impressions that we do, we have to work together and support one another. You seem to see something sinister in that. Perhaps you’d be perfectly happy for us to roll over and play dead and leave the field to the wokesters who now dominate the news-gathering media.
-
You don’t make a lot!
…but a cheap prostitute is still a prostitute…
The history of the companies you have taken money from really means you need to return that money if you ever want to be taken seriously.
“Research Confirms ExxonMobil, Koch-funded Climate Denial Echo Chamber Polluted Mainstream Media”
-
My kind.
-
Desmog is hardly an objective source. Can you name one confirmed denial by Exxon or Koch? If not, put a sock in it.
-
https://www.pnas.org/content/113/1/92.abstract
DeSmogBlog was also listed by Time magazine as one of the “best blogs of 2011” in June 2011.[25]
-
It’s been studied many times.
Since Mr. O’Keefe is part of the fossil fuel industry’s climate denial propaganda campaign, it’s not surprising he’s denying the existence of it.
What I’d like to see is a bit more recognition by the public of the difference between people who come armed with evidence and the people who don’t. As a professional misinformer, Billy cannot present any evidence. The best he can do is point to other professional misinformers and all that does is make the financial incentive to mislead more obvious.
“This paper conducts an analysis of the financial resource mobilization of the organizations that make up the climate change counter-movement (CCCM) in the United States… 91 CCCM organizations have an annual income of just over $900 million”
link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10584-013-1018-7
-
Can you cite one statement of mine that is propaganda? I can cite accepted sources for every statement that I have made. What about you and your cronies?
-
-
-
What is your point?
Should Jim just agree with the “consensus” (like Larry always appeals to to shut off scientific inquiry).
Should Jim hide his general opinion and just cherry pick facts to back his preferred narrative? Who is practicing real journalism in your view? How come all the Lefties who practice real journalism get kicked off the mainstream publications?
And the proposition that you and Nancy and Eric and Larry rip something apart is laughable. Nancy and Eric snark. Larry just clutches his SCIENCE! rosary, and I haven’t seen enough of your return to form an opinion.
Meanwhile, in your world, money alone corrupts all questions? Then all the federal money and all the Leftist foundations chasing their globalist agendas are equally invalidating.
The simple fact remains, just like controlling a virus, controlling the climate is hubris and an excuse to seize power. All of the models can be totally changed with just timker8ng with some of the assumptions, and this even assumes they have the know.edge to know all the assumptions and to have all the measurements – they don’t.
Say why something he says is wrong, not who pays him.
Hooked on his own chemicals. Dopamine. Powerful stuff.
I would suggest that if you wish to comment in a echo chamber, there are any number of other blogs to which you can comment.
Secondly, I’m not a “Conservative”. I’m a Libertarian, which means I’m fiscally conservative and socially liberal.
I know what Journalism entails, it doesn’t mean a person is without bias, it means they don’t allow their own personal bias to cloud their reporting. They also don’t pull their punches when it comes to their ideological side.
I also find most of your critic dubious at best considering you’re not condemning Larry on this very article for providing nothing more then attacks on others without provocation.
“As long as you keep this up, you are going
to see some views chewed up by smart people with different attitudes.”
That is also comical and also an ad hom attack directed towards any and all who don’t believe what you believe.
Anger, Peter. Anger. These blogs are 90% anger. For some it’s an outlet. For some it’s a source. Some of it’s feigned. Some of it’s genuine.
Who knows the reason? Pick one. Make one up — a 7-cent per gallon nontransparent whole sale gasoline tax, a solar panel, money, lack of money, a sign on a dormitory door, a wind blown bunch of flags.
Even the happiest of articles is strewn with angry comments. If the comments aren’t angry enough, some schmucks are actually here to take pleasure in invoking anger. Don’t have to look too far for an example of that, now do ya?
There is good news. It’s unlikely to lead to anything. I doubt one law will be changed. A far more likely event is a bunch of random cases of cyberstalking. Maybe one leads to a murder. Beats domestic violence.
-
“Everybody’s restless and they’ve got no place to go
Someone’s always trying to tell them
Something they already know
So their anger and resentment flow”— from Mohammed’s Radio by Warren Zevon
For once I want somebody to put up a new post and push my face off the screen….becoming your parents is one thing, but seeing your grandfather on screen is horrifying….
Hey, this reaction is all the evidence I need that Shellenberger is a dynamite communicator. He has never claimed to be the scientist, but there are other books (Steven Koonin) with similar themes from those with the PhD’s and the peer-reviewed results. There is no science behind the claims of some coming crisis. The real data points to gradual change, gradual impacts, with plenty of time for adaption. Uh…and the warming has been on pause for about five years. This COVID thing has just been practice for the real fascism of our time….
As for the big industry bucks behind all this, not sure where they are but not flowing to me. Never claimed to be anything other than what I am, a veteran of 40 years around the Capitol who likes to write on issues.
-
Yep. He’s yet another “smart person” who expresses a point of view that some really like even though he has almost zero background on the subject and falsely implies he is an “environmentalist” – where is the evidence that he has been that in years prior?
What this guy is saying has little to nothing to do with what other science is saying about global warming.
This guy is just attacking renewables per se.
And doing it badly and with tropes instead of any semblance of facts and realities and that criticism is not just mine at all.
-
Zero background on the subject? Wow. Again, once named a national environmental leader by Time? You really are not worth engaging…..
-
Tell me his involvement in the environmental community.
How many years and what other articles?
You guys are comical. You latch on to folks who have no background because you like what they say… confirmation bias on steroids.
Just the first two things he starts off with are totally false. Solar panels are recycled like a lot of things are – and Texas was not caused by wind turbines…
You believe this stuff even when it’s false!
geeze..
-
Sierra Club members seldom are.
-
The background is dishonesty.
Every last one taking money from the polluters. Every last one lying about pollution.
Who is so dense they cannot figure out what’s going on?
“Before working in government, [Steve] Koonin spent five years (2004 to 2009) as Chief Scientist for oil giant BP”
-
And before that he was a senior official in the California university system. His background is less important than the substance of his book which is well footnoted.
-
-
What exactly is this guys provenance in Environmentalism?
What is his history in the environmental movement?
What environmental issues has he been involved with in prior years?
-
Don’t YOU have a search engine you can use?
Of course it won’t matter anyway. No matter what the man has done as an environmentalist (and he has done quite a bit), at this point you will NEVER be satisficed because you have entrenched yourself in your opinion that he is an “idiot”. You’ve backed yourself into a corner.
I have to say it at least has been fun to watch.
-
-
Journalists naming a journalist an expert in a subject other than journalism is like a lobbyist telling a politician he’s smart.
-
A fair point.
Wait a minute, though…
Is the lobbyist telling the politician the politician is smart, or is the lobbyist telling the politician the lobbyist is smart?
On second thought, I suppose it works either way.
-
Revelation.
-
-
-
Had dinner with our daughter, her boyfriend and his parents. Another patron made a comment about “How nice to see 3 generations having a night out.”
It took me a minute.
I’m a little late to this comment party, but thank you, Steve, for helping to arrange this conference. I picked up a lot from the first go-through and plan to come back to it again.
Hmm, lost my long post.
It’s analogous to the ethanol-in-gasoline debates of the early 1990s. In the end many Americans feel anything bad for the fossil fuel industry must be good for humanity. Therefore renewables are better, and any downside cannot possibly be worse than fossil fuels.
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.