Recent Comments

Prev  752  753  754  755  756  757  758  759  760  761  762  763  764  765  766  767  Next

Comments 37951 to 38000:

37951. Andy Skuce at 09:12 AM on 6 March 2014
       The Editor-in-Chief of Science Magazine is wrong to endorse Keystone XL
       

       Don9000, the same problem with losing a long comment just happened to me. I think there is a time-out problem. Luckily, I kept a copy.

       Thanks for a thoughtful comment.

       You say: My basic problem with the way some--including you and Hansen--are laying out the debate is that your approach creates an argument against the XL Pipeline based on the Either-Or fallacy: Either we stop the XL Pipeline from being built, Or it is game over for the planet.

       I do not believe in the "game over" framing and I have critcized James Hansen for exaggerating the potential of the oil sands to change the climate. Please read my post Alberta’s bitumen sands: “negligible” climate effects, or the “biggest carbon bomb on the planet”?  I wrote:

       James Hansen, in a Huffington Post article, cites the IPCC AR4 WGIII report (page 268), which says that Canada’s bitumen resources represent at least 400Gt of “stored carbon” (the reference for this number is not clear). This implies an in-place mass some 68% higher than the ERCB’s in-place estimate and more than nine times the ERCB ultimate recoverable potential resource. The WGIII report states that 310Gbbl (~41GtC) of the bitumen resources are recoverable, a figure close to that of the latest ERCB number of 315Gbbl.

       I also point out that Alberta's coal resource contains more carbon than its bitumen resource. I don't downplay the overwhelming relative importance of coal.

       Here is a figure from that post where I compared the contribution of aggressive oil sands development with extrapolations of current consumption of other fossil fuels to the end of the century.

       

       Quite clearly, my message is that bitumen exploitation is a step in the wrong direction, but it is clearly not the main cause of the climate problem, either now or in the future. And no, I will not give up hope if any more fossil fuel infrastructure is built.

       Don9000 said : That is why I believe Skeptical Science needs to seriously consider widening this front in the war. I don't see anywhere near enough thoughtful analysis here or elsewhere regarding how carbon taxes can work.

       I agree, we should do more of this and we will. However, we have already made some effort in this direction. I have written two pieces;

       BC’s revenue-neutral carbon tax experiment, four years on: It’s working

       Update on BC’s Effective and Popular Carbon Tax

       and Dana Nuccitelli has written about carbon pricing and carbon taxes both here and in The Guardian:

       Citizens Climate Lobby - Pushing for a US Carbon Fee and Dividend

       True Cost of Coal Power - Muller, Mendelsohn, and Nordhaus

       Can a carbon tax work without hurting the economy? Ask British Columbia

       Citizens Climate Lobby pushes for a carbon tax and dividend

       I think that a global carbon tax is the most important single step towards mitigating the climate crisis. It likely won't be enough, we will need additional regulations, government investment in R&D and infrastructure and a cultural change in our attitudes to emissions of long-lived greenhouse gases. And some luck with climate sensitivity, carbon cycle feedbacks and new technologies.

       I agree, there is a risk that if the pipeline is not approved, some people may think that the climate problem is then solved. But many people already seem to think that buying a hybrid car or installing energy-efficient lightbulbs is sufficient. We will have to do our best to remind people that one or two small steps are not enough. The solution involves transforming the economy.

       I don't claim to understand the mentality of the Republican Party, but I don't think that approving the pipeline will really make them more open to the idea of compromise on carbon pricing. It is an article of faith among most of those people that climate change is not a serious threat or is even a hoax perpetrated by extremists. As Roy Spencer recently wrote:

       I’m now going to start calling these people “global warming Nazis”.
       The pseudo-scientific ramblings by their leaders have falsely warned of mass starvation, ecological collapse, agricultural collapse, overpopulation…all so that the masses would support their radical policies. Policies that would not voluntarily be supported by a majority of freedom-loving people.

       They are just as guilty as the person who cries “fire!” in a crowded theater when no fire exists. Except they threaten the lives of millions of people in the process.

       I doubt that Spencer would interpret the approval of Keystone XL as a sign of reconciliation or as a good moment to start talking seriously about a global carbon tax. Perhaps he is not typical of people on the US right, I don't know, I am not an American.

       The main reason that I am motivated to lobby against new pipelines is because this may have some effect. Yes, the effect will be small, yes it may be fleeting and only partially effective, but it is possible. In contrast, making progess on effective national-level carbon pricing policies in N America is still a few election cycles away. progress on a global carbon tax may be a generation of more away. I wish it were not so and I have vowed never to vote for any party that is not committed to introducing a carbon tax of some kind.

       As David Roberts put it on Twitter, asking activists to butt out of the pipeline issue and focus exclusively on carbon pricing is to demand that they “drop achievable campaign, switch to something impossible”.

       Moderator Response:

       [RH] Modified image width.

37952. grindupBaker at 09:01 AM on 6 March 2014
       A Glimpse at Our Possible Future Climate, Best to Worst Case Scenarios
       

       PhilMorris #25, Tristan #26. Yep, the numbers are vital because they separate this sensible debate from the barrage of irrelevancies by some "skeptical" types. 900 ZettaJoules to melt 3 million km^3 of ice on Greenland. It's, what, ~300 ZJ added over the last many decades (25 ZJ in 2013) but of course hardly any of it will get to the Greenland ice. So it's a slower process than a few decades but it will be accelerating for sure. 5,600 ZettaJoules to heat oceans 1 Celsius but then they only heated 3.5C during the entire 10,000 year warm up from the "ice age". It's my understanding that Greenland ice would not slide into the ocean, so it requires air-warming or rain-warming, but some large West Antarctic glaciers might do that if their sea ice buttresses get eaten away. PhilMorris might want to review those aspects if time permits. Longer than a few decades I would think.

37953. Don9000 at 07:20 AM on 6 March 2014
       The Editor-in-Chief of Science Magazine is wrong to endorse Keystone XL
       

       Andy,

       I'm in basic agreement with Mike@1 and David@3 on this. I too tried to post comment yesterday pointing out that a carbon tax is the key. Somehow, when I hit submit, it disappeared into the planetary ether.

       My basic problem with the way some--including you and Hansen--are laying out the debate is that your approach creates an argument against the XL Pipeline based on the Either-Or fallacy: Either we stop the XL Pipeline from being built, Or it is game over for the planet.

       I see now that you've at least conceded that you didn't make a strong enough case for a carbon tax, and I think I will begin with it. Here is what you say:

       "I agree that carbon pricing is the best solution, however it is off the table, politically speaking, in the US and Canada. Using KXL approval as a bribe to get the approval of the Republican Party or Canada's Conservatives for carbon pricing does not seem feasible to me. I would love to be persuaded that I am wrong on this."

       In fact, I would argue that a carbon tax, or, if you prefer, "carbon pricing" is not just the best solution, it is really the only holistic solution. Stopping the XL Pipeline is not a solution. It would merely be a kind of battlefield victory ion a much longer war, and I suspect winning this particular battle could well turn out to be a devastatingly pyrrhic victory, most obviously since stopping the pipeline would absolutely not guarantee the bitumen remained locked in the oil sands, but more insidiously because the semblance of a great victory would arguably both enrage the pro-carbon types and at the same time appease many regular Americans who don't really have a very good grasp of the scale of the problem. To me, this is the essential political calculus we have to make.

       Look at it this way: By arguing that building the pipeline would be a complete disaster, or a game-over moment, or whatever hyperbolic statement you like, that argument is going to look to many average Americans who lack a strong grasp of the subject like an argument that says stopping the pipeline equates to victory over climate change.

       Certainly, you can bet the oil, gas, and coal lobby would spin it that way to gain another few years to delay and obfuscate.

       So, if we do stop the pipeline, where would we be? I think I can tell you: We would be forced into the position of saying, "Well, stopping the pipeline is great, and an important first step, but we have a lot more to do before we can say we've won the war."

       How well do you think that argument will fly with Republicans? How well will it fly with regular Americans, who will probably be thinking that the defeat of the pipeline means they can relax?

       I'll tell you how I think it will fly: it will crash. It will crash, because we will still have to come back and argue that a carbon tax is needed to really solve the problem, and the GOP will be incensed and claim they've given us everything we asked for, and now we are asking for more, and many regular Americans will agree with them.

       My advice to you, if you wish to be convinced that I am right about this and your approach is wrong, is to put yourself in the shoes of the deniers and the skeptics and the general and generally ignorant public and play through in your mind how a rejection of the Keystone XL Pipeline would appear to them. Don't think about how a defeat of the pipeline would appear to you: You are not Them. Alternatively, imagine how you would react if the pipeline were approved. Would you really give up at that point? If you would, then I guess you really do believe in the Either-Or fallacy, but if not ... Just think it all the way through.

       Regarding your belief that a carbon tax or carbon pricing is off the table in the US and Canada at the present time, I say, "all the more reason Skeptical Science should be pushing it as the necessary first step to get carbon emissions under control." A comprehensive carbon tax will have to show up on the table soon, and will have to be put into effect, before we really are on our collective way to averting disaster. That is why I believe Skeptical Science needs to seriously consider widening this front in the war. I don't see anywhere near enough thoughtful analysis here or elsewhere regarding how carbon taxes can work.

       For example, I believe that a global effort to combat global warming is so crucial that if the US enacted a carbon tax that impacted its fossil fuels and manufactured goods prices, it would have a right and in fact a duty to see to it that countries and international companies that don't take similar steps should not be allowed to export their products into the US without being charged a tax. I don't know enough about international trade law to speak on this idea with any authority, but it is clear to me that without the ability to level the playing field in this way, national carbon taxes would be a recipe for cheating on a massive scale.

       So, where are we? Well, without a comprehensive approach--which a well-designed carbon tax is a necessary part of--all we are really doing is putting costly bandages on flesh wounds. It may make us feel better to stop the Keystone XL Pipeline in such a world, but stopping the pipeline would in effect exhaust our bank account of public willingness to act where action is much more effective for some time to come.

37954. Rob Honeycutt at 07:17 AM on 6 March 2014
       Cartoon: the climate contrarian guide to managing risk
       

       William... You can find the "link" tool on the second tab, titled "Insert", above the comments box. You can use the tools there to post images and to hot link text.

37955. william5331 at 04:49 AM on 6 March 2014
       Cartoon: the climate contrarian guide to managing risk
       

       The more we hammer at these ostriches, the more they push back.  Perhaps we should tell them to forget climate change.

       Forget climate change

       Moderator Response:

       [PS] Fixed link. (Since you comment here regularly, please learn how to embed links properly. Thank you).

37956. PluviAL at 03:10 AM on 6 March 2014
       Cartoon: the climate contrarian guide to managing risk
       

       Excellent and concise messages: The arguments against the message are selfish and small. The critics argue that since "I", the only and most important, may not see the results of making a livable world for posterity, then investing effort in mitigating the potential catastrophe is not worth the effort. This is besides the obvious absurdity of pretending that there is no problem when all indications increasingly demonstrate the potential.

37957. Albatross at 02:19 AM on 6 March 2014
       Cartoon: the climate contrarian guide to managing risk
       

       Andy @27, that is a great analogy!

37958. Andy Skuce at 02:10 AM on 6 March 2014
       Cartoon: the climate contrarian guide to managing risk
       

       I think a better analogy than buying house insurance is to replace all the wiring in your  home. This would mitigate the risk of a house-fire rather than just compensate you for losing your home. 

       Of course skeptics might object that the house might catch fire anyway from another cause and, since the old wiring has worked well for sixty years, why go to all the expense? Plus, all those intrusive government electrical safety codes are a blow to personal freedom. And how about the poor?

37959. Albatross at 01:32 AM on 6 March 2014
       Drought and Global Climate Change: An Analysis of Statements by Roger Pielke Jr
       

       Hi Tom C.,

       That was a very impressive and thorough analysis. You understand the "game" that Pielke junior likes to play very well.

       Also, I too have caught Pielke junior misrepresenting the IPCC SREX by omitting key sentences from the text that do not fit with his biased narrative.

37960. CBDunkerson at 23:18 PM on 5 March 2014
       Cartoon: the climate contrarian guide to managing risk
       

       Russ R wrote: "Uncertainty Mutual sells a homeowner's policy, except they don't tell you the cost of your premiums in advance,"

       Actually, there have been a number of studies on the costs of mitigating global warming. They all show that, like life and health insurance, the longer you wait the greater the risks and the higher the costs.

       "the deductible is ambiguous, and they can't guarantee that your losses will actually be covered."

       The analogy breaks down here as paying to mitigate the impacts of global warming will not give you money to cover the costs of the impacts which have already been unleashed. It isn't so much 'health insurance' as switching to a healthy diet and exercise... your health will be better, but any damage already done does not miraculously go away.

       "Oh, and you don't have the option of cancelling your policy."

       Really? Once we start a carbon tax or cap and trade or funding for renewable energy research we can never stop? How strange then that these things already have been stopped in various countries. Arguments hold more weight when they are not demonstrably false.

37961. Dikran Marsupial at 23:03 PM on 5 March 2014
       Cartoon: the climate contrarian guide to managing risk
       

       RussR pushing an analogy beyond the point needed to explain the important concept is a well known rhetorcial technique used to evade the point being made.  It is sad that this sort of behaviour is so prevelant in discussions of climate.

       Mitigating against climate change has some similarities to buying insurance, in that uncertainty does not warrant inaction, but it is also different in someways.  This is not a complicated message conveyed by the cartoon, and most people will be able see the similarities without fixating on the differences in order to ignore the central message.
       
       

37962. Russ R. at 22:56 PM on 5 March 2014
       Cartoon: the climate contrarian guide to managing risk
       

       "There's a small chance my house might burn down."

       "Uncertainty Mutual sells a homeowner's policy, except they don't tell you the cost of your premiums in advance, the deductible is ambiguous, and they can't guarantee that your losses will actually be covered.  Oh, and you don't have the option of cancelling your policy."

       "I can't say buying their insurance is worth it."

37963. Dikran Marsupial at 21:30 PM on 5 March 2014
       Cartoon: the climate contrarian guide to managing risk
       

       The "do nothing approach" cannot be sold as insurance.  The reason that insurance works is that the chance of all of the policyholders making a claim in the same year is vanishingly small.  Thus the insurance company only need to have funds to meet the claims made by the appropriate proportion of the policyholders.  In the climate change scenario on the other hand, it is likely that a very large proportion of "policyholders" will make a claim, so even with economic growth, we still won't be able to meet the costs.  There is no point in taking out an insurance policy with a company unless there is good reason to think they will have the resources to meet your claim, should it be made.  In this case, there isn't.

       I agree that mitigation isn't exactly like insurance (analagies are never exactly representative of the true situation, the idea is to convey similar concepts to help explain the issue).

37964. anthropocene at 21:18 PM on 5 March 2014
       Cartoon: the climate contrarian guide to managing risk
       

       Lets be clear here. Taking action to reduce the extent of climate change produced by human activity is mitigation not insurance. The advocates of the do nothing approach could quite easily sell that policy as an insurance strategy: concentrate on as much economic growth as possible now so that in the future we are rich enough to overcome all of the issues arising from climate change. This would mean that the public have a choice between two 'insurance' options, each with seemingly equivalent claims to be right.

         For a long time, I've thought that the way to move forward on the mitigation path is to sell insurance against the (supposed) costs of mitigation being a waste of money. That is, people can buy insurance that pays out a lump sum if it turns out that (man-made) climate change predictions turn out not to be correct. These policies would have to pay out in a relatively short time say, 2050. So what measures could be used to determine if the insurance should pay out or not? I propose that they should cover the following:

        

       1) That temperature has increased by more than a stated amount

       2) A test that emission of CO2 from human activity has contributed to the majority of that temperature increase.

       3) A test that the increase in temperature (either directly or by change in climate) has caused economic cost above a certain level. This could be costs on a global level and all economic costs or a single region or area of economic activity which is then extrapolated to a global scale.

       If nothing else, the exercise of coming up with examples for the three tests above will be a productive one (for people from both sides of the debate).

        

37965. Dikran Marsupial at 20:17 PM on 5 March 2014
       Cartoon: the climate contrarian guide to managing risk
       

       Harry Twinotter - Prof. Curry doesn't understand the fundamental principles of risk management if she thinks that uncertainty is a justification for taking no action.  The principle of minimum risk decision making says that you compute a weighted sum (more accurately an integral) over all possible outcomes weighted by their probability of ocurrence and pick the strategy with the lowest expected risk.  If there is high uncertainty, this integral is likely to be dominated by outcomes in the tails of the distribution (i.e. unlikely but severe impact).  The possibility of those events justify action to mitigate them.

       On the other hand, if there were less uncertainty, and we could rule out the possibility of these "unlikely but severe impact", we might then have a justification for doing nothing.

       Uncertainty is not our friend.

37966. Harry Twinotter at 19:00 PM on 5 March 2014
       Cartoon: the climate contrarian guide to managing risk
       

       John Cook,

       taking Judith Curry's quote out of context, then introducing Risk Management cartoons like the above appears to be presenting a straw man argument against her. I think it is clear from the 2007 comment that Judith Curry does understand the "fundamental principles of risk management". I don't know about her "fellow contrarians" because you have not provided any evidence that they misunderstand risk management.
       
       In Judith Curry's case I think the best thing would be to focus on why she feels the evidence for Global Warming is so uncertain.
       
       

37967. Bernard J. at 17:25 PM on 5 March 2014
       Cartoon: the climate contrarian guide to managing risk
       

       Aside from the impacts of climate change that nearly all professional scientists agree will manifest, there are other reasons for action:

       1) mitigation of the social upheaval that will follow the declining availability of fossil fuels,

       2) mitigation of the social upheaval that will follow when geopolitical conflicts arise as a result of the declining availability of fossil fuels,

       3) mitigation of the effects of losing the non-energy industrial feedstock benefits of fossil carbon,

       4) mitigation of the polluting effects of the extraction and use of fossil carbon.

       Only an insane person would advocate business as usual in buring fossil carbon, given the inevitable brick wall of consequences toward which humanity is rushing.

37968. TonyW at 17:00 PM on 5 March 2014
       The Editor-in-Chief of Science Magazine is wrong to endorse Keystone XL
       Marcia McNutt's attempt to paint herself as a champion of reduced emissions is certainly pathetic. She explicitly ("I drive a Prius") acknowledges that she supports a society and civilisation that is ruining the life of future generations (and probably existing ones). I strongly suspect that most of her lifestyle choices negate the small things she thinks she's doing to contribute to a reasonable response the crisis of our time.
37969. Glenn Tamblyn at 14:44 PM on 5 March 2014
       Drought and Global Climate Change: An Analysis of Statements by Roger Pielke Jr
       

       And in the end Pielke's repetition of one sentence that conveyed what he wanted to say while including the counter point in a footnote is simply a case of Plausible Deniability. He can give one message, his preferred one, in the full expectation that most readers/listeners will only take in that fact (how many of the senators are actually likely to read every footnote in the written text; how many will actually read the written submission).

       Then if someone calls him out on it as Holdren did he can splutter indignantly and say 'see, see I did say that as well!'

       Perfect, textbook Plausible Deniability at work.

        

37970. Tom Curtis at 13:26 PM on 5 March 2014
       Drought and Global Climate Change: An Analysis of Statements by Roger Pielke Jr
       

       Further to my post above, here are Pielke Jr's tweets in response to 

       "Roger Pielke Jr. ‏@RogerPielkeJr Feb 14
       1/3 John Holdren vs. IPCC on drought

       Roger Pielke Jr. ‏@RogerPielkeJr Feb 14
       2/3 Holdren: "we are seeing droughts in drought-prone regions becoming more frequent, more severe and longer" http://www.politico.com/story/2014/02/obama-climate-fund-103524.html#ixzz2tIoTzL8v …

       Roger Pielke Jr. ‏@RogerPielkeJr Feb 14
       3/3 IPCC 2013: "not enough evidence at present to suggest more than low confidence in a global-scale observed trend in drought"

       Roger Pielke Jr. ‏@RogerPielkeJr Feb 14
       IPCC on drought "low-confidence" vs. Holdren "one of the better-understood dimensions" Paging IPCC authors, climate scis .... anyone care?

       Roger Pielke Jr. ‏@RogerPielkeJr Feb 14
       US Govt report "droughts have, for the most part, become shorter, less frequent and cover a smaller portion of the US over the last century"

       Roger Pielke Jr. ‏@RogerPielkeJr Feb 14
       Nature paper 2012 "Little change in global drought over the past 60 years" http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v491/n7424/full/nature11575.html …

       Roger Pielke Jr. ‏@RogerPielkeJr Feb 14
       Holdren: "global climate change is increasing the intensity and the frequency and the life of drought" http://www.politico.com/story/2014/02/obama-climate-fund-103524.html …

       Roger Pielke Jr. ‏@RogerPielkeJr Feb 14
       If climate scientists want more credibility they are going to have to look at wrong things said by their political friends, not just enemies

       Roger Pielke Jr. ‏@RogerPielkeJr Feb 14
       OK, enough on the drought nonsense, did you hear about those fancy skate suits? http://leastthing.blogspot.com/2014/02/its-drag-those-usa-skating-suits.html …

       Roger Pielke Jr. ‏@RogerPielkeJr Feb 14
       @andersbolling That's right, thanks. The zombies will always be with us. But it is brazen for zombie science to show up in the White House!"

       It should be noted that these are in response to Holdren's comments on Feb 14th to the press, not his testimony before Congress.  Consequently, the comments Pielke addresses have not made any reference to Pielke.  Further, they explicitly address the issue of drought in the SW of the US, and specifically California.  Despite this, Pielke's favourite sentence from the CCSP (2008) pops up yet again, with no reference to the following sentence which explicitly addresses the region Holdren was referring to.

       Further, he quotes the IPCC on global trends, but the IPCC SREX says regarding trends:

       "Global-scale trends in a specific extreme may be either more reliable (e.g., for temperature extremes) or less reliable (e.g., for droughts) than some regional-scale trends, depending on the geographical uniformity of the trends in the specific extreme."

       So though he puts himself forward as championing the IPCC position, he ignores the IPCC's statements of the relative importance of global vs regional trends when it comes to understanding drought. 

37971. Tom Curtis at 11:47 AM on 5 March 2014
       Drought and Global Climate Change: An Analysis of Statements by Roger Pielke Jr
       

       I note with surprise that the link to Pielke's response to this article that had been provided by Russ R has been deleted. Here it is again.

       
       Pielke makes the issue all about him. He makes the first, and foremost issue the fact that Holdren, under questioning in his testimony before Congress says, "The first few people you quoted [ie, Spencer and Pielke Jr] are not representative of the mainstream scientific opinion on this point". In his response, Pielke writes:
       "To accuse an academic of holding views that lie outside the scientific mainstream is the sort of delegitimizing talk that is of course common on blogs in the climate wars. But it is rare for political appointee in any capacity -- the president's science advisor no less -- to accuse an individual academic of holding views are are not simply wrong, but in fact scientifically illegitimate. Very strong stuff."

       This claim is, however, complete nonsense. To be outside the mainstream is simply to hold a distinctly minority view. All sorts of scientists have held distinctly minority views in the past, including Einstein with respect to the interpretation of quantum mechanics. Nobody thinks that Einstein was a worse scientist for that. Others who have held views distinctly outside the mainstream include Darwin, Wegener, and Hansen (who is outside the mainstream on the potential rate of future sea level rise, and on the possibility of runaway global warming). I certainly do not think less of any of those scientists for daring to be different. What matters is not whether or not you agree or disagree with the mainstream, but how you go about doing so.

       In fact, Pielke, if taken seriously has just condemned Spencer, Christie, Singer, Salby, Pielke Snr, and so on (in a distressingly long list) who are definitely outside the mainstream on climate science "...of holding views are are not simply wrong, but in fact scientifically illegitimate". In some cases, I would agree with that assessment, but that is based on how they defend their views, not on the nature of the views themselves. Inconstrast, according to Pielke, having a distinctly minority opinion in science means your views are "wrong" and "scientifically illegitimate". As I said, complete nonsense.
       Pielke's own words, however, contrast with Pielke's extreme sensitivity to Holdren's comments. In particular, in response to Holdren's original testimony, Pielke tweeted:

       "That's right, thanks. The zombies will always be with us. But it is brazen for zombie science to show up in the White House!"

       I am not sure what is meant by "zombie science", but the term is clearly not meant to be flattering. It would appear in fact to be an attempt at "...the sort of delegitimizing talk that is of course common on blogs in the climate wars" (to quote Pielke). As seems often to be the case, Pielke appears to be hypocritical on this point. He is happy to do to others what he will not tolerate the slightest appearance of others doing to him.

       Pielke also spends some time defending the claim that he left out vital information on the basis that he included it in a footnote. That is an odd defense. What he is charged with is not agreeing that there has been a trend towards droughts in the South West of the US. The evidence is that when he quoted CCSP report, he left out the second sentence which explicitly discusses situation in the SW US (see OP).

       On this issue, I am first going to make a very technical point. Holdren says:

       "[Any] reference to the CCSP 2008 report in this context should include not just the sentence highlighted in Dr. Pielke’s testimony but also the sentence that follows immediately in the relevant passage from that document and which relates specifically to the American West."

       
       The point here is that he did not say (contrary to Pielke) that Pielke did not include the crucial sentence in the report. He said that any reference should include both. Crucially, a reference is an individual act of refering to some source. If you have a ten page report, and refer to Bloggs et al (1880) in the first page, and again on the tenth, that is two seperate references to Bloggs et al. In like maner, if you refer to Bloggs et al in the text, and then in a footnote, that is two seperate references to Bloggs et .

       The reason it is two seperate references is that, in the text you will have made some comment on the quote or reference. You will have indicated agreement, disagreement, or that it only expresses the opinion of Bloggs et al, etc. These comments do not apply the quotation or reference in the footnote. That is a crucial point.

       In his published testimony (later quoted by Senator Sessions), Pielke wrote:

       "Drought
       What the IPCC SREX (2012) says:
       “There is medium confidence that since the 1950s some regions of the world have experienced a trend to more intense and longer droughts, in particular in southern Europe and West Africa, but in some regions droughts have become less frequent, less intense, or shorter, for example, in central North America and northwestern Australia.”
       For the US the CCSP (2008)20 says: “droughts have, for the most part, become shorter, less frequent, and cover a smaller portion of the U. S. over the last century.”21
       What the data says:

       8. Drought has “for the most part, become shorter, less frequent, and cover a smaller portion of the U. S. over the last century.”"
       (Emphasis in original)

       Earlier, in his "take home points", he had written:

       'Drought has “for the most part, become shorter, less frequent, and cover a smaller portion of the U. S. over the last century.”'

       He liked that clause so much that he repeated it three times, once in bold. That is three seperate references to the same sentence in CCSP (2008). In the final one, he prefaces the quote by saying that it is "What the data says". There can be no doubt in anybodies mind that Pielke not only agreed with this claim, but thought it a crucial claim that needed to be hammered home.

       In constrast, the immediately following sentence is confined to a single footnote. The footnote reads:

       'CCSP (2008) notes that “the main exception is the Southwest and parts of the interior of the West, where increased temperature has led to rising drought trends.”'

       So, whereas we are told by Pielke that the lack of an overall US trend is a "take home point", and "What the data says"; it is merely footnoted that the CCSP notes the trends in the Southwest of the US. I should not need to mention that merely noting that somebody says something does not also note your agreement. It is not legitimate to infer Pielke's agreement with the CCSP from his footnote.

       More importantly, it was not possible from Pielke's footnote to determine the relative importance accorded by the CCSP to the two sentences quoted by Pielke. Orphaning the second sentence in a footnote deprives it of context, underplaying it. More crucially, it deprives the preceding sentence of context, over emphasising it. As though that was not enough, Pielke then hammered the point three times.

       From this, it is clear that Pielke did not include the second sentence in any reference to the first, as suggested by Holdren. On the contrary, he referenced the first sentence three times, without including the second sentence - but then included a fourth reference to the CCSP (2008), ie, on to the second sentence in a footnote. As a result, he massively distorted the relative importance of the two sentences in the CCSP, to the point that his practise represents blatant quotation out of context. As a further result, it was not possible from his testimony to determine that he even agreed with the second sentence, and has not been possible until his response to Holdren.

       This post is long enough as is, so I will not discuss the further points at issue between Holdren and Pielke, which SFAICT, depend largely on Pielke misinterpreting Holdren, in part by ignoring the fact that Holdren's article was not just a response to Pielke, but primarilly a response to Senator Sessions.

       Moderator Response:

       [RH] Russ' post was deleted based on the "no link only posts" rule. No problems with citing Pielke's link in the context of some discussion.

37972. Bert from Eltham at 10:16 AM on 5 March 2014
       Cartoon: the climate contrarian guide to managing risk
       

       In Australia we have a Government that is in total denial of the science that proves AGW.

       I can see the hypocrisy in their eyes as they placate drought affected farmers with yet another inadequate support plan. They know that we know that they know that it is all a sham.

       This IS the new normal. And yet they ignore the science and act as if everything was the OLD normal.

       Do not judge by what they say. Judge by what they do! Bert

37973. sustainable future at 09:19 AM on 5 March 2014
       Cartoon: the climate contrarian guide to managing risk
       

       Great stuff. you could do a simialr cartoon for the contrarian guide to science. Age of the universe, evolution, continental drift, etc - there are probably a small percentage of people with some science training who are creationsist (I worked with a geneticist once who did not accept evolution), and this could be used to argue there wasn't consensus. 

37974. KR at 08:41 AM on 5 March 2014
       Cartoon: the climate contrarian guide to managing risk
       

       I would agree with Climate Bobs comment - the few and the loud make up the majority of pseudoskeptics. Reddit recently starting blocking deniers on their climate threads, and moderator Nathan Allen said that:

       ...We discovered that the disruptive faction that bombarded climate change posts was actually substantially smaller than it had seemed. Just a small handful of people ran all of the most offensive accounts. What looked like a substantial group of objective skeptics to the outside observer was actually just a few bitter and biased posters with more opinions then evidence...

       More opinions than evidence, more time than apparent sense. It doesn't take a lot of people to generate obfuscating noise. 

        

37975. Albatross at 08:13 AM on 5 March 2014
       Drought and Global Climate Change: An Analysis of Statements by Roger Pielke Jr
       

       Pielke junior's rhetoric really does appeal to the anti-science crowd and right-wing ideologues out there.  Here are some exmaples of the sort of comments Pielke junior permitted on his blog post about Holdren:

       "Holdren has been a nutcase since the 1970s, when he was promoting a scientifically lunatic theory of 'thermal pollution'..."

       "If John Holdren was someone you had just met socially, and he expressed the views he has held for the past thirty years, you would immediatly conclude that he is a lunatic. "

       Nice crowd ;) Not only did Pielke let those comments stand, but he did not even challenge them.  Tacit agreement then?

37976. Dennis at 07:27 AM on 5 March 2014
       A Hack By Any Other Name — Part 3
       

       I'm a professional database developer/administrator and this is major reason why I have always used stored procedures to build queries.  I also prefer to make sure that the public user accounts can only reference SQL views based on the tables and not the tables themselves (and one never creates a view with private data in it).  Finally, any and every free text field in a stored procedure is searched before the query is contructed, and if the search returns any positives for SQL keywords (e.g. SELECT, INSERT, UNION) in a position where they could construct a query, I exit the procedure and have the system email me an alert with the IP address where the text originated from.  It's a lot of energy, but it works! 

37977. BaerbelW at 07:26 AM on 5 March 2014
       Cartoon: the climate contrarian guide to managing risk
       

       Greg Craven - aka wonderingmind42 - put together a couple of videos about risk management and how it pertains to climate science for his "How it all ends" Youtube video series. They are well worth watching (again).

37978. Doug Bostrom at 06:58 AM on 5 March 2014
       Cartoon: the climate contrarian guide to managing risk
       

       Strictly against site policy to block quote but Knaugle's remark bears repeating:

       A biology teacher once pointed out that it may take, say, 300 generations of bacteria to overwhelm a petri dish and then collapse. Yet by the 299th generation, the dish may only be half full. When crises come, they often come harder and faster than can be handled.

       
       Emphasis mine. Like Knaugle I too think we fail to appreciate how everything can appear to be normal until we collide with the wall of system limits. All too often this is not an approach but an impact.

        

37979. Pete Wirfs at 06:42 AM on 5 March 2014
       Cartoon: the climate contrarian guide to managing risk
       

       Climate Bob's observations intrigue me.  I've always felt that a contributing factor to the different proportions on the internet is that people who feel they understand the science and believe what the majority of the scientists are telling us don't see any reason to 'debate' the issue, so they don't waste their time!  In my local newspaper blogs the pattern seems to be just a few deniers that TALK LOUDLY AND FREQUENTLY, while the general population will post "what planet are you coming from?" types of responses and move on...

37980. Climate Bob at 05:53 AM on 5 March 2014
       Cartoon: the climate contrarian guide to managing risk
       

       I give talks on climate change and find that deniers make up only 1 or 2% of the audiance who are mostly older white male business men. When I go on the internet the proportion goes up tp 50% and they are simply repeating a small number of tired old attitudes which have no basis in fact. From this pattern I deduce that the internet deniers are nearly all paid proffesionals. There are not that many climate change sites so it would be easy to swamp them with a relatively small number of people. But how many? I am not a mathmatician but it should not be hard to calculate how many there are bu the relative proportion of deniers compaered to the number of people on the site, The Huffington Post has a big readership and the proportion is relatively low while the Gaurdian gets ahigher proportion.

       Could somebody do a calculation and work out how many there are? I think it would be somewhere between 50 and 100.

       As an interesting sideline The Daily Caller has 98% deniers which shows that they have almost no natural readership at all and the journalists have to fill the comments section to make it look as though they have an active readership.

37981. william5331 at 05:39 AM on 5 March 2014
       The Editor-in-Chief of Science Magazine is wrong to endorse Keystone XL
       

       Marcie McNutt.  Talk about nominative determinism.  I can't count the number of people I know that are named Fisser, Fisher, Pike and so forth who are in fisheries research.  Must be something in it.

37982. Albatross at 05:21 AM on 5 March 2014
       Cartoon: the climate contrarian guide to managing risk
       

       John Cook and Dana highlight a very salient and important tactic that is being used by dismissives and obstructionists like Curry. 

       Think about it, if Curry truly believed what she tells he fellow obstructionists, then she would not have house insurance, would not wear her seatbelt, would not wear a life jacket in a boat and would smoke a pack a day.  So Curry's contrived rhetoric is really just a ruse to misinform and confuse and feed fodder to radicals and obstructionists.

       
       If Curry truly believed her own words, if she were sincere in her public statements and courageous, she would say what she really believes, which is for the USA and others to not take meaningful action to reduce our GHG emisssions.  Instead we are left with her word salad.

       Curry should also know that in reality uncertainty cuts both ways, yet she has foolishly convinced herself that uncertainty acts only in the direction of least risk and impacts. 

37983. localis at 05:15 AM on 5 March 2014
       Cartoon: the climate contrarian guide to managing risk
       

       Even the most ardent ACW denier would still benefit from trying to use fossil fuel more efficiently so "doing nothing" might be seen as doubly foolish.

37984. knaugle at 04:36 AM on 5 March 2014
       Cartoon: the climate contrarian guide to managing risk
       

       My question to Dr. Curry would be:
       At what point would you conclude something needs to be done? 
       The point is that when it is utterly obvious we are in trouble, isn't that a bit late?  Yet I have little doubt that is exactly the path that will be taken because it is a consistent horizon effect.  That is you push the bad news far enough into the future that it no longer seems a problem.  Unfortunately, the problem you can't see just keeps getting bigger and bigger 5 miles down the road until it absolutely can't be ignored, and likely can no longer be addressed. 

       Another similar issue is population.  A biology teacher once pointed out that it may take, say, 300 generations of bacteria to overwhelm a petri dish and then collapse.  Yet by the 299th generation, the dish may only be half full.  When crises come, they often come harder and faster than can be handled.  But not to worry, this whole AGW climate change thing is a hoax, right?!

37985. dana1981 at 04:34 AM on 5 March 2014
       Cartoon: the climate contrarian guide to managing risk
       

       Russ R @3 - perhaps you missed this in the above post:

       Doing nothing is betting the farm on a very low probability scenario. It's an incredibly high-risk path that fails to reduce the threats posed by the worst case or even most likely case scenarios.

37986. Composer99 at 04:31 AM on 5 March 2014
       Cartoon: the climate contrarian guide to managing risk
       

       Russ R:

       It must be said that assessments of mitigation measures, and of likely risks/impacts from climate change/global warming have already been done.

       Examples:

       IPCC AR4 Working Groups 2 (Impacts) & 3 (Mitigation)

       The Stern Review

       These reviews are, of course, several years old (the WG2 and 3 reports for IPCC AR5 ought to be out soon, I imagine) and have likely been overtaken by events (such as the precipitous decline in Arctic sea ice). Perhaps there are more recent reviews, but as it is these are both, to my knowledge, both comprehensive and conservative.

       IIRC they both indicate some mixture of mitigation efforts is superior to do-nothing business as usual.

37987. Rob Honeycutt at 04:27 AM on 5 March 2014
       Cartoon: the climate contrarian guide to managing risk
       

       Central estimates of CS combined with a BAU emissions path is already bad enough. The fact that there is a potential for higher CS should be downright frightening to everyone. Including Dr Curry.

37988. KR at 04:06 AM on 5 March 2014
       Cartoon: the climate contrarian guide to managing risk
       

       Russ R. - Curry also stated, in rather stark contrast to the science as summarized in IPCC AR4 WG2, Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability:

       "I don't know how concerned I should be about it — on what time scale that might happen, whether that's 100 or 200 years, what societies will be like, what other things are going on with the natural climate," Curry says. "I just don't know what the next hundred or 200 years will hold, and whether this will be regarded as an important issue. I just don't know." [Emphasis added]

       A climate contrarian, indeed. Even the moderate impacts are large enough to be an issue, and that is the very low end of estimates - a realistic risk estimate will be much higher. Curry seems to think that the precautionary principle used in all other aspects of life just doesn't apply here. 

       Now, as to the evaluation of proposed solutions, the evidence indicates that mitigation is several times to perhaps an order of magnitude less expensive than "do nothing" adaptation. Again, Curry fails to use the precautionary principle. 

       Inaction, "business as usual", is a choice as much as any other policy, something frequently missed in these discussions. The mass of evidence indicates that "business as usual" is perhaps the most expensive option we have. And yet Curry (now, although not in 2007) continues to suggest that we "do nothing"...

37989. Dikran Marsupial at 04:04 AM on 5 March 2014
       Cartoon: the climate contrarian guide to managing risk
       

       RussR, if you expand the context even further, by reading the whole article, you will find that Prof. Curry's position is essentially that there is so much uncertainty about the science that we cannot justify action on that basis.  So she has already assumed that doing nothing is as good an approach as any, i.e. the "if" is more or less taken for granted.

       However the point of the cartoon is (rather obviously) that this uncertainty does not justify doing nothing by showing other examples where positive action is justified even where there is high uncertainty of a negative impact, because the cost associated with being wrong in taking no action is much higher than the cost of taking action needlessly.  This is the whole point of insurance - we don't buy it because we think our houses will brun down, be we buy it because we cannot bear the cost if it did burn down. Likewise it is worth taking action to mitigate against climate change because we cannot bear the costs associated with the upper tail of the uncertainty, even if we think this is unlikely to actually happen.

37990. PluviAL at 03:44 AM on 5 March 2014
       The Editor-in-Chief of Science Magazine is wrong to endorse Keystone XL
       

       Good summary of a complex topic. It seems Science was not sufficiently castigated a) for getting the net effect of the science and economics wrong, b) for taking a political stand if not for the purpose of correct scientific consideration. If you are going to take a position representing science, it better be overwhelmingly correct. 

       On the other hand it seems that science, and the scientific mind are less than perfect. It seems a lot of the traditions of science are myopic in the effort to remain disciplined. It is easy to be disciplined if one stays in an scientifically intellectual rut. That is the situation of the environmental mentality. It seems the "can do" attitude is missing. Yes, the title and objective of this website is to be skeptical, but does that mean completely blind to alternate solutions?

       Sadly it seems to be. I am so frustrated that a genuine (hypothetical) solution like Pluvinergy have received so little support, or even consideration from this community. The real objective of correcting the denialist community should be to offer real solutions, not just preventing them from denying reality. The way to fight is defend, run, or attack. We need to attack. Wind and PV are not real alternatives. Effeciency can go a heck of a long way to slove the problem, but it is not the solution either. Having an economics background, I full favor a strong carbon tax, but that is just a good start. The reason we are developing the tar-sands despite their awful economics and environmental effects is that wind and PV are not that much better. Check the numbers. This is why they need subsidy. The rest of the solutions are also imptent, we must lowe the price of energy by orders of magnitude, while repairing the biosphere at the same time. We can do it, if we try.

37991. jja at 03:28 AM on 5 March 2014
       The Editor-in-Chief of Science Magazine is wrong to endorse Keystone XL
       

       LINK
       
       

       Land Use Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Conventional Oil Production and Oil Sands

       Environ. Sci. Technol. 2010, 44, 8766–8772

       energy source ------------net carbon/GHG changes (year 1 to 150)
       ------------------------------------(tonne CO2e/ha)
       oil sands - mining---------------------3596 (953-6201)
       % of total fuel life cycle emissions----------4 (.9-11)

       Data used in Congressional Research Analysis of Canadian Tar Sands
       http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R42537.pdf

        

        

       
       
       

        

       oil sands - miningc,d,e,f

       Moderator Response:

       [RH] Hotlinked URL.

37992. Russ R. at 02:50 AM on 5 March 2014
       Cartoon: the climate contrarian guide to managing risk
       

       dana1981 and John Cook,

       First, to set the record straight, you omitted the first half of Judith Curry's comment:

       ""All we can do is be as objective as we can about the evidence and help the politicians evaluate proposed solutions," she says. If that means doing nothing, "I can't say myself that that isn't the best solution."

       Note the word "if", which is rather important to the context of the quotation.

       Second, "doing nothing" can absolutely be the best (i.e. most rational) solution, if the expected costs of taking action exceed the discounted present value of the uncertain future net benefits that would result from the action.  Again, note the word "if".

       Lastly, this never was a binary question of "do something" or "do nothing". There are countless actions which could be taken, each of which has its own expected costs, projected future benefits, probability of success, and uncertainties around each of these. Each action has to be evaluated on its own merits, and not all actions are mutually exclusive. Some actions will rank higher than others, and the "do nothing" option will rank somewhere in that continuum.

       Where "do nothing" ranks is currently unknown. I think it's a low probability that "do nothing" ranks highest, but that probability does exist.

       If the evidence and an objective evaluation of proposed solutions shows that "do nothing" is indeed the best option, then I'd be in favour of doing nothing (which is exactly what Curry said). Why wouldn't you?

37993. Composer99 at 02:35 AM on 5 March 2014
       Cartoon: the climate contrarian guide to managing risk
       

       The Dr Judith Curry "What-Me-Worry" Climate Policy™ also, IMO, omits the fact that the most effective means of attenuating or moderating the risks of climate change is mitigating climate change, rather than simply hoping for the best. A worst-case scenario depending on business-as-usual carbon emissions isn't going to happen if we avoid business-as-usual emissions.

37994. Composer99 at 02:25 AM on 5 March 2014
       Skeptical Science now an Android app
       

       Just wanted to note this app is available from Google Play store.

37995. Doug Bostrom at 02:19 AM on 5 March 2014
       Cartoon: the climate contrarian guide to managing risk
       

       Nice!

       It's true: contrarians bang on about the costs of dealing with climate risk but are perfectly happy to pay insurance for payoffs they dearly hope they'll never have to receive. 

       The world as a whole spends several trillion dollars per year on insurance, all of which money we each individually hope is ultimately wasted, never to be seen or heard from again in our own lives. 

       Our minds are more than a bit of a mess when it comes to dealing with hazards and risk.

       Looking at the intersection between people paying for insurance versus those with non-functioning or absent smoke alarms in their homes is an interesting perspective on human psychology: paying to protect property computes in our squishy wetware, paying or experiencing minor inconvenience to save lives does not. 

       W/climate change we see an enormous hazard that is beginning to quantify into dismal risk numbers but it's just so darned inconvenient to deal with. Let's think of something else instead.

37996. One Planet Only Forever at 00:51 AM on 5 March 2014
       The Editor-in-Chief of Science Magazine is wrong to endorse Keystone XL
       

       As a follow-up. The attitude of 'pursuing the best way to help others, particularly future generations', needs to be more popular than 'the pursuit of personal benefit'. There should be competition but it should be restricted to the development of the best understanding of what is going on and the most rapid development of a sustainable better future for all. Any unsustainable or damaging activity should only be allowed if it is clearly only an emergency short-term use with all benefit clearly going toward the development of a sustainable better future for all. And enjoying life and having fun is important, but it should never be done in a way that harms others (or the environment), or is done in a way that everyone else, especially all future generations, could not also do if they wished to.

       Anyone who does not share that attitude should only have one clear choice, changing their mind.

37997. One Planet Only Forever at 00:14 AM on 5 March 2014
       The Editor-in-Chief of Science Magazine is wrong to endorse Keystone XL
       

       These 'discussions', 'debates' or 'arguments' cannot be allowed to occur without ensuring it is understood that developing a sustainable economy is essential and is fundamentally threatened by people getting away with benefiting from unsustainable and damaging activities.

       When you evaluate the merit of this pipeline from a perspective of sustaining the economy any clear thinking person concerned about developing sustained economic growth would quickly conclude that burning fossil fuels is a threat because it is a fundamentally unsustainable activity. All of humanity cannot develop to benefit from it. And even just a few most fortunate humans would not be able to continue to benefit from it for very much of the hundreds of millions of years humanity should be developing toward enjoying on this amazing planet. Its prevalence and persistence in the economy would clearly be seen as a problem. And the popularity and profitability of it would be seen as clear indications of fatal flaws in the way societies and economies have been set up by humans. It would become clear that people who only care about their own maximum short term benefit any way they can get away with have been winning and creating damaging desires among the population to be like them. And that desire leads to horrible conflicts between the undeserving rich and power over the limited opportunity they all want the most benefit form. And like the way they became rich and powerful they personally suffer very little in their battles. Others suffer the consequences, including future generations. And it would be clear that much of the current population is not clear thinking, but has the cloudy mind of the deluded, a mind that is unwilling to better understand what contradicts the delusion they are immersed in, unwilling to realize how harmful and unsustainable the activity they desire to benefit form really is.

       When you add to that clear reality the clear understanding of all the different damage caused by the unsustainable actions related to burning fossil fuels, not just the consequences of excess CO2, the unacceptability of prolonging the burning of fossil fuels for any purpose other than the rapid development of truly sustainable activity becomes crystal clear.

       And that clear headed caring and considerate understanding cannot be denied once it is realized. And it is a massive reality. The truth is most of the current rich and powerful do not deserve the wealth and power they have, and they are not interested in rapidly developing a sustainable better future for all. The reality is they will fight viciously to maintain the delusion among the population that protects them. They do not want it understood that 'their wealth' is undeserved.

       That leads to the clear understanding that this is not a debate about a pipeline. It needs to be approached as a fight to create clear thinking minds in as many people as possible, because the undeservingly wealthy are fighting to maintain the popular beliefs that are so profitable for them. And their actions ware clear in the Bush Presidency and the Harper days in Canada. When the Conservative Movement are able to get control of government they shut down any research that would contradict their interests and silence any reporting of government research that contradicts their interest and promote the desire among the population for 'a job, any job'.

       This is not a debate about a pipeline. It needs to be seen as a battle in the war for the future of humanity, because that is what it really is. Those fighting for the development of caring and considerate civil society, and protection of consumers from harmful pursuits of profit, and all others fighting for environmental protection are fighting the same war. The delusion that the focus on the pursuit of personal benefit will actually result in any meaningful legitimate benefit for humanity must end.

37998. dhogaza at 12:42 PM on 4 March 2014
       A Hack By Any Other Name — Part 3
       

       Bob Lacatena - thanks for letting us know you guys know about the quote escaping trick.  I assume you guys know you can quote any input value from users, i.e. that standard SQL allows:

       select * from foo where foo_int_column = '123'

       as well as

       select * from foo where foo_int_column = 123

       ?

       This puts an end to any 123 union select blah blah nonsense for non-string input as well.

       As you point out, you need to be sure to escape any apostrophe in the user's input as well as quoting their input.  Doing both puts an end to sql injection mischief.

       Something that helps is to have tools to process query variables that are always used. Back when I managed the now-obscure OpenACS project, each page declared query variable names and types, and type validation and quoting/escaping were done automatically.  A programmer would have to do real work to avoid using the simple declarative syntax (i:integer etc) and after this approach was adopted more than a decade ago, AFAIK no site using the toolkit ever suffered from a successful sql injection attack.

37999. Andy Skuce at 10:29 AM on 4 March 2014
       The Editor-in-Chief of Science Magazine is wrong to endorse Keystone XL
       

       Mike@1 I agree that carbon pricing is the best solution, however it is off the table, politically speaking, in the US and Canada. Using KXL approval as a bribe to get the approval of the Republican Party or Canada's Conservatives for carbon pricing does not seem feasible to me. I would love to be persuaded that I am wrong on this.  

       Perhaps I should have emphasized carbon pricing more here, but, in my defence, I have written SkS articles on carbon taxes, in which I did not mention pipelines at all. 

       As for the idea that arguing against is a distraction from campaigning for carbon taxes or against coal, I would counter that with the observation that two of the most vocal campaigners against KXL, James Hansen and Bill McKibben, are hardly slouches when it comes to arguing for new policies or for the pressing need to stop burning coal. If only those who worry about activists being distracted did half as much as them. 

       davidnewell@4. Perhaps "inconsequential" was too strong, but I do object to somebody claiming that making a few relatively painless gestures means that they are doing their part, as if no more were required. When they then go on to shrug off the climate consequences of building a big new piece of fossil fuel infrastructure, the contrast is worth noting, I think. If anything is gratuitous, it is in starting out an editorial in a science journal by giving yourself a big, green pat on the back, as Marcia McNutt did. 

38000. ianw01 at 09:18 AM on 4 March 2014
       The Editor-in-Chief of Science Magazine is wrong to endorse Keystone XL
       

       Nice summary, Andy.

       That "Summary for Policy Makers" chart really needs more airtime. It clearly shows how it is only a question of when, not if, there will be very serious global effects of our addiction to CO₂ from any source, unless we can halt the climb by following something like RCP2.6. (Yeah, right.) 

       Unfortunately the biggest uncertainty about climate change is merely which generation will get the really short straw.

Prev  752  753  754  755  756  757  758  759  760  761  762  763  764  765  766  767  Next