Letters to the Editor
-
Ozone
The Cato Institute lost all credibility in my eyes over a specific incident some years ago.
At least ten years ago, it was, but I have to backtrack a little more. Well before Cato and their ilk were fighting tooth and nail to deny that greenhouse warming was a problem, they were fighting tooth and nail to deny that depletion of the ozone layer due to pollutants was a problem.
Or, if it was a problem, it would be more economical to simply put on sunscreen and sunglasses rather than force people to replace their freon with costly alternatives.
Again: It was well established amoung the pro-growth anti-regulation crowd that worries about ozone depletion were unwarranted, and anyone who said otherwise was a tree-hugging humanity-hating luddite.
So. Fast forward a bit. There was a long, hot summer in L.A., and lots of worries about . . . ozone pollution. The ground level stuff produced by automobile exhaust that turned smog into a breathing hazard.
A news program had a debate about imposing driving restrictions. On the anti-restriction side was a self-confident weenie from the Cato Institute. He flatly stated that cutting down on ozone pollution would ultimately be counter-productive, because that extra ozone was required to repair the damage to the ozone layer. He sneered at the hypocricy of environmentalists who were, out of fear of a little smog, threatening the lives of thousands with exposure UV radiation.
What a jackass!
I didn't have to wait until the Bush administration to know these guys were full of it. Their stand on environmental issues clearly shows them for what they are: A bunch of self-deluded, brown-nosing, lackeys of the rich and powerful.</>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ozone_depletion
Yeah. Cato lost that one too. Lawyers don't do science.
-
re: LWM - Actually
Just curious, are you a fan of Harlan Ellison?
--Anonymous
Harlan is a fan of mine.
What's the point of this response? Trying to be funny, snarky, or just an arrogant asshole?
I only asked the question since I don't often see the use of the phrase bug fuck in too many places. Not to mention that HE's output and public exposure has dropped off significantly IMO in the last 10 years. It certainly wasn't meant negatively in any manner.
You have a very curious style of communicating with people. Almost as if once you get in the combat zone you lose of sense of proportionality.
Oh well, making conversation with you apparently doesn't work.
-
bucky1
Let's see. The original claim of Peiser was that his review, rejected by Science, showed that only about 1/3 of all the articles reviewed supported the "consensus view", and only 1% explicitly. Later, he said that he no longer doubts that "an overwhelming majority of climatologists is agreed that the current warming period is mostly due to human impact." (So even your expert
has the contrary opinion to what you stated in your comment, that there is no scientific base for this conclusion).
From 1/3 to an overwhelming majority. I would say that he has changed his mind and agrees to the conclusion of the study he had previously criticized. How that is consistent with mantaining that the substance of his former criticism remains valid, is beyond my ability to understand. But then, as you pointed out, I seem to have trouble reading...
I am not a climatologist myself, and I am not going to address the specific issues. I have already twice given a good link for information on the topic, if you care to look, you will see that to claim that nobody has any idea of the role of water vapors and that no one even quotes climate historians... how shall I put it... preposterous is the only word I can think of.
-
@ Anonymous
I am quite the cynical curmudgeon and don't really mind if I don't see another human for months. No malicious or hostile intent was meant. I am a fan of Ambrose "Bitter" Bierce and H.L. "Raise a blag flag and begin slitting throats" Mencken.
I like Harlan but I think he's gone a bit "bugfuck" crazy himself these days. I think we all have.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harlan_Ellison
I'm really a bigger fan of Cordwainer Smith (Dr. Paul Linebarger) but so is Harlan (Cordwainer Bird).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harlan_Ellison#Cordwainer_Bird
-
re: LWM - Ellison
I am quite the cynical curmudgeon and don't really mind if I don't see another human for months. No malicious or hostile intent was meant. I am a fan of Ambrose "Bitter" Bierce and H.L. "Raise a blag flag and begin slitting throats" Mencken.
I like Harlan but I think he's gone a bit "bugfuck" crazy himself these days. I think we all have.
Your first sentence really explains a lot. At least in how certain posters should probably be taking your "tone" in many of your responses. Well, it does for me any way.
IMO true curmudgeons are a rare breed. Most fakers using sarcasm and snark end up sounding like arrogant, immature idiots, thinking they are coming off oh-so-witty and urbane. When the opposite is typically the case.
Strangely, they end up sounding a lot like Shooter/RealName/etc, totally void of the special something that makes the reader literally gasp and chuckle out loud.
-
engsoc again
Let's see. The original claim of Peiser was that his review, rejected by Science, showed that only about 1/3 of all the articles reviewed supported the "consensus view", and only 1% explicitly. Later, he said that he no longer doubts that "an overwhelming majority of climatologists is agreed that the current warming period is mostly due to human impact." (So even your expert
What do you mean "my expert"? That is clearly not the case. We are just watching you try to slander an entire organixzation based on one sentence. I did not pick the fellow; nor did you characterize the whole article.
From 1/3 to an overwhelming majority. I would say that he has changed his mind and agrees to the conclusion of the study he had previously criticized.
Yes, in a letter much latter, he seems to have made that statement. I wonder why Cato's time machine boys did not look out into the future before they wrote that sentence you dislike so much.
Even so, he maintains that there is controversy and it is not settled science.
Plus you are unfairly mixing up terms.
His original claim was only about the nature of the published studies (1000 or so, as I recall) and the last statement concerns the opinion of all scientists --- even those not in the field. So, he did not go from "1/3" to "overwhelming majority" unless you mischaracterize his statements.
You would not want to do that now would you?
... you will see that to claim that nobody has any idea of the role of water vapors and that no one even quotes climate historians... how shall I put it... preposterous is the only word I can think of.
What climate model takes water vapor into full account? How long has this been going on, as I have been reading for years that we do not yet have the computer muscle to build models that take that very complex phenomenon into account.
I find it utterly preposterous that you believe that we can understand and model on a computer the actions of water vapor as it interacts with the whole system. If so, why can we not predict hurricanes? We damn sure need those predictions down here and the forecasts for even 5 days out are worthless.
By the way, when was the last time the popular press mentioned Hubert Lamb in a report? Or any other real climate historian for that matter. Does the man in the street ever hear of the Climate Optimum? The Little Climate Optimum? The Little Ice Age?
I think you will have to belittle the Cato Institute based on more than you have shown here. If you still think that Cato is wrong, why not write them with your accusation and ask for a retraction?