The Reality Challenged
If you want to know why the old school, inflexible wing of environmentalism is rotting from within, look no further than this gem of a comment at Dot Earth:
Keith Kloor, Mark Lynas, Steve Nordhaus, and Roger Pielke Jr. share several characteristics: rudimentary knowledge of climate change (absent any scientific discipline), a way with words, and, worst of all, rank careerism. Each has tried to carve out a niche by covering the middle ground, thinking that this will gain them credibility. The problem is that each time they try to do so they betray their glaring weakness, which is knowledge of the actual science.
They deserve zero respect, and should be ignored. The world is careening toward a crisis on an unimaginable scale. Their petty and ill thought out solutions gain nothing except ceding ground to the oil, coal, and gas companies. These corporate horror shows will seize that ground and launch giant tanks from it.
The funny thing about this comment is that it doesn’t even speak to the issue of GMO’s, which is the topic of Andy Revkin’s post. It’s just an absurdist rant. I mean, as Revkin responds:
How in the world can you possibly place Mark Lynas in the climate “middle ground”? Because he’s okay with nuclear power, or…? Have you read anything by him?
Heck, has the commenter read anything by me, other than what appears in this blog?
Anyway, as nutso as this comment is, it’s not the most disturbing one on this particular Dot Earth thread. I’m still trying to comprehend this response from NYT food columnist Mark Bittman, who wrote:
The one thing you might have left out is “does this GM stuff do anyone any good?”
I agree there’s no reason to attack the stuff. I agree the fears are likely unfounded. I think the GM boom is likely unfounded also ““ what has it done so far, besides produce herbicide resistant seeds that have spawned herbicide resistant weeds?
Does this GM stuff do anyone any good? What has it done so far…?
This has to be a statement borne of willful ignorance. But for anyone who wonders the same, here’s some good answers.
The GMO plants are spawning herbicide-resistant weeds? Holy smoke, it’s evolution in our lifespan! Call Richard Dawkins!
Actually, this comment is not as weird as the one just below it by Eli Rabbet.
That first attack comment from that black-white thinker was quite something.
Did you catch this?
“The problem is that each time they try to do so they betray their glaring weakness, which is knowledge of the actual science.”
So, your weakness is knowledge of the actual science.
If only you knew less you could be a much better crusader. And your failure to recognize the absolute evil and uttter uselessness of GM foods is not helping.
This particular poster, Mike Roddy- is always very extreme in his views. I can hardly stand to listen to him. He’s one of the reasons Romm’s blog becomes such an unlovely place to visit. It’s all just Angels and Demons for Roddy…
The problem Mike Roddy noted, has not changed, but it has metastasized with more infections breaking out daily. The whole breakthrough thing is but a symptom as the Very Serious Peoples (TM P Krugman) get it wrong again and again in their pursuit of influence and fame.
People are people. They like to reach out and touch someone whenever and wherever they can. Pay no mind. Most blogs never approach their full potential because the readers don’t want to burn anymore calories than they have to. Why even I have been criticized for terse, misspoken, or confusing entries. Even I.
PS: ’tis true;-)
The idea of looking at a solution and recasting it as a horrible problem is sadly based on experience.
However, it is always–always–presented in tandem with rent-seeking behaviour.
GMOs can feed billions. That actually takes power away from a lot of people who really, really want a stick to brandish. Europeans really are used to ‘advising’ Africans how to structure their affairs. And that has worked so well… Pity American academia is so intellectually lazy that they’ll accept anything from across the pond.
Yes, I responded to Bittman’s rhetoric over there….I hear crickets….
Of course, those saved from pesticide poisoning aren’t likely to buy Bittman’s books or show up in the restaurants he favors. So it may not matter to him much.
It reminded me of the discussion by the Australian chefs: http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/society-and-culture/genetically-modified-wheat-has-no-place-on-the-menu-20110718-1hlhq.html
As I commented there, getting science guidance from chefs is like getting vaccination advice from Playboy bunnies. What could go wrong?
Eli Rabett Says:
July 24th, 2011 at 8:08 am
<i>The whole breakthrough thing is but a symptom</i>
Energy is a ‘wicked’ problem. There are no hold hands and sing kumbaya solutions.
For example trimming 100 pounds from the weight of a vehicle increases fatality risk by 1% according to a NHTSA study.
http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/Pubs/808569.PDF
So a ‘no brainer’ like increasing the CAFE standards on vehicles ends up having the effect of mandating vehicles that are less safe.
Try convincing the soccer mom’s that transporting their precious 80 lb child to soccer practice in a 6,000 pound vehicle is a gross waste of resources and is destroying the planet. It’s not possible.
I live in a very ‘eco friendly’ community just outside of Seattle. Styrofoam cups have been banned, various street signs are solar powered etc etc etc.
The community soccer field is about 1/2 a mile down the road. I’ve never seen even a single econobox parked in that parking lot. It’s GMC Yukon city at soccer practice time. There are plenty of ‘no war for oil’ bumper stickers on the back of those GMC Yukon’s.
That’s political reality. The very demographic that should be the most supportive of action on climate change(upper middle class, educated, liberal) is completely blind to the fact that their lifestyle’s are the problem.
Until someone figures out how to make a vehicle as safe, convenient and comfortable as a GMC Yukon that doesn’t guzzle fossil fuels action on climate change is going to be limited to ‘feel good’ measures.
The soccer mom’s won’t be trading in their GMC Yukons for Chevy Volts or Toyota Prius’s anytime soon. They have 100 reasons why they ‘need’ a GMC Yukon and their liberal credential’s outside of their personal carbon footprint are perfect. So no one is going to ask them to get rid of the GMC Yukon’s either.
That Dot Earth thread keeps providing unintentionally revealing gems (mostly about the anti-science attitudes related to GMO’s). The latest worth pointing out is from the recesses of the rabbet brain, of which here is one delicious excerpt (directed at Revkin):
“You react to any challenge to your theses virulently, and in your replies often distort what others have said, for example your last blow up. In short, you act as a policy person, not a science person. Horrors, at least when this is pointed out.”
Eli, you really are such a pistol. Do you have any idea how this is spot on–but for another well known climate blogger?
Wherein Collide a Scape serves as a silver screen for repeat showings of Rabett’s projections.
Revkin is about the most moderate of all those writing on this. To say he blows up is truly funny.
Actually Eli is on double super secret probation around here. Keith don’t trust the bunny no who.
[Actually, I can’t trust you not to flame people at a highly personal level, so that’s why your posts have to be moderated. When you avoid calling people nasty names I always let your posts through, even when they’re nearly indecipherable, which is painfully often.//KK]
Of course, this is not the first time that Roddy has filed an inaccurate post. When I pointed out to him on Dotearth that the oil spilled in Santa Barbara in 1969 had virtually no long term effects, he responded derisively and stated that he had seen a beach full of dead seabirds. I, having lived on the beach in Southern Santa Barbara County at the time, (Sandyland drive in Carpinteria) stated that I saw no beaches full of dead seabirds. He claimed to have seen Rincon Point (a world famous surf-spot directly adjacent to Highway 101 about 2 miles from where I lived) full of dead seabirds. He could not find a sliver of evidence or any photos supporting his claim of having seen a beach full of dead seabirds (about 8,000 birds died over an area of about 800 square miles), but instead of acknowledging that maybe he was mistaken, he simply went away. See post #145 at http://community.nytimes.com/comments/dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/09/25/an-epa-economists-climate-complaints/?sort=newest Also, posts 79, 92 & 105.
The point is that Roddy is impervious to facts or reason, yet he continues to derisively insult anyone who disagrees with him and often claims that others don’t know the facts when he can’t even get straight whether he saw a beach full of dead seabirds.
JD
Tell ya what Keith, lets do a summary of the names Tommy has called Eli, vs the opposite and that is just a start. In short get off your low horse.
[Please. Don’t pretend you don’t dish out your share, unprompted./KK]
So, KK, is the current-school wing of AGW ‘skepticism’ ‘rotting from the inside’ too? Because I could pick from any of dozens if not hundreds of contemptibly ranty and incoherent blog posts from that wing, any day of any week for the past decade.
If the Curry-fanbase *isn’t* ‘rotting’, why is that? Could make for an interesting post.
I see this place hasn’t changed a bit.
It’s probably unfair to single out a Roddy post as an example of anything much, other than there are people with extreme views and loud voices in this debate who are constantly going off the rails. Of course, since Keith is mentioned in the quote, this is probably something more relevent and interesting to Keith. But this kind of thinking (“they deserve zero respect and should be ignored”) exists in the margins of both camps, a fact which Keith has pointed out regularly on this blog, as far as I can tell anyway as a visitor here.
I think I get it!
The main argument from the AGWers agin the sceptics is that they ignore the science.
After 25 years and hundreds of scientific enquiries to do with GMC’s, a lot of these same AGWers denie the science!
HMMM, how ironic is that?
Steven (15):
Your comment, like Roddy’s and Eli’s responses, has nothing to do with GMO’s. My blog discusses issues that seems to upset an ideological wing of both the climate and green movement (which overlap on some issues related to nuclear power and GMO’s, it would seem). So be it.
Except for the individual, of course, political positions have very little to do with science, or reality for that matter. Manytimes it’s simply a matter of faith, or worse, by likeminded clusters of carbon units quaintly referred to as “Interest Groups”. (It is also quite difficult to speak intelligently to “Interest Groups” as no one has leave to speak for anyone but themself.)
@9
No. The increased fatality risk only applies if you assume that the weight of passenger cars was reduced AND the weight of light trucks stayed the same. This is hardly a plausible scenario. In fact, it is much more likely that vehicle manufacturers would lower the the weight of light truck by a greater amount than passenger cars on an absolute basis, thus narrowing the gap and reducing net fatality risks.
Strange that you didn’t cite the concluding sentence of the report:
“A reduction in truck weights is likely to generate significant benefits for pedestrians and car occupants that might exceed the added risk for the occupants of the trucks.”
Also strange that you cite a 14 year old study given that there are dozens of studies that have been conducted more recently that quite clearly refute the myth that you’re trying to push…
Here, for example:
“Comparison of fatality and casualty risks in conventional truck-based SUVs and newer, carbased crossover SUVs indicates that vehicle weight can be reduced while maintaining size and at least maintaining, if not increasing, occupant safety…there is evidence that manufacturers’ redesign of traditional truck-based SUVs into car-based crossover SUVs has resulted in lighter vehicles of the same size, with reduced risks both to their drivers and to the drivers of other vehicles.”
This guy Mike Roddy is a serious mental case, not quite like Eli but close enough. Yet Andy would treat him like someone reasonable and respectable, replying to his comments, and at least once considered inviting him to do something like a guest-post. Personally, I’ve been scrolling past his comments for years. Not worth one’s time.
The reason I left Andy’s blog is that he cultivated too many of these wackos. Eventually, more interesting people started leaving. Which is, of course, the fate of many poorly moderated blogs.
Sashka,
I’m confused why you would leave Andy’s blog because of some annoying commenters. Dot Earth is the pre-eminent climate change/environmental blog. You could still read his posts without paying attention to the threads (though, as you noted, there’s also nothing stopping you from skipping past familiar commenters…).
I do read Andy’s posts from time to time but I find it less interesting than it used to be. When I said “I left” I meant stopped commenting. To answer your question, there are two equally important parts of blogging: (1) reading the head posts and (2) exchanging opinions with other intelligent posters. The latter part has all but vanished over there. Fortunately, I have other choices.
So now you’re grabbing on individual comments on a blog? You know that some people will say anything for whatever reason. If this guy were a Senator, maybe it would be worthy of attention.