I know, you’ve seen it already, but, wow…
I’ve been invited to participate in a new Bray and von Storch survey of climate scientists. The questions seem structured to de-authenticate climate models. [more]
mt writes on Only In It for the Gold
The new “ecomodernist” push implicitly restates the BTI position that getting to carbon zero follows from technological innovation alone. … to the extent that the ecomodernist manifesto does not take account of the real-world obstacles to that goal, it ducks the very question it claims to be addressing.
If you say ‘it’s something else and I don’t know what it is’ my answer is ‘something else that happens, by accident, to perfectly match the carbon dioxide increase? Are you serious?’
Earth to Muller: no, they aren’t. Never have been. Are you surprised?
Naomi Oreskes: “When applied to evaluating environmental hazards, the fear of gullibility can lead us to understate threats. It places the burden of proof on the victim rather than, for example, on the manufacturer of a harmful product. The consequence is that we may fail to protect people who are really getting hurt.” [more]
Rebecca Solnit and Nafeez Ahmed have thoughtful essays on our quandary writ large. [more]
Suggested topic – What online resources do you find most valuable in support of thinking about our common future? Which writers do you follow?
A tolerably good human future is possible if we work together toward it. It’s not a question of predicting. It’s a question of deciding.
Three degrees is the new two degrees. [more]
New battery technology presents an ideological challenge to free market fundamentalists in Texas government. Are they principled, or are they tools of the oil bid’ness? What do you think? [more]
Inside Climate News has an excellent report and an effective accompanying video. Apparently the railroads are not a reasonable delivery system for petroleum products. Who knew?