- Ray Pierrehumbert
From Heartland?[Disclaimer: I don't do videos.]
He's their token dissenter. This one is worth your time.
Michael Tobis --- No it isn't. With this computer, it isn't.I'd read a transcript...
me @ SkS
Oh, see there is now a take on the talk by a Bart.Ok, I don't want Greenpease dictating terms either but I also don't want Hearltland doing it.
Heartland won't be dictating any terms anytime soon. Look at their webpage on environmental issues: they are deep in denial. They tout Lindzen's latest low sensitivity rewrite, laud "Mr. Soon’s brilliant research into the sun’s role in climate change" and complain that people who deny AGW are sometimes called 'deniers'.This is not a forward-thinking group.
Hmmmm why don't Heartland accredit Dr Denning on their list of global warming experts ? http://heartland.org/experts?page=1
> I'd read a transcript...OK, David B. Benson, a transcript is what you will get.The video's also available on YouTube BTW; in case that's more slow-connection-friendly - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P-oXWUdoXX0I called Heartland & asked permission to show the Denning talk on our local community TV station, & permission was granted, if I preface the video with something like "available courtesy of the Heartland Institute"; which gave me temporary retrospective pause, as it'd confer some science-aligned credibility to HI by extension. But it should be pretty simple to add verbiage to make clear that this talk was an outlier.
Anna Haynes --- Bart's take was enough.I doesn't seem to sink in. I don't do video on this computer. Period.In fact I do what I can to avoid old-fashinoned telly as well.[Indeed, I'd have a horse & buggy, but I can't afford it; walk instead.]
well, the transcript is here.
Does he actually think that those people are there because they really hold common with 'Heatland' positions and are interested in developments of Climate science, or because they are there to cement their position within the 'mafia' and show their face to reinforce connection.He seems to think 'Heatland' has a interest in Science, big mistake, their interest in Science only extends so far as how scientists can be utilised to disable efforts to limit CO2 production. That's the end of their interest and heart felt cries for rational thinking are delusional and kind of embarassing.
I see I am not the only one who sees a video of a presentation as an affront. (I read fast and I am impatient to an extreme.) Huzzah for transcripts!
I am not sure if you are all aware of this or not, but the fallacy of his argument is that you cannot solve the "Problem of the Commons" in a Free Enerprise system. Basically you need to have one or more umpires in any professional or amateur sport, and you need a government to ensure fair play when it comes to big business. To solve an international problem such as global warming you need international agreement, and the right wing extremists seem to have set their minds against that.
Heartland (and it's friends) is not going to put forth or support a good CO2/CH4 reduction program. Heartland's friends derive great satisfaction from exploiting the commons while excluding others. (An effective program would have to address things like population, and how we grow rice (to reduce CH4 emissions. see http://www.goodreads.com/story/show/5522-technic-to-improve-rice-production) Thus, we will all be stuck with Mother Nature's program. Mother Nature is particularly effective at dealing with population issues.
Thanks to the discussion about this at Bart's, I may have finally composed a couple of coherent sentences.The climate concerned require that the market, as a prerequisite for accomplishing mitigation, account for what are called externalities. Units of Energy Transformation, marketed as a product, account for them. Each UET is a piece of a single transformation project. In aggregate, UETs comprise the purchase of something as simple as upgraded insulation in a Habitat for Humanity rehab or as grand as large solar array. Every UET eliminates the need for some amount of future fossil fuel use.
> I am not the only one who sees a video of a presentation as an affront.The affront ain't the video, it's the absence of a user-friendly way to attach notes and/or transcription to it....which admittedly would open a can of worms - people leaving stuff out of the transcript etc - but crowdsourcing-plus-accountability ought to be able to deal with it.I'm currently encouraging the YouTube user who uploaded the video to provide a link to the transcript; hopefully the initial response is transitory.
Determination is the state of mind just before doing something profoundly stupid.
Michael, sorry for putting this here, but you might enjoy John N-G's recent discussion with Roger Pielke Sr on John's blog. Klotzbach et al makes an appearance...(in a thread on something Pielke Jr said)
Update re my Aug 24 "...currently encouraging the YouTube user who uploaded the video to provide a link to the transcript..." - it sounds like the transcript (though not a link to it) *will* be attached.
Post a Comment