tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post2763945888325367076..comments2023-09-28T08:13:11.489-07:00Comments on Only In It For The Gold: Journalists, Advocates and ScientistsMichael Tobishttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08229460438349093944noreply@blogger.comBlogger50125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post-53830326382149628942009-03-22T18:44:00.000-07:002009-03-22T18:44:00.000-07:00Bob and Michael, it seems clear to me that there's...Bob and Michael, it seems clear to me that there's now something like a consensus that greater emphasis needs to be placed on describing and communicating impacts. Consider e.g. Gore's AAAS speech and much of the discussion in Copenhagen. It appears that such a shift in emphasis is in fact happening, and there doesn't seem to be any impediment to plenty of science getting into the mix.<BR/><BR/>Michael, it seems to me that this ought to be somewhat helpful relative to the issues you raise. Is it?<BR/><BR/>Regarding Climate Progress, I don't think the comparison to Wussup is apt. Bearing in mind where it's hosted, I think its role is more to counter the memos that go out to opinion leaders from the likes of Pat Michaels and Myron Ebell. Joe's wide-ranging talents make it possible for him to do a credible job of this, although I suppose in the absence of someone like him CAP could have put together a team blog with a similar impact. Actually it is a team effort in a different sense, bearing in mind the other CAP blogs (in particular Science Progress). In any case I suspect it's the authoritative one-stop-shopping nature of CP that got it the "indispensable" accolade from Friedman.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post-34873985323674067272009-03-21T12:40:00.000-07:002009-03-21T12:40:00.000-07:00Penguin, I agree that the denialists are not espec...Penguin, I agree that the denialists are not especially interesting or important. <BR/><BR/>I think that nevertheless there are decisions to be made, and the more people understand them, the more likely we'll avoid being utterly stupid about it. Or should I say "continuing to be" utterly stupid about it?<BR/><BR/>Thanks for the article reference. Very interesting at first blush. I will try to find time to read it carefully.Michael Tobishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08229460438349093944noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post-71135250739995464252009-03-21T12:31:00.000-07:002009-03-21T12:31:00.000-07:00For a serious look at some of the psychology invol...For a serious look at some of the psychology involved around climate, take a look at the detailed discussion at <A HREF="http://www.psandman.com/col/climate.htm" REL="nofollow">http://www.psandman.com/col/climate.htm</A>.<BR/><BR/>A somewhat different matter is what numbers you're looking at, to what end. Somewhere around 70% of the US seems to think that climate change is real and human activity is part of the story. Right off, that suggests that more articles about 'look, stuff really is happening and here is the nifty science involved' is not likely to advance your purposes. Since one of my major purposes is exactly talking about nifty science, or at least how not to do things (my recent notes on <A>misleading yourself with graphs</A> and the folks at co2scepts/climaterealists) that's a slightly different matter. My excuse being only that my nominal audience is younger, so not already well-acquainted with the science.<BR/><BR/>The 70% or so figure is more significant towards your goals than you might be thinking. The thing is, about 25% of the country is in the realm of not persuadable by evidence (c.f. young earth creationists). If it is indeed 70%, then over 90% of your potential audience is already persuaded on the science. More beating on that drum just gets noisy and boring. Even at 60% nationally, that's 80% of your potential audience.<BR/><BR/>So the real problem is not the science. And, for that matter, hasn't been for a long time. It's getting anyone to do anything. That's a very different matter than explaining how the greenhouse effect works or why Python is a better language than Fortran for climate modeling.<BR/><BR/>For large scale action, you need politics, and need to be thinking and acting politically. And, as Tip O'Neill observed, "All politics is local."Robert Grumbinehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10783453972811796911noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post-43264691497141862172009-03-21T08:09:00.000-07:002009-03-21T08:09:00.000-07:00This comment has been removed by the author.Michael Tobishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08229460438349093944noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post-45986073666754166482009-03-21T02:26:00.000-07:002009-03-21T02:26:00.000-07:00A brief off-topic request for David B. Benson:Do y...A brief off-topic request for David B. Benson:<BR/>Do you have your 1% GWP laid out somewhere?<BR/>It sounds preposterous to me, a bit like fixing poverty with money but I try to keep an open mind.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post-3872679573000568592009-03-21T02:22:00.000-07:002009-03-21T02:22:00.000-07:00I have caught the "Micheal" bug for Raven apparent...I have caught the "Micheal" bug for Raven apparently. Sorry for that.<BR/>Back on topic: I was struggling to put my reaction to your article into words.<BR/><BR/>It looks like there are two different things you are concerned about:<BR/>-lack of critical thinking in journalism and such<BR/>-lack of public interest in your pet topics<BR/>I'm wondering if you're conflating them. There's a relationship alright but it looks like you think there is or could be an audience for reporting that's reality-based, truthful, evidence-based or however you want to call it. Clearly, there's an audience for just about any topic out there. But do you want to read or listen to reality-based reporting on random topics? I guess not.<BR/><BR/>So you'd like more interest for your pet topics, some of which are also pet topics of mine. That's fine but I don't think that you're going to get it by getting people to see the truth or something.<BR/>There are many very serious problems in this world (desertification, organized crime, antibiotic resistance to name a few). For all the noise a few deniers make on a few of these issues such as climate change, people are generally convinced the problems are real to the extent that they're aware of them at all. Yet they're not flocking to blogs that report this stuff. Why would they?<BR/>There are different ways to get people interested such as touching them on an emotional level, telling them about the impact on their pocketboooks or showing them practical solutions.<BR/><BR/>But there's a particular way that get people interested in stuff that seems relevant to the topic at hand: politics. With politics comes groupthink. It's a shame but changing the way people deal with identities and conflicts is yet another tall order.<BR/>Clearly, a lot of people come to climate change through politics. I think this is one of the reasons denialism is so prevalent. And clearly, it's the solutions (CCS is an example) that get people's political minds in gear.<BR/>I don't like other people's political biases. In fact they often infuriate me. But I have biases of my own and I won't leave them at the door when discussing solutions or when choosing what blog I'm going to check out.<BR/>Yet I also have an interest in the truth. I don't see a contradiction there even though political biases can easily blind oneself to the truth. Worse: by being selctive in what one reads or listens to, one can easily miss important facts and arguments.<BR/>That's why I think reporters who're willing to take their sweet time before writing could do us all a valuable service by doing the excruciating works of casting aside their biases to hunt down and think through all the relevant information. This would require the reporter to be aware of her biases.<BR/>But I don't want information relevant to politics (such as climate change solutions) to be presented in a non-political manner or by someone who doesn't have a feel for politics in general and my politics in particular. My ideal reporter is clever, works hard, is objective... but shares my politics.<BR/>Academic science (paleclimates for instance) is something else: I don't want politics in there.<BR/><BR/>You also seem to want to address the intriguing issue of communication and governance at a global level (or was that hyperbole?) but this comment is already way too long.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post-7328868769441273302009-03-20T22:51:00.000-07:002009-03-20T22:51:00.000-07:00Tom, to which I can only add a thanks for the refe...Tom, to which I can only add a thanks for the reference and a heartfelt amen, brother!<BR/><BR/>Well, and a few other things besides...<BR/><BR/>I certainly wouldn't put the serious magazines and writers like Kolbert into the class I am complaining about. I am a great enthusiast of her work and much appreciative of it.<BR/><BR/>But it also seems clear to me that the economics of the existing publishing institutions pull for a political center rather than an evidence-driven one.<BR/><BR/>Where, for instance, is David Archer's complaint about how our behavior in the coming decades stands to affect the earth for hundreds of thousands of years? Is the enormity of this very plausible science so great that people can't even face it? Or is the pervasiveness of the economists' discount rate so profound that ethics are discounted at the same time scale?<BR/><BR/>Where is ocean acidification in the public discourse? Where is the ecological crisis? Where are the carbon and nitrogen cycles? Where is food sustainability?<BR/><BR/>Many of these things were on our lips thirty years ago. Where have they gone? <BR/><BR/>Maybe they just don't sell papers.Michael Tobishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08229460438349093944noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post-22260073241798908742009-03-20T22:31:00.000-07:002009-03-20T22:31:00.000-07:00Michael:In your original post, you wrote, "The exp...Michael:<BR/><BR/>In your original post, you wrote, "The expectation of "news" is neutrality among competing parties, and of advocacy to choose one side regardless of evidence."<BR/><BR/>But there has long been a middle path: advocacy journalism of the kind practiced in places like The Atlantic and the New Yorker. In her stories about climate change, to offer one example, Elizabeth Kolbert was not even remotely neutral. In her own way, she was a passionate advocate of action. Yet she did not sacrifice evidence or accuracy. Quite the opposite. <BR/><BR/>As Bill Kovach and Tom Rosenstiel put it in their book, The Elements of Journalism, "If journalism starts with accuracy, a professional method or discipline of verification, and some unity of method to this process of verifying facts, then it can encompass a range of presentations."<BR/><BR/>Including advocacy. <BR/><BR/>And by the way, this approach is FAR more convincing than the predictable arm-waving employed by Joe Romm in some of his more outrageous posts. I get the sense that no amount of evidence whatsoever would ever give Romm even a scintilla of doubt, because any evidence that does not conform to his worldview he rejects out of hand as being false. Contrast his approach to that of Elizabeth Kolbert (and I might add, Andy Revkin). She is obviously open to the possibility that the evidence may force her onto a somewhat different path. And that's why her work is ultimately more convincing. <BR/><BR/>The key is not to be objective in some cartoon sense (of the kind given lip service by the clowns at Fox News), but to employ a systematic, objective process for seeking out and verifying information. <BR/><BR/>One of the fathers of modern journalism, Walter Lipmman, said that journalists should acquire more of "the scientific spirit . . . There is but one kind of unity possible in a work as diverse as ours. It is unity of method, rather than aim; the unity of disciplined experiment."<BR/><BR/>At their best, journalists have achieved that unity of method — one that bears some resemblance to the scientific method. <BR/><BR/>Keep that in mind as you move forward in your blog and you might just find more success than Joe Romm — perhaps not in sheer numbers but in influence and moral suasion.Tom Yulsmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10275951856622997605noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post-57074813133453479692009-03-20T19:03:00.000-07:002009-03-20T19:03:00.000-07:00Hi Michael,I'm finding it interesting to think abo...Hi Michael,<BR/><BR/>I'm finding it interesting to think about what causes particular posts of yours to generate dramatically longer comment chains than the mean.<BR/><BR/>I know you track site visits, do the posts (such as this) that generate the greatest quantity of comments also get the largest number of hits?<BR/><BR/>There are programs that analyze, for example, books and movies to determine whether they'll become big sellers. They're based on statistical analyses of content of previous big hits.<BR/><BR/>Such an analysis might be of value to someone looking to make a living as a blogger/journalist/essayist/commentator/editorialist.King of the Roadhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06841601144107400103noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post-31773019911662422012009-03-20T17:02:00.000-07:002009-03-20T17:02:00.000-07:00Putting the excess carbon away is not a technical ...Putting the excess carbon away is not a technical problem; there are many already known solutions. Unfortunaterly, none of them are inexpensive. So it becomes a matter of being willing to spend the resources that way.<BR/><BR/>Give me control of 1% of GWP and I'll be able to halt excess carbon growth and have some left over to beginning removing some of the existing excess.<BR/><BR/>I suppose that makes it a political problem?David B. Bensonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02917182411282836875noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post-36461509639197506462009-03-20T16:07:00.000-07:002009-03-20T16:07:00.000-07:00I've been reading your site for a fair while, alon...I've been reading your site for a fair while, along with RC, Deltoid, Eli, Climate Progress, and many others.<BR/><BR/>You asked why Joe Romm gets more hits than you, and it comes down to the fact that he is more outspoken, more blunt and draws together both the science and the policy, as well as the media's coverage of the subject. He also posts more than most...and yes, he does occasionally need an editor. <BR/><BR/>He understands the way the politics and the media operate in a way that the vast majority of scientists do or will not. Its no accident that the most prominent climate change campaigner on my side of the Atlantic, George Monbiot, is a journalist (albeit with a scientific background) rather than a climate scientist. After seeing the way scientists handled the aftermath of the TGGWS programme (I was one of those who conplained to the broadcast authorities),I understood why.<BR/><BR/>That said, you have to realise that you all do slightly different things. I like the fact that you concentrate rather more on the science, as does Eli and RC, whereas Deltoid brings together various strands to the debate. Your all fighting the good fight.<BR/><BR/>On the other hand, I'm with Rich when he says that you do engage in a form of 'Broderism'. Don't be afraid to be angry, or put forward a position which goes beyond the pure science. This is not advocacy or even propaganda, its simply expressing what you believe should be done or understand from your role as a scientist. You 'have the technical chops', so don't be afraid to use them.<BR/><BR/>Science and politics are connected. You said that 'If it turns out that Hansen and McKibben are right, and that 350 is the goal, we will have to put the carbon that is already out somewhere. Where? How? That is not primarily a political question but a technical one.'<BR/><BR/>The fact is that its a technical problem that will only happen if the politicians make it possible. Therefore its a political problem. Don't worry about being political, we welcome ideas that stem from the science, not shy away from them. Keep up the good work, I'm grateful for all the work you all do..Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post-60795935442352497732009-03-20T13:33:00.000-07:002009-03-20T13:33:00.000-07:00Done.Done.Michael Tobishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08229460438349093944noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post-8092560769306761972009-03-20T13:29:00.000-07:002009-03-20T13:29:00.000-07:00Micheal,I did not keep a copy of my post.I am not ...Micheal,<BR/><BR/>I did not keep a copy of my post.<BR/><BR/>I am not sure I feel like typing it all over again. I would have appreciated if you had moved instead of deleting it.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post-81887403114183491362009-03-20T13:20:00.000-07:002009-03-20T13:20:00.000-07:00Raven, please take this to the open thread if you ...Raven, please take this to the open thread if you want to discuss it further. Also I'd appreciate a correct spelling of "Michael", thanks.Michael Tobishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08229460438349093944noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post-35069206438625378412009-03-20T13:17:00.000-07:002009-03-20T13:17:00.000-07:00This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post-33909704397331793552009-03-20T12:04:00.000-07:002009-03-20T12:04:00.000-07:00OK, I will experiment with my first Open Thread. P...OK, I will experiment with my first <A HREF="http://initforthegold.blogspot.com/2009/03/climate-science-open-thread.html" REL="nofollow">Open Thread</A>. Please place any and all climate related comments there that don't fit here or elsewhere; moderation will be very light on that thread.Michael Tobishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08229460438349093944noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post-58897308549132798152009-03-20T11:46:00.000-07:002009-03-20T11:46:00.000-07:00Raven,I share your concerns about censorship at RC...Raven,<BR/><BR/>I share your concerns about censorship at RC (I don't care for the other blog), about scientists being defensive and protective of each other, about conspircy theories and groupthink in general.<BR/>I think I've posted once or twice on RC but I've been censored. Gratuitous paranoid assumptions have been made about where I was coming from by obsessive zealots.<BR/><BR/>Yet I trust the basic science behind "AGW" (a meaningless concept as far as I'm concerned).<BR/>So please don't assume that you have to be a so-called skeptic to be censored. Disbelieving a scientist's statement seems to be enough.<BR/><BR/>Here's another non-rhetorical question: seeing that you can research this stuff and figure it out on your own, why do you care about the opinion of any group of scientists? The science doesn't stand on anyone's opinion.<BR/><BR/>I don't know why you think this "hockey stick" or temperatures 1000 years back are so important. It sounds like a peripheral controversy but I might be missing something. Is this case against "AGW" laid out coherently somewhere?<BR/><BR/>Sorry if that's too off-topic Micheal.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post-49552602332839988332009-03-20T11:19:00.000-07:002009-03-20T11:19:00.000-07:00Raven, I know several highly intelligent engineers...Raven, I know several highly intelligent engineers and scientists, who are creationists. Sadly, scientific method is powerless against vocational precognition.<BR/><BR/>Let me ask you a question: "What evidence would change your view that climate change is not happening?"Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post-56565885533168070462009-03-20T10:24:00.001-07:002009-03-20T10:24:00.001-07:00I am not especially interested in the hockey stick...I am not especially interested in the hockey stick controversy. I find the obsession with it to be an interesting and revealing phenomenon. <BR/><BR/>I myself do not know enough about the work to defend it. I know enough about the community to have high confidence that the people producing the work mean well and have confidence in it. And surely the results are unsurprising. In other words, I'd reference it if I had occasion, but not without due caveats.<BR/><BR/>A couple of things here:<BR/><BR/>Perhaps as you say we don't know what happened to temperatures over the past 1000 years at all. If that is true it still doesn't refute the major conclusions of the community.<BR/><BR/>You say "climate science community insists" they are correct. I don't know that we have a means to do such insisting. This strikes me as a straw man.<BR/><BR/>You say you know about "obvious flaws". State them and maybe the conversation can continue. <BR/><BR/>You have stated that 1) climatologists insist that tree rings studies are valid and 2) they are not valid and 3) this is sufficient to refute climatology. I am unconvinced at every point of your argument. Feel free to defend these points, but please do not simply repeat them.<BR/><BR/>I would be interested to know if you feel the above is also sufficient to argue against carbon emissions <BR/>restraint, and if so why.<BR/><BR/>That said, I make no pretense that this site is open to all commenters on all topics. I only post things that I find make a positive contribution to the conversation. I particularly dislike comments that are both contentious and redundant.<BR/><BR/>Tree rings is not one of my own interests. I know <A HREF="http://www.climateaudit.org/" REL="nofollow">another site</A> where it is very much a welcome topic. Perhaps you would prefer to take it up over there.Michael Tobishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08229460438349093944noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post-12763128554880372062009-03-20T10:24:00.000-07:002009-03-20T10:24:00.000-07:00This comment has been removed by the author.Michael Tobishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08229460438349093944noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post-68278297421234126242009-03-20T10:03:00.000-07:002009-03-20T10:03:00.000-07:00Micheal,You could start by accepting the fact that...Micheal,<BR/><BR/>You could start by accepting the fact that there are a lot of well educated people who are perfectly capable of understanding the issues who have looked at the data and come to a different conclusions. <BR/><BR/>I mentioned the hockey stick because it is something that really changed my opinion on the topic after carefully researching both sides of the argument. The only rational conclusion I can come is SteveMc is largely correct and the studies used by the IPCC are nothing but exercises in data mining designed to produce the desired result and that we do not know what was happened to global temperatures 1000 years ago.<BR/><BR/>Yet despite what I know to be obvious flaws in these studies the climate science community still insists that they are correct. Given that context how can I possibly trust the opinion of the climate science community on any other topic?<BR/><BR/>That is not a rhetorical question I would really like to get an answer.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post-39608361241401622602009-03-20T09:37:00.000-07:002009-03-20T09:37:00.000-07:00Well, Raven, I think about your question a lot.Whi...Well, Raven, I think about your question a lot.<BR/><BR/>While we obviously hold the high ground of actual science, and we compete well enough in the mass market, it's the middle, people who think they are smart enough to figure things out for themselves, where we lose the battle. That is where we need to pay a great deal more attention. And that brings me back to my motivations.Michael Tobishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08229460438349093944noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post-31114665067023323612009-03-20T09:03:00.000-07:002009-03-20T09:03:00.000-07:00Bi,"You don't realize, do you, that your comment j...Bi,<BR/><BR/>"You don't realize, do you, that your comment just provided the perfect counter-example to your own claim?"<BR/><BR/>Why? Because Micheal has not banned me for posting interpretations of the science which he does not agree with? That does not change the fact the Romm and RC go out of their way to censor people who do not follow the AGW party line. <BR/><BR/>But the censorship by AGW blogs is the least relevent part of my post. My point is you people have zero understanding about why people are sceptical and are completely in denial when it comes to the understanding the legimate issues with the science as presented by the IPCC. <BR/><BR/>Of course, you are free to sit in your echo chambers rambling about culture wars and big-oil induced conspiracies if that is what makes you feel more comfortable. However, if you really want the government to move forward substantial anti-Co2 policies then you would benefit by learning the real issues that make people sceptical of the IPCC claims.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post-56147114515800011262009-03-20T08:15:00.000-07:002009-03-20T08:15:00.000-07:00Rich, let me formulate it this way in an example, ...Rich, let me formulate it this way in an example, and it is *just a hypothetical thought experiment example, I don't say things are actually like this, it is to demonstrate a mechanism of logic*:<BR/><BR/>If, say, CCS absolutely every time kills a baby for every ton it puts away CO2, then it is not sensible to keep expending effort on the lesser nuances of CCS. <BR/><BR/>In that sense you are right.<BR/><BR/>I *do* think CCS is used to motivate the "do nothing" thinking, and that is not good. But that's a problem of politics. <BR/><BR/>It's NOT the same as CCS being inherently "bad". It's not an inherent problem of the CCS technology itself.<BR/><BR/>There could still be a "do things" attitude and there *still* could exist CCS. That is, if the policy external to CCS is smart.<BR/><BR/>If you have deemed, non-factually, CCS to be absolutely non-workable, then you can't use it in the "do things" scenario either. You've thrown the baby with the bathwater.<BR/><BR/>In a sense, CCS is fundamentally neutral - but what it is used for is reprehensible.<BR/><BR/>Gah. I can't express the logic as quickly and as clearly as I want.<BR/><BR/>{As a disclaimer, I do think CCS is from a technical energy-entropy viewpoint very stupid in the next few decades, we should go immediately to less carbon producing energy generation and perhaps look at it later then.}Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post-54942782555985600302009-03-20T08:09:00.000-07:002009-03-20T08:09:00.000-07:00I'm equally baffled, Michael."If it turns out that...I'm equally baffled, Michael.<BR/><BR/>"If it turns out that Hansen and McKibben are right, and that 350 is the goal, we will have to put the carbon that is already out somewhere. Where? How? That is not primarily a political question but a technical one."<BR/><BR/>Who is "we"? How do we ensure that this actually happens, through changes in political administration?<BR/><BR/>You seem to keep wanting humanity to make decisions as a whole. But that's not how the system works. If we could make decisions as a whole in this disinterested fashion, we wouldn't need CCS, because we would have already started to lower CO2 emissions.<BR/><BR/>In fact, what you're saying is exactly like "But what if Saddam has WMDs? Then we'd have to get rid of him in the near term somehow. How?" You can phrase that as a technical question, but the only real answer is "through a war". It's a series of ostensibly technical questions that are guaranteed to lead to a risky intervention within a politically unworkable platform.<BR/><BR/>Look, here's another example from outside climate science: Social Security in the U.S. Every so often some eager technocrat points out that it's not very efficient, and would do better being means-tested and so on. But of course its designers knew this. It was designed to be resistant to being thrown out, and additional technical efficiency would have resulted in its loss of widespread support and therefore its nonexistence sometime during GOP dominance.<BR/><BR/>The main way to make climate change measures similarly resistant is to change infrastructure. Once coal plants are de-built and other power plants are built, entrenched interests lose funding, and unsympathetic later politicians would have to propose spending lots of money to switch infrastructure back. CCS doesn't do any of that. It's an add-on that can always be switched off.<BR/><BR/>So sure, maybe someone sometime will be profitably interested in CCS to reduce the CO2 already in the atmosphere. Maybe 50 years from now, perhaps. But it will do no good as long as the generated infrastructure is in place. And the people who can't see that are really just providing a big distraction.Rich Puchalskyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13565210317964576866noreply@blogger.com