There’s an excellent dialog at Andy Revkin’s Dot Earth blog in the post:
Next Steps on Climate and Energy
There appears to be a rash of realists posting on this topic. For example:
“Yeah, well, we had one back in the 70′s, it was called “nuclear”. The environmental movement killed it off, so no completed plants have been started in three decades in the U.S.”
“In the wake of recent Congressional events and the likelihood of little substantive legislation in the near term, it’ll be interesting to see if influential voices on climate policy–such as Joe Romm and Thomas Friedman–take a different tack.”
“The real and true best result will only happen when science rules and wins the day and when ideologies (all of them) take a distant back seat to scientific and economic validity. Proffer a competitive functional and practical alternative and watch how quickly more that 90% support develops passing the senate 95-0 rather than failing, but to do this, will require the truth – not more scary IPCC-speak which has failed so badly and any other easily falsifiable assertions.”
“Somewhere deep inside I’m kinda glad our dysfunctional legislative branch didn’t force a change with a really dumb committee decision full of unhealthy compromise. We don’t really want to follow the leadership of either Barbara Boxer or James Inhofe. They’re both dolts.”
“First, the state of climate science is horrendous. When incompetence or wrongdoing is suspected, instead of investigating, the sponsors of the research engage in cover-ups. (See Oxburgh report for example, which did not even question people who had complaints against the UEA ) The fact that anyone would do such a pathetically inept report and call it an investigation is about the most devastating critique of the UEA’s work that can be imagined. It is obvious the UEA is afraid of what it would turn up if it did a real investigation. The Michael Mann “investigation” was similarly flawed.”
Read the post and all the comments. Nice to see some intelligent dialog.
