Editore"s Note
Tilting at Windmills

Email Newsletter icon, E-mail Newsletter icon, Email List icon, E-mail List icon Sign up for Free News & Updates

November 27, 2007
By: Kevin Drum

HOT AIR....Last night David Appell emailed to draw my attention to a post in which he calculated that the IPCC Conference on Climate Change in Bali will produce 26 million metric tons of CO2. "I'll start thinking global warming is a crisis when the people telling me it's a crisis act like it's a crisis," he concluded.

I was uninterested in this sophistry, but Glenn Reynolds (natch) decided to pick up on it, the third or fourth time he's done so just for this one conference. "They're certainly not acting like global warming is a crisis," he agreed — though with a caveat that Apell's arithmetic was off by three orders of magnitude. It's .026 million metric tons, not 26 million.

But who cares? This is just an example of the current craze in global warming denialism: don't literally deny that warming is happening (the actual facts make that too hard), merely mock every possible effort to fight it. International agreements? Obviously ridiculous. Federal regulation? Just an excuse for more anti-business spleen from the Birkenstock crowd. Carbon taxes? You'd like that, wouldn't you? Government spending on amelioration? Forget it. We should spend the money on, um, clean drinking water for Chad instead. Yeah. Private efforts to inspire conservation? Just a bunch of hectoring, self-righteous Hollywood elites. Al Gore? He doesn't live in a cave, so he's a hypocrite.

So that's that. Sure, global warming is real, but we shouldn't fight it with international efforts, federal efforts, local efforts, personal efforts, higher taxes, or additional spending. And if you support any of that stuff but still drive a car or use electricity yourself, then who the hell are you to pretend you're better than the rest of us?

Alternatively, we could all cut the smarmy posturing (mirrors in space!) and actually do something. Unfortunately, merely typing these words and posting them has produced CO2, so there's no reason to listen to me, is there? I'm just another liberal hypocrite.

Kevin Drum 1:48 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (98)

Bookmark and Share
 
Comments

Not to mention those ribs you were talking about eating last post, which is the equivalent of driving a Hummer for something like three months.

Posted by: KathyF on November 27, 2007 at 1:52 PM | PERMALINK

once again, Republicanism demonstrates that it is a fundamentally unserious pseudophilosophy.

Posted by: cleek on November 27, 2007 at 1:55 PM | PERMALINK

Can't we just measure the CO2 from Glenn exhaling? That's probably driven global climate up a tenth of a degree already.

Posted by: SocraticGadfly on November 27, 2007 at 1:55 PM | PERMALINK

Do these calculations assume that the conference participants would otherwise create no CO2 emissions if they didn't jet off to Bali? Wouldn't they create emissions just in the course of their daily lives, driving to the Stop & Shop and grilling some chicken for dinner? In fact, since most of them are likely traveling together on regularly scheduled flights, wouldn't the same amount of CO2 be created even if they stayed home and the planes flew without them?

Posted by: Jersey Tomato on November 27, 2007 at 1:57 PM | PERMALINK

Symbolism does have some importance here. They might have found a more centrally located place than Bali.

Posted by: Brian on November 27, 2007 at 2:00 PM | PERMALINK

"I'll start thinking global warming is a crisis when the people telling me it's a crisis act like it's a crisis," he concluded.

I hate to confess this, but I've engaged in this sort of sophistry myself: I'll starting thinking that the global war on terror really is a clash between civilizations when the people who are pushing this view actually enlist in the military instead of going shopping. (To be fair to myself, there are good reasons to hold my point of view independent of what other people do.)

Posted by: RSA on November 27, 2007 at 2:03 PM | PERMALINK

Jersey Tomato: Do these calculations assume that the conference participants would otherwise create no CO2 emissions if they didn't jet off to Bali? Wouldn't they create emissions just in the course of their daily lives

Good point. We need incremental increases in emissions, not gross emissions. Not that I wanted to lower the conversation by talking about gross emissions.

Posted by: anandine on November 27, 2007 at 2:15 PM | PERMALINK

By their standards, if you, say, believe that government should be spending less money, then any study commissioned by the government, which costs money itself, to study ways to reduce government waste, PROVES that the people involved are not REALLY interested in reducing government waste.

For the deliberately dense - spending an asset on an action, if you believe that you will save MORE of the asset in future by the action, is called INVESTMENT. Do you guys NOT spend money on investment advice, since it proves you're not serious about saving money?

What's a David Appell?

Personally, I think the most probable outcome, regarding global warming, is that technology will pretty much solve it. But that's a personal tick of mine, and admittedly I don't follow the issue much.

Posted by: luci on November 27, 2007 at 2:23 PM | PERMALINK


It's not that we shouldn't fight global climate change, it's that we can't, and we won't. It's much too late to stop the die-off. Except for the lucky(?) billion or so souls we leave behind, this is the end of the world as we know it.

Posted by: Robert on November 27, 2007 at 2:25 PM | PERMALINK

One imagines the choice of Bali might be related to demands by Micronesian countries to periodically hold these conferences in their neck of the woods, since they may be the worst affected by global warming. Also, if you live in Asia, as most of the world's people do, then Bali is less "in the middle of nowhere" than San Diego is. For a global conference, provided there are direct flights, it probably doesn't much matter where you put it -- though Sydney or Buenos Aires would be the worst options.

Posted by: brooksfoe on November 27, 2007 at 2:35 PM | PERMALINK

Kevin, have you checked out Monbiot's book, Heat, yet?
http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2006/11/07/heat/

or Gar Lipow's forthcoming book?
http://www.nohairshirts.com/


Both Monbiot and Lipow give a systematic overview of what's involved in addressing climate change seriously.

Gar Lipow's analysis is very interesting. He shows how we can drastically reduce carbon use without counting on any new technologies and without lowering our standard of living.(He used to post at Maxspeak; he's also reviewed Monbiot's book.)

One more overview you might find interesting: Nicholas Stern who wrote the Stern Review on the Economics of Climate Change.
http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/independent_reviews/stern_review_economics_climate_change/sternreview_index.cfm

There's audio of a presentation Stern gave at Columbia U, from Doug Henwood (scroll down to April 19th):
http://www.leftbusinessobserver.com/Radio.html

But definitely check out Gar Lipow!

Posted by: baowms on November 27, 2007 at 2:35 PM | PERMALINK

Symbolism does have some importance here. They might have found a more centrally located place than Bali.

Well, Bali isn't such a remote corner if you're China or India, two nations that are crucial in addressing the issue. And as far as symbolism goes, Bali is quite an appropriate symbol. As one of countless islands in an equatorial & archipelago nation, it's representative of those places on earth that stand to suffer one of the most dramatic effects of global warming -- a rise in sea levels. When that happens, a good chunk of Indonesia's map will completely disappear. Before that happens, though, they -- like their neighbor, Australia -- are going to lose their surrounding coral reef, as well as their biodiversity, which is unique, as it straddles the Wallace Line.

Posted by: junebug on November 27, 2007 at 2:36 PM | PERMALINK

I'm trying to buck up my own professional organization, the American Meteorological Society, to offset the greenhouse-gas impact of flying to conferences, and to permit people to attend remotely. I do think it is an issue of credibility. See

http://tinyurl.com/2w74pv

Posted by: Tom Hamill on November 27, 2007 at 2:37 PM | PERMALINK

Do these calculations assume that the conference participants would otherwise create no CO2 emissions if they didn't jet off to Bali? Wouldn't they create emissions just in the course of their daily lives?

Flying is allegedly 38 passenger-miles-per-gallon, so flying one person round-trip someplace 3800 miles away (say, New York to Berlin, or Hawaii to Tokyo) burns 200 gallons of fuel. That's enough to heat my house for some fraction of the winter, or a year's driving in my Honda Civic.

Posted by: dr2chase on November 27, 2007 at 2:40 PM | PERMALINK

Do you realize that when you breath out YOU CREATE CO2? OMG! I'll believe global warming is a crisis when you stop breathing.

Posted by: IMU on November 27, 2007 at 2:41 PM | PERMALINK

Ahhh yes.

Our societal construct has produced a looming crisis of global climate change, yet we are not allowed to work within said construct to discuss or deal with it.

Sophists? Please, that gives them far too much credit. Lets just call them what they are:

Wet Farts.

I've watched closely, from the perspective of someone closely involved with the people doing the actual research on the issue. Sure there is the intellectual battle to get the science out to the masses, then the reasonable discussions of dissent in consensus.

Moving onto the ugly battle of people crying foul, with virtually no basis (being that they simply cherry pick data to support their claims).

Onto the dogmatic holding onto opinion in the face of all reasonable data.

Now, I admit, I'm simply baffled. What they hell is the problem? Seriously. I can only think that it pains them more to admit that they are wrong rather than simply acknowledging AGW is real and a serious issue. Aside from the long term threats of AGW, what is it that these people are so afraid of? I can only conclude that they are simply afraid of being wrong. Hell my 3 y.o. twins act more mature than this bunch.

Best part, is that once there is money to be made in sequestration technologies, they'll be the first on the bandwagon and exploiting it as best they can for personal financial gain.

[/RANT_OFF]

Posted by: Simp on November 27, 2007 at 2:46 PM | PERMALINK

You can't win with these people, anyway. They blather constantly about Al Gore's big house, but years ago when California's Governor Jerry Brown actually lived a modest lifestyle, the same people dismissed him as a moonbat.

Posted by: gummitch on November 27, 2007 at 2:52 PM | PERMALINK

I'm a student in strategic sustainable development (in Europe, no less) who has been reading this blog for a long time. I've never posted, but the second to last paragraph was hilarious. I'm going to post it on my wall and use it to cudgel my conservative friends at parties. Keep it up.

Posted by: Brendan on November 27, 2007 at 2:56 PM | PERMALINK

"Symbolism does have some importance here. They might have found a more centrally located place than Bali."

If the Earth was flat, they could pick a central location. It's hard to find the center of the surface of a sphere.

Posted by: reino on November 27, 2007 at 3:01 PM | PERMALINK

While it's hard to imagine folks substantially reducing their carbon-based energy emissions, it's easy to increase carbon sequestration.

Huh? some say, what the heck is carbon seq..astration?

I don't have the data to back up my hypothesis, but I bet modern agricultural practices that reduce carbon storage in soils, reduces the earth's biosphere to ameliorate the effects of atmospheric carbon dioxide.

All over the globe, humans have reduced the organic content of soils.

No, I am not talking about organic farming, I am talking about organic (carbon containing matter) stuff that can be locked up, or sequestered in the soil.

If levels of nitrous oxide, released from modern farm fields are detected in the atmosphere, then it reasons that extra carbon dioxide from poorly managed soils is also flooding into the atmosphere.

Soil erosion is a problem, but reduced carbon sequesterization of a soil is probably actually a greater problem.

Even the U.S. DOE agrees with me. !(enhancing terrestrial carbon sequestration)

Posted by: Tom Nicholson on November 27, 2007 at 3:04 PM | PERMALINK

"I'm just another liberal hypocrite"

No, you're just another liberal moron.

The point, Dear Kevin, is that the policy prescriptions which the alarmists seek to impose upon us will have terrible costs. Costs which they wholly fail to ackowledge or even dicsuss. Costs which these members of the authoritarian elites will never personally bear.

Any halfway-honest discussion of policy would weight those costs against their expected benefits. That is not happening and you personally are contributing to this dysfunction by lying about the sceptics' motivations and about their very statements.

Posted by: a on November 27, 2007 at 3:12 PM | PERMALINK

Do these people, [Glenn et al], have kids? Life will be quite miserable for them when there children start spouting all of this crap about global warming. "Your're ruining my life".

Maybe they're already vegan.

Posted by: bobbywally on November 27, 2007 at 3:17 PM | PERMALINK

The biggest problem I see is that we are going to rely on technology to get us out of this problem, but I personally do not see the kind of investment in technology commensurate with the problem. We could engage in a Manhattan Project to win a war, and we could engage in a moon race to outdo the Russkies, but we cant seem to engage in the same kind of intensive project to save mankind. Maybe if it was widely publicized that in the new globally warm world the Russians are kings (melting perma frost opens up Siberia and environs to habitation and ungodly quantities of resources)we would get off our asses and get on with it. But...time is indeed running out. At first people pointed to the UN Report and said its millenia away. Now the latest UN report says its merely decades away. I have heard scientists state that they do not even give us all that they know in order to avoid panic. It is here. It is accelerating, as smart scientists predicted it would, and we are rapidly reaching a point where we will not be able to contain it let alone reverse it. So, quit harping on the political BS, and quit complaining that solving the problem will actually COST something and get on with pressuring your representatives to act. Its our children who are at risk. It is our species which is in danger. Dont we care?

Posted by: Jammer on November 27, 2007 at 3:25 PM | PERMALINK

Google's Goal: Renewable Energy Cheaper than Coal

Creates renewable energy R&D group and supports breakthrough technologies

Mountain View, Calif. (November 27, 2007) � Google (NASDAQ: GOOG) today announced a new strategic initiative to develop electricity from renewable energy sources that will be cheaper than electricity produced from coal. The newly created initiative, known as RE-C, will focus initially on advanced solar thermal power, wind power technologies, enhanced geothermal systems and other potential breakthrough technologies. [more]

Posted by: anonymous on November 27, 2007 at 3:31 PM | PERMALINK

a--
Are you saying that nobody who has every said that we should do something about global warming has ever considered the costs? Are you saying that the people mocking the idea of doing something about global warming have considered the cost of not doing anything?

Why don't you find a report--any report--about global warming, read it, and then revise your opinion based on the information you learn?

Posted by: reino on November 27, 2007 at 3:31 PM | PERMALINK

"a" writes:

The point, Dear Kevin, is that the policy prescriptions which the alarmists seek to impose upon us will have terrible costs. Costs which they wholly fail to acknowledge or even discuss.

Yes, the cost of avoiding environmental disaster may be enormous. I don't think anyone is denying that. The point is that doing nothing will likely have terrible costs, as well. None of those worried about global warming have ever tried to stifle a discussion of the costs of preventative measures.

Posted by: Daryl McCullough on November 27, 2007 at 3:31 PM | PERMALINK

Symbolism does have some importance here. They might have found a more centrally located place than Bali.

More centrally located to what?

Posted by: Stefan on November 27, 2007 at 3:32 PM | PERMALINK

The point, Dear Kevin, is that the policy prescriptions which the alarmists seek to impose upon us will have terrible costs. Costs which they wholly fail to ackowledge or even dicsuss. Costs which these members of the authoritarian elites will never personally bear.

Who doesn't acknowledge or discuss. That's pure imagination.

I bet you've never read the IPCC report.

Posted by: Jeffrey Davis on November 27, 2007 at 3:53 PM | PERMALINK

Word! Kevin, you're always fun for me to read but you just tore the cover off the ball with this post. I'm thinking we need to test you for steroids!

Posted by: Jeff S. on November 27, 2007 at 3:59 PM | PERMALINK

terrible costs

Like what? Trading in a huge SUV for a much smaller car? Riding a bike for short errands/commutes, instead of driving? Cutting 90% of the beef/pork/tuna out of your diet? Getting your house properly insulated/windowed? LED lighting, instead of incandescent? (Honda Civic, 50 miles/week, yes, working on it, working on it -- there's some new LED track lighting that's pretty nifty).

If everyone did all those things, it would make a difference. It might be terribly costly for certain industries, but business is business -- if they didn't see this coming and make plans, they deserve to go under.

Posted by: dr2chase on November 27, 2007 at 4:02 PM | PERMALINK

Maybe if there were more science books in the NYT list of notable books of 2007. Oh maybe that why there aren't any because if too many people start to understand the the science they will drown the deniers.

Oh yo a -- what kind of name is that.

Posted by: Bob OReilly on November 27, 2007 at 4:05 PM | PERMALINK

What planet are these people from, again? If they were actually from Earth, you'd think they'd at least have some casual concern about the impending climate catastrophe.

These people might as well be activists for a suicide cult. But it just goes to show, there's even money to be made (and smug egos to be stroked) by apologists for genocide.

The upside to the impending climate catastrophe is that Florida will be the first state to be reclaimed by the seas. And Texas summers won't just cause brain damage like they do now, they'll start killing people outright.

Posted by: Augustus on November 27, 2007 at 4:10 PM | PERMALINK

Global warming is a perfect demonstration that people won't try to fix things until they break.

"Intellegent monkeys" indeed.

Posted by: Joey Giraud on November 27, 2007 at 4:21 PM | PERMALINK

The point, Dear Kevin, is that the policy prescriptions which the alarmists seek to impose upon us will have terrible costs.

Like the alarmists who proposed reinforcing the levees in New Orleans? Or the ones who recommended repairing the I-35 bridge in Minnesota? Or do you mean the ones who said that "bin Laden is determined to strike inside the U.S."?

Yes, inactivity based on partisan stupidity or unwillingness to devote monies that could instead go to tax breaks for oil companies has been so productive in our country's recent past.

Also, in this case I think by "alarmists" you mean "experts in their respective scientific fields of study."

Costs which they wholly fail to ackowledge or even dicsuss. Any halfway-honest discussion of policy would weight those costs against their expected benefits. That is not happening

Actually no, you have no idea what you're talking about, and apparently are not literate enough to use Google to disabuse yourself of your own ignorance. To wit:

Accepting the most pessimistic cost numbers, US climate scientist Stephen Schneider of Stanford University and Swedish energy economist Christian Azar of Goteborg University calculated that meeting the Kyoto Protocol would only shave one-tenth of one percentage point off our GDP growth. While it would eventually cost trillions of dollars, stabilizing greenhouse gases at a level that would prevent global warming, they say, would be barely noticeable in a hundred years time: the world would be ten times richer in the year 2102.

That's just one example and one analysis.

and you personally are contributing to this dysfunction by lying about the sceptics' motivations and about their very statements.

Nope. No he's not.

Next.

Posted by: trex on November 27, 2007 at 4:23 PM | PERMALINK

Here's my question for the global warming deniers turned blockers of any real action: What do we get to do to you if/when you're wrong? What if you guys succeed and we don't do any of the hard choices until it's too late? Micronesia used to be a country, millions of rich folks have to build their new houses on stilts on their former beachfront property, millions are displaced, wars over water and food take place, and more. What do we get to do to you then? How do we repay your arrogance, your obfuscation and denial, your fiddling while Rome burns? Do we get to kick you in the ass every time one of us walk by? Do we get to let kids spit on you as they walk by? Do we crucify you and yours on hills overlooking every American city? Just how should we repay those who helped screw over millions? Tar and feathers would seem too good for you and yours. Just think about the costs of you being wrong, and think about if those penalites apply to you directly. Do you really want to be an unmitigated ass in the view of the entire world? You're headed there. I already don't like you.

Posted by: Eclectic on November 27, 2007 at 4:31 PM | PERMALINK

Ah, Kevin.

Man. You guys are amazing. Still harping on this hysterial gloom and doom global warming hooha, huh? I thought I took you guys to school a couple months ago about this subject. But I guess day after day of listening to that liberal media radio really burns that leftist moonbat agenda into you, huh?

Repeat after me: THERE IS NO GLOBAL WRAMING! And even if there was, it's just the natural cycle of the earth. Volcanos send more carbon into the atmosphere every year than we do. There are even some estimates that even if we followed Kyoto to the letter, we would only shave one half of one percent off the total warming by the end of the century. And think of the costs!

Americans are waiting for you to move into an Omish community before we start believing your tripe about global warmin.g

Posted by: egbert on November 27, 2007 at 4:49 PM | PERMALINK

Well, not only are the denialists' responses stupid for the reasons you give, but: most of what we could do to cut GW would be a good idea anyway, like using less gas, recycling, more efficient lighting, etc.

Posted by: Neil B. on November 27, 2007 at 4:53 PM | PERMALINK

I see Egbert with tar and feathers on him screaming his apologies. In about 10 years.

Posted by: Eclectic on November 27, 2007 at 5:09 PM | PERMALINK

I wonder how many small hybrid cars you can make out of an Escalade or an Expedition? There are a lot of multiplier effects on getting our transportation lighter, promoting mass transit, living in better insulated homes, and consuming more local products (better jobs perhaps?). Hello, like more $$$ in your pockets!

Posted by: Doc at the Radar Station on November 27, 2007 at 5:10 PM | PERMALINK

Brian: Symbolism does have some importance here. They might have found a more centrally located place than Bali.

And you know this because you are a geographic wizard?

Please tell us what the most central location would have been for the conference, without adopting an "America is the center of the Universe and therefore is centrally located for all purposes" hypernationalistic theory you wingers are noted for.

Posted by: anonymous on November 27, 2007 at 5:10 PM | PERMALINK

a: The point, Dear Kevin, is that the policy prescriptions which the alarmists seek to impose upon us will have terrible costs. Costs which they wholly fail to ackowledge or even dicsuss. Costs which these members of the authoritarian elites will never personally bear.

I agree - the Iraq war was a terrible idea.

Posted by: alex on November 27, 2007 at 5:11 PM | PERMALINK

Best. Egbert. EVAH! I nearly wet myself on that one.

Posted by: The East German judge scores it a 10! on November 27, 2007 at 5:14 PM | PERMALINK

THERE IS NO GLOBAL WRAMING!

But there is global warming.

Posted by: reino on November 27, 2007 at 5:16 PM | PERMALINK

The reason people like Glenn and I are kind of sceptical is because you folks have been like Prince Charming going door to door trying to put your glass slipper of regulation on whatever foot it will fit on... Glenn has repeatedly said he supports most of the policies prescribed to combat global warming on other grounds - energy independence, etc. - but don't you see the irony of flying off to Bali when the American taxpayer has provided the UN poohbahs a swell hangout in Manhattan already?

Posted by: mr insensitive on November 27, 2007 at 5:34 PM | PERMALINK

Thanks, but I already have clean drinking water.

Posted by: Chad on November 27, 2007 at 5:36 PM | PERMALINK

The reason people like Glenn and I are kind of sceptical

By "people like Glenn and I" you do mean total idiots, right?

Posted by: trex on November 27, 2007 at 5:41 PM | PERMALINK

Yeah trex, good one.

And why is Kevin such a god-damn grouch. Glenn Reynolds is twice the blogger Kevin will ever be, and I've never seen him display the petty meanness of spirit I see on every left/liberal blog I've ever visited. Have a great time sneering for each other at your Austin nutroots convention.

Posted by: mr insensitive on November 27, 2007 at 5:56 PM | PERMALINK

Kevin Drum for President.

Posted by: Mr. E on November 27, 2007 at 6:08 PM | PERMALINK

Glenn Reynolds is twice the blogger Kevin will ever be, and I've never seen him display the petty meanness of spirit I see on every left/liberal blog I've ever visited.

I suppose this "petty meanness of spirit" doesn't include advocating the cold-blooded murder of scientists and religious leaders, as Reynolds did here?

This has been obvious for a long time anyway, and I don't understand why the Bush Administration has been so slow to respond. Nor do I think that high-profile diplomacy, or an invasion, is an appropriate response. We should be responding quietly, killing radical mullahs and iranian atomic scientists, supporting the simmering insurgencies within Iran, putting the mullahs' expat business interests out of business, etc.

http://instapundit.com/archives2/2007/02/post_2521.php

Posted by: Stefan on November 27, 2007 at 6:14 PM | PERMALINK

THERE IS NO GLOBAL WRAMING!

Even a blind pig finds the occasional acorn, scrambled egbert. Global WARMING,/b>, however, most certainly does exist. We have the math to prove it. (Can you say the same about your god?)

Omish community

Make up your own Story of O joke here. Like - if there is an Omish community somewhere, there is a waiting list for residency...

Posted by: Blue Girl, Red State (aka G.C.) on November 27, 2007 at 6:18 PM | PERMALINK

That's rational meanness of spirit, not the petty kind.

Posted by: mr insensitive on November 27, 2007 at 6:20 PM | PERMALINK

clop-clop, clop-clop, clop-clop BANG! clop-clop, clop-clop, clop-clop....

What was it?

An Omish drive-by shooting.

Posted by: mr insensitive on November 27, 2007 at 6:24 PM | PERMALINK

"Omish", I presume, are Buddhist Amish.

Posted by: Bruce Moomaw on November 27, 2007 at 6:32 PM | PERMALINK

If we are gonna go with the Story of O theme, that BANG! has nothing to do with gunfire.

Just sayin...

Posted by: Blue Girl, Red State (aka G.C.) on November 27, 2007 at 6:33 PM | PERMALINK

The Story of Oy! would make a great title....

Posted by: Stefan on November 27, 2007 at 6:46 PM | PERMALINK

It would have to be about a sexually adventurous young woman from the West 70's, don't you think?

Posted by: Blue Girl, Red State (aka G.C.) on November 27, 2007 at 6:49 PM | PERMALINK

In my experience they're found in the West 90s.....

Posted by: Stefan on November 27, 2007 at 7:23 PM | PERMALINK

Is there any troll more dull than "leftists are all BIG MEANIES!!1!!!"

I say no.

Posted by: Mnemosyne on November 27, 2007 at 7:48 PM | PERMALINK

Eclectic on November 27, 2007 at 4:31 PM

You. are. my. Hero.

Seriously. We definately need to pass a law that states that AGW deniers can only own beachfront property. And they can never move out once they are in.

/rant on
It's amazing that the cost of 9/11 which galvanized the Iraq and Afghanistan wars and Homeland security acts, etc will end up being like 1/1000th the cost of global warming in 30 years. Of course, the cost in 100 years will be unbelievable, but hey, thats 100 years from now, that will never happen in our lifetime so who cares. I mean, maybe our grandchildren, but we saved them from the dangers of abortion so they should be grateful right?
/rant off

Posted by: Aaron on November 27, 2007 at 8:05 PM | PERMALINK

"Word! Kevin, you're always fun for me to read but you just tore the cover off the ball with this post. I'm thinking we need to test you for steroids!"

Blogger doping - the new next big scandal . . .

Posted by: Dan S. on November 27, 2007 at 8:07 PM | PERMALINK

Glenn Reynolds is twice the blogger Kevin will ever be, and I've never seen him display the petty meanness of spirit I see on every left/liberal blog I've ever visited.

Projecton much? Perhaps the petty meanness you've seen displayed on every left/liberal blog you've ever visited...is your own:

Keep it up guys, I really don't think you'll get back in the game that way, but then having your own little circle jerk is much more important than influencing events in the real world.

Posted by: minion of rove on December 22, 2005 at 11:18 AM | PERMALINK

Tsk tsk, very bad words there.

And here's a brilliant bit of political analysis:

Let me put on my crass political stratergery hat for a minute and offer you nutjobs some advice: remember Max Cleland? If you guys want to keep debating how many civil libertarians can dance on the top of a coffee table in the faculty lounge, have a blast; but when we clean your clock in the next election, please don't say Diebold or Halliburton stole it from you.

Posted by: Minion of Rove on December 25, 2005 at 9:45 AM | PERMALINK

That's a twofer: calling us bad names in a spirit of petty meanness AND utterly failing to predict the outcome of the election...in a spirit of petty meanness.

Oh, and acting as if the smearing of soldier and patriot Max Cleland was justified by political expediency threatening to do it again.

If the Democratic Party is smart...as if. Please point out to your moonbat readers that never leave the echo chamber that this story was broken by Andrew Ferguson at The Weekly Standard.

Posted by: minion of rove on January 4, 2006 at 2:25 PM | PERMALINK

More name calling and petty meanness.

And for the record, Glenn "we found WMD's in Iraq" Reynolds isn't twice the blogger of Domino or Inkblot, much less anybody else. He is the Avatar of Mediocrity, and in his case "civility" is the last refuge of a dullard who is outgunned and outclassed.

Posted by: trex on November 27, 2007 at 8:07 PM | PERMALINK

Wow, it's like old home(oh) week, what with minion and eggy and mhr as "a" and...who are we missing? hawk's over pestering Blue Texan and Norman must be getting his prostate rotor-rootered out or somesuch.

If normy were here he'd probably tell us he's hooked his Lexus ess you vee up to one of his daddy's ahl wells so he can run it 24/7 to help get this warming nonsense over with once and for all.

But of course it doesn't exist--having been invented up by elite millionaire climatologists amassing more moneys to spend on transvestite hookers.

In Bali.

Posted by: trollhattan on November 27, 2007 at 8:51 PM | PERMALINK

Two traits delegitimize proponents of immediate, drastic action to combat global warming.

1) They never reconcile combatting global warming with the need for economic development. Cutting developed world emissions to 1950's per capita levels would reduce global CO2 emissions. But an increase to 1950s per capita emissions levels by China and India would more than make up the difference.

2) They focus on lifestyle changes of dubious value or high cost. Thus they commodify the global warming debate. Like organic food and bottled water, taking a stand on global warming becomes a way of contructing one's personal identity and an acceptable method of conspicuous consumption.

Posted by: Adam on November 27, 2007 at 9:00 PM | PERMALINK

Oh, there are also the people hysterically prophesying the end of the world and stating that our species deserves to go extinct.

Those folks aren't out to make friends or converts.

And they don't.

Posted by: Adam on November 27, 2007 at 9:02 PM | PERMALINK

They never reconcile combatting global warming with the need for economic development.

Really? "Never?" So a simple Google search wont provide a few million hits that refute this statement? Perhaps you should reconsider.

They focus on lifestyle changes of dubious value or high cost.

In your subjective, partisan, and unsupported opinion. Is switching to CF light bulbs "dubious" if it prevents millions of tons of CO2 from entering the atmosphere as part of an incremental program? Is it a " high cost" solution to regulate smokestack emissions if it mitigates drought ten years down the road?

Oh, there are also the people hysterically prophesying the end of the world

Oh, you mean like climate scientists and the Pentagon?

A secret report, suppressed by US defence chiefs and obtained by The Observer, warns that major European cities will be sunk beneath rising seas as Britain is plunged into a 'Siberian' climate by 2020. Nuclear conflict, mega-droughts, famine and widespread rioting will erupt across the world.
Posted by: trex on November 27, 2007 at 9:24 PM | PERMALINK

I agree, let's cut the posturing, and replace our payroll, income, and other taxes 100% with a carbon emission tax, by Constitutional amendment. Since carbon emissions are the most serious threat to civilization, carbon emissions should be what we tax severely, and the only thing we tax, so as to profoundly change behavior.

Heck, there are all sorts of people who are skeptical about the impact of carbon emissions who would gladly sign on to such a proposal, so people who are sincerely most alarmed about carbon emissions should gladly agree to this, in order to build a coaltion in favor of taking strong measures which would change behavior in very substantive ways.

Posted by: Will Allen on November 27, 2007 at 10:17 PM | PERMALINK

Norman must be getting his prostate rotor-rootered out or somesuch.

Since you mentioned me by name, I will comment here, even though I had no intention of doing so. And I'm fine, thanks for asking.

In this world, there is only one piece of cheese, and there are three mice trying to get the cheese. The cheese is delicious. The cheese could sustain all three mice for a little while, but if one of the mice can get the cheese and squirrel it away and keep it under wraps, he can dictate to the other two what they'll need to do to get some cheese to live. Now, two mice can gang up and take the cheese, but one thing you need to know about these mice--they just want the cheese. They're not into cooperation or planning or touchy feelie liberal bullshit. They want the cheese. Their narrow self interests define them. If they can gain control of the cheese, they gain control of their fate. And one thing we know is true for humans, dogs, mice or fish--fate is something to fear and master. This world is about mastering ones fate. Learn that and you will unlock the secrets to yourself, little mouse. But it all comes back to the main question--what to do with the cheese? Share or grab it and take mastery of fate? Well, some are defeatist and they won't bother to fight for the cheese. Some are boastful and foolish and fail to plan adequately for the taking of the cheese. And the mouse that takes the cheese and leaves the other two to suck wind in the face of failure? That mouse is a winner. That mouse is America. And who leads America? A mouse who wins or a mouse who gives up and sobs and doesn't even try?

So the question is--who's going to take my cheese? You?

Don't make me laugh. While you were reading the above paragraph, I took the cheese and I put it where you can't find it.

And that's why Bush is a great President.

Posted by: Norman Rogers on November 27, 2007 at 10:27 PM | PERMALINK

I took the cheese and I put it where you can't find it. Or where we just don't want to look.

Posted by: thersites on November 27, 2007 at 10:34 PM | PERMALINK

Heck, there are all sorts of people who are skeptical about the impact of carbon emissions who would gladly sign on to such a proposal, so people who are sincerely most alarmed about carbon emissions should gladly agree to this, in order to build a coaltion in favor of taking strong measures which would change behavior in very substantive ways.

And they would be idiots for buying your amateur-hour attempt at non-coalition building.

I am a lifelong Republican, worshipper at the altar of two great confluences in conservative thought--Nelson Rockefeller and Barry Goldwater. I am to the right of some, to the left of others, but the Free Market is my God. I speak of a Creator, but the Free Market is my Jesus, and he is a righteous deity.

But this global warming and climate change thing it totally--totally--real and we need to do something about it. I had plans to go to Switzerland for Christmas but they are cancelled and I may have to go to Alberta in order to go skiing.

You see, it's too warm to ski in Switzerland. What the deuce is up with that? Every damned thing is melting and we need to solve this problem ASAP.

So don't lump me in with the wooly-headed idiots who can't see the melting snow on the branches of the trees in the forest, sir.

And, please. Is Will Allen still the stupidest son of a goddamned bitch posting on Kevin Dumbo's blog? Pardon my French, but what the hell? Can't someone ban the really stupid from making conservatives look bad?

Posted by: Norman Rogers on November 27, 2007 at 10:37 PM | PERMALINK

Will Allen: replace ... other taxes ... with a carbon emission tax, by Constitutional amendment

Constitutional amendment, so the federal government can levy an excise tax? Even the libertarian ranters who haven't heard the news about the ratification of the 16th amendment don't doubt that the feds can levy excises. You do remember the Whiskey Rebellion, don't you?

Posted by: alex on November 27, 2007 at 10:39 PM | PERMALINK

let's cut the posturing, and replace our payroll, income, and other taxes 100% with a carbon emission tax, by Constitutional amendment.

This is exactly why I said:

Is Will Allen still the stupidest son of a goddamned bitch posting on Kevin Dumbo's blog?

And I incorrectly left it up to the reader to suppose that there might be another person who would take that mantle. My mistake.

I should have plainly stated: Will Allen is the stupidest son of a goddamned bitch posting on Kevin Dumbo's blog.

My bad, my homies! Peace out, you all.

Posted by: Norman Rogers on November 27, 2007 at 10:44 PM | PERMALINK

That was the dumbest fucking thing I have ever read.

It's more like this.

100 years ago, back when mice were learning how to make cheese in mass production, some mice invented new processes for making more and better cheese. These mice were then venerated for their contribution and given lots and lots of cheese.

These mice then bribed other mice with the cheese so that it would be legal to pass the ownership of their cheese producing plants to their children. The children promptly realized they could pay much less cheese to the workers in the plants so they could keep more of the cheese being produced. Then they bribed more mice to lower the cheese tax for the mice with the most cheese.

Flash forward 100 years: Ya got a buncha mice who didn't contribute shit, sitting on mountains of cheese, doling it out in penny packets to the mice who make the cheese in the cheese factories. The mice who work their asses off in said plants barely scape by, nearly starving, and just for shits n giggles, the rich mice pay other mice to write propaganda calling the worker mice 'lazy' and touting all the ways that they deserve their great huge mountain of fucking cheese, half of which is going moldy.

Every time I see a Free Market worshiping asshole, I see greed and selfishness. Norman either has a mountain of cheese, or wants to steal one. Either way, there is no way in 100 years he could earn one.

Posted by: Aaron on November 27, 2007 at 10:57 PM | PERMALINK

Every time I see a Free Market worshiping asshole, I see greed and selfishness. Norman either has a mountain of cheese, or wants to steal one.

No, because if one steals the cheese, one will go to jail.

You see, the trick is to make you and your ilk give up, so that the cheese legitimately becomes my property.

While you spent all that time worrying about how I got my cheese, I took more of it, legally, and now the law and the police are on my side, protecting my cheese for me against your predations.

Sucks to be on the out looking in, little pink nose pressed up against the glass, wondering how you're going to get enough cheese to make it to next week, doesn't it? Well, that's not my problem.

Posted by: Norman Rogers on November 27, 2007 at 11:08 PM | PERMALINK

"So a simple Google search wont provide a few million hits that refute this statement? Perhaps you should reconsider."

Okay. Provide a plan. One of the millions you have on file.

"In your subjective, partisan, and unsupported opinion."

Are you paid by the adjective?

"Is switching to CF light bulbs "dubious" if it prevents millions of tons of CO2 from entering the atmosphere as part of an incremental program?"

CF light bulbs are the only kind I buy. But ditching incandescents won’t make a difference.

The US currently emits 5.7 billion tons of CO2 a year. China currently emits 3.5 billion tons.

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/env_co2_emi-environment-co2-emissions

It is estimated that in 2030, China will emit 9.5 billion tons of CO2.

http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/j.1748-3131.2006.00019.x

The US could disappear tomorrow and Chinese economic growth would make up the difference by 2030. And of course India is also growing (shining, even). As are Indonesia and Brazil. Their per capita emissions will also climb.

"Is it a " high cost" solution to regulate smokestack emissions if it mitigates drought ten years down the road?"

Subjecting global warming to a cost/benefit analysis? Who are you, Bjorn Lomborg?

"Oh, you mean like climate scientists and the Pentagon?

A secret report, suppressed by US defence chiefs and obtained by The Observer, warns that major European cities will be sunk beneath rising seas as Britain is plunged into a 'Siberian' climate by 2020. Nuclear conflict, mega-droughts, famine and widespread rioting will erupt across the world."

Please stake you credibility on this report. Please Please Please Please PLEASE.

Posted by: Adam on November 27, 2007 at 11:16 PM | PERMALINK

Tell me about the rabbits, Norman!

Posted by: thersites on November 27, 2007 at 11:19 PM | PERMALINK

@Norman

Give us a hint. In the movie playing your head, are you the Al Pacino character?

Posted by: Adam on November 27, 2007 at 11:27 PM | PERMALINK

Is Will Allen still the stupidest son of a goddamned bitch posting on Kevin Dumbo's blog?

Frankly, I have no idea.

However, I am quite sure that Norman is the most pompous arrogant ass that posts on this board.

Norman, you are not the only one with money or a brain. Do us all a favor. Get over yourself and put your cheese where the sun never shines.

Posted by: Ex - Republican Yankee on November 27, 2007 at 11:50 PM | PERMALINK

The US could disappear tomorrow and Chinese economic growth would make up the difference by 2030.

So the rat who drowns with the most toys wins?

Absolutely right, if present trends continue, we're hosed, no matter what the US does. The game is to change those trends, and as the fattest rat on the planet, it's up to us to make the first move. If we do something serious, maybe we can get India and China to do something, too. I cannot give you a 100% guarantee that they'll change if we change, but I can give you a 100% guarantee that if we don't, they won't.

Just as an example of something that can change, we've got to make it so driving an SUV is not a status symbol, because that is spreading them into other countries. Anyone drives an SUV, they've got to be regarded as a schmuck. It's got to be made about as cool as driving a sewage pumper. We've got to find a way to convince other countries to NOT go quite so nuts over the automobile, else we are indeed screwed.

Posted by: dr2chase on November 28, 2007 at 12:20 AM | PERMALINK

Anyone drives an SUV, they've got to be regarded as a schmuck.

Well, I try to do my part-- when an acquaintance complained bitterly about having to trade her SUV for a minivan (a 'loser cruiser,' she called it) that would accommodate a third car seat, I observed that an SUV full of baby gear was sort of the combover of the automotive world anyway-- it's not like anyone's fooled by one. She didn't appreciate that much, I guess, but what the hell...

Posted by: latts on November 28, 2007 at 8:21 AM | PERMALINK

Appell is off by a factor of more than 1000 in his calculations, as indicated in the comments to his post. 0.18 kg/mile for air travel multiplied by 6000 miles is 1080 kg of carbon per attendant, or
ONE ton of carbon. Mutiply by 12,000 and make it a round trip; you get 24 THOUSAND tons, not 24 MILLION. He's not just a sophist; he's an innumerate sophist. And he didn't even have the wit to realize that there was something wrong when he compared the carbon output to that of a small city.

Posted by: Marc on November 28, 2007 at 8:33 AM | PERMALINK

trex

WOW! I guess I'm pretty sensitive after all - I can't tell you how impressed I was that you've archived some of my pearls of wisdom.

Posted by: mr insensitive on November 28, 2007 at 8:44 AM | PERMALINK

Let me propose a thought experiment for you folks. Suppose a scientific consensus determined the best solution for global warming was not more command-and-control economics, but massive de-regulation and tax cutting... Do you think those rascally conservatves would be so hesitant to sign on, and do you think the usual suspects on the left would embrace it so enthusiastically?
I'm old enough to remember when economists like Lester Thoreau of MIT were predicting Americans would be pulling the Japanese around in rickshaws by now - and his computer models, anecdotes, projections and premises were many times better grounded than the global warming "consensus" that exists today. Maybe warming is occurring, I'm not wedded to denial, but I don't see anything positive that come out of some ostentatious confab in Bali were our betters tell us to quit living that tacky American lifestyle and become more enlightened like they are.

Posted by: mr insensitive on November 28, 2007 at 8:58 AM | PERMALINK

They might have found a more centrally located place than Bali.

The more irrelevant the conference, the more exotic the venue.

Posted by: Bob M on November 28, 2007 at 9:27 AM | PERMALINK

Let me propose a thought experiment for you folks.

Hold on to your wallet--a stupid person is trying to think in public.

Suppose a scientific consensus determined the best solution for global warming was not more command-and-control economics, but massive de-regulation and tax cutting... Do you think those rascally conservatves would be so hesitant to sign on, and do you think the usual suspects on the left would embrace it so enthusiastically?

Except that that's not the case. While I am for tax cuts, it's clear to even me that the solution for stopping global climate change is to force India, China and the rest of the developing world to stop developing by leveraging against their economies and causing them to collapse. They need to go back to riding bicycles and living in the stone age, sir.


I'm old enough to remember when economists like Lester Thoreau of MIT were predicting Americans would be pulling the Japanese around in rickshaws by now - and his computer models, anecdotes, projections and premises were many times better grounded than the global warming "consensus" that exists today.

That's the goddamned nuttiest thing anyone has ever tried to put forth, at least today. No, sorry, sir--I lived through the era of "Big Japan" and the "yellow menace" that was going to cause America's economy to collapse. I sneered at it then, as I sneer at your mental deficiencies now.

There are staggering amounts of climate change data that my conservative brethren need to become familiar with. Staggering. And if you don't believe the data, go see the melting glaciers and the melting ice up close to get a clear picture of what's going on. The conservatives who deny global warming are the ones who can't afford to go to Switzerland and see the effects on the Alps. They're the cheap suit conservatives that I dismiss out of hand--many of them are perverted Jesus freaks, and my beloved Republican Party needs to purge these diseased animals ASAP.

Maybe warming is occurring, I'm not wedded to denial, but I don't see anything positive that come out of some ostentatious confab in Bali were our betters tell us to quit living that tacky American lifestyle and become more enlightened like they are.

You numbnuts--if the Republican Party can seize this issue and do a BETTER job with it than the goddamned liberals, then what do you think the result would be? More wins at the ballot box, for one! And that's how things work in this country--you need to seize the initiative and beat your opponents brains out on every issue.

Truly, this is where I break with my brothers and sisters in the Republican Party. I guess it's because I have had the means in recent years to go to places like Switzerland, Iceland, Alaska and Alberta.

You and your cheap suit buddies are wrong, sir. Dead wrong. And you failed to make me think or accept your pathetic strawman argument.

Posted by: Norman Rogers on November 28, 2007 at 10:28 AM | PERMALINK

the solution for stopping global climate change is to force India, China and the rest of the developing world to stop developing by leveraging against their economies and causing them to collapse

I can't tell if you're a sociopath or a parody, but perhaps China and India have other plans. We're the guys with the leveraged economy right now, anyhow. If WE go belly-up, the resulting world-wide economic collapse will reduce CO2 emissions for a while, but I'd rather find a less painful way than that.

Posted by: dr2chase on November 28, 2007 at 10:59 AM | PERMALINK

No, alex, the Constitutional Amendment would be to prohibit income and payroll taxes, and to make a carbon emission tax the only allowed method of Federal taxation. Does absolutely everything need to be explained in the most obvious fashion?

Preserve your essence, Norman. Remember, distilled water and pure grain alcohol only!

Posted by: Will Allen on November 28, 2007 at 11:25 AM | PERMALINK

the Constitutional Amendment would be to prohibit income and payroll taxes, and to make a carbon emission tax the only allowed method of Federal taxation. Does absolutely everything need to be explained in the most obvious fashion?

That is still, without a doubt, a foolish and disasterous plan, not worthy of consideration.

Posted by: Norman Rogers on November 28, 2007 at 12:33 PM | PERMALINK

Well, Norman, if carbon emissions are the enormous externality that the alarmists have asserted them to be, then fully capturing that externality, thus changing economic behavior and spurring on technology development, is entirely sensible. Unless you wish to greatly increase tax revenues as a percentage of GDP, reducing other taxes is necessary. Prohibiting by amendment other federal taxes other than one on carbon emissions would act as a great barrier to Congress greatly increasing taxes as a percentage of GDP, while allowing Congress to raise necessary revenues, and also putting in place a huge incentive to reduce or eliminate carbon emissions. Yes, as economic behavior and technology innovation proceeded, the Federal Treasury would be facing reduced revenue streams. I consider this a feature.

Also, Normie, don't fret; women sense your power!

Posted by: Will Allen on November 28, 2007 at 12:58 PM | PERMALINK

Will Allen wrote: "... if carbon emissions are the enormous externality that the alarmists have asserted them to be ..."

An "alarmist" is someone who "needlessly alarms or attempts to alarm others, as by inventing or spreading false or exaggerated rumors of impending danger or catastrophe" (American Heritage Dictionary).

Predictions of catastrophic changes to the Earth's climate, hydrosphere and biosphere that will result from unabated anthropogenic carbon emissions and consequent warming of the Earth are neither false nor exaggerated, and "alarm" about these outcomes is entirely justified, and not "needless".

Thus your characterization of those who warn of these outcomes and stress the urgency of prompt action to dramatically reduce anthropogenic carbon emissions as "alarmist" is inappropriate.

Posted by: SecularAnimist on November 28, 2007 at 1:29 PM | PERMALINK

IMHO, global warmism (of the sort advocated by SA) is a variant of the doctrine of original sin, dressed up a bit. Man is born sinful - indeed, the very air he expels, and all his economic acitivity, are destroying this garden of eden that God gave us. Only by repenting, by wearing sackcloth and driving Priuses, can we hope to atone and find forgiveness.

On the other hand, my 16-year-old son says that's ridiculous, and global warmism is nothing more than another form of mass hysteria.

Posted by: DBL on November 28, 2007 at 2:43 PM | PERMALINK

DBL wrote: "IMHO, global warmism (of the sort advocated by SA) is a variant of the doctrine of original sin"

Your humble opinion is irrelevant nonsensical gibberish.

The simple facts are:

Human activities, principally the burning of fossil fuels, are releasing large quantities of carbon dioxide into the Earth's atmosphere.

The rapidly increasing concentration of carbon dioxide in the Earth's atmosphere is causing the Earth's atmosphere to retain more of the energy the Earth receives from the sun and is thus causing the Earth's atmosphere, oceans and surface to warm.

This rapid, extreme and accelerating anthropogenic warming is causing rapid, extreme and accelerating changes to the Earth's climate, hydrosphere and biosphere which are inimical to human life, human civilization and life on Earth generally.

If the anthropogenic warming continues unabated the resulting warming will be catastrophic for human beings, human civilization and the other life forms with whom we share the Earth.

None of this has anything to do with any "doctrine of original sin" or any other idiotic bullshit.

Your 16-year-old son is obviously as ignorant as you are.


Posted by: SecularAnimist on November 28, 2007 at 3:28 PM | PERMALINK

I take it then, SA, that you would support my proposal that all federal taxation be in the form of levies on carbon emissions?

Posted by: Will Allen on November 28, 2007 at 4:00 PM | PERMALINK

All the environmental rules and regulation we can dream up will not appreciably affect America's environmental impact if we keep doubling our population every thirty years; that's why I'm heartened by the liberals' statesmanship and ability to grow, finally endorsing a brave pivot on illegal immigration by supporting a border fence and effective enforcement of our immigration laws........or is Nancy Pelosi forcing the Salvation Army to hire salespeople who refuse to speak English?

Posted by: mr insensitive on November 28, 2007 at 4:02 PM | PERMALINK
…women sense your power! Will Allen at 12:58 PM
No one should know better than you that females tend to avoid the clinically insane.
…. all federal taxation be in the form of levies on carbon emissions? Will Allen at 4:00 PM
A carbon tax would be an excellent way to encourage greater use of non-polluting energy sources, but it would be silly in the extreme to make that the sole source of government revenue.
keep doubling our population every thirty years…. mr insensitive on at 4:02 PM
You could legislate the total fertility rate and use the excess people for spare body parts [/sarcasm] Posted by: Mike on November 28, 2007 at 5:05 PM | PERMALINK

Goodness, Mike, if adding carbon to the atmosphere is the horrendously dangerous actvity that many have said it is, then making that action the sole taxable event on the federal level is eminently sensible, given the dramatic effect such a policy would have on all manner of behavior. Now, is it such a crisis, or isn't it?

Posted by: Will Allen on November 28, 2007 at 6:51 PM | PERMALINK

Would mirrors in space work? I think we should try it.... I've seen on one actually offer why this wouldn't work except for the difficulties. But what's money against the survival of the only sentient species in the universe (that we know of)?

Posted by: MNPundit on November 28, 2007 at 8:15 PM | PERMALINK

What about giant deployable PV panels on satellites that simultaneously block the sun and generate electricity and microwave that back? We would need some kind of flexible, robust, super-super thin film deposition technology that is mass producible. Perhaps manufacturing the thing in orbit? Hmmm.

Posted by: Doc at the Radar Station on November 28, 2007 at 9:35 PM | PERMALINK

P.S. I would rather see thousands of job openings to shuttle up into orbit to accomplish that, than thousands of CareerBuilder™ ads for Blackwater and Haliburton in Iraq.

Posted by: Doc at the Radar Station on November 28, 2007 at 9:37 PM | PERMALINK




 

 

Read Jonathan Rowe remembrance and articles
Email Newsletter icon, E-mail Newsletter icon, Email List icon, E-mail List icon Sign up for Free News & Updates

Advertise in WM



buy from Amazon and
support the Monthly