James Hrynyshyn is a freelance science journalist based in western North Carolina, where he tries to put degrees in marine biology and journalism to good use.
... is that the rest of the world doesn't stop while you're off stuffing your face with the family. And by the time you're back in the saddle, the virtual stack of papers to read and work to catch up on threatens to bury you before the season's first snowfall. So while I dig myself out, here's a great little snippet from Gavin Schmidt, one of the forces behind RealClimate.org and a leading light in the climatology community:
It has become fashionable for some commentators to describe environmentalists and their climate change arguments as having "'religious fervour" or of "being dogmatic". But climate change is not a matter of religion, it is an issue of physics. No amount of environmentalist enthusiasm affects the absorption properties of CO2 and other greenhouse gases nor the rate at which they are accumulating in the atmosphere. No self-satisfied dismissal of the work of thousands of climate scientists because you think them alarmist affects the warming of the oceans, the retreat of mountain glaciers or the long-term decline of Arctic sea ice by one iota.Read the rest here.
Environment
Comments
Step 1 - search for a quote from one of your prophets. Step 2 - drink the Kool Aid. Step 3 - cut and paste, and sign your name to it. Repeat ad infinitum.
Posted by: Friends of Lance | December 1, 2008 11:33 AM
Tsk, FOL. Purely snarky. :-/
I don't think that there is any credible denial of the effects that James quotes. What might be added, of course, is that these effects (increasing industrial CO2 aside) are hardly unique to the present epoch. We've been living with them throughout our lives, and indeed throughout the lifetime of civilization. Cases in point: At the peak of the last interglacial, sea levels were anywhere from 2 m - 6 m higher than at present, and temps 1 - 2 deg. C. higher than we average at the moment (up to 5 deg. higher in Alaska according to some studies). A question that needs to be more honestly addressed by both sides of the issue is "What are the trade-offs?", e.g., continuing business-as-usual, or arbitrarily shutting down 30% or 40% of North America's electrical generating capacity to meet a legislated CO2 emissions cap?
Posted by: Scott M. | December 1, 2008 1:24 PM
Sorry James I really didn't mean my reply to FOL to post twice. Trust you can blow at least one of those off your blog?
Query: Have you checked out Stoat lately?
-S-
Posted by: Scott M. | December 1, 2008 1:45 PM
step 4 read comments of avid bloggers who are glued to your blog and reply every time with overflowing dedication and enthusiasm.
Posted by: paulm | December 1, 2008 7:36 PM
Yerr an idiot James. You bring ZERO anything that is new, refreshing, different or otherwise fresh or unspoiled by repetitiveness. You are like the unaware and unthinking kid that goes to school to repeat his parents' liberal opinions to his teacher for a pat on the head in return for sticking with the nut job party line. But, like they say, if it makes you feel good, just keep on doing it. Have fun parrot boy. You gotta web site. derrrrrrrrr.
Posted by: Uranid Eeot | December 1, 2008 10:58 PM
I tried to post a second comment parroting the fact that the one person called James a parrot for being nothing more than a parrot for constantly parroting other's thoughts. But, I got a submission error for just a second comment. I shoulda jumped on a different unit in this server farm. I noticed PaulM didn't get that error. Could it be liberal free thinking CENSORSHIP at work. I think so. Typical for a non-thinking parrot. Anything FRESH here????? NOT. I guess other opinions dun count in liberal land. sqawk sqawk.
Posted by: Squawky | December 1, 2008 11:05 PM
I always look forward to your comments squawky and lance. You obviously spend you precious time reading and commenting here - keep it up.
Posted by: paulm | December 2, 2008 11:32 AM
I suppose the juvenile commenters here get some kind of weird epistemic kick out of there comments, as if attacking the person of someone promoting views they disagree with will someone make their position more true.
I could understand this behavior in the young, but if these are adults doing this, that's just sad.
Posted by: Hume's Ghost | December 2, 2008 2:12 PM
The irony is that the juvenile commentors aren't any different at all than James and his postings - just more open, honest and obvious. Review the big picture here and think about that, and how it relates to your comment Ghostie girl.
Posted by: Friends of Skwawkie | December 2, 2008 4:45 PM
Civility is essential to meaningful dialogue.
Let's all try to be courteous.
I have no doubt that James is sincere in his beliefs. I have never impugned his personality or motives. I visit here because I do sense his basic decency and his decorum.
While I agree with the ideas expressed by FOL and Skwawkie , I object to their tone. I would ask that they respect the host of this blog.
A flame war never gets anyone anywhere.
Posted by: Lance | December 2, 2008 5:02 PM
Skwawkie there's always a bigger picture.
Posted by: paulm | December 2, 2008 11:47 PM
Squawky is right on James' level, just without the feined pseudo-academic slant. Truth hurts.
Posted by: Polly the Parrot | December 3, 2008 10:12 AM