I saw this article on TheRegister and I figured I'd share it http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/10/11/lewis_resignation_letter/

Discuss your thoughts.

I'm still inclined to side with the majority opinion, supported by peer review. It's all well and good that he can claim these things, but it all comes down to whether you're willing to believe that he's thinking clearly or just being a denialist- even if the people doing research are all in the pockets of someone with an agenda, surely peer reviewers will have something to say.

On the other hand, an independent panel basically decided this 'climategate' (augh, I hate that label with a burning passion) is nothing to get your knickers in a twist about. If you really want to poke at it more, you could claim that panel is also in somebody's pocket, but that's getting into conspiracy theory territory, IMHO. Given that, he's probably a nutjob- but I'm willing to not utterly dismiss him in the interest of avoiding a flamewar.

Phil Plait has a lot to say about climate change, mostly in favor of good old-fashioned science rather than manufactured politicized debate. He obviously has an unstated point of view here, but his credentials as a skeptic allow me to trust his conclusions.

People who actively deny science should be institutionalized, if for no other reason than to prevent them from breeding...

Global warming is still something of an ignorant term, given the issues, but regardless of what you call it, it is mostly irrelevant, and certainly has the air of something scammy about it. For example....the only data we have that sea level, at least so far as included in the IPCC report, is rising was recorded in an area where the sea floor was actively being subducted, and they fired the only sea level expert working for their study because he wouldn't tell them the sea level was rising.

The vast majority of problems which may or may not be contributing to climate destabilization are significant environmental problems in and of themselves, and need to be taken care of (independently from their possible relationship to climate destabilization) if we want to avoid turning our planet into a toxic hell-hole. I find it offensive that the majority of the environmental movement (of which I am a part) thinks that we need to exploit sensationalism and bad science in order to make the requisite changes in our relationship with the planet.

If people ask my opinion on this subject, I mostly reply along the lines of "I don't know." People, politicians and scientists alike, are constantly refuting eachother's statements about "global warming". I don't really know what to say about it...

This is pretty much my view on it. Nobody is entirely sure how much of an impact we are having, but that's surely not an excuse to waste our finite supply of natural resources.
I presume you heard about the spectacularly misjudged No Pressure?

I am too lazy to actually make my own post so instead I quote people and then don't say anything new

I'm inclined to believe that the exhaust from hundreds of millions of cars, airplanes, power plants, etc are having a hugely negative impact on our natural environment, and it seems logical to me that one possible manifestation could be a catastrophic heating of the earth (at least catastrophic to us; in stellar terms a few degrees or tens of degrees is nothing), but I'm certainly no climate expert.

Hubbert Peak theory (in application to all our resources, not just resources) has, in many ways, more potential as a humanitarian crisis than as an environmental crisis. I was speaking more of pollution issues, which can be shown to have direct impacts on quality of living across the entire food chain. Air quality, photodegraded plastic in the marine food chain, increasing pharmaceutical concentrations in the water negatively effecting male development (across species boundaries), etc.


I didn't, but I'm vastly entertained by that article.

Kerm: It's not necessarily the case that changing temperatures are catastrophic. It's the rate at which they do so that is potentially problematic. But regardless of whether or not you accept that hypothesis, most of the problems which are believed to contribute to climate destabilization are problems independently of their connection to it, and should be addressed on their own merits. By pushing the theory ahead of the evidence, would-be environmentalists are doing damage to the cause.

While the person is smart and reasonable, people are selfish, ignorant, stubborn asshats who don't care about the little things that hurt fish; they only care about big things that would hurt themselves. Thus, you must show them potential big changes that would hurt them in order for your individual causes to gain any traction at all. Otherwise, you get bashed for being a tree-hugger and are ignored.

Until you are found to be fraudulent and discredit the entire movement. And like I said up there, issues like rewiring your reproductive system, lung disease should qualify as significant threats to anyone's lifestyle.

As far as getting bashed for treehugging goes.......if that happens, you're doing it wrong. I'm on the board of directors for a 501(c)3 that devotes 100% of its resources to environmental/social activism. Since our inception we've been supported by both Republicans and Democrats at all levels of state government (I know for instance, that we were proudly discussed in debate by the current Republican gubernatorial candidate), because (largely by my influence) we have taken the time to intelligently incorporate economic development and economic modelling into our understanding of the social and environmental problems we face, instead of expecting people to want to live by the rules of a commune.

[edit]
And evidently my signature line (on the economics of local fuel production) from 3 years of lobbying at the state house has made it into some of the Democratic candidate's campaign literature. Like I was saying, you get just as much as attention by telling people they can make money from a healthy relationship with the planet as by telling them they're all going to die from abusing it. The difference being, if you've done your research properly it's a lot easier to back the first claim up.

Who gives a crap what this guy thinks. Is he an expert in the field he is talking about? $100 says he isn't, otherwise they would have included that. No, he's just some random professor ranting about something he doesn't know.

That's great, but many of today's Republicans still want to get rid of all environmental protections, including the EPA in it's entirety.

Ah tragic, but altogether different point from your original that making apocalyptic pronouncements about our fate if we continue to abuse the planet is necessary for the advancement of the environmental movement. And certainly the tendency for over-dramatization is major critique of environmentalists among the conservative circles I'm familiar with, which again flies in the face of the point you were originally making.

I am merely claiming that the traditional Republican view of conservation and environmentalism, as held by Teddy Roosevelt, is still an effective one and will win out even among profit-seekers when argued from a modern understanding of economics and ecology and without resort to doomsaying.

A small sidebar at Elfprince about VSHI: I think the Media Coverage section may be out of date.

Thanks I really need to overhaul the site to allow people other than myself to update it easily.

I agree, and I wasn't trying to say that you should lie or misrepresent to get people to believe in climate change, but that you should focus on educating people about the more serious, widespread implications of it. As a great man once said "A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it." While I agree you shouldn't lie or even exaggerate, I do think it would be prudent to focus on the aspects that will get your cause the most support. If your own party won't support you, you must cater to those that will; the 'dumb, panicky dangerous animals' that can help you bring about change. This is why the Tea Party is gaining so much support.

Earning money may not be as strongly positive an incentive as fear of death is a negative one, the difference is that it's very easy to demonstrate that the plan for making money works, and it's not so easy to demonstrate that everyone will be dead in 75 or 100 years. Even more than we are panicky, we simply don't grasp long term consequences.

Sounds reasonable I guess. I don't see any evidence of there being good money in reducing pollution though, or every industry would do it, as is the case with any other way of making money regardless of moral or ethical implications.

Huh, I guess companies and technologies like these don't make any sense then, huh?

There are very few circumstances under which sustainability and pollution reduction don't make economic sense after studying the problem. The biggest limiting factor is taking the time to study what can be done differently.