Comments on: Are We In the Frying Pan? http://themoderatevoice.com/18760/are-we-in-the-frying-pan/ An Internet hub for moderates, centrists, and independents, with domestic and international news, analysis, original reporting, and popular features from the left, center, and right Sun, 22 Nov 2009 19:37:39 -0500 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4 hourly 1 By: Are We In the Frying Pan? · Buwin Technology http://themoderatevoice.com/18760/are-we-in-the-frying-pan/comment-page-1/#comment-111591 Are We In the Frying Pan? · Buwin Technology Fri, 04 Apr 2008 02:56:31 +0000 http://themoderatevoice.com/society/18760/are-we-in-the-frying-pan/#comment-111591 [...] Gizmodo, the Gadget Guide wrote an interesting post today onHere’s a quick excerpt [...] [...] Gizmodo, the Gadget Guide wrote an interesting post today onHere’s a quick excerpt [...]

]]> By: Jim_Satterfield http://themoderatevoice.com/18760/are-we-in-the-frying-pan/comment-page-1/#comment-147846 Jim_Satterfield Fri, 04 Apr 2008 02:31:33 +0000 http://themoderatevoice.com/society/18760/are-we-in-the-frying-pan/#comment-147846 Tierney misrepresents the article even though he does interview one of the authors. Never forget the source. Tierney is not a scientist and is in every article I've seen of his on the issue either denying warming, denying humans are responsible for any of it or denying that we can do anything about it. In fact the primary thrust of the commentary in Nature seems to be a criticism of the IPCC for apparently assuming that the technology to help reduce our production of carbon will happen without policies that encourage it. Here is the last paragraph of the commentary.<br><br><blockquote><br>There is no question about whether technological innovation is necessary — it is. The question is, to what degree should policy focus directly on motivating such innovation? The IPCC plays a risky game in assuming that spontaneous advances in technological innovation will carry most of the burden of achieving future emissions reductions, rather than focusing on creating the conditions for such innovations to occur.<br></blockquote> Tierney misrepresents the article even though he does interview one of the authors. Never forget the source. Tierney is not a scientist and is in every article I've seen of his on the issue either denying warming, denying humans are responsible for any of it or denying that we can do anything about it. In fact the primary thrust of the commentary in Nature seems to be a criticism of the IPCC for apparently assuming that the technology to help reduce our production of carbon will happen without policies that encourage it. Here is the last paragraph of the commentary.

There is no question about whether technological innovation is necessary — it is. The question is, to what degree should policy focus directly on motivating such innovation? The IPCC plays a risky game in assuming that spontaneous advances in technological innovation will carry most of the burden of achieving future emissions reductions, rather than focusing on creating the conditions for such innovations to occur.

]]>