Global Warming Reporting Is Basically Libel

I just saw a piece in The Daily Mail that talked about how an expert “predicts” up to three decades of global cooling. At first I was surprised, but then I saw the name and it all made sense. I’d been debating about whether to write about it, I mean The Daily Mail is just a tabloid, but on the other hand George Will and others have had similar pieces based on the same research. Then Pete had to go and have a post about it which forces my hand.

Personally I think that Dr. Latif should sue for libel. I’m not sure that this is anywhere close to it, but it should be. The opinions ascribed to him are in complete disagreement with his own, and pieces like this are damaging not only to his reputation but more importantly, it helps invalidate his work — which personally would hurt my emotional and mental well being, an aspect of libel laws.

What am I talking about? Well read this interview with him.

It’s nuanced enough that I don’t want to quote too much from it because you really should read it yourself. The two points though are (quoted from the piece with my comments in brackets):

The work of Dr. Latif and Dr. Keenlyside in Nature “does not allow one to make any inferences about anthropogenic global warming,” as Dr. Latif put it to me. [Dr. Keenlyside said, "Given the uncertainties that exist in such kinds of preliminary studies, I believe it is more useful to point out that climate on decadal timescales may be quite different from that expected only considering external radiative forcing (as in the IPCC). This is actually an obvious, but I believe mostly overlooked fact. Our results highlight this."]

Their work has no forecasting skill after 2015. Indeed, Latif told me “we don’t trust our forecast beyond 2015.” [The paper says that the mean of 2005-2015 will be similar as that of 2000-2010.]

Obviously people should be able to criticize whatever work they please, and come up with alternative explanations for data. However that’s not what this reporting is. This reporting (and similar opinion pieces) use cherry picked Dr. Latif quotes as an argument to authority while misrepresenting him completely. If I were him I wouldn’t stand it, and as readers we shouldn’t either.

Update: A commenter had some fair criticism about the writing style of the Climate Progress post and said he wasn’t convinced it was an accurate reflection of Latif’s work. I dug up this NPR interview: “If my name was not Mojib Latif, my name would be Global Warming.”

Auf Stumbleupon zeigen
Auf tumblr zeigen

Author: MIKKEL FISHMAN, Economics Editor

  • Zzzzz

    Thank you so much for posting this. People keep using this deliberate distortion of his work to 'prove' global warming is a hoax. It is sad.

  • DaMav

    Global warming alarmists circle the wagons, claim everyone else is misquoting and misunderstanding them
    http://climateprogress.org/2009/10/01/interview

    The article purports to be an “exclusive interview” with Latif, but there are very few actual quotes from Latif at all. There is no “interview” in the article in fact, just a frantic rant that everyone is misquoting Latif and nobody understands him except the author. Among the few quotes from Latif: ““we don’t trust our forecast beyond 2015?, and ““Our work does not allow one to make any inferences about global warming.”

    But this does not stop the author from immediately making a passionate case that “their model suggests we’ll see pretty damn rapid warming in the coming decade”. The caveat about non-predictably beyond 2015 is offered but ignored — except of course where it supports the author's alarmist viewpoint.

    Here's how the article describes one of the skeptics: “And then we have the outright lies of the Swift boat smearer. In his never ending quest to destroy both a livable climate and the English language, the uber-disinformer and self-acknoweldged performance artist Marc Morano…”. Oh certainly we ought to trust the author to present objective and unbiased opinions. Those disagreeing with him are out to destroy a livable climate. Indeed.

    If there is an actual “interview” and not selected lifted quotes, perhaps the author could publish it. If not, I have to judge by the tone of the article which is not that of the dispassionate discourse of science but of a frantic believer out to place 'heretics' on the rack.

    Latif certainly has a brain and a mouth. Why hasn't he written a public demand for others to stop misquoting him if in fact all this horrible journalistic abuse is going on?

  • JSpencer

    You know, just out of respect for the more sincere AGW skeptics and out of respect for the potential genuineness of contrary viewpoints, I try to give said skeptics an even break, which is to say I listen and repeat the same reminders about the importance of science not being compromised as the cardinal rule. And more often than not, I discover the arguments raised by the skeptics are either misinformed, under-informed, or in some cases de-formed. I will continue to keep an open mind, but I would urge our resident skeptics to try harder when it comes to forming conclusions, which is to say, avoid cherry picking and be aware of context when it comes to processing information.

  • mikkel

    “Latif certainly has a brain and a mouth. Why hasn't he written a public demand for others to stop misquoting him if in fact all this horrible journalistic abuse is going on?”

    He does have a mouth. And here you can hear his voice!

    “Do you think your work is being misused?”

    “Yes…If my name was not Mojib Latif, my name would be global warming.”

    I'd also point out that there are several longer quotes from the lead author of the paper that's being cited [I agree with you that the writing style of the snippets is stupid. He's gotten criticism about that when trying to correct the misrepresentation of another climate scientist (Caldeira) and eventually that scientist had to do tons of interviews]

  • Jim_Satterfield

    The scientists wouldn't have time to teach their classes or do their research if they took the time to answer to all of the distortions and outright lies concerning their work. There's so much of it that they often don't know some of exists. I remember the time I saw an article that was distorting some of the things that Kevin Trenberth said. I hadn't heard of Trenberth at the time and wondered whether he really said what the reporter was claiming. After reading some other things he had written it seemed highly unlikely so I wrote to him. He answered back saying that the reporter was definitely misrepresenting what he said by selective quotation but wasn't even aware that it had turned out that way. It wasn't an outright lie in that case or even the worst distortion I've ever read but certainly not accurate by any means.

  • mikkel

    This stuff is really low hanging fruit for sincere skeptics to denounce. And by no means it is unique. Mojib “Global Warming” Latif and Ken “Carbon dioxide is the right villain” Caldeira are just a couple of scientists who are being completely mischaracterized…it just happens to be more noticeable since this piece has been quoted so widely and Caldeira's was in a best selling book.

    Look, “deniers” make it so the scientists lose both ways. If they talk with the appropriate caveats, skepticism and nuance, then they are going to be misquoted and misused from here to eternity (with the help of organized disinformation campaigns by the status quo powers) and if they are overly adamant then they will be written off as ideologues, zealots, greedy liars, whatever.

    So while I think your heart is in a good place (and it'd be good advice for a rational world) it's not nearly enough to remain neutral. Real skeptics need to start coming down on this BS hard, and until they do so (which now they actually perpetuate it a lot of times) people like me will barely listen because there is so much noise.

    A while back commenter JeffersonDavis said he studied the climate in college and referred to natural cycles and I asked what he meant because he tends to argue in good faith. He showed me a paper about ocean cores as “proof” that we aren't causing it, but the paper said nothing about the cause, it was only a measurement. I then found that the author of the paper speculated that the recent rise was…due to AGW, he was part of the consensus. I kept trying to point out the difference between measurements and mechanism but JD never would engage on that. Evading the issue even when the author of the very study he cited was for the consensus lost him a lot of points.

  • DaMav

    Thank you for the link to the NPR interview; if it appeared earlier I missed it. Latif, right or wrong, sounds far more like a scientist than the aforementioned linked puerile rant.

    My notes from the NPR interview fwiw:

    Latif confirms that it is not getting hotter since 1998; not colder either. We are “on hold”.
    He states that his work has been 'misinterpreted' in the context of claims that the Earth is actually getting cooler. He predicts that the temperature rise will resume in 2015 or 2020. He clearly supports the general theory of AGW.

    I'm not convinced personally, but the NPR does a good job of clearing up Latif's position on the matter and again thank you for the link.

  • mikkel

    That “puerile rant” sounds like that because the author has been driven slightly insane, as he's decided to have it be his full time job to try to show updated data, communicate some basics and often counter complete misinformation about what the scientists themselves are saying. After a few years of that it's no wonder that he writes like that, I'm quickly losing my sanity with the little I do. But he has never had a scientist say that he was misrepresenting their work (once or twice he's had some wrist slaps about assigning motive to other actors that the scientists didn't want to go there with) and they answer his calls.

    That said, I encourage you to look in the mirror:

    “Sorry, the scam is not selling well anymore. The ever escalating hysteria from the warmers seems to be turning off rational thinkers.

    [Latif link]

    Warmer: “Who are you going to believe? My computer model or your freezing gnutches?””

    When provided with incontrovertible evidence that's not his position you did have the decency and honesty to go back to a neutral tone, but that's it. I'm not asking you to suddenly be a convert, but where is the irritation that you were duped by a news source (actually this particular claim has been on many news outlets, not just a tabloid) or humility that perhaps “hysteria” is not “turning off rational thinkers” and that it's possible to look at the same data and have a different logical conclusion?

    By taking the combative and defamatory first tone and then merely going “my bad” it really just gives the impression that you are looking to fit your own biases.

    It reminds me of a while ago where this commenter came in and said that there was a “consensus” in the 70s that we were going to have catastrophic global cooling and that AGW said that we were “entirely” responsible for the warming, and I linked posts with detailed evidence that there was no consensus in the 70s for global cooling and in fact it was outweighed by global warming predictions 42-7 (not to mention that even most of the global cooling papers didn't discount global warming mechanisms, they just speculated that they would be overriden by reflective pollution instead…and we cut those back a ton since then. As far as I know, even most — if not all — of those 7 global cooling authors would be in the AGW camp if they knew how much smog we were going to get reduce) and the IPCC that stated about 50-60% of warming since the onset of the industrial age was due to solar activity increases, but those stopped in the 50s and the bulk of it since then was due to CO2.

    He had nearly the exact same tone as you both initially and once there was simple proof that what he was asserting was wrong, but i doubt that he was really touched to change his approach at all.

    By contrast, while I have a very strong understanding, I have repeatedly told people that I expect it to start warming in the next three years based on my understanding of the understanding, and if it doesn't then I will really look hard and skeptically at the consensus since it will have signaled a huge discrepancy (at that point there would have been no warming for about 12 years, or over the full decadal cycle and multiple ENSO cycles). Of course I should be reading Latif since he says that is possible…

  • DaMav

    I rend my garments in abject and choleric wrath at having been mislead by the Daily Mail. I condemn said newspaper to bathe in eternal conflagration in the million degree Lake of Fire a few miles below the Earth's surface.

    There, is this a sufficiently objurgatory narrative to assist in the preservation of what you state to be your rapidly waning sanity?

    Ten years ago, which of the alarmists were claiming there might be a 20 year hiatus in warming if we did nothing about carbon emission? All we have been hearing for the past ten years from the alarmists is the we had to act urgently, immediately, it might even be too late, while an ever escalating set of Armageddon's has been paraded before our eyes to frighten us into submission.

    Then the empirical data turns in an inconvenient truth indeed. Ten years of no increase in global temperature. Now that has been extended to 15 to 20 years. Most scientists would be disconcerted by the fact that none of them had prominently predicted a ten year hiatus, and call for a reassessment of the basic theory or models. Not the warmers. Now we are disdainfully told that the theories are hunky-dory and “mere” ten year periods of their predictions being way off are “simply to be expected”. And the bashing and trashing of anyone daring to question their basics continues unabated.

    I do not claim to be a climate scientist, but I have a far better background in science than Al Gore, who never seems to have to pass a credentials test to opine freely on the matter. And the combination of the lack of predicted warming for the past decade combined with the active efforts by the alarmists to jimmy peer review and destroy & suppress data makes it seem more like politics than science. Science does not derive from taking a vote mediated by the UN and declaring a theory to be correct and placing dissenting views off limits.

    Add to these glaring deficiencies in the “science” the fact that literally trillions of dollars in wealth via grants and UN mediated redistribution are riding on the acceptance of AGW alarmism, and the index of suspicion for fraud is raised to red alert sound the alarm levels.

    As to your anecdotal experience with “this commenter” who “came in” and misstated a consensus, what does that have to do with me? I quoted an internationally recognized news source, and promptly withdrew my comment when you appropriately challenged it with the NPR interview. And thanked you for it. Try not to hang me on the scaffold you build for somebody else's misdeeds. As you will no doubt agree, I have enough of my own :-)

  • mikkel

    “Most scientists would be disconcerted by the fact that none of them had prominently predicted a ten year hiatus, and call for a reassessment of the basic theory or models.”

    Uh really? No model predicts long plateaus? Well let's look at Jim Hansen's original (and very crude) 1988 model shall we. This was done a few years ago, but if you run the model with and compare scenario B to measured observations, they are damn close. And scenario B is closest to the path that was taken. In fact, the worst place the model was off was during the 90s, due to Mt. Pinatubo. But as mentioned in the post, they actually had that in the model and they projected it to erupt in 1995, whereas it actually erupted in 1991. Still, after the effects wore off the model and reality converged again (which says a lot about this simple model's accuracy since that was a major perturbation).

    Well look at the model: it has consistent 5 year periods with no temperature changes, and even has none over the next decade as well. I can explain the 5 year, they most likely have some simple ENSO in there, I'm not sure about why the 2010s are flat…I'd have to read more. But in any case they do have periods of no change, and we are very close to the path that was projected in this (crude) model. And while it is slightly under the model now, Dr. Latif's work suggests that is due to decadal oscillations. [I would also point out that solar activity has been at a several century low for the past few years, something that wasn't expected. As I've said time and time again, if the sun does enter a new prolonged minimum then all the climate models won't predict reality correctly -- not because they aren't right in mechanics but because they don't anticipate a prolonged minimum].

    Of course it could also be that the CO2 forcing is too high in the model as the author even summarizes: “But can we say that this proves the model is correct? Not quite. Look at the difference between Scenario B and C. Despite the large difference in forcings in the later years, the long term trend over that same period is similar. The implication is that over a short period, the weather noise can mask significant differences in the forced component. This version of the model had a climate sensitivity was around 4 deg C for a doubling of CO2. This is a little higher than what would be our best guess (~3 deg C) based on observations, but is within the standard range (2 to 4.5 deg C). Is this 20 year trend sufficient to determine whether the model sensitivity was too high? No. Given the noise level, a trend 75% as large, would still be within the error bars of the observation (i.e. 0.18+/-0.05), assuming the transient trend would scale linearly. Maybe with another 10 years of data, this distinction will be possible. However, a model with a very low sensitivity, say 1 deg C, would have fallen well below the observed trends.”

    I'm comparing you to the commenter (who too came in quoting internationally recognized news sources from the 70s, including Time) because you both stated wildly misguided summaries of the science and when corrected didn't seem to actually synthesize it or care that the “internationally recognized news source” was so wrong. When I am wrong about things I certainly am critical of the information source that led me to be wrong about it.

    So I think my comparison is really apt and I was saying it not to rub your face in it, but to serve as a caution about how you were coming across. If you don't want to take it, fine. By contrast, I'd challenge you to point out one thing that is “Armageddon” that I've said on this site. In fact I've said the exact opposite, that the consensus is not literal Armageddon, and it's primarily a political problem (I fear that it'll put so much strain on resources that it will cause largescale war. Plus it is going to be massively expensive to adapt to, far easier to try to avoid). That said, there is growing fear that the consensus is wrong…on the low side. And yes, the science that supports that argument has been detailed over the past decade, where the surface temperature hasn't increased much but the oceanic temperature has and the negative effects are stronger than anticipated.

  • ProfElwood

    Forget global warming, there are better reasons to ramp up on renewable energy: Oil is going to get and stay expensive.

    http://www.chrismartenson.com/sites/all/themes/

  • mikkel

    At some point in the near future I am going to try to write about peak oil, but there's something I have a hard time staying rational about (especially in light of articles like this one). However I would suggest you look at The Oil Drum's predicted dynamics, which I find more plausible than run away hyperinflation. Basically they say that worst case all currencies collapse relatively rapidly or if they don't, then it will just lead to a series of moderate depressions (when there is economic growth, extra demand drives it up to high prices, which then causes a collapse in demand across the economy, causing a depression…leading to less oil demand and price falling…leading to growth…etc)

  • DLS

    “At first I was surprised”

    That's surprising to me.

    This whole thing has been about politics and left-wing political objects dearly sought since the 1960s.

  • DaMav

    I don't doubt that some of the variants of the many theories and alternatives may fit the data. But the overwhelming stress by the warmers has been on urgency, and need to act now. Perhaps this wasn't always by the scientists but by lay people like Gore with a different agenda. But there was certainly no strong or consistent effort by the warmers to push Gore or the media to stop hyping their theories and conclusions. Plus we have the ongoing effort to suppress the release of data and even destruction of raw data that has been well documented in the context of the watchdog who leaked the information at East Anglia.

    I believe the best approach to this is to accept that we have decades long periods in which warming will not occur, and remember that such decades-long hiatuses will occur in the future as well. This gives us time to re-do the basic research, recompile, and re-analyze the data in a more open and transparent manner, and draw better conclusions from it. Perhaps governments can stop funding only one side in the controversy so that the process is balanced. Then let the chips fall where they may. Better solutions may emerge from this process as well. And new scientists with a less discredited methodology may lead the way to better acceptance of the conclusions.

    There is no justification to risk strangling the world economy and massively redistribute wealth, nor to raise taxes based on what we have now. Those pushing this have an agenda that is highly suspect. In retrospect this entire episode may be viewed as the Piltdown Man of the decade, or the Theory of Relativity which was initially greeted with great skepticism as you know. I'm open to either over the long term, and from you comments I presume you are as well.

    I thank you for a vigorous exchange of viewpoints and wish you well.

  • DaMav

    I'm all for 'ramping up' renewable energy resources that are economically sound and do not depend on massive government subsidies. I'm also for doing lots of research to try to make such resources feasible and do not in any way object to government partially funding such research.

    I'm not sure what that has to do with “Global Warming” per se. Each should stand or fall based on its own merits, not be driven by fear and scare tactics.

    How about nuclear energy for example? It's not strictly speaking 'renewable' but it could be economical given certain changes in public policy. It seems to have worked well in other countries.

  • Don Quijote

    I'm all for 'ramping up' renewable energy resources that are economically sound and do not depend on massive government subsidies

    Is there a single energy source that is not dependent on massive government subsidies?

  • Jim_Satterfield

    DLS is presumably referring the conservative strawman of “All those warming alarmists just want to cut back on everything.”. There are those who think that way but most just recognize that we need to do something. And that something can be whatever the heck works. DaMav referred to nuclear power. Well, waste is a problem as is the risk of accident. Using thorium helps with both since the very nature of a thorium reactor tends to be more stable and the half life of thorium is a fraction of uranium or plutonium. Sounds promising to me. One thing that needs to be worked out and will probably require some government subsidies is that no matter what the energy source is our grid needs massive repairs and upgrading.

  • JSpencer

    Mikkel, I'm not “neutral” on the subject. My position has long been that AGW is real and far too important to become a political football. That said we know it IS a political football for lots of folks. So yes, I'm willing to consider any legitimate science that takes issue with AGW, but there is precious little of it and a great deal of intellectual dishonesty. Why are so many seemingly intelligent people so protective of their detractor status when access to good information is so easily available? Cherry picking and out of context positioning are useful tools in the cultivation of ignorance but who would willingly adopt that MO? Maybe people are just afraid and channel their fear in odd ways. It's puzzling to me.

  • Don Quijote

    Cherry picking and out of context positioning aren't very useful tools when it comes to the pursuit of knowledge, but who would willingly adopt that MO?

    Let me explain the facts of life to you…
    If the “dirty f**ken hippies” are against it, they are for it. If the “dirty f**ken hippies” are for it, they are against it. And it really doesn't matter what the “it” is, as long as it pisses off the “dirty f**ken hippies”.
    The “dirty f**ken hippies” are against the invasion of Iraq it, they are all for it.
    The “dirty f**ken hippies” are against the expansion of the war in Afghanistan, they are all for it.
    The “dirty f**ken hippies” are against torture, they are all for it.
    The “dirty f**ken hippies” are against Nuclear Power, they are all for it.
    The “dirty f**ken hippies” are for Solar Power, they are against it.
    The “dirty f**ken hippies” are for Wind Power, they are against it.

  • Father_Time

    Don Quijote…

    What is their stand on clean-cut f**ken scientists that disagree with them? (which is nearly all)

  • JSpencer

    I hate to encourage that sort of cynical thinking, but it sure seems like a LOT of important and pressing issues are divided down ideological lines, regardless of whether or not the issues effect us all equally. How about the control of food and agriculture in America, as depicted by Food Inc.? Is that another left vs right issue? It's bad enough that environmentalism hasn't been adopted by everyone since that one should be a no-brainer. If I was god I'd do some serious ass-kicking. . . in a non-vengeful, instructive way of course. ;-)

  • DLS

    “DLS is presumably referring the conservative strawman”

    It's not a straw man, of course — the majority of advocates for action have extremist tendencies, both in the goals they want (a high degree of interventionism, command, control, direction of the economy and society, in general), and in how recklessly and illogically quickly to pursue these (as well as the illogical decision to pursue these at all, as a rule).

    * * *

    “DaMav referred to nuclear power. Well, waste is a problem as is the risk of accident.”

    Waste is a political, not a technical, problem. Nuclear power is incredibly safe; its risk is hyped.

    * * *

    “our grid needs massive repairs and upgrading”

    I advocated this as part of “stimulus” spending. Those with the power to spend had other goals in mind.

  • Don Quijote

    What is their stand on clean-cut f**ken scientists that disagree with them? (which is nearly all)

    Let's see, we are talking about people who are highly educated, for whom money is not their first priority, if it was they would not be scientist, are generally pretty secular and have a unholy tendency to vote for the Democratic candidate…
    I believe that that pretty much makes them “dirty f**ken hippies”…

  • Don Quijote

    Waste is a political, not a technical, problem. Nuclear power is incredibly safe; its risk is hyped.

    In which case we should repeal the Price–Anderson Nuclear Industries Indemnity Act, I am sure that there are plenty of private insurance companies who would be more than willing to cover all the losses above $10 billion. I am sure that if Indian Point has a major accident it won't damage anything other than the Hudson Valley, NYC and Northern NJ…

  • Don Quijote

    Waste is a political, not a technical, problem. Nuclear power is incredibly safe; its risk is hyped.

    In which case we should repeal the Price–Anderson Nuclear Industries Indemnity Act, I am sure that there are plenty of private insurance companies who would be more than willing to cover all the losses above $10 billion. I am sure that if Indian Point has a major accident it won't damage anything other than the Hudson Valley, NYC and Northern NJ…

  • DLS

    “In which case we should repeal the Price–Anderson Nuclear Industries Indemnity Act”

    We also need to end junk lawsuits (whose scope is far from limited to nuclear power, but which is an obvious threat to it).

    We also need to reform regulation and the licensing process, and attack other hurdles that include unreasonably long development times, which are responsible also for much of the high startup costs of nuclear power.

  • Father_Time

    Well we have to redefine their descriptive character to:

    “dirty f**ken communist hippies”

    …they cannot possibly be Merkin if money is not their first consideration. The very gall.

  • Father_Time

    DLS

    One man's junk is another man's Liberty.

    As for cost? Irrelevant in comparison to Liberty. So said our founding fathers.

    Liberal=Liberty

    Conservative=Prison

  • DaMav

    Less rolling around on the floor and more facts :-)

    France is certainly more dependent on nuclear than any other but “sixteen countries depend on nuclear power for at least a quarter of their electricity. France gets around three quarters of its power from nuclear energy, while Belgium, Hungary, Lithuania, Slovakia, South Korea, Sweden, Switzerland, Slovenia and Ukraine get one third or more. Japan, Germany and Finland get more than a quarter of their power from nuclear energy, while the USA gets almost one fifth.”
    http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf01.html

    Compare that to the 0.02% that solar provides worldwide. Not much of a comparison.

  • Don Quijote

    We also need to end junk lawsuits (whose scope is far from limited to nuclear power, but which is an obvious threat to it).

    We also need to reform regulation and the licensing process, and attack other hurdles that include unreasonably long development times, which are responsible also for much of the high startup costs of nuclear power.

    So basically we should get rid of regulations and of lawsuits… So exactly how do you intend to keep Corporate America from screwing you and every one else over at the first opportunity? Are you so eager to become a slave? or are one of those delusional morons who thinks that if they were allowed to do whatever they wanted to do they would end up owning the slaves?

  • ProfElwood

    How about nuclear energy for example?

    Chris does a good job of explaining the cost/return ratio of various forms of power, including nuclear. Besides which, most of our energy usage is on transportation and heavy equipment which run on liquid fuels. Ethanol is the worst replacement for those, but methanol and bio-diesel show some promise. Nuclear isn't going to replace liquid fuels anytime soon.

    You're right in that it has nothing to do with “Global Warming” or “Climate Change” or any of that, it simply goes back to normal laws of supply, demand, ramp-up, and natural resources. To put it simply: we're screwed, and it's time to start salvaging what future we've got left.

    I highly recommend listening to the course, in its entirety. It's something that we can, actually have to, act on personally, because the government is doing the exact opposite of what it should be doing on all fronts. I stumbled upon Chapter 16: Fuzzy Numbers, which I would simply call official lies, some of which I knew, most of which I didn't, and all of it can be confirmed on government sites or other reliable sources.

  • Don Quijote

    Less rolling around on the floor and more facts :-)

    My point in as far as I have one is that Nuclear Power is not compatible with the free market,in France all the Nuclear Power are State Owned, in the former Communist Countries they are also State Owned, and my guess is that in most countries Nuclear Power Plants are State Owned. No One in their right mind other than Americans trust a privately owned corporation interested in short term profit to run such a dangerous operation safely.

  • DLS

    “So basically we should get rid of regulations and of lawsuits…”

    You're saying that, but I am not, so don't say I am, too.

    I'll add that we need to insist on reason for a change, rather than anti-nuclear and anti-progress idiocy.

  • JSpencer

    So exactly how do you intend to keep Corporate America from screwing you and every one else over at the first opportunity?

    Too late.

  • DLS

    “Compare that to the 0.02% that solar provides worldwide. Not much of a comparison.”

    Wind (which those in love with wind and solar since the Sixties, while hating the Establishment and its energy sources for producing electricity and moving our vehicles — when not automobiles, too — tend to favor nowadays over solar) is growing more than solar power is, but wind is also still a small fraction of electricity production, and growing but from a very small base.

    I'd like to see coal converted to clean liquid fuels as a substitute for oil and attack the transport problem, and made a substitute for natural gas (where our serious growth has been and will be, to clean the air; liquefied natural gas remains a substantial future import of ours), but this, along with taking a more grown-up and more intelligent view of nuclear power, requires a rise in maturity and intelligence. (About the only drawback is that it would revise our exhaustion timeline for our vast coal reserves downward, notably if we began using coal for cleaner transport prior to electric vehicle use.)

  • Don Quijote

    You're saying that, but I am not, so don't say I am, too.

    You said “We also need to end junk lawsuits“, from what I can tell as far as Conservatives are concerned all lawsuits are junk lawsuits, unless they are doing the suing…

    We also need to reform regulation and the licensing process, and attack other hurdles that include unreasonably long development times, which are responsible also for much of the high startup costs of nuclear power.
    When a conservative says reform any reasonable person translates that into let's get rid of all those nasty regulations that get in the way of making a buck.

    So unless you specify the regulation, doesn't need to be the exact statute number but a good description of what it is, a sensible person will assume that you mean every damn one of them.

    So define what is a “junk lawsuit”? and which regulation do you want to get rid off?

    PS I gave you the like by accident…

  • Jim_Satterfield

    The problem with coal is that the process of acquiring it is so polluting and the corporations don't want to spend the money to clean up after themselves. Even if you convert to cleaner liquid fuels it doesn't do anything about the mining problems.

  • Dr J

    Nuclear Power is not compatible with the free market.

    Don, you don't think anything is compatible with the free market. Certainly Chernobyl taught us a valuable lesson about how much more responsibly governments can do the job.

  • ProfElwood

    This is in reply to DQ also, but I can't do both.

    What is amazing though is the extent to which some people will go to bat for a corporate America that cares nothing about their fate. Common sense must have died sometime back in the 80's.

    Both of you two need to check mikkel's and my links. Both the government and oil corporations are leading over a cliff. Common sense says you don't trust anyone in power, corporate or government.

  • ProfElwood

    Basically they say that worst case all currencies collapse relatively rapidly or if they don't, then it will just lead to a series of moderate depressions

    <sarcasm>Thanks for putting my mind at ease.</sarcasm>

  • vincewhirlwind

    Which “free market” will insure a nuclear power plant?

  • johnfreiheit

    Global warming is finally being proven untrue. Check out this article and the attached scientific paper. Pass it on, everyone MUST see this ! http://www.thecrponline.com//entry.php?11-Is-Th

  • Don Quijote

    Both of you two need to check mikkel's and my links. Both the government and oil corporations are leading over a cliff. Common sense says you don't trust anyone in power, corporate or government.

    Which is why a distributed power system consisting of millions of solar panels on private roofs and hundreds of thousands of inexpensive windmills would be far better in that it would not be under the control of any single corporation, or government.

  • ProfElwood

    Check the news for flying pigs, we finally found something we agree on!

  • JSpencer

    The sooner all Americans stop allowing themselves to think in terms of pro-corporate America or anti-corporate America the less energy they will waste in arguing over where the wedge is. Everyone here needs to see the movie Food Inc. to see what has happened under our eyes while we were playing with our pretty toys and squabbling among ourselves. The truth ain't pretty, but ignorance ain't bliss either.

  • DLS

    “[Can you] define what is a 'junk lawsuit'? and which regulation do you want to get rid [of?]“

    A junk lawsuit is one without merit, or seeking ridiculous remedies or damages, or is misuse of the courts to attain a goal that should be sought (if at all; usually the goal is illegitimate or wrongful) in a valid way.

    Bad regulations are those which aren't cost-effective or are illogical or wrongful, imposing delays or costs or inhibitions for no good or valid reason, or which are excessive or otherwise unmerited or unjustified.

    That'll do fine.

  • DLS

    “a distributed power system consisting of millions of solar panels on private roofs and hundreds of thousands of inexpensive windmills”

    It's of no use when the sun or wind aren't present. It also doesn't address transportation.

    Fuel cells someday offer to do this, though.

  • toddhartmann

    It is not sad…it's fact. You just haven't the political strength to admit the science is proving more every day that AGM is a hoax. This is political not science based. The IPCC is a political organization. And, many of the true scientists have asked to be taken off the panel with the threat of law suits if they are not. You will see…mother nature will prove you wrong and hopefully you and your fear mongers will fade away without bankrupting the world in the process.

  • Zzzzz

    No, and you'd know that if you read the work of actual scientists, including some of the ones the right likes to misquote, instead of right-wing commentors. Really read the science. Not just climate science, either. You need to read the work of biologists, geologists, the folks that study glaciers, and so forth. The evidence that the climate is changing, on a rapid scale, is clear and indisputible.