Friday, May 24, 2013

Like father like son

 First the dismissive chuckle:
Stupid environmentalists! Getting excited over a meaningless plan that allows emissions to double.

Then somebody challenges the "double" part of the statement. And Roger flashes a degree of cognitive dissonance that may not via with Sr's climate-research-kills-kids-by-tornado, but is equally as startling because more unexpected:

Strangely, no response from the illustrious Dr. Pielke Jr. And he's supposed to be the reasonable one . . .


  1. Genetic idiocy...makes sense...

  2. I try to like Jr -- he makes some good points. I'm starting to think "inactivist" may be a real & important category, as distinct from the lukewarmers.

  3. Can you define these categories a bit more?

  4. Well, I'm thinking about how the inactivist might be defined.

    The denier I would define as someone who attacks scientific conclusions based upon a conspiracist model in which scientists are corrupt, politically controlled, or stupid. A climate denier is someone who denies either that the world is warming, or that humans are the primary reason, and is informed by the above ideological touchstones.

    Lukewarmer is a category that I explored here:

    An inactivist is someone who acknowledges that the world is warming, humans are the cause, this is likely to be highly expensive and/or destructive, and action should be taken to stop it. However, they are highly critical of almost everyone who aggressively pushes said action, they are vehement in their condemnation of vehemence, and while supporting action in the abstract, are opposed to almost every program or plan of action put forth, especially if it threatens to be populist in any way.

    Inactivists want action on climate someday, but they want activists to shut up and sit down today. They are far more emotional about the possibility that a wrong argument or a wrong strategy could be put into action than they are about the prospect of nothing being done at all.

    Charter members would include folks like Joe Norcera, who condemns global warming tepidly while angrily denouncing opposition to Keystone and environmentalists with their "war on coal."

    Perhaps I'll post about it tomorrow.

  5. Here is another article that looks at the "lukewarmers".

    The first comment on the article pretty much sums it up.

    1. Thanks Mike!

      I need to add the Conversation to the sidebar . . .

  6. It would be very convenient if HTML links in the comments were clickable. In fact they aren't even copy-and-pastable, at least on my browser.