PDA

View Full Version : Science Saturday: The Green Diavlog


Bloggingheads
04-26-2008, 10:34 AM

which hunt?
04-26-2008, 12:41 PM
Excellent diavlog. It seemed a little off subject for a Science Saturday. There was less hard science and more political musing than I expect on Saturday, but who cares?
I'd love to see Michael paired with Bob or with someone who knows more about the nitty gritty politics of climate change, and can talk with insight about the ins and outs of cap & trade and other policies.

piscivorous
04-26-2008, 01:43 PM
What the warmongers of the pentagon are responsible for Silicon Valley? (http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/10545?in=00:21:09) Mr. Shellenberger should do some looking into the number of contracts and the dollar amount that the military is putting into fuel cells. If you spend some time looking you will notice that there is a substantial amount of military subsidy. This is in no small part thanks to President Bush, who has made it the official position and policy of the United States to move to a Hydrogen based energy economy, and the policies of Secretary Rumsfeld.

David Thomson
04-26-2008, 02:41 PM
The number one thing you must realize about the global warming madness is that it provides money and power to "elites." These people want to rule over the rest of us. Thankfully, the American public rejects their nonsense when confronted with the actual costs. God help the politicians who wishes to raise their taxes. They will be destroyed at the ballot box.

Are John Horgan and Michael Shellenberger familiar with scholars who post at
National Review's "Planet Gore"?:

http://planetgore.nationalreview.com/

When will someone like Chris Horner be invited to participate in a Blogginheads dialogue?

AemJeff
04-26-2008, 02:59 PM
Are John Horgan and Michael Shellenberger familiar with scholars who post at
National Review's "Planet Gore"?:

http://planetgore.nationalreview.com/

When will someone like Chris Horner be invited to participate in a Blogginheads dialogue?

You're kidding right? There's no-one posting at Planet Gore who isn't on the payroll at either AEI (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Enterprise_Institute) or CEI (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Competitive_Enterprise_Institute), both organizations implicated in the well documented effort by Exxon/Mobil to poison the well regarding research on climate change. Nobody posting there has any right to claim their work effort doesn't lack the appearance of impropriety. For bonus points regarding their scientific credibility try googling "Discovery Institute" or either acronym and "creationism" or "Intelligent Design" or "secondhand smoke." These guys are "scholars" the same way that Heidi Fleiss is a sex therapist.

piscivorous
04-26-2008, 03:21 PM
Here is a little recap of environmental law and regulations since the first earth Day in 1970, which was a 20 mile walk, not a rock concert in the park.

Nixon
1970
President Richard Nixon creates EPA
The Clean Air Act to set national air quality, auto emission, and anti-pollution standards.

1971
Restrictions on the use of lead-based paint.

1972
The agreement between the United States and Canada to clean up the Great Lakes.
The Clean Water Act, limiting raw sewage and other pollutants flowing into rivers, lakes, and streams.

1973
EPA begins phasing out leaded gasoline.
EPA issues its first permit limiting a factory’s polluted discharges into waterways.
The Safe Drinking Water Act

1975
First fuel economy standards
Tail-pipe emission standards for cars, resulting in the introduction of catalytic converters.

1976
The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, regulating hazardous waste from its production to its disposal.

Ford
1976
The Toxic Substances Control Act to reduce environmental and human health risks.
EPA begins phase-out of cancer-causing PCB production and use.

Carter
1977
The Clean Air Act Amendments to strengthen air quality standards and protect human health.

1978
Chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) bans


Regan
1980
Superfund to clean up hazardous waste sites.

1982
Regulations and laws for safe disposal of nuclear waste.

Bush
1986
Right to know laws requirewing disclosure when toxic chemicals are released into air, land, and water.

1987
The Montreal Protocol, pledging to phase-out production of CFCs.

1988
Ban on ocean dumping of sewage sludge and industrial waste.

1990
The Clean Air Act Amendments, requiring states to demonstrate progress in improving air quality.
The Pollution Prevention Act, emphasizing the importance of preventing—not just correcting—environmental damage.
The National Environmental Education Act.

Clinton
1992
The Energy Star® Program to help consumers identify energy-efficient products.

1994
Brownfields Program to clean up abandoned, contaminated sites to return them to productive community use.
EPA issues new standards for chemical plants that will reduce toxic air pollution by more than half a million tons each year

1995
EPA launches an incentive-based acid rain program to reduce sulfur dioxide emissions.

1995
EPA requires municipal incinerators to reduce toxic emissions by 90 percent from 1990 levels.

1996
Public drinking water suppliers are required to inform customers about chemicals and microbes in their water.
EPA requires that home buyers and renters be informed about lead-based paint hazards.
The Food Quality Protection Act to tighten standards for pesticides used to grow food.

1997
Executive Order is issued to protect children from environmental health risks
EPA issues new air quality standards for smog and soot

The Clean Water Action Plan with increased funding

New emissions standards for cars, sport utility vehicles, minivans and trucks.

1999
EPA announces new requirements to improve air quality in national parks and wilderness areas.

2000
EPA establishes regulations requiring more than 90 percent cleaner heavy duty highway diesel engines and fuel.

Bush
2002
The Small Business Liability Relief and Brownfields Revitalization Act to reclaim and restore thousands of abandoned properties.

2003
The Healthy Forests Restoration Act..
The Clean School Bus USA program..
The Clear Skies legislation and alternative regulations creating a cap and trade system to reduce SO2 emissions.
The United States and the European Union agreed to collaborate on the acceleration of the development of the hydrogen economy.
The creation of the International Partnership for the Hydrogen Economy.

2004
New regulations defining acceptable levels of 8-hour ozone and fine particulate matter.
EPA requires cleaner fuels and engines for off-road diesel machinery such as farm or construction equipment.

2005
EPA issues the Clean Air Interstate Rule and the Clean Air Mercury Rule.

I don't claim this to be an comprehensive list just my particular view of the significant events, those that I can recall and confirm the date of. There is one thing that struck me as odd though if you look at the list it is the conservatives that are actually signing the laws and the liberals pressing regulations through the executive branch.

P.S. I shall modify the list if any of my memory cells are refreshed

AemJeff
04-26-2008, 03:42 PM
There is one thing that struck me as odd though if you look at the list it is the conservatives that are actually signing the laws and the liberals pressing regulations through the executive branch.

Interesting observation. I think there are probably structural reasons to explain the pattern, if it bears up under statistical scrutiny. It would also be interesting to compare the track of other classes of policy to see if there's any ideological symmetry.

piscivorous
04-26-2008, 03:53 PM
I would agree that there are structural and circumstantial reasons. For one Nixon was President at the time the Environmental movement first came to maturity and there was much work to do, at that particular point in time, and a general political consensus to do it. None the less this constant harangue of the conservatives being instinctively adverse to protecting the environment is a meme that is in fact quite wrong and is self destructive of garnering further progress if no recognition is garnered for actually being the ones that have done it.


Experience should teach us to be most on our guard to protect liberty when the government's purposes are beneficent. Men born to freedom are naturally alert to repel invasion of their liberty by evil-minded rulers. The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well-meaning but without understanding.
- Justice Louis Brandeis

AemJeff
04-26-2008, 04:13 PM
None the less this constant harangue of the conservatives being instinctively adverse to protecting the environment is a meme that is in fact quite wrong and is self destructive of garnering further progress if no recognition is garnered for actually being the ones that have done it.

Actually "conservative" and "conservation" (obviously) have the same root. "Conservation" is by definition a conservative idea. The problem with conservatives and environmental protection is that one conservative ideal is pitted against another - namely economic libertarianism and explicit aversion to anything like regulation regarding business.

piscivorous
04-26-2008, 04:18 PM
Actually "conservative" and "conservation" (obviously) have the same root. "Conservation" is by definition a conservative idea. The problem with conservatives and environmental protection is that one conservative ideal is pitted against another - namely economic libertarianism and explicit aversion to anything like regulation regarding business. that is not what the list I just provided says!

AemJeff
04-26-2008, 04:21 PM
that is not what the list I just provided says!

Agreed. I'm arguing that that's not the whole story. Just as an illustration, Tom Delay's stated purpose for running for office was that he hated the regulations on his exterminator business.

Richard from Amherst
04-26-2008, 04:42 PM
The point about DOD investment in technology is a good one.

The DOD has DARPA which is indeed responsible for some pretty substantial technological and scientific advances. For example The internet or DARPAnet as it was once known. Gore had an hand in opening DARPAnet up to the public but only after lot of people working at universities that became nodes on DARPAnet had learned how power the net was. Those schools had the net because those institutions were doing DOD sponsored DARPA research. That was the same research that the left was trying at the time to stop and get off campus.

There was some interesting history on DARPA in Science and Nature magazines in the last couple of months.

The military industrial complex has done some pretty amazing things technologically. We need a similar DARPA or NASA like governmental / industrial effort on our energy and global warming problems.

The idea about global warming is not a new thing either.

I remember hearing about global warming and the greenhouse effect in lectures in Plant Ecology class as a Botany major at UMass Amherst back in the early 1970's. The text book for the class by the Odum brothers was "Fundamentals of Ecology". It described the greenhouse effect and global warming. We also learned about sea level rise in Coastal Ecology back in the 1970's. I guess that is why I was so puzzled by the excitement and hysteria over Gore's movie. My reaction was to the Gore movie was "Yes so? It is not a new problem".

Yes we have a lot more data now and it does appear global warming is conclusively accelerating. We are just going to have to adapt.

bjkeefe
04-26-2008, 04:43 PM
pisc:

There is one thing that struck me as odd though if you look at the list it is the conservatives that are actually signing the laws and the liberals pressing regulations through the executive branch.

Another factor to consider for your list is which party controlled Congress at the time a given piece of legislation or executive order was signed. For instance, Congress was controlled by Democrats at the time that Nixon signed the law creating the EPA, and Congress was controlled by Republicans during much of the Clinton Administration. Given that Congress is the branch that actually creates laws, this suggests that your implication isn't as strong as it seems. That is, it might be equally arguable that most environmental regulation is generated by liberals, through Congress if possible, and by executive order, if not.

piscivorous
04-26-2008, 04:56 PM
It is undeniable that the congress is involved in the passage of Federal Laws. it is also undeniable that a President must sign the law for it to be a law. i, as a conservative have fewer problems with passed and signed laws than I do with the dictatorial nature of executive order to accomplish unilateral goals of one party or the other, upon which there is no political consensus. You don't like them when they concern national security matters, a constitutional responsibility of the President, I don't like them when they are used to subvert the political process in general.


Experience should teach us to be most on our guard to protect liberty when the government's purposes are beneficent. Men born to freedom are naturally alert to repel invasion of their liberty by evil-minded rulers. The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well-meaning but without understanding.
- Justice Louis Brandeis

bjkeefe
04-26-2008, 06:16 PM
pisc:

i, as a conservative have fewer problems with passed and signed laws than I do with the dictatorial nature of executive order to accomplish unilateral goals of one party or the other ...

I, as a liberal and as an American, feel the exact same way.

On the other hand, it's not always quite so simple as one party pushing an agenda. There is also the consideration of what we mean by "chief executive." In general, I think we've allowed the presidency to acquire too much power, but there is some point at which allowing one person to make and execute a decision is way more efficient than trying to get a law passed, especially given the realities of the legislative process -- compromises, unrelated pork and other things tacked on, insertions and deletions made by lobbyists, etc. I guess my position is that the president has to have the authority to use the executive order process to get things done, and that this authority doesn't strike me as an inherently bad thing. The argument is better focused on the individual orders themselves.

Bloggin' Noggin
04-26-2008, 07:42 PM
Wow! That might be my favorite Science Saturday ever, even though it focused more on politics than science (or maybe I should say it focused on political science). Great discussion. Many thanks to both John and Michael for a terrific interview!

InJapan
04-26-2008, 08:42 PM
Kudos to blogginheads and John for a good diavlog. While not pure science, this is still the application of science to our daily lives, for which I am appreciative.

On the "trouble with Al Gore", I agree with Michael. As to John's assertion that Gore has "slapped people across the face", I maintain that in general is not the best approach. The problem with doing that is the human response to attack - fight or flight. Rather, what we need is exactly what Michael has proposed - expanding people's awareness, pliability, and their receptivity to change. Unfortunately Gore has a way of making more enemies than friends (as we see often here from certain blogginheads viewers).

piscivorous - your list provides an example that the environmental concerns are part of a long process which has worked on Congress, and IMO will (and should) continue to work that way. In a democratic society that is the way it should work - from the bottom up, even if that means increasing regulation on the behavior of private parties.

piscivorous
04-26-2008, 09:41 PM
Weather Channel Founder’s Forecast (http://www.thenewamerican.com/node/7524). I know it's John Coleman but he is Mr. weather after all.

bjkeefe
04-26-2008, 09:44 PM
InJapan:

On the "trouble with Al Gore" ...

Apart from possible problems associated with Al Gore being the perpetual face of those concerned about GW, what did you think of the idea that his efforts were useful in making more people aware of the problem to begin with?

David Thomson
04-26-2008, 09:55 PM
"With this extensive background, we might take John Coleman seriously when he states bluntly that global warming “is the greatest scam in history.”

Follow the money. The global warming industry is rolling in the dough. Al Gore is now a very wealthy man. Many of the scientists embracing this nonsense are nothing less than intellectual sluts for hire. Thankfully, many Americans are learning the truth. This is why the global warming rent seekers are subtly manipulating the process. They know damn well that the American voters will punish anyone who truly forces them to pay the real costs associate with this madness.

AemJeff
04-26-2008, 09:57 PM
Many of the scientists embracing this nonsense are nothing less than intellectual sluts for hire.

Would you care to cite some evidence when you impugn the the professionalism and motives of an entire class of professionals?

David Thomson
04-26-2008, 10:14 PM
"Would you care to cite some evidence when you impugn the the professionalism and motives of an entire class of professionals?"

I have no hesitation to "impugn the professionalism and motives of an entire class of professionals" who refuse to debate the issues surrounding "global warming." It's as simple as that. Al Gore in particular should be deeply ashamed of himself. Here are some scientists deserving of respect:

http://planetgore.nationalreview.com/

Ignoring the above scientists blogging on Planet Gore is proof that one is an intellectual whore on behalf of the “elite” establishment. Is there anything else you fail to comprehend?

AemJeff
04-26-2008, 10:16 PM
"Would you care to cite some evidence when you impugn the the professionalism and motives of an entire class of professionals?"

I have no hesitation to "impugn the professionalism and motives of an entire class of professionals" who refuse to debate the issues surrounding "global warming." It's as simple as that. Al Gore in particular should be deeply ashamed of himself. Here are some scientists deserving of respect:

http://planetgore.nationalreview.com/

Ignoring the above scientists blogging on Planet Gore is proof that one is an intellectual whore on behalf of the “elite” establishment. Is there anything else you fail to comprehend?

Yeah - I definitely don't comprehend your definition of "evidence." Here are some examples of mine:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2007/feb/02/frontpagenews.climatechange
http://www.factcheck.org/article395.html
http://www.desmogblog.com/exxon-acknowledges-climate-change

InJapan
04-26-2008, 10:31 PM
InJapan:



Apart from possible problems associated with Al Gore being the perpetual face of those concerned about GW, what did you think of the idea that his efforts were useful in making more people aware of the problem to begin with?

Generally I have to go with Michael on this one - Gore's net contribution is more in showing other "elites", leaders, etc. that it is worth their time to be involved in this issue. I do believe Gore may have done more harm than good (in making too many enemies who hate Gore and by association think AGW is just a "hoax".) Still, if Gore did succeed in bring the likes of Branson to the front (of bringing successful businessmen into dealing with problem) then that is at least some sort of positive contribution.

Yet, as we see in this very thread, we are now talking about Al Gore and not climate change.

So some people try to find the anti-Gore, e.g., John Coleman being proffered up in this thread. Now, I've watched Mr. Coleman for several years (as the KUSI weatherman), yet his position on climate change is not very tenable. We see people in this thread try to use the fallacy of Appeal to Authority (http://www.logicalfallacies.info/appealtoauthority.html). I.e., since John Coleman is the founder of the Weather Channel we ought to listen to him. Well, I have listened to him and checked his website(s), and have rejected his position as being not only unsound but lacking credibility and perhaps even dishonest. The thing about Mr. Coleman is that he lives not far from ScrippsIO, whose input was critical into the IPCC summarizing documents, and indeed whose personnel were authors. Yet Mr. Coleman dare not listen to them... That is, Mr. Coleman has an agenda to undo what he sees as a great problem, the influence of Al Gore in his life, but Mr. Coleman does not interact and listen to the scientists (who are his very neighbors) who could correct him.

What today's diavlog guest has touched on is important - changing peoples' behavior is best done by inspiration and not by force. E.g., David Thomson in this thread.


To piscivorous - you must have linked to that Coleman interview for a reason, no? It would be interesting to hear your thoughts on that interview.

piscivorous
04-26-2008, 11:11 PM
I have had plenty of exposure to John Coleman, from my years in Chicago and I figured it would be more entertaining than informative. I also figured it would get both sides moonbats ranting and this seems to have proved true.

What do I think. I think there is too much we still don't know, about all the factors that influence climate. I have done enough modeling to know that the more constants that you throw in, because you can't actually model the behavior, the less useful the model is as a predictive tool. The model becomes very susceptible to manipulation to fit the results one is looking for and the margins of error soon out way the result. So I don't trust or believe the models.

I believe that the trend in temperature was rising up until about 2001 but has flattened at a point slightly below it's most current high and has once again this past year taken a further dip. 7 years is nowhere near a long enough period to call it a definite trend but it is an interesting anomaly. I believe that the most current high is well within historical norms and that a gas that that has gone for approximately 0.014% of the atmosphere to approximately 0.038% seems an unlikely culprit.

But if i could but it to you as a thought experiment I would frame it like this. If I were my great great great grandchild able to reach back through time and query me would I have ans answer to these questions.

How could you have spent trillions of dollars on fighting CO2 to prevent a 2-3 degree rise in temperature when you could have used it to prevent 10s of millions of deaths from malaria?

How could you have spent trillions of dollars on fighting CO2 to prevent a 12-16 inch rise in the sea when you could have used the money to save millions from starvation and moved them into a middle class existence.

There are many such questions one could pose looking back from 100 years in the future about how we must decided today how to properly use our resources to alleviate the real problems of today not the hypothetical problems of 100 years from now.

StillmanThomas
04-27-2008, 01:46 AM
Superb interview, John! One of the best science Saturdays yet. Thanks to both of your for your thoughtful conversation.

Eastwest
04-27-2008, 01:53 AM
Excellent DV.

Although some others complain this isn't "pure science," I actually prefer practical discussions wherein science is at the root, but the philosophical, economic, or political implications are the focus.

Particularly resonated with the guest's point that scientists themselves, while of course being sources of momentous discoveries, do not have any particularly exalted ability to frame politically or socially how best those discoveries might be applied.

(Excessively free paraphrase on my part, I suspect.)

Thanks to both.

EW

InJapan
04-27-2008, 04:22 AM
There are many such questions one could pose looking back from 100 years in the future about how we must decided today how to properly use our resources to alleviate the real problems of today not the hypothetical problems of 100 years from now.

I concur... it is important to look at the decision process of where to go from here. Unfortunately there are still those individuals who prefer to either muddy the water (e.g., Coleman) or downright try to poison the well (of discussion) such as a couple of commentors that show up on threads here.

Thus I like the approach of today's guest, to build a consensus around changing our lives as a whole, rather than just to "slap people across the face" as John Horgan describes Al Gore.

Still I think you are not giving the climate modelers their due.

As for what would our GGGGrandchildren say about our actions... I'm not sure the either/or scenarios you present adequately illustrate the range of tradeoffs. E.g. your malaria example - in this case climate change could in places make malaria worse (where regions get more rainfall and more vectors), while reducing it in other locales (where desertification occurs.) So sometimes, perhaps most of time, the issues will be related.

With the 16 inches of sea level rise... that may not seem like it would be a problem for the US (outside of NOLA and south Florida), but certainly there are millions of people living on the river deltas of Asia (e.g., Bangladesh, Shanghai) where such changes would be a problem.

(Also, don't forget the other big hydrological issue - shifting rainfall patterns.)

Which of course brings up the whole question of who are "our" grandchildren...?

Anyway, count this as a vote for blogginheads to continue to discuss these issues with knowledgeable guests. One thing I would have liked John to do is ask pointier questions, especially when it comes to the tradeoffs that will need to be made (as you intimated.)

bjkeefe
04-27-2008, 05:08 AM
pisc:

I also figured it would get both sides moonbats ranting and this seems to have proved true.

This suggests that you prefer noise and useless bickering to more serious debate. Is that what you really want?

Eastwest
04-27-2008, 05:53 AM
One thing I would have liked John to do is ask pointier questions, especially when it comes to the tradeoffs that will need to be made....

This troubled me as well. As impressed as I was with the guest and with his insistence that mindless and unrealistic nostalgia not be the whole basis of how to determine the focus of desired endpoints, this seems at least mildly tinged with hubris.

Sure the world's future is ours to determine (since we control it, he claims [really?!?]), but that actually makes me shudder more than feel comforted as I suspect such "control" is both illusion and delusion: monkey with things enough and I can't imagine there won't be a great deal of remorse that nostalgic visions weren't given at least a little more weight.

The end result I'm sure is that our descendants will curse us mightily.

EW

piscivorous
04-27-2008, 10:13 AM
For the purpose of the following I will assume that the IPCC is correct, even though it is not my personal belief. If you is to look at a historical map of where malaria has been, compared to the areas it is prevalent today and you will notice that there are whole areas of the globe from which it has been eliminated. The southern cost of Europe, the southern and eastern seaboard of the US, the southern west cost of the US and even such far flung climes of
say Vermont. A generalization of the areas where malaria has essentially disappeared from are the developed nations. The key word in the previous sentence being developed. With greater wealth i.e. greater development, and the judicious use of DDT as it has particular effects on the the Anopheles genus of mosquito, the elimination of malaria cannot only be controlled it can effectively be eliminated.

With greater wealth comes greater mobility and mobility will eliminate the seemingly horrific consequences of higher sea levels. It may be not only be cheaper to move the population elements that would be adversely affected by the rise than to try and fight the rise if we have sufficiently developed these poorer areas of the world that will see the ill effects of a sea level rise of 12-16 inches will be in much better shape to deal with that rise independent of what others do for them.

I believe that it is I who is given the climate modelers their fair proportion of their due. One can't make the argument that we have such a thorough understand of the complexity of the forces and events that drive client change and that therefore the models are complete. If that were true the magnitudes of change, that we are likely to experience would be the same as the previous IPCC report. Comparing only the magnitudes of the two reports shows that as our improving understanding has resulted in a lowering in the projected outcomes and a narrowing of the range in those magnitudes. The modelers themselves will admit that cloud behavior can't yet be incorporated in to the models because we currently don't have the computing power to slice the world into sufficiently small chunks to account for the effects of clouds which may just have some small bearing on the climate. Having worked, the coding end, on fairly sophisticated model or two, I understand some of the complexity of the task they are trying to accomplish and I have plenty of respect for the modelers but also believe that the models themselves are not sufficient for the task at hand.

The history of mankind is a study of how we, as a species have adopted to the ever changing climate. that mankind has survived changes in rainfall is evident in ruins throughout the world so it is not something we as a species have not dealt with before so I'm pretty sure we will survive it again.

I concur with Mr. Shellenberger that vice President gore is using fear to try and accomplish the goals of the radical environmentalists and is actually having negative consequences to constructive debate.

osmium
04-27-2008, 04:49 PM
absolutely. in fact, i spent 2003 and 2004 doing fuel cell research for the army. people don't realize how much research (of all kinds) is pushed by the military, because they, being the government, can get behind high-risk, high-reward projects.

i'll point out that it's important to keep new faces, both in and outside the government, involved in policy. (like michael, for example.) fuel cell research is a net-positive, because it keeps momentum going in the right direction. however, someone has to keep the eye on the prize, which is inexpensive photovoltaics. fuel cells and hydrogen economy are a mere tweak compared with the prospect of being able to use the energy from the sun directly, without having to grow plants, feed dinosaurs, and pump oil as intermediate procedures.

osmium
04-27-2008, 04:51 PM
no argument there. nixon goes to china and democrats end welfare. takes all kinds. each wouldn't do it without the other.

osmium
04-27-2008, 04:59 PM
Many of the scientists embracing this nonsense are nothing less than intellectual sluts for hire.

i mean no disrespect. however, you know nothing about it.

osmium
04-27-2008, 05:05 PM
awesome. that interview really only needed to be ten seconds long, for him to be able to say "get off my lawn!" :)

i agree with him that hype isn't good. other than that ... i'll just stay off his lawn.

piscivorous
04-29-2008, 12:43 AM
Can't vouch for the guys numbers but if he is anywhere in the ballpark it will be an interesting time of change The Real Cost of Tackling Climate Change. (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120934459094348617.html?mod=opinion_main_comment aries) He does appear to have the credentials "Mr. Hayward is a fellow at the American Enterprise Institute and the author of the annual "Index of Leading Environmental Indicators," from which this article is adapted." Even if it is the AEI.