Zero impact is a myth, and there is a difference between bad and worse. But keep holding out for those unicorn farts. As with the economy, the longer we put off the reckoning hoping for a perfect solution that doesn’t exist, the worse it will be.

(or is it too late?)

From another article by Gwynne Dyer (a political analyst who is particularly interested in climate change right now):

About 70 interviews, a dozen countries, and 18 months later, I have reached four conclusions that I didn’t even suspect when I began the process. The first is simply this: the scientists are really scared. Their observations over the past two or three years suggest that everything is happening a lot faster than climate models predicted.

They think rationally, are trained to be good problem-solvers, and as a plus they’re often capable of clear, cogent communication.

Besides, more scientists in politics would do a lot to curb the rampant ignorance of science in politics.

Maybe I’m over-reacting, but I don’t think that the concepts expressed by the words “believes” and “science” are compatible. A believing scientist is a contradiction, don’t you think?

Given that DOE spends more money on scientific R&D than the NSF, it’s nice to have someone in charge who respects scientific integrity.

Appointing a bright guy is just another delaying tactic. It perpetuates the hope that we don’t have to make hard choices because we’ll be filling our cars with unicorn farts any day now.

In the meantime, we’ll just keep burning coal.

Oh well, I must be a hippie for even thinking about the next million years.

and I imagine that has a lot to do with knowing who’s got campaign funding from whom, and putting very complicated clauses in to satisfy corporate interests.

You should read up on the Gov of Illinois and what Obama offered him for naming the next senator from IL.

Gratitude.

Not graft.

Hope Kieran, HOPE.

Bravo America! Your star is regaining it’s shine, ever so slowly…

(1) Chu believes science is real. (2) Chu believes climate change is real.

Good on #1. Maybe Obama will similarly find someone who thinks mathematics and economics are real to help him get his spending proposals in check.

#2? C’mon. According to our best data, the planet has been cooling for the last 10 years. It’s asinine to make “belief in climate change” into a litmus test for public office. We don’t have that much good data, and much of the data is contradictory (for example, indicating that carbon dioxide levels are an effect of temperature increases, not a cause). If he believes in science, his position on the issue right now is meaningless, because he’ll follow the data where it leads.

Wonderful…the more of it the better.

We are so accustomed to politicians we have come to believe it is a real job.

Lets see trade specific people who happen to work in politics, rather than people who make a career out of political manoeuvres.

Thinking and listening rather than playing the game.

And no consulting the Thoughts Of Ayn Rand for your answer, either!

So, is it profitable for you to so deeply misunderstand? Or is it profitable to spread your brand of non-sense?

Call it what it is supposed to be, Anthropogenic Global Warming. It seems to me that they stopped calling it Global Warming about 4 years ago when it also seems to me that it stopped actually getting warmer.

We know that the climate changes, every aspect of it is in a constant state of flux and indeed if it didn’t change at least a tiny bit now and then most life on the planet would DIE.

Calling it “Climate Change” is a cop out designed to raise yet another tax upon the workers of the world. Either there is man-made Global Warming or there isn’t. One can always and easily prove that the climate changes… like now I have snow on the ground outside = different from last week. Imagine that.