Posted by a commenter at the NY Times:
“The obfuscators’ simple and direct motivation – making money in the near term, which anyone can relate to – combined with their resources and, as it turns out, propaganda talents, have meant that we are arguing the science long after it has been nailed down. I, for one, admire them for their P.R. skills, while wondering, as always: 'Have they no grandchildren?'"Note: "GMO" is the asset management company Grantham Mayo Van Otterloo, not the things they're doing to organisms these days.
-- Jeremy Grantham, GMO Summer Essays, July, 2010, #4 Everything You Need to Know About Global Warming in 5 Minutes
Fortunately there are a few adults in the room. From Roger Pielke:
ReplyDelete"Learning from China: Coal and its Nukes"
"Over the past few years I've given the NYT's Justin Gillis a (deserved) hard time for some of his reporting. Today I'm happy to given him some well-earned praise on the occasion of his first monthly column at the NYT Times on climate change. Gillis wisely chose to write his first column on energy innovation, with a focus on nuclear power and China:"
.......
"The conclusion reached by Gillis is a logical consequence of doing the math on energy and carbon dioxide. Gillis concludes, quite rightly:
In effect, our national policy now is to sit on our hands hoping for energy miracles, without doing much to call them forth.
While we dawdle, maybe the Chinese will develop a nice business selling us thorium reactors based on our old designs."
.......
"The bottom line from these excellent reports and analyses should be abundantly clear: Looking to the energy future, one is necessarily either pro-nuclear and pro-gas (fracking) OR one is pro-carbon dioxide and pro-pollution. Which are you?"
http://rogerpielkejr.blogspot.com/2013/ ... mment-form