What the warmongers of the pentagon are responsible for Silicon Valley? 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.

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?

Quoting David Thomson: 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 or CEI, 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.

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

Quoting piscivorous: 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.

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

Quoting piscivorous: 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.

Quoting AemJeff: 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!

Quoting piscivorous: 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.

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

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.

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

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.

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!

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.

Weather Channel Founder’s Forecast. I know it's John Coleman but he is Mr. weather after all.

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?

"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.

Quoting David Thomson: 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?

"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?

Quoting David Thomson: "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/environmen....climatechange
http://www.factcheck.org/article395.html
http://www.desmogblog.com/exxon-ackn...climate-change

Quoting bjkeefe: 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

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

Superb interview, John! One of the best science Saturdays yet. Thanks to both of your for your thoughtful conversation.

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

Quoting piscivorous: 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

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?

Quoting InJapan: 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

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

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.

no argument there. nixon goes to china and democrats end welfare. takes all kinds. each wouldn't do it without the other.

Quoting David Thomson: 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.

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.

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. 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.