The Daily Distraction

Every day something gets published about the Climate Change Wars that is truly irrelevant. There are far too many journalists, bloggers and even scientists feeling the need to put something–anything–online that may either bolster their case or undermine that of their opponents.

Today I will highlight the strange case of a professor of music at the University of Graz in Austria. A firm believer in the worst-case scenarios of future global warming and its effects, he made some intemperate remarks on his website about those with opposing views, whom he characterized as ‘deniers’ and accused of causing ‘hundreds of millions of deaths.’ He is wrong on the facts and was needlessly insulting. He’s not the first.

Who cares? Why did skeptic bloggers publicize this and demand retractions, resignations, etc.? He’s a professor of music.

Well, he apologized and the University did as well. So that was another round of storifying in the blogosphere. Nothing to do with science. Nothing to do with policy. Nothing to do with just about anything, just giving writers something to do.

We may not be proving either side of the climate change proposition. But we are providing evidence that Nature abhors a vacuum.

There are too many days like this.


4 responses to “The Daily Distraction

  1. What you’re proving is that there is a need for a blog like this. Take a look at the sites that picked up this story. Are they trying to change anyone’s minds? Are they trying to reach an intelligent consensus? Or are they preaching to the choir and demonizing the other side?

  2. “just giving writers something to do”

    Yes, near the end of all wars the war correspondents have little to write about, so we are all treated to a long series of shrill articles of little import.


  3. Oh, Harry, if only it were near the end of this war…

    I don’t see it ending during my lifetime.

    • Which side defended the recent 1.6C climate sensitivity revelation?

      Even at a 1.6C climate sensitivity one can still make the case that moving away from fossil fuels in an orderly and cost effective manner is worthwhile.

      Clean Affordable Energy is a sellable concept on both sides of the political spectrum. The only difference is whether the word ‘clean’ or whether the word ‘affordable’ is where the emphasis is.

      News from Wyoming –
      “State legislators continue to support the development of nuclear power generation in the state, but most are wary of opening the door too wide, or making Wyoming the nation’s nuclear waste deposit site.”

      Coal is basically free in Wyoming. A nuclear plant can’t even compete there on fuel costs, never mind capital costs.

      Here is a nice Republican screed about everything that is wrong with US Energy Policy from one of the Senators from Wyoming.

      If you read thru all the red meat right wing rhetoric…something that would be a difficult task for a person whose politics is ‘left of center’…you will find..

      Pro-coal- an obvious requirement for a Senator from Wyoming.
      Pro-natural gas – another obvious requirement for a Senator from Wyoming
      Pro-wind on ‘federal lands’
      Pro-solar on ‘federal lands’
      Pro-tidal energy

      The ‘surrender terms’ have been sitting on the table for quite some time. The blind ideologues being blind can’t see it and still believe a war of annihilation is winnable. Even Obama is avoiding giving anyone the impression that the ‘blind ideologues’ will get what they demand.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s