Future Plans For This Blog and 3000 Quads

I’ve been posting quite a bit since I un-retired around the first of the year, and much of what I’ve been doing is to try and set up a clearinghouse for criticisms of the main vehicles used to promote the Second Consensus. By that I mean the consensus amongst the media and commentariat that the science is settled, the skeptics are bad, it’s going to be worse than we thought and anybody who criticizes the consensus is a denier.

When I get done with that I want to look more closely at NGO messaging, something I think has been a major factor in preventing reasonable dialogue and intelligent action. That should take me through February for The Lukewarmer’s Way.

For my companion blog 3000 Quads, I’m going to re-visit themes such as internal variability within countries regarding energy consumption, try to configure a sane fuel portfolio for major emitting countries and wait as patiently as I can for the spring release of the DOE International Energy Outlook.

I also need to make time to clean up my blogroll. Link rot is there and it is evil.

For both blogs, I am open to suggestions on topics of interest to readers. Way back when I did a guest series over at Jeff Id’s blog comparing climate blogs–one skeptic vs. one consensus blog at a time. If there’s interest, I could do something along those lines for 2015. Anybody want a side by side comparison of Jose Duarte vs. And Then There’s Physics?

4 responses to “Future Plans For This Blog and 3000 Quads

  1. I enjoyed what you did at the Airvent and that type of comparison is certainly controversial. This blog looks like a … neutral(ish) ground to do this.

  2. Okay, I’ll give it a shot.

  3. Over at Bloombergview.com, Megan McArdle has published an excellent article on moral panic. The piece does not mention climate but does a fantastic job of explaining the climate wars, see Moral Panics Won’t End Campus Rape

    Here is the money-quote

    “There are a lot of definitions of moral panic running around, but here’s mine: It’s when a community becomes hysterical about some problem — often, but not always, a real one — that becomes defined as an existential threat to public safety and moral order. In such a climate, questioning how big the threat actually is, or contesting any particular example, is not a matter of rational discussion, but of heresy. “

    She goes on to draw parallels between the child abuse hysteria of the 1980’s and the uproar over the Rolling Stone article about alleged rapes at UVA.

    It is a great read but there is much she does not say that she should have. She should have explored the role of the press in advancing moral panic. It was the press that failed to question the child abuse allegations even after they ventured into the absurd. It was the press who trumpeted exaggerated climate claims and did little to put the science or the proposed solutions into a rational context. It was the press that incited violence in Fergusson by continuing to beat the drum of a false narrative – and still does.

    While rational people can debate about climate sensitivity and argue about what is wise energy policy, we still have to deal with a press who may or may not believe that NASA Faked the Moon Landing but failed to question even more ridiculous claims about satanic rituals in child care facilities.

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com 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 )

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s