Do you feel comfortable being lumped in with Shellenberger, Lomborg (and Crenshaw?) as the "new movement"? Potential motto: "sure, there is *some* truth to climate change, it is *not nothing*. Just don't be all alarmist about it". Others might say "The New Merchants of Doubt"....
More seriously, though: How can you not see or not care what people like Crenshaw are clearly doing here? Their only aim is to delay climate action domestically, making international cooperation even harder to achieve. It is painfully obvious that Crenshaw was unable to understand the point about 100% of global warming being antropogenic, yet eventually you accomodated to his ultimate obvious intention, which is just to sow doubt on climate change science.
I recognise you have some legitimate academic quibbles, but your love for taking the contrarian view is tragically leading you to cuddle with some really dodgy people. His hypocracy is beyond the pale... complains about subsidies for renewables, but is mute about those for fossil fuels; terribly concerned about energy access in the developing world, but oblivious about the loss and damages of climate change in those same countries. He pretty much recited the fossil fuel industry script agaist renewables .... embarrassing stuff
Crenshaw's podcast is always worth a listen. Good job by Roger.
Crenshaw's confusion on the "how much is due to CO2" is easy to understand. From an energy perspective, the real question is how much is due to the CO2 that results from the burning of fossil fuels. I don't have the numbers handy but my recollection is that less than 50% of CO2 emissions come from the burning of fossil fuels. Someone needs to help Crenshaw come up with a nice simple summary of CO2 emissions due to the burning of fossil fuels.
Hi Roger,
Do you feel comfortable being lumped in with Shellenberger, Lomborg (and Crenshaw?) as the "new movement"? Potential motto: "sure, there is *some* truth to climate change, it is *not nothing*. Just don't be all alarmist about it". Others might say "The New Merchants of Doubt"....
More seriously, though: How can you not see or not care what people like Crenshaw are clearly doing here? Their only aim is to delay climate action domestically, making international cooperation even harder to achieve. It is painfully obvious that Crenshaw was unable to understand the point about 100% of global warming being antropogenic, yet eventually you accomodated to his ultimate obvious intention, which is just to sow doubt on climate change science.
I recognise you have some legitimate academic quibbles, but your love for taking the contrarian view is tragically leading you to cuddle with some really dodgy people. His hypocracy is beyond the pale... complains about subsidies for renewables, but is mute about those for fossil fuels; terribly concerned about energy access in the developing world, but oblivious about the loss and damages of climate change in those same countries. He pretty much recited the fossil fuel industry script agaist renewables .... embarrassing stuff
Crenshaw's podcast is always worth a listen. Good job by Roger.
Crenshaw's confusion on the "how much is due to CO2" is easy to understand. From an energy perspective, the real question is how much is due to the CO2 that results from the burning of fossil fuels. I don't have the numbers handy but my recollection is that less than 50% of CO2 emissions come from the burning of fossil fuels. Someone needs to help Crenshaw come up with a nice simple summary of CO2 emissions due to the burning of fossil fuels.