Skip to main content

A Hole in the Toilet

Bet that got your attention. We noted a few months ago that global warming denial has been doing a fade from the media, with only some Fox News personalities holding down the fort on a regular basis. Now, we're not neutral on this subject ourselves and think the issue's extension in the world of punditry has proven to be an extension of other arguments not really related to climate change per se - the know-nothing assault on science, a feint to industries that are rapidly finding their own ways forward, perhaps a way to keep an ideological wedge issue alive for political advantage - but whatever it may be or may have been, the embers of argument seem to be flickering out one at a time. How else to explain Fox's Shepherd Smith, in recounting the tale of a man who fell down the hole of a port-a-potty, saying - well, see for yourself.


Anonymous said…
As Dr. Pournelle stated at his Chaos Manor web site:

"Why suppress Global Warming Denial? Because there is this enormous consensus that Global Warming is TRUE, and anyone who is a Global Warming Denier is either an idiot or in the pay of oil companies and probably ought to be jailed; just as there is this enormous consensus that Intelligent Design is TRIVIALLY FALSE, and anyone who believes in it is either an idiot or in the pay of some sinister forces and probably ought to be jailed. The principle that anything against the consensus must be excluded from every classroom in the land is so important that central control of curricula must trump local control."

Read on:

True, global warming propaganda does lend support to using new nukes, but it's intellectually dishonest to assume that global warming from green house gas emissions is happening now when Earth was much warmer at the start of the Middle Ages and Greenland was green, all without man-made global warming.

I expect better from you, Mark Flanagan. Perhaps I should not have. Sickeningly liberal to the core. Don't like Fox News, the only alternative to the manure from CNN and the rest, then don't watch it.
Mark Flanagan said…
Didn't Jerry Pournelle used to write computer journalism some years ago? Name ring-a-lings and I'll have to take a look.

Even if you think global warming is complete hooey, as I assume you do, you have to admit that global warming denial has become pretty much what I suggested - an outlying opinion that has lost its relevance except as a stalking horse for other issues.

I think all of us have opinions that have been burned out of the discourse but remain convinced we are completely right - and sometimes even get vindicated over time. Remember "the next ice age" from the seventies? I do, and a lot of people went for it (I was too young, though it did capture my imagination; but I worried more about aliens shrinking the earth like I saw in Superman comics.)

I think there is little question that global warming has a human-generated component that can be reversed. You don't agree. One of us is "wrong." My interest here, though is not just promoting my opinion over yours (git yer own blog, fellar!), but in seeing how the media works the issue. I'm okay with it - it must make you want to throw things.

But by all means, when we disagree, have at it here in the comments. Put links up like you did and do your level best to prove your point. As with so many issues, the fun is in the debate and being made to think outside our comfort zones - it's not like Brainiac is going to shrink the Earth to prove one of us wrong.

And hey!, if you see me as sickeningly liberal, how could you ever expect better of me? Doesn't compute.
GRLCowan said…
Pournelle makes multiple mistakes in this matter -- e.g. recently referring to a theoretical prediction of equatorial global warming on Jupiter as if it were fact, and as if the theory didn't also predict that Jupiter's poles will cool -- and they all tend in one direction.

Talk about ships appearing to sink as they recede does not amount to suppression of flat-Earthism, it amounts to refutation thereof. I thing global warming deniers are being similarly refuted but not suppressed. If you say, "The earth is obviously flat" and I don't even respond, even then I'm still not suppressing you.

Popular posts from this blog

How Nanomaterials Can Make Nuclear Reactors Safer and More Efficient

The following is a guest post from Matt Wald, senior communications advisor at NEI. Follow Matt on Twitter at @MattLWald.

From the batteries in our cell phones to the clothes on our backs, "nanomaterials" that are designed molecule by molecule are working their way into our economy and our lives. Now there’s some promising work on new materials for nuclear reactors.

Reactors are a tough environment. The sub atomic particles that sustain the chain reaction, neutrons, are great for splitting additional uranium atoms, but not all of them hit a uranium atom; some of them end up in various metal components of the reactor. The metal is usually a crystalline structure, meaning it is as orderly as a ladder or a sheet of graph paper, but the neutrons rearrange the atoms, leaving some infinitesimal voids in the structure and some areas of extra density. The components literally grow, getting longer and thicker. The phenomenon is well understood and designers compensate for it with a …

Missing the Point about Pennsylvania’s Nuclear Plants

A group that includes oil and gas companies in Pennsylvania released a study on Monday that argues that twenty years ago, planners underestimated the value of nuclear plants in the electricity market. According to the group, that means the state should now let the plants close.


The question confronting the state now isn’t what the companies that owned the reactors at the time of de-regulation got or didn’t get. It’s not a question of whether they were profitable in the '80s, '90s and '00s. It’s about now. Business works by looking at the present and making projections about the future.

Is losing the nuclear plants what’s best for the state going forward?

Pennsylvania needs clean air. It needs jobs. And it needs protection against over-reliance on a single fuel source.

What the reactors need is recognition of all the value they provide. The electricity market is depressed, and if electricity is treated as a simple commodity, with no regard for its benefit to clean air o…

Why America Needs the MOX Facility

If Isaiah had been a nuclear engineer, he’d have loved this project. And the Trump Administration should too, despite the proposal to eliminate it in the FY 2018 budget.

The project is a massive factory near Aiken, S.C., that will take plutonium from the government’s arsenal and turn it into fuel for civilian power reactors. The plutonium, made by the United States during the Cold War in a competition with the Soviet Union, is now surplus, and the United States and the Russian Federation jointly agreed to reduce their stocks, to reduce the chance of its use in weapons. Over two thousand construction workers, technicians and engineers are at work to enable the transformation.

Carrying Isaiah’s “swords into plowshares” vision into the nuclear field did not originate with plutonium. In 1993, the United States and Russia began a 20-year program to take weapons-grade uranium out of the Russian inventory, dilute it to levels appropriate for civilian power plants, and then use it to produce…