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.

Comments

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:

http://www.jerrypournelle.com/mail/2008/Q2/mail522.html#ID

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

Activists' Claims Distort Facts about Advanced Reactor Design

Below is from our rapid response team . Yesterday, regional anti-nuclear organizations asked federal nuclear energy regulators to launch an investigation into what it claims are “newly identified flaws” in Westinghouse’s advanced reactor design, the AP1000. During a teleconference releasing a report on the subject, participants urged the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to suspend license reviews of proposed AP1000 reactors. In its news release, even the groups making these allegations provide conflicting information on its findings. In one instance, the groups cite “dozens of corrosion holes” at reactor vessels and in another says that eight holes have been documented. In all cases, there is another containment mechanism that would provide a barrier to radiation release. Below, we examine why these claims are unwarranted and why the AP1000 design certification process should continue as designated by the NRC. Myth: In the AP1000 reactor design, the gap between the shield bu...

How many nuclear plants does it take to meet the world's energy needs?

Several weeks ago Joshua Pearce at Clarion University in Pennsylvania released a study titled “ Thermodynamic limitations to nuclear energy deployment as a greenhouse gas mitigation technology .” In the study he stated... nuclear energy production would have to increase by 10.5% per year from 2010 to 2050 to both replace fossil-fuel-energy use and meet the future energy demands. This line, of course, made the headlines and has been picked up by several outlets and blogs . When looking into his calculations for this statement, he made one assumption error that overstated the above sentence by nearly a factor of three. Page 121, Section 4.1 of the study states: Richard Smalley pointed out that in 2004, the global economy consumed the equivalent of 220 million barrels of oil per day, which converted into electricity terms is the equivalent of 14.5 TeraWatts (TW), or 14,500,000 MegaWatts (MW) (2005). … With a nuclear plant having about 1000 MW (1 GW) of capacity, we would need 14,500...

What Happens During a Refueling Outage?

You may have noticed over the past few weeks that a number of nuclear plants are shut down for refueling outages or are resuming operations after just returning from one. This type of routine outage usually occurs in the spring or fall when electricity demand is low so that nuclear reactors can replace about one-third of the spent fuel rods with new fuel and conduct other routine maintenance and repairs at the plant. To get a better sense of how refueling works at a nuclear energy facility, I spoke with Marcus Nichol, NEI’s senior project manager for used fuel storage and transportation, and asked him to explain the basics. Why does a nuclear plant need to replace one-third of its fuel? Nichol: The main purpose of a refueling outage is to replace older fuel that is depleted—meaning it can no longer efficiently produce energy from nuclear fission reactions—with new fuel. This “used fuel” has typically been used in the reactor for four-and-a-half to six years before it is pe...