In 2008, it was shaped by Copenhagen and the proposed U.S. congressional cap & trade legislation. That makes sense, since major political events (especially protracted ones) tend to propel narratives. (Ordinarily, climate science drives the global warming narrative, but 2008 was akin to a presidential election year for climate change.) Sure there were new public…Continue Reading…
In a short, snappy video interview with Nature, Stanford climatologist Stephen Schneider veers between hope, resignation, and realism. He makes a good case for what can be salvaged from Copenhagen, and why that matters. Along those lines, he offers this clever twist on an over-used phrase: We can’t let the perfect be the enemy of…Continue Reading…
The seething anger directed at Andy Revkin (and the NYT) from climate scientists and climate advocates continues to amaze me. On Saturday, Eric Steig at Real Climate vented through gritted teeth. On Sunday, Joe Romm got back in touch with his old self and let it rip. That same day, we saw the, ahem, unauthorized…Continue Reading…
My Friday post at Nature’s Climate Feedback is up. The conference starts next week, obviously, and will be covered in detail by Nature’s staff.
My Tuesday post at Nature’s Climate Feedback is up.
My Tuesday post at Nature’s Climate Feedback is up:
My Friday post at Nature’s Climate Feedback is up.
My Tuesday post at Nature’s Climate Feedback is up.
Aside from David Roberts, there’s only one other notable voice who has put a positive spin on the big Copenhagen news. No surprise there from CP, though his first sentence probably got coughed up like a hairball by even his most devoted fans. Guess what, he’s right. But for the wrong reason. At least I’m…Continue Reading…
My friday post at Nature’s Climate Feedback is up. The Sci Am geoengineering piece I flagged is worth reading in its entirety, especially by that environmental ethicist in Boulder, Colorado who is having way too much fun with his new blog toy.