AGW catastrophism Climate Change Global Warming Omniclimate Policy Politics Skepticism

Is Promotion Of Environmental Causes Bad For One's Mental And Physical Health?

Bill McKibben of stars in the latest Cancún blog plus video by Andy Revkin, with puzzling results.

  • Most interestingly, McKibben is adamantly dismissive of Andy’s concerns about an “energy challenge”, small stuff really when “whole freaking countries” are “washing away“, and “the planet right now is…disintegrating“. All of that doesn’t elicit much of a reaction from the dotEarth’s author. Does that mean Revkin fundamentally agrees with McKibben, also about statements such as “it is going to be a miserable century or an impossible one” and “the science is very clear“? I don’t think so.

Other questions:

  • If the underlying engine is “the science“, what are the scientific basis for choosing 350ppmv as the ultimate goal of any climate policy?
  • It’s also a mystery how a “long-distance climate campaigner” manages to be around Cancun rather than do the right thing, connect from afar in order to emit far less CO2 than “living strenously” implies. It would also make a lot of sense, given the lack of money keeps lamenting. What do we get instead? Latest news is a boat trip with a free dive out of Cancun, not exactly cheap stuff.
  • Finally, it’s great for McKibben to worry about the rest of the century, but by the look of it, he risks not being around for much of the rest of the century, looking quite old, tired, almost haunted (yes, Revkin _is_ older than McKibben). Is promotion of environmental causes bad for one’s mental and physical health?

ps Oh my…McKibben uses “that” WWII analogy again…Godwin’s Law alert! Godwin’s Law alert! Godwin’s Law alert! Godwin’s Law alert! Godwin’s Law alert!

pps “The most interesting thing about the pictures and everything from 350 is everybody in them almost is poor, black, brown, Asian, young“…are the Africans alright then? What about older Asians?

catastrophism Climate Change Global Warming Omniclimate

Whatever Happened to Andrew Revkin?

Still a tad too many “will” statements, but lots less of “could” and “would” than in the past

Andrew C. Revkin’s blog (and printed articles) sound definitely less biased nowadays.

Is this the start of a Revkin Cooling trend?

Best comment so far to his latest blog:

There is a message here for both sides of the global warming debate and especially the media. Stop tying every short term fluctuation, whether it be ice sheets, hurricane numbers, or the number of mosquitoes in Kathmandu to global warming or the lack thereof. It’s no wonder that a large body of the public remains skeptical about the global warming community’s projections of catastrophe 30 years from now.

— Jack