If “septics” is you, not RC, why doesn’t RC respectfully request that you (a primary author on RC) not use such childish name-calling on their “science” site?

P.S. James Annan (also an author at RC) also uses the term in his comments on the RC site:

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=188

Sure there is.

I’m pretty sure that IREA would love to see a big fat tax credit for plug-in hybrid vehicles. (Promotes electrical energy use!)

Assuming that plug-in hybrids produce LESS CO2 emissions per mile traveled than gasoline engines–I haven’t looked carefully at the data, but I’m pretty sure that’s the case, even for coal-fired power plants–you should also support that, from your concern about CO2 emissions.

P.S. To give another example, I’m pretty sure IREA would support research into iron fertilization of oceans to remove CO2 from the atmosphere. (Avoids requiring coal-fired plants to install expensive CO2 removal equipment.) If you’re concerned about atmospheric CO2 concentrations, presumably you would also support such research.

Good comment.

I would like to had that big oil is the cheapest, and by a wide margin, energy available, even with the recent rise in its costs.

The change to cleaner energy will come as soon as the gap in cost between clean and fossil energy will be even.

In my opinion, the proponent of the Kyoto protocol wants to speed up that closure in cost by artificially fixing fossil fuel price to a point that green energies are becoming just has cheap and viable.

In Québec, we are facing the negative effect of such policies that attack the big oil industries. For example, our government imposed a special tax to the amount of $250 millions to the oil industry which they are now charging to the wide public at about 2¢/liter at the pump. This week-end the price at the pump were at 1,14$/liter or a little more than 5.00$/gallon.

They also want to produce more wind energy. Since wind energy cost more they have to rise their prices for the electricity that they sell us. Once again the poorest pay the price since they have to make some hard choices to survive.

Thanks for the feedback. I appreciate it. I’ll plead guilty to occasionally smarmy. But I don’t think the “holier than thou” tag quite fits in this instance.

Sometimes being direct and a bit aggressive is called for in my judgment (which could eaily be wrong). Do have a look at the archives as I’ve been having this sort of debate with RC for well over a year. More generally than RC, have a look at this paper:

Pielke, Jr., R. A. and D. Sarewitz, 2003. Wanted: Scientific Leadership on Climate, Issues in Science and Technology, Winter, pp. 27-30.
http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/admin/publication_files/2003.01.pdf

I do have high expectations for the world’s leading climate scientists – which includes the RC crowd — in politicized debates.

You title this post ‘holier than thou’, presumably referring to the RealClimate folks. Do you not think the following statement is a fairly textbook example of that very attitude:

“In a democracy, action occurs most often through compromise rather than complete annihilation of one’s opponents. Until this point is realized by those calling for “action” expect gridlock to continue.”

You undoubtedly have a lot of interesting and highly relevant things to say. However, do you not think that your occasionally smug, indeed ‘holier than thou’, tone is as equally counterproductive as the charges you lay at the feet of RC? You suggest building bridges; as someone coming from a similar, non-policy, background to those at RC, I’d suggest to you that your approach could be modified a tad.

Just a thought……

Your candid comment helps to explain why many in the science community have been an obstacle on progress on the climate issue: “I’ve already said: give up pushing junk science; accept the std.consensus; go and talk about policy. At which point it disappears out of my area…”

Wow!

Thanks.

What should IREA do? I’ve already said: give up pushing junk science; accept the std.consensus; go and talk about policy. At which point it disappears out of my area…

Thanks much for your response. A few replies:

1. I’ve got not a problem with advocacy by RC. The issue I have is the disinformation (sorry couldn’t resist:-) that RC espouses on its WWW site about focusing on science when clearly engaging in advocacy. Get that straight and I’ll gladly stop giving you guys a hard time on that point. Truth in advertising is good for Pat Michaels and RC.

2. Pat Michaels is not alone in having a vested interest in his position on climate change. Anyone who has made a public pronouncement or published a peer-reviewed paper has a stake in the debate, whether it is financial, ego, or professional. That includes me and you. I don’t see the financial as particularly special in such a case.

3. You might have a look at the comments of your RC collaborator William Connolley on this same thread who sends a very different message, such as, why discuss policy without debating the science? And that the IREA folks are “liars”. Seems to me that if RC wanted to unite rather than divide, a very different commentary might have been produced.

Take it for what it is worth, but my view of your continued bashing of the “skeptics” (or “septics” in your jargon) does more to maintain the intensity of the two-sided debate than open it up to compromise or new views. I for one would be interested in what you suggest IREA actually do, given their economic situation and their customers who depend upon them for power …