Charlottesville
July 7, 2022
I saw that the Steamboat Institute had held a Climate Change Summit and was excited to listen to the speakers. I ASSUMED the Steamboat Institute was like the Aspen Institute and there would be speakers covering all sides of this topic.
I was wrong. The Steamboat Institute is a conservative think tank and the speakers represented an echo chamber of denial. The speakers jump back and forth between bashing "the media" and taking chip shots at the science of climate change. Hey guys, we get it -- some publications sensationalize climate change because it helps sell their product. But don't cloak your criticism of the coverage of climate change as "I'm smarter than everyone else and I know the TRUTH of climate change." I'm not buying it. If you are so right, you should be able to convince climate scientists of the error of their ways; best I can tell, you are not doing that.
The Steamboat Institute is a conservative nonprofit organization located in Steamboat Springs, Colorado. It was founded in 2008 by Rick and Jennifer Schubert-Akin. The organization's stated mission is to "promote America's first principles and inspire active involvement in the defense of liberty.". The Steamboat Institute sponsors an annual conference. Speakers have included former United States Secretary of the Interior Ryan Zinke. The organization also awards an annual journalism fellowship named in honor of Tony Blankley.
If his presentation of "the science" is off point, where? Denigrating it without giving examples of where and how he is wrong seems dismissive.
No one from The Left will debate Koonin, Lomborg, et al., nor will refereed journals publish papers by critics, which is why alternative means to get the opposing view out are necessary. For instance, the history of lies and cooked data by the IPCC alone -- that they themselves admitted years ago -- are legion. There has not been a single prediction that Algore, the IPCC, or any other major Global Warming Catastrophist has made that has turned out correct. We have had this discussion before -- when predictions from a scientific hypothesis are foun…
All of the activities which man can undertake to produce energy - be it fossil fuel or renewable - have an effect on the environment and may conversely have an effect on climate. i would think the mining for each source(s) of energy likely being the single biggest factor. i remain somewhat skeptical whether those effects have a measurable effect on climate. direct data to evaluate a true historic pattern in my mind appears to be limited to a few hundred years and even then only for a few of the variables which must comprise the equation about climate. the biggest problem for me is that i no longer trust the "scientific community" to provide unbiased "research".
OH!!! But first, Lucian -- I should heartily THANK YOU for posting that presentation!!!! I would have never seen it otherwise!
That was the single best, most concise presentation I've ever seen on the topic of climate change and energy policy. I was sad to read that you seem to dismiss it by saying, in essence, "If it is so persuasive, so right, why don't the bulk of climate scientists agree with it?"
The Left has politicized science today, just as it has since the days of the Lysenko vs. Vavilov debate in the early Soviet Union. (Nikolai Vavilov was considered the greatest plant geneticist of the first half of the 20th century. Stalin had him murdered in 1943 because he disagreed with T. D. Lysenko's views of "inheritance of acquired characteristics", which was a cornerstone of Marxism, and completely false…