E-mail Sherry ListgartenAbout this blog: Climate change, despite its outsized impact on the planet, is still an abstract concept to many of us. That needs to change. My hope is that readers of this blog will develop a better understanding of how our climate is evolving a... (More)About this blog: Climate change, despite its outsized impact on the planet, is still an abstract concept to many of us. That needs to change. My hope is that readers of this blog will develop a better understanding of how our climate is evolving and how they want to respond, and will feel comfortable asking questions and exchanging comments on the topic. It is important that we develop a shared understanding of the basic science and impacts of climate change, to make sense of our actions and policy options going forward. My background is not in climate science, and I'm not even particularly green; my hope is that helps to make this blog more relatable. I studied math and neurobiology on the east coast before moving out here in 1987 for grad school in computer science. After working in the tech industry for about 25 years, I retired a few years ago to better align my time with my priorities. I love spending time outdoors, and feel deeply our responsibility to this incredible planet that we call home. (Hide)View all posts from Sherry Listgarten
I am all for research and projects that work to develop wind power, butthere are some drawbacks to it that I don't think we have the big pictureon yet. Wind, solar and storage are important.I am against it being legislated as the only one of two green or energy options,wind and solar.We need to develop many different technologies while drawing back onhydrocarbons, and some of the aspects of biomass.I think in say 200 year if humans are still on this planet nuclear will be themajor source of power. Eventually people will come to their senses andnot be willing to cover the planet with windmills and solar panels ( not thatthey are bad ) and at some point nuclear will be safe and acceptable.With that vision, I think it is also important to push to research, developand roll out new nuclear technologies and to realize we will probably stillhave accidents.I could very well be wrong but I don't think future nuclear accidents withthese new technologies and plants will have disasters like Chernobyl orFukushima - but there is no guarantee.We have had nuclear working since 1958, and worldwide there have beentwo major awful accidents --- in 60 years. That is really not so bad.What did we have with oil ... that I can remember ...Exxon ValdezBP Gulf oil spillThousands of cancers along the Southern Mississippi cancer alley Ithink it is called from petrochemical plants and refineries.Megatons of CO2 burned off from venting gas, and I think on the orderof thousands of oil spills.For example. I would not like to see windmills all up and down the CAcoastline or coastal mountain ridges.
Sherry> @Peace/CPA/Quack: I agree with people that say Planet of the Humans is less than accurateI would disagree with that. When you look at what was being presented, there was fact, and there was a lot of CONCERNED IN A REAL WAY people voicing opinions. Some of the facts and things shown were out of date, but they were videos and thus not inaccurate.> (I think I've called the producers negligent" in that regard).You made your contention and now you sling the negative mud. Negligent? Inaccurate can cover a lot of territory. You can be telling the truth, which I think POTH did fairly well to make a point, but have problems with the data but that do not necessarily extend to incompetence or prevarication. In a way that is a fair criticism of Michael Moore's movies, of which this was NOT one, but movie and documentaries are usually efforts to convince that mostly rely on emotion, just like we are bathed in 10,000 times a day with all the advertising and manipulative things we see online, click-bait, etc. So I have to complain about the word negligent. If I had to I might go with incompetent in that I don't think they went through the movie thoroughly enough, but they did say the facts were vetted.I would guess they decided not to miss a captive COVID-19 audience was more important than re-vetting, updating and refreshing the movie before a commercial release that maybe will not happen for months or even years.> I also agree with @Quack that it seems to be written by a bunch of disillusioned idealists who are giving up because the options we have aren't perfect.That's pretty much of a content free statement based on nothing but Quack's image of Michael Moore combined with this position in this world that I could say is threatened so he/she feels obligated to attack it for his own benefit, and be just as valid or correct. It is basically a I can say clever things in a way that appeals and activates my base ... think Trump's mode of campaigning or marketing.The point being that that comment is basically just name-calling.> So why does that message appeal to some people?Perhaps because just as the inaccurate disillusioned explained in the documentary ( you did watch the documentary and pay attention? ) , the first Earth Day was 50 years ago and we are not improving except in rhetoric and cheap talk. This meme is pretty well shown in the movie by the many cases of dishonest marketing.> Why do they find it so satisfying to purposefully sit and watch while we destroy this beautiful planet and so much of the life on it?Come on that is such a desperately emotional comment that you can't know that they are sitting, watching and finding it satisfying that this beautiful planet and its life is being destroyed. In fact when you look, actually look, at the movie it's the exact opposite, they did they movie because they saw, and could make a case that it was everyone else sitting, watching and finding it satisfying that this beautiful planet and its life is being destroyed - that was the problem.> I need to understand that mindset better, because it is foreign to me.We all have our blind spots and imperfections, and that is why we must foster discussion ( not debate ) I was listening to a podcast by Sam Harris who made a great point about the difference between discussion and debate. Sam said that if he is a debate, it is a contest, if he accepts a point from the other side he is LOSING, and he has been in debates where he felt uncomfortable because the other side had a point or was even right - and he is wedged into paralysis because of the whole context of DEBATE, whereas if he was in a discussion the whole effort could actually be productive and create synthesis.Today there is this debate show on PBS - the Intelligence Squared Debates, but they are branded as Oxford-Style debates moderated by John Donvan, and the deadness and awfulness of the show is just as Harris points out. Very disingenuous rhetorical devices to manipulate the audience rather than to bring them into discussion. At least POTH generated awareness and discussion of these issues.When I was younger we used to have a show called the Advocates on PBS that was a bunch of renowned experts in their fields DISCUSSING and issue, and they were always useful learning experiences. Why is it that over the intervening time all these media shows have rotted to such a degree that they are almost useless for informing the public?But the way, the POTH crew has editing the movie since it was so stridently attacked and removed from YouTube due to a excessively exuberant application of copyright infringement that is nothing but political censorship. Just based on the backlash and from who it says people need to see this and make up their own minds.
Sherry:Moniz always kind of creeped me you, but I guess I have to agree with what you presented above ...> He strongly believes we can't leave too many options off the table, and we should be innovating like crazy right now so that by 2030 we have a whole suite of things to choose from.That very comment seems to be custom made to apply to nuclear.As someone who until even years after Fukushima was completely against nuclear power, now ironically after seeing the result of Fukushima I have slowly and reluctantly changed my mind.daydreaming,I would say the problem with your argument is that you have a few numbers and a rigid spiel memorized that you are very emotional and insistent about, but are so stuck in the box you have constructed for yourself you cannot see or REACT to field new data from anyone else's comments.Back a few blogs were went round and round and what you did in every case was to repeat the same points, use hyperbolic emotionally charged words and phrases to apply to anyone who disagreed with you, and seeming to think that declaring victory and ignoring any points was a valid debate strategy.I am not going to bother discussing with you any because I think that anyone who actually cares about the subject and reads your comments will notice this for themselves. 2b1af7f3a8