Regarding the observation:
”
David Springer | June 7, 2013 at 7:28 am | Reply
Not a single mention of “pissant progressive” or “space cadet”. Amazing.
”
You have to understand that it is all about framing and projection. People like the Chief may actually know the critical aspects of man’s relationship and impact with the environment yet they cannot give an inch when it comes to the political angle.
In fact what Chief describes is Ecology 101, which is very similar to the conservation approaches that I was taught back in grade school by so-called “progressive” educators. These teachers were amazingly enough the same greens that are constantly being deemed as environmental wackos by the Limbaughs of the world.
How does this hypocrisy square? The projection and framing is really a clever strategy by the denier community. Look up a report by David Wojick, longtime denizen, called “Carbon storage in soil, the ultimate no-regrets policy”. Wojick is another relentless denier of climate change that also wants to have it both ways.
The fact is that both Chief and Wojick will continue to demean anyone that holds up the science on climate change while at the same time purport to campaign for the very important No-Regrets policies that were coined by climate scientists around 1990:
R. M. White, E. B. Weiss, T. Atkeson, and A. O. Adede, “The great climate debate,” presented at the Proceedings of the Annual Meeting (American Society of International Law), 1990, vol. 84, pp. 346–365.
“No-regrets policy
A policy that would generate net social and/or economic benefits irrespective of whether or not anthropogenic climate change
occurs.”
Just as moving off of fossil fuels just because of their constrained and finite supply is a No-Regrets benefit of AGW mitigation, so is this basic soil conservation framework. As with peak oil, we also have issues with phosphate depletion, and are having to go to more energy extensive measures to extract phosphates for fertilizers. Of course conservation agriculture makes sense.
I can only laugh at how clumsily people like Chief and others try to hijack the arguments long used by the “pissant progressives” of the world. That is how political framing and projection works and, clumsiness notwithstanding, they can get away with it. The hypocrisy of denying global warming for “a decade or three” while at the same time lobbying for a No-Regrets policy is jarring to those who understand framing techniques, but the typical skeptic cluelessly eats it up.