I hope FAIR retains its pro-human agenda and doesn't devolve into the typical corporatist right-wing think tank. Anti-environmentalists like Shellenberger are the exact opposite of "pro-human."
I don't think this is a fair assessment of Shellenberger. He certainly isn't partisan as he defends free speech for all and comes down on the side of Nuclear over renewable. He has spent a very long time showing that wind energy is annihilating Whales at an unprecedented pace. He is what I would call an Enlightenment liberal. He is consistent in his work, goes above and beyond to show proof in his work, and angers people on the left and the right. That is a good thing, as it shows he can't be bought for likes. He doesn't deny climate change. He wants cheap and clean energy. That's all I'll say. I just didn't want someone to read your comment and think one opinion was the majority opinion. Have a nice day.
The wind/whales gambit is a good example of his duplicity. He obviously doesn't care about whales -- he's just trying to cast doubt on the future of renewable energy in any way he can. This is a standard argument raised by fossil fuel interests and their lackeys.
According to NOAA "there is no scientific evidence that noise resulting from offshore wind site characterization surveys could potentially cause mortality of whales. There are no known links between recent large whale mortalities and ongoing offshore wind surveys."
Sorry, but I don‘t agree with your comment about Michael Schellenberger. I follow his journey for quite some time and admire him profoundly. I used to be fully aligned with the environment agenda, like him, and also like him (and many others) I am profoundly worried with the totally unscientific, ideological, messianic, autocratic and financial opportunistic turn it has undergone. I think FAIR showed the expected neutrality, wisdom and courage in bringing him in and I think he can greatly contribute to bring sense back to many
I'm assuming that, like many anti-environmentalists, you're using shrill activists like Greta Thunberg as a proxy for environmentalism as a whole. This is called "nutpicking" and is a dishonest rhetorical strategy. Greta doesn't speak for anybody but herself -- I personally think she's an embarrassment to the climate change movement (especially after her recent anti-Israel statements).
I hope you realize that there are thousands of quantitative environmental scientists around the world and that climate change, for example, is backed by reams of hard data. I suggest you try to separate the activists from the science itself.
The data are clear: the planet is warming rapidly due to burning fossil fuels. There are trillions of dollars to be made by the transition to a low-carbon economy. Would you rather China make all that money or the US?
I hope the answer is clear. Partisan ideologues like Shellenberger are only getting in the way. (That said, his work on the "Twitter Files" was excellent.)
By the way, in my opinion the article linked in your message does in my opinion not address the facts and motives both Schellenberger and Lombock put forward in their well researched suggestions to deal with climate changes in the most humane and fair way possible. It reads like an aggressively attempt try to smear them and thereby de-legitimizing any claim they may possibly make.
You're talking about Bjorn Lomborg? I hope you can do better -- he's the very definition of a partisan propagandist. As for Shellenberger, read the 3-part series I linked to for full details about his duplicity.
Monica, your hiring of Shellenberger goes against the values you espouse in this column.
Shellenberger is a partisan propagandist: eg, his long history on the climate denial grift circuit. I hope you read this expose before he joined FAIR:
https://disinformationchronicle.substack.com/p/the-new-denial-is-delay-at-the-breakthrough
I hope FAIR retains its pro-human agenda and doesn't devolve into the typical corporatist right-wing think tank. Anti-environmentalists like Shellenberger are the exact opposite of "pro-human."
I don't think this is a fair assessment of Shellenberger. He certainly isn't partisan as he defends free speech for all and comes down on the side of Nuclear over renewable. He has spent a very long time showing that wind energy is annihilating Whales at an unprecedented pace. He is what I would call an Enlightenment liberal. He is consistent in his work, goes above and beyond to show proof in his work, and angers people on the left and the right. That is a good thing, as it shows he can't be bought for likes. He doesn't deny climate change. He wants cheap and clean energy. That's all I'll say. I just didn't want someone to read your comment and think one opinion was the majority opinion. Have a nice day.
The wind/whales gambit is a good example of his duplicity. He obviously doesn't care about whales -- he's just trying to cast doubt on the future of renewable energy in any way he can. This is a standard argument raised by fossil fuel interests and their lackeys.
According to NOAA "there is no scientific evidence that noise resulting from offshore wind site characterization surveys could potentially cause mortality of whales. There are no known links between recent large whale mortalities and ongoing offshore wind surveys."
https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/new-england-mid-atlantic/marine-life-distress/frequent-questions-offshore-wind-and-whales
Sorry, but I don‘t agree with your comment about Michael Schellenberger. I follow his journey for quite some time and admire him profoundly. I used to be fully aligned with the environment agenda, like him, and also like him (and many others) I am profoundly worried with the totally unscientific, ideological, messianic, autocratic and financial opportunistic turn it has undergone. I think FAIR showed the expected neutrality, wisdom and courage in bringing him in and I think he can greatly contribute to bring sense back to many
I'm assuming that, like many anti-environmentalists, you're using shrill activists like Greta Thunberg as a proxy for environmentalism as a whole. This is called "nutpicking" and is a dishonest rhetorical strategy. Greta doesn't speak for anybody but herself -- I personally think she's an embarrassment to the climate change movement (especially after her recent anti-Israel statements).
I hope you realize that there are thousands of quantitative environmental scientists around the world and that climate change, for example, is backed by reams of hard data. I suggest you try to separate the activists from the science itself.
The data are clear: the planet is warming rapidly due to burning fossil fuels. There are trillions of dollars to be made by the transition to a low-carbon economy. Would you rather China make all that money or the US?
I hope the answer is clear. Partisan ideologues like Shellenberger are only getting in the way. (That said, his work on the "Twitter Files" was excellent.)
By the way, in my opinion the article linked in your message does in my opinion not address the facts and motives both Schellenberger and Lombock put forward in their well researched suggestions to deal with climate changes in the most humane and fair way possible. It reads like an aggressively attempt try to smear them and thereby de-legitimizing any claim they may possibly make.
You're talking about Bjorn Lomborg? I hope you can do better -- he's the very definition of a partisan propagandist. As for Shellenberger, read the 3-part series I linked to for full details about his duplicity.