Streams

Merchants of Despair

Monday, April 16, 2012

Dr. Robert Zubrin, fellow at the Center for Security Policy, contributing editor to The New Atlantis, and author of Merchants of Despair: Radical Environmentalists, Criminal Pseudo-Scientists, and the Fatal Cult of Antihumanism, makes the scientific and moral case against antihumanism.

Guests:

Dr. Robert Zubrin

Comments [77]

Yes, brilliant and a little nuts simultaneously. It's not the lifestyle you need to look at, though, it's the shift in politics. Dr. Zubrin is very passionate about Israel, and when the Right started courting Israel, he started to veer in their direction. Back in the 60s and 70s, it was the Left who were closest to Israel (and back in the 70s, Zubrin was a long way Left -- 'way past even the leftmost wind of today's Democratic Party, for instance). The Israeli humanists will still say the Left are closest, but now the militarists in Israel see the Right as being unquestioning sugar daddies with respect to military toys, money, and looking the other way when the white phosphorus bombs were used in Gaza. In the intervening decades, he's had to become more comfortable with the military-industrial complex due to his love for space - it's the only game in town for funding astronautical applications, and he's the CEO/founder of an astronautics company. Also, partly due to the extraordinary vehemence/violence of the various jihadi groups, Dr. Zubrin has gone over to a more militarist view than he once held about what Israel needs to do for its own survival. In fact, he seems to think the entire civilized world is endangered by Islamic extremists, even that Islam itself encourages extremism: a view much encouraged by Gaffney and his Center for Security Studies. If Dr. Zubrin could save the world with an invention, I think he would do that. His graduate work was on fusion reactors -- an infinitely renewable energy source whose time, unfortunately, had not yet arrived. But fixing the mental problems that cause humans to fight until they have destroyed their own planet, that's just as mysterious to him as it is to most of the rest of humanity.

Jul. 12 2013 05:17 PM
KT from Clifton, NJ

The good Doctor said that the population explosion does not matter. He cites: “the densest populated country is Holland, which is one of the highest standards of living.”

Well that is simply not right. True, there are number of rich city-states that have a very high population density, such as Monaco, Vatican, Singapore, and also high standard of living but the most densely populated country is actually Bangladesh - not exactly the best choice to argue that density brings riches. Other countries in top 30 with over 10 million people include Palestinian territories, Rwanda, Haiti… Holland is around 30 on that list. WTF?

Also, arguing that CO2 in high quantity is good for the plants is like arguing that the caw manure, a great natural fertilizer, is also good in high quantity. Maybe we should do an experiment and provide the good Doctor with a dump truck of “bull shit” for his front yard. Most likely he will agree with us that 3 inches of “bull shit” on top of the front lawn is just dandy. It will make it grow faster. ;)

Apr. 17 2012 01:03 AM
Gianni

I found Dr Zubrin view point refreshing. The earth has always warmed and cooled and it will continue to do so. Who can you sue? Better yet who can you tax? One thing he said was quite striking; " what makes you think that the temperature right is the best temperature? Think about it.

Apr. 16 2012 10:40 PM
Martin Chuzzlewit from Manhattan

@JIM

Mea Culpa. I retract.
Zubrin in person does indeed come off like the nut that I thought he wasn't (based on his warnings against fanaticism in the book).

My original post was about the book itself, which does make some good points. Good message, wrong messenger. This interview underscores that many writers would be better off allowing their printed words to define them. We didn't need to "see the movie".

Sigh......disillusioned again.

Apr. 16 2012 04:05 PM
$1 Billion to stop Bangladesh from Flooding from Practical fixes to Global Warming induced problems.


Is it worth $1 billion to prevent Bangladesh from Flooding
over the next 50 years as sea levels rise ?

Is it worth less than ONE PERSON DAY per Bangladesh citizen
to prevent Bangladesh from Flooding over the next 50 years
as sea levels rise ?

If so, here's a much more efficient solution to Global warming
damage to a particularly susceptible part of the world :
BUILD A WALL.

It's far more efficient than extreme efforts to try
to dramatically reduce carbon emissions worldwide.

Here's why :

Bangladesh has a coastline of 580 km (580,000 meters).

At 1 meter of wall built per person MONTH (eg. people stacking
rocks) this is 580,000 person months of work over 50 years.

Bangladesh's current population is over 142 million people.

That's less than 1/5 of a person day of work per Bangladesh citizen
(OVER 50 YEARS) to save their country.

At $5 per day wages (more than 3 TIMES THE MINUMUM WAGE in Bangladesh),
the program would cost less than $ 1 Billion.

The cost of carbons emission trading for the European airline industry
alone for ONE YEAR is estimated at 1.16 billion.

Economists concerned with avoiding damage from global warming should
examine the effectiveness of such DAMAGE MITIGATION SOLUTIONS.
They are probably much more effective and efficient than costly
LARGELY SYMBOLIC efforts to stop global warming by reducing
carbon emissions.

Apr. 16 2012 02:25 PM

@Jim:

"It seems to me that humanity will never really be able to take control of its own destiny"

Why should the collective mass of humanity have any more control than its individual members? Or do you think individuals have the capacity to determine the future they will have 30 and 40 years from the present?

peace & love

Apr. 16 2012 02:17 PM

"Perhaps these sorts of solutions should be considered.
They may be more effective, less expensive and kinder."

If so they should be considered by those who want to do a month of labor building a wall and the persons who might want to provide the material resources for such a project.
In the mean time, we should be about determining the potential, available potential workforce for the labor to protect the Battery Park residents and the lower Manhattan businesses (what's your estimate of the wage you'll have to pay for a day's worth of wall building in those locations?

peace & love

Apr. 16 2012 02:09 PM
Jim

@geTaylor

<And would I be wrong in thinking that you might have some "scientific" program for putting an end to the "people (who) just keep pumping out babies and consuming resources"?>

Yes, you would wrong about that -- but you would not be unreasonable to assume that I did given the climate of the discussion (pun = yes). I have no desire to control anyone, and as I get older I find it increasingly difficult to take sides on most issues -- but I'm still engaged enough to call people out for their obfuscations. It seems to me that humanity will never really be able to take control of its own destiny as we are hopelessly programmed to choose off, square up, selectively interpret, and justify.

friends for sure,

Jim

Apr. 16 2012 02:01 PM
Great Wall of China v. Costal Flooding. from A low-tech efficient solution to rising sea levels.


Global warming is projected to raise sea levels over the
next fifty years by several meters. This will erode
and flood valuable beachfront property in many parts of the
world (and create valuable beachfront property right behind it).

An inexpensive solution to this is to let well off land owners
help build walls to protect their property or - where more efficient -
to simply build housing further inland or at higher elevations
SOMETIME OVER THE NEXT FIFTY YEARS.

Unfortunately, rising sea levels would also erode and flood
highly populated land in many poor countries. An affordable
low tech solution to this is that the large populations of these
countries come together to build large seawalls to protect their
own homes in key cities and places with large populations who are not
mobile.

This can involve very low tech solutions. Thousands of years
ago China build 100's of miles of wall in 10 years.

Take for example, Bangladesh - a poor country which is often thought
to be at major risk of flooding from global-warming related sea
level rise. Bangladesh has a coastline of 580 km (580,000 meters).
Assume - as a rough estimate - that a person working for a MONTH can
build a mere ONE METER of wall. That means that Bangladesh could
be surrounded by a sea wall by deploying a low tech solution
using 580,000 person months.

(Given Bangladesh's population of over 142 million, this is less
than 1/5th of a day of labor per Bangladesh citizen over 50 years).

Many people in Bangladesh are poor and/or unemployed earning less than
$1 per day. Paying them $5 a day (a very competitve local wage),
this means the human labor component of building a sea wall surrounding
the whole country would cost LESS THAN 1 BILLION DOLLARS - and they
have 50 years to do it in. Even if this is overly-optimistic by
a factor of TEN (due to corruption, inefficiency, etc) - this
is a cost of less than $10 billion over 50 years - and would employ
many of otherwise destitute people at locally competitive rates.

Perhaps these sorts of solutions should be considered.
They may be more effective, less expensive and kinder.

Apr. 16 2012 01:56 PM
Much of the Earth's Landmass is at High Latitudes from Global Warming as a Redistribution problem


Much of the Earth's Landmass is at High Latitudes (eg. TOO COLD).

Canada, Russia. Mongolia and Greenland contain vast amounts of land that are generally far too cold much of the year to be productive.
Warming could dramatically increase food production in these
areas and in many other parts of the Earth and would make large amounts
of land far more inhabitable.

In aggregate therefore, global warming could be a major boon for
the world's people in terms of producing more food and providing
more livable land.

The coming problem then - as now - and as it was in the past - is redistribution. Some people almost always lose with any change -
even a positive one. The key then is for those who gain from change
to offer some of their newfound surplus to make it a win-win for everybody.

Global warming COULD be a boon to people everywhere.
But that depends on our choice of actions.

Apr. 16 2012 01:33 PM

@Jim:

"It is so ironic that this guest was so passionate about preserving humanity yet simultaneously unwilling to be objective about what is really needed to do that."

And would I be wrong in thinking that you might have some "scientific" program for putting an end to the "people (who) just keep pumping out babies and consuming resources"? You know, I know you wouldn't implement that program unless you absolutely had to for the "common good". "Force" is usually the second choice to "fraud" when it is left to "affirmers".

Why can't we be friends?
peace and love
@geTaylor

They are both deniers. But name calling aside, it is very frustrating to listen to "discussions" like the one during this segment. It seems that neither side of the climate change debate can make honest, cogent, attack-free arguments. Zubrin's repeated claim that "CO2 is beneficial" is a good example of how the skeptics beclown themselves and damage their own cause. Ecological systems are extremely complicated. Yes, CO2 is required in the bioshpere that supports human life, but more is not necessarily better without qualification. Sure, the planet will survive anything we do to it -- but will we?

It is so ironic that this guest was so passionate about preserving humanity yet simultaneously unwilling to be objective about what is really needed to do that. In his world, I guess people just keep pumping out babies and consuming resources until humans miraculously evolve into some sort of life form that can exist without food or water.

Apr. 16 2012 01:23 PM
Jim

@geTaylor

They are both deniers. But name calling aside, it is very frustrating to listen to "discussions" like the one during this segment. It seems that neither side of the climate change debate can make honest, cogent, attack-free arguments. Zubrin's repeated claim that "CO2 is beneficial" is a good example of how the skeptics beclown themselves and damage their own cause. Ecological systems are extremely complicated. Yes, CO2 is required in the bioshpere that supports human life, but more is not necessarily better without qualification. Sure, the planet will survive anything we do to it -- but will we?

It is so ironic that this guest was so passionate about preserving humanity yet simultaneously unwilling to be objective about what is really needed to do that. In his world, I guess people just keep pumping out babies and consuming resources until humans miraculously evolve into some sort of life form that can exist without food or water.

Apr. 16 2012 01:03 PM

@Amy from Manhattan:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GKEAXOnogZU

Apr. 16 2012 12:53 PM

Why can't this "denier" (wasn't that the term you used, Mr. Lehrer?),
why can't he argue without resorting to mindless name calling?
I guess you really can't expect anything else from a "denier", can you?

http://blogs.independent.co.uk/2012/02/22/is-catastrophic-global-warming-like-the-millenium-bug-a-mistake/

Apr. 16 2012 12:44 PM
MrD

I think Brian prides himself on trying to represent a wide spectrum of voices on his program (evidenced by his fawning over some conservative callers). But Dr. Zubrin seemed to be even too much for Brian to swallow. You could tell the sort of trash TV interviews the good doctor is skilled at by his classic interjection, "Can I answer the question?" Which was met by dead silence because Brian WAS letting him answer the question.

Apr. 16 2012 12:39 PM
Brian @ Global Power Solutions, LLC from Red Bank, NJ

Brian-

Robert Zubrin is a smart guy who I generally admire (I'm looking at one of his books on my shelf now) but his contributions to this topic (human reaction to climate change) are counterproductive. Saying that we have no evidence that the current temperature is the most desirable one is the height of arrogance and a recklase endorsement of tinkering with a system we really can't control.

The biggest problem in climate change isn't the attitudes of either of the extremes but instead how the wide center doesn't know how to engage in meaningful action (or is apathetic). This is a problem we're working on daily here at @GlobalPowerCo and much of our efforts have been informed by sources like "The Oxford Handbook on Climate Change and Society" and other great sources. I only wish there'd been time for my call as Mr. Zubrin was way off in where he places his considerable mental talents.

Please find the time for a segment on the messaging of the climate debate. It's a near and dear, well research topic for me and one we desperately need conversation on.

Apr. 16 2012 12:35 PM
Jim

@Martin Chuzzlewit

Are you still sure that this guy is not a nut?

Apr. 16 2012 12:08 PM

Wow, that was painful. I really enjoy hearing opposition viewpoints, especially when it seems like everyone has drunk the kool-aid (i.e. 97%) -- it forces us to really think about what we consider as accepted fact. This guy was hysterical and rude though. He probably did a disservice to any legitimate claims he may have had.

Apr. 16 2012 12:08 PM
hmi from Brooklyn

That was wonderfully illuminating. Brian just can't, apparently, wrap his mind around a thought such as (e.g.) that the U.S. supported forced sterilization in India (let alone in Puerto Rico). [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compulsory_sterilization]

So Brian sputters, and stammers, and denies, and overall evidences vast cognitive discomfort. But it is true. It was based on supposedly scientific advice, spurred on by a great panic of the intellectual classes that worldwide famine was imminent and that ZPG was the only possible future.

The guest is correct: scientists, when appealed to for policy decisions, have a very unfortunate tendency to suggest putting themselves in charge, equipped with more or less dictatorial powers, in the name of scientific rationality. This is, in fact, anti-human.

Apr. 16 2012 12:07 PM

John from NYC states: "I agree with the guest. And -- There is a major philosophical position behind his point. See Nietzsche on those figures and movements that hate life"

John: You fundamentally misunderstand, among other things, the writings of Nietzsche.

Apr. 16 2012 12:04 PM
Amy from Manhattan

tom: yeah, & every time they say that, someone needs to point out that *not* addressing the problem will cost even more.

JB: The problem w/the terminology is that it sounds too benign & is oversimplified. I call it global climate disruption. "Climate" =/= "weather," & "global" =/= "uniform."

Apr. 16 2012 12:03 PM
The Truth from Becky

Left - Right - I love these generalizations and grand sweeping statements of hate when one side doesn't agree to submit to the other.

Apr. 16 2012 12:01 PM
Janet from NJ from South Plainfield

Extremists exist on all issues and while Dr. Zubrin decries it on the opposing side of the problem of Climate Change, he leaps so far to one side as to loose credibility. Scientists have not politicized this issue, but have been accused of doing so by those with their own agendas for simply pointing out a problem that requires organized action. As long as we wait for governments and nations to do something constructive nothing will be done. Individuals and community groups educating and promoting a societal change is our best recourse. I am surprised that Dr. Zubrin rated the airtime.

Apr. 16 2012 12:00 PM
neil Dorfsman

I went to High School with Mr Zubrin, and remember him literally screaming in protest at the top of his lungs when someone purposely stepped on an ant.....I gather he's come to see destructive human activity in a much more beneficent light. I imagine he'd call that "maturing"........ wow.

Apr. 16 2012 11:59 AM

My comment should have read:

Zubrin notes that people are not starving now as Ehrlich thought they would be in his 1968 work, "The Population Bomb", but that doesn't mean Ehrlich wasn't substantially correct. More efficient farming and new crops have increased yields, but at the cost of the environment. Climate change and the extinction of other species portends our own Ehrlich-like doom.

Apr. 16 2012 11:58 AM
rai

Get this guy (Zubrin) off the line- what a quack! I'm surprised you would give this guy any publicity on your show.

Apr. 16 2012 11:58 AM
Dan from NYC

Dr. Zubrin, you are wasting your logic on these people worshipping at the temple of dogma. The moment you were introduced, you were labeled by the "blasphemous" label of "Global Warming Denier" by Lehrer. Where would you go from there?

Unfortunately, no one can any longer logically and scientifically debate this issue. At the college or media or academic journal. The torch-carrying "global warming" mob will lynch you even if you bring the least complecatated, most self-evident logic to the table--as you did.

But please remember: it is not the earth warming or cooling that is the issue: it is the need for an APPOCOLYPSE that brings the mob together in the village. All religions have successfully tried the appocolyse and doomsday as a crowd gathering tactic. With the collapse of communism and its logical attractive power, pseudo-environmentalism has replaced it as crowd gathering mechanism. This new system requires an appocolypse to scare people together since it lacks logic.

Thank you for holding out Dr. Zubrin. Real science may have been cowed by the mob and their newscasters and dogmatic academic into hiding. But it is good to see it is not dead. You are lucky, that the 500 juries made of these dogmatic mob do not force you to drink hemlock before dawn......

Apr. 16 2012 11:58 AM

Zubrin notes that people are not starving now as Ehrlich thought they would be in his 1968 work, "The Population Bomb", but that doesn't mean Ehrlich was substantially correct. More efficient farming and new crops have increased yields, but at the cost of the environment. Climate change and the extinction of other species portends our own Ehrlich-like doom.

Apr. 16 2012 11:57 AM
Amy from Manhattan

You don't make a "scientific case" by oversimplifying. More CO2 may mean more total plants, but not necessarily more food plants, & the food plants may not have as much nutritional value as they do now (http://grist.org/food/scherer-plantchem/). And Dr. Zubrin keeps saying various things have happened/will happen "all over the world," but, as in the term "global warming," "global" does not mean "uniform"--it's much more complex than that, e.g., because warmer air holds more moisture, global warming actually tends to bring more snow. Also, 1 effect of global warming is to throw off the relationship btwn. the yearly heat cycle & the yearly daylight cycle, so that pollinators become active after flowers have withered.

Finally, I have never *ever* heard an environmentalist call humanity "vermin." Environmentalism is actually optimistic, in that it says we can change our behavior to prevent ecological disasters. Or at least, in the case of global climate disruption, to limit the damage.

Apr. 16 2012 11:53 AM
Maria from NYC

Why is this debate such a black and white issue? Why is "environmentalism" portrayed as being about hating humanity, as this shrill person declares? It is a pretty lame narrative to me. We are taught as children to respect our environment and to pick up after ourselves. Why can't societies and business apply these principles on a greater scale? I.e. Find smart ways to use our resources for a good quality of life while setting up structures so that following generations will have sufficient resources.

Apr. 16 2012 11:53 AM

Holland is a very small country and Africa is a continent.

Apr. 16 2012 11:52 AM
tom

The real reason right wingers fight the theory of global warming is that addressing the problem costs so much.

Apr. 16 2012 11:51 AM
LC from CT

I might as well have tuned into Rush Limbaugh this morning.

Apr. 16 2012 11:50 AM
amalgam from NYC by day, NJ by night

I guess Dr. Zubrin believes untrammeled growth is ONLY beneficial to human populations. Plus, all the examples he was citing were decades old. What current countries, particularly regarding the U.S., enacted these "population control" policies in the last 30 years?

Oh yeah, the most successful economy in the world...China

Dr. Zubrin was hysterical. Very wise, very smart, very funny...

Apr. 16 2012 11:47 AM
anthony from brooklyn

wow. he doesn't merit any platform at all. that falsetto when he gets riled up isn't helping his cause either.

Apr. 16 2012 11:46 AM
Ruth from Brooklyn

Rather than make intelligent arguments against the points that Dr. Zubrin just made, I will just say what is really on my mind... he is obviously a little crazy. I see this particular guest also brought out his fellow conspiracy theorists on the comments page. Oh well, live and let live.

Apr. 16 2012 11:46 AM
daniel from west village

Really!? This guy is your guest? I don't know what's more disturbing, if he is just saying this to sell books or if he really believes this hysteria. In either case, Brian Lehrer deserves better guests.

Apr. 16 2012 11:46 AM
Ericka

hey brian thanks for staying level-headed.

the future health of THIS PLANET is contingent on population control, resource distribution, habitat preservation for non-humans. who wants to save a planet with nothing but people, livestock, rats, and companion animals.

Apr. 16 2012 11:46 AM
Theresa from Brooklyn

For a "scientist," he is ignoring rules of logic and argumentation. Just for starters, he opened with a straw man, reductio ad absurdam, and confusing correlation with causation.

Apr. 16 2012 11:45 AM
Laura from UWS

Thank you, Brian, for using the word "hysterical claim" because I was just about to ask, please, to have less hysteria.

This guest is putting me in a mood of despair with his misunderstandings of science, of fact, and of history.

Apr. 16 2012 11:44 AM
Dorothy from Manhattan

You have my sympathy Brian.

Apr. 16 2012 11:44 AM
John from NYC

I agree with the guest.

And -- There is a major philosophical position behind his point. See Nietzsche on those figures and movements that hate life.

Apr. 16 2012 11:44 AM
Derek from Brooklyn

This guy is kinda nutty.

Apr. 16 2012 11:43 AM
rai from ny, ny

Zubrin is the pseudo-scientist and a paranoid one at that. He is busy simply setting up and knocking down straw men.

Apr. 16 2012 11:43 AM
Eli from astoria NY

brian: that's a hysterical claim.
guest: that NOT a hysterical claim (he screamed hysterically).

i love political comedy.

Apr. 16 2012 11:43 AM
RL

sure, we have wingbats on the environmental left, but this guy out does them in spade.

and what's he gonna do about this....
http://news.yahoo.com/ice-cap-melts-militaries-vie-arctic-edge-072343565.html

Apr. 16 2012 11:43 AM
Kevin H. from Mamaroneck, NY

What about the anti-humanism of Ray Kurzweil and his followers at Google, who believe that the Internet is a living being whose intelligence will eventually surpass that of humans? ...And who therefore support pro-corporate deregulatory policies that will catalyze that process?

Apr. 16 2012 11:42 AM
Leo from Queens

PULL THE PLUG on this Interview now - Someone please call Bellevue ASAP!!!!

Apr. 16 2012 11:42 AM
NER from NJ

I knew Robert Zubrin when he was a Lyndon LaRouche follower and active member of the National Caucus of Labor Committees in the 1970's. Enough said.

Apr. 16 2012 11:42 AM
emmanuel from westchester

I was wondering if your guest had any comments on the phenomena of green and organic obsession. In my opinion alot of green efforts are so pitiful and are symptomic of depression that comes from people knowing that our current capitalist will be completely un able to deal with global issues like the environment.

Apr. 16 2012 11:41 AM
C. E. Connelly from Manhattan

This guy is not making sense. Prosecution? Who's litigating? Human sacrifice?
Ok, carbon dioxide makes plants grow so the more the better?
Wow.

Apr. 16 2012 11:41 AM

Other than when Nan Hayworth is on this is the onlt time I have turned off this show. YIKES!!!!
Who booked this nut ?

Apr. 16 2012 11:41 AM
amalgam from NYC by day, NJ by night

@ Martin Chuzzlewit from Manhattan

He is correct.....the _RIGHT_ loves control.
They just dress it up as well meaning activism.

***************

I guess Dr. Zubrin never heard of "drought and deluge":

Drought or Deluge: Different Threats, Same Problems
http://www.ecocentricblog.org/2011/10/04/drought-or-deluge-different-threats-same-problems/

Apr. 16 2012 11:41 AM
dan k from chelsea

the idea that pragmatists offer, is that we know what the current temperature's affect on the earth portends. we don't know what the effects of rising temperatures might be, so why take the chance of just allowing it to rise without attempting to control it?

Apr. 16 2012 11:41 AM
art525 from Park Slope

20,000 records set last month for warm weather, and a months worth of tornados in one day Sunday. Extreme weather everywhere. Polar ice melting and polar bears struggling. A place in the Pacific ocean the size of Texas filed with discarded plastic. No there isn't any problem is there. How in the world can we continue to dump poison into the atmosphere and not have repercussions? Nonsense.

Apr. 16 2012 11:41 AM

Rain fall increasing Polar caps melting Coastal flooding anyone?

Apr. 16 2012 11:41 AM
Anonymous

This person is horribly misinformed and I have no idea why he is on the radio. He is spreading ideas that will in no way help us deal with the real problems that result from global warming and is therefore undermining the human race's potential to survive even while he thinks he is triumphing human activity.

Apr. 16 2012 11:40 AM
JB

You're an engineer. Not a climate scientist. You do not know what you're talking about.

In addition, it's climate CHANGE, not global warming.

Increases in extreme weather, hurricanes, blizzards...are those awesome things? No.

Apr. 16 2012 11:40 AM
William from Manhattan

This guy sounds more like a nutty caller than a guest. Maybe producers should engage guests in conversation before booking them.

Apr. 16 2012 11:40 AM
loma from ithaca ny

this guy ignores the obvious the glaciers are melting and it is already too late to stop it.

Apr. 16 2012 11:40 AM
mick from Inwood

This man is obviously an idiot-ological nut case. He has the Fox network to publicize his ravings. Leave this kind of fool to Rush and the other fools.

Apr. 16 2012 11:40 AM
amy from nyc

can you check this guys science, that there is more tree growth?

i hear they are cutting forest down everywhere

Apr. 16 2012 11:39 AM
LC from CT

This guy is a nut.

Apr. 16 2012 11:39 AM
Helen from manhattan

What is most irritating about people who don't believe in global warming is how they assume that everyone who believes differently is stupid or incredibly brainwashed. I believe that our emissions are detrimental to the earth's atmosphere and I certainly didn't sacrifice any children on the eve of hurricane Irene.

Apr. 16 2012 11:39 AM
Amy from Manhattan

Wow, start right out by telling the people who disagree w/you what *they* believe, so you can argue against your own idea of what they think.

Apr. 16 2012 11:39 AM
sophia

The people who setback science are:

1) those whose are motivated by massive profits which would be adversely impacted by it

2) those whose religious beliefs would be offended by it

The people who signed that letter are a tiny handful, and most are not climate scientists. If you're going to throw astronauts in there why not throw in culinary scientists as well?

Apr. 16 2012 11:38 AM
Leo from queens

There are extremists in every group and in every ideology. But because there are extremists it does not mean that you need to give air time to this idiot to undermine environmentalism

Human beings are one of the most selfish beings on earth and whether they are 'Christians' or preach some other ideology, they feel that they are entitled to exploit and get all they want from the earth and others because God or the market will take care of things.

The key question here is "Who funds 'doctor' Zubrin's life style?" The answer to that should settle this matter

Apr. 16 2012 11:37 AM
Martin Chuzzlewit from Manhattan

He is correct.....the LEFT loves control.
They just dress it up as well meaning activism.

Apr. 16 2012 11:36 AM
james from nyc

Koo koo,

paranoia alert...

Apr. 16 2012 11:35 AM
sophia

And do the evolution deniers vote for Martin Chuzzlewit?

Apr. 16 2012 11:34 AM
sophia

"immunization causes autism" was pushed by a small number of scientists who based it on deliberately skewed data, and was overturned through peer review, which is how science is supposed to work, and which has borne out global warming which is based on massive amounts of data, overwhelming numbers of scientists, and only opposed by a handful many of whom are funded by fossil fuel insdustries.

Apr. 16 2012 11:32 AM
Martin Chuzzlewit from Manhattan

@Sophia......
LOL.....sorry, but you make my point.
Who are the flat earthers here?
I would say it's the LEFT...who want to turn out the lights and dismantle modern civilization.
Please.

Apr. 16 2012 11:30 AM

"Reid Bryson maintains his long-standing opinions on
anthropogenic climate change, and he's certainly entitled to
them," Vavrus said."

Apr. 16 2012 11:22 AM
gary from queens

I'm a conservative and an atheist. For some reason, it is always Democrats that set back science by politicizing it.

It started with water fluoridation 60 years ago. Today they demagogue climate change and stem cell research.

If you're not familiar with how Democrats destroyed the science of stem cells, read pages 22 to 26 of my article:

http://cfic.us/articles/Who.Is.The.2012.Anti-Vaccine.Candidate.pdf

On "climate", there's yet another indication that the tide is turning against Democrat politicization of this science issue. Top scientists from the most familiar non-partisan, non-political science organization in the US wants to distance itself from climate dogma. Fifty top NASA experts, including astronauts, scientists, and engineers, have issued a letter demanding that NASA stop making global warming claims in press releases and websites.

The individuals who signed this letter comprise a who’s-who of NASA science and space exploration over the past fifty years. You will easily recognize some of the names of astronauts----who are also scientists. Their willingness of all of them to sign such a letter cannot be dismissed lightly.

It's a personal slap in the face to James Hanson, who spent 30 years promoting the dogma, and perhaps Obama's head of NASA, who had stated that NASA's (new) main mission was to make the Muslim world feel proud of what some Arabic scholars wrote – a thousand years ago.

http://notrickszone.com/2012/04/10/50-top-astronauts-scientists-engineers-sign-letter-claiming-giss-is-turning-nasa-into-a-laughing-stock/

Apr. 16 2012 11:21 AM

Luckily, this "flat-eather" is dead
and we'll hear no more "illegitimate" debate from him.
(Luckily, we'll have more time for the "immunizations-cause-autism" scientists.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&feature=endscreen&v=QzTPPl05Wok

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MagSO9L2Ns0

Apr. 16 2012 11:13 AM
sophia

The flat-earthers have an entire network devoted to them, there is no reason to legitimize them by inviting them to appear anywhere else.

How many times must we re-debate settled science? and if it must be done it should be with a an actual scientist present.

People who believe in conspiratorial science will not listen to reason and reasonable people have nothing to learn from the 21st century equivalent of the "scientists" who prostituted themselves to the tobacco industry.

Apr. 16 2012 10:42 AM
Martin Chuzzlewit from Manhattan

Wonderful book!!!

Brian – please try to make it clear that Zubrin is no right wing nut. He is disturbed by the growing sentiment of “progressives” that scientific advancement, modern technology and even humans themselves are a plague to the planet.

The idiots of the Left have become anti-everything. (So ably demonstrated by the geniuses who usually post here.) Please ask Zubrin to explain how this mindless self-righteous opposition is actually impoverishing people all over the globe.

Apr. 16 2012 09:36 AM

Leave a Comment

Email addresses are required but never displayed.

The Morning Brief

Enter your email address and we’ll send you our top 5 stories every day, plus breaking news and weather.