There is a blog commenter whose handle is dumboldguy who used to comment here. The rules for commenting at this blog are clear and posted. He made some comments, along with extraneous material, and I first left the comments but edited the extraneous material.
He was annoyed by the editing, and I pointed out this is my blog and the rules are the rules.
He continued to comment, and I held a couple of those for moderation, asking him to provide references and links.
In the end, dumboldguy became angry and non-productive, and began to accuse all kinds of unfairness, and basically call me names. His standard for me at other blogs is “ecoquack”. I really don’t care. I was once called a “tree-hugging ecoweenie” by a climate denier, and I’m kind of proud of that moniker.
I don’t get a lot of comments. As I’ve noted, and noted to him, I don’t write this blog to make it popular. It has a reasonable following. I enjoy well-written comments, but in the spirit of the blog, claims should be footnoted with links to evidence and the like. I mostly use the blog to express things, and have a convenient place to put material, so I can cite it easily.
I also use the blog to document technical findings. dumboldbuy for some reason finds these most irritating at all, accusing me of some kind of elitism because I post them.
In the end, I needed to ban him from the blog. No problem. It happens. Users can be banned for the same reason WordPress has an automatic spam filter on comments.
But dumboldguy has continued his attacks in comments at other blog sites, most related to climate change mitigation and climate justice. I am not attempting to refute him here. I do engage at the other sites when appropriate.
However, I am beginning this blog post today to record the more abrasive of his comments at other sites, and provide a record of these attacks, by date. I am not providing his comments in full, but do provide links to them. Those will serve to provide context, unless dumboldguy manages to get himself banned elsewhere.
I don’t expect the updating of this blog post will end anytime soon.
Looks to me like ecoquack is suffering from the engineer’s typical inability to understand the English language, as well as the engineer’s tendency to focus on technology as the answer to all human problems.
If ecoquack could climb out of his engineer’s silo and really see what is being said, he would realize that the key words are OPPOSE CORPORATE SCHEMES THAT PLACE PROFITS OVER COMMUNITY BENEFITS, INCLUDING MARKET BASED MECHANISMS.
Looks to me like ecoquack is a trying to hijack the urgency of the climate emergency to advance his own set of objectives.
You again miss the point, just as the author of the Atlantic piece did. It’s not about mitigating climate change and competing “technologies”, it’s about fighting the politicians and so-called “capitalists” that want to prolong the system that gave us climate change in the first place. If we can’t break their stranglehold on what does or doesn’t get done, we are going nowhere.
And why do you again insist on throwing more maundering BS and self-admiration into your comment? We don’t give a rodent’s rear end that you know LaTeX and use it to crap up what could be said clearly in plain English—-it proves my point about your engineer’s cluelessness about communication.
And please don’t mention YOUR BLOG here again—-as I’ve said here before, it is not a site worth visiting except to view your self-admiration and egotism. Anyone who doesn’t agree with what they see there will be ignored or quickly banned if they persist.
JFC! Do you never tire of spouting bullshit and then sitting back and admiring how smart you are?
Now you’re going to say that the “proponents” are part of the great left wing conspiracy to take over the world? Have you even read Klein’s book?
Moderator's note: Actually, I have. I didn't think much of it. Suffice it to say I am a disciple of Hermann Scheer, Buckminster Fuller, and, above all, of Stewart Brand. See Brand's important book. Yeah, I'm an ecopragmatist as well as a solar revolutionary. dumboldguy apparently dislikes ecomodernism a lot.
I have—a copy sits on my bookshelf, and it is one of the best books ever written about climate change (or rather, as I said, how run-amok capitalism is the REAL problem). What parts of it do you dispute? Cite page numbers and let’s debate her points.
“….many countries are making progress reducing their emissions, and they care not revolutionary at all. Quite capitalist in fact”. BULLSHIT! The major emitters are NOT making progress.
Making common cause with conservatives? Massachusetts? What “goods” could be made from captured carbon? You waste our time with even MORE inane Bullshit!
“The engineering expertise is in corporations”? Actually, it’s drawn to wherever there is money to pay for it, as the government did by spending huge quantities on the Manhattan Project and Going to the Moon.
You are sounding more like a Republican corporate shill every time you open your mouth. Is it your “objective” to get your hooks into some of that $$$$?
Ecoquacky does it again!
“Cumulative emissions are all that matter, because of the longevity, in atmosphere, of Carbon Dioxide. Annual emissions don’t matter at all. It’s ALL owned by the United States and Europe”.
Lord love a duck, but that’s one of the dumber things Quacky has said here. Yes, the US and Europe ARE to much to blame for the size of the cumulative emissions—-not surprising since that’s where the Industrial Revolution began and has been polluting longest—-but to say “annual emissions don’t matter at all” totally ignores the FACT that the rest of the world (whose population far outnumbers the West) is now producing an ever-increasing quantity of CO2 ANNUALLY , wants to have a living standard like that in the West, is going to NEED millions of air conditioners to survive the coming heat waves, and is still burning too much COAL (coal being the subject Quacky refuses to discuss).
Perhaps it’s time to remind Quacky of the old saw that everyone is entitled to their OPINION, no matter how half-assed, but NOT to their own facts. It is a simple FACT that ALL emissions—-past, present, and future—-are of concern.
Quacky just can’t quit. Now he’s swinging over to some BS about “moral and ethical responsibility” and “compensation”? WTF is he talking about?
How did we get to that from “cumulative emissions are all that matter”? (and why doesn’t he want to talk about coal—-the stake through the heart of humanity?)
I will repeat—-yes, cumulative emissions MAY have already doomed us, but if we don’t deal strongly with the “annual emissions” yet to come from EVERY country in the world, there is virtually no hope.
You agree? Swell! Who cares?
Redsky is correct, Quacky. You’re not.
CO2 levels remained stable for 1000’s of years until the Industrial Revolution. It wasn’t until the 1960’s that they started to ramp up, with the level in 1960 being ~315 ppm, only 40 ppm higher than it was 120 years before in 1840.
Those of us who were more aware than you of “the possibility of emissions having an effect” were worried about more visible and imminent threats back then—-dirty air and dirty water, toxic industrial waste, lead in gasoline and paint, DDT, acid rain, the ozone hole, resource depletion, overpopulation, SST’s, nuclear power, and more.
It wasn’t until the 1980’s and Hansen that we began to pay attention to GHG, and the near 100 ppm rise in ~60 years from 1960 until today, which is ~5 times the rate of increase before 1960.
Not sure what your point is with “the government had been warned and cautioned repeatedly”. That’s not news, and it’s water over the dam anyway. Or is it just that you like to hear yourself quack?