But I belong to a tribe that thinks that the best way to applaud well-done humor is by teasing in reply. That's why I responded with mock outrage at Mr. Maurer's humor, and then signaled that it was a put-on by claiming that only commenters are allowed to write comedy here. Apparently I was a bit too dead-pan, since only a few people got the joke.
Oh well.
I have witnessed our host suffer the consequences of his own dead-panned trolling on many occasions (e.g. people on Twitter getting outraged at Yglesias for supporting positions that he was in fact ridiculing), so I know how to clean up the problem:
I have deleted the entire contents of my tweet-stream, and will start over again tomorrow with resolutions to do better.
It was a bit. There is not in fact a "sacred principle" that only commenters can write jokes.
(Did he say "sacred principle"?? Yes, that's the term I used. Not enough of a flag for readers? C'mon, people, what do you need? High Dudgeon Font? Harrumph tags?)
Anyhow, I found the post not only enjoyable but also informative, in a depressing way. Thanks, and I hope we'll see you back here again.
1st. lol at the comments getting mad at the humor, when the bio literally says "comedy writer"
2nd. I also get frustrated with the US isn't listed first in the drop down box. Even worse is when Argentina lists us as Estados Unidas, and I have to scroll down to the U's, then back up to the E's.
3rd. As someone who works on Gas Turbines, I will stay out of climate change debate, except to say... Go Hydrogen.
This time the writing style was different enough that I figured out it wasn't Matt only three paragraphs in. Usually I don't notice until I see something in the comments addressing the writer by name. I wish it was a bit more obvious - maybe a first paragraph saying "this is a guest post".
I figured it out, too, did not think it was at all funny, and was slightly annoyed, but tried to read for content. :) If I had a stylistic criticism it was about how to FEEL rather than even by implication, what to do
It always comes down to problems of design. Technically the information is there, but it's not presented in a way that makes it automatic that readers notice it.
One possible solution is to set up solar or wind power green hydrogen facilities. The hydrogen would then be stored to be burned in Turbines later on. The question is whether this is economical or practical compared to other energy storage devices. It may be less resource dependent since batteries require a lot of mined raw materials.
It may turn out to be unfeasable. Siemens Energy, GE, Mitsubishi and other companies all have projects in the works.
I hate to be a huge downer, but no hydrogen is not practical for most consumer use cases. It's just devilishly difficult to store/transport/control without leaking, it's literally famous with scientists for this property. Then combine this with high explosive potential. There's no realistic, affordable way to store it in a vehicle, a gas station, transport to the gas station, etc.
Hydrogen could be useful for like fixed transport, like powering a train on a set route and you can have highly expensive transport/refuel methods in place. But for millions of individual cars & individual gas stations? No way
Well its good I wasn't talking about consumer use then. I was specifically referring to power plants that combine solar with hydrogen production in industrial amounts.
I agree with the thought. I suspect that with a tax on net CO2 emissions, there would not be one , or two "killer apps." I suspect there would be some zero-emission powered hydrogen, some carbon capture-fossil fuel use, some geothermal, some nuclear, some solar some wind, some things that have not yet been invented.
Enjoyed this, but disappointed that while Attenborough was lampooned, Greta was not. Also, India just admits they won't play ball, so they should at least get kudos for honesty. China is lying again (we know this because they said something).
Greta got it exactly right. Without commitment to policies that reasonable models can show will reduce net CO2 emissions by X% by year Y, the whole thing was just as she said, "blah, blah, blah,"able.
If net CO2 emissions were priced correctly, India would probably nuclear, geothermal, wind and solar more attractive investments than-coal fired energy generation.
I think you are assuming that the deadweight loss of a tax on net CO2 emissions (revenues stay in each country, potentially rebated to consumers) are much higher per capita in say India that richer countries. That is not at all obvious.
I loved this, including both the humor (desperately needed in these times) and the substantive takeaway. It’s possible to see some progress on these issues if you step back, tune out the clickbaity headlines, and look at what’s actually happening. Yeah it’s slow and deeply imperfect, but that’s how progress is actually made.
A lot of people seem to believe that there are quick and neat solutions to complex and difficult problems, and that it’s possible to achieve perfect or nearly perfect outcomes. I’m not sure how you live long enough to reach adulthood and maintain such an outlook.
I enjoyed the humor and pithy summary of the climate summit. Better still, I just discovered and listened to Jeff’s “why the Dem’s political brand sucks” 3-part series. I have yet to see the trans Twix commercial, but will look it up. In today’s media, are Jeff and reporters like Peter Hamby weird outliers? Or are there actually many more normies, but simply keeping their heads down?
I would like to see Matt do a piece on what it is to be a journalist. I am increasingly in distrust of journalism. The recent Rittenhouse case realy drive this home. Basic facts along with the general contours of the case were bypassed to jump to political takes. Im struck that I really can’t trust any journalistic institution. Who is following the facts wherever it leads them? The journalist following the Rittenhouse case sounded no different than the attorneys prosecuting (and defending) the case. Rittenhouse’s attorney actually seemed like the most evenhanded person I heard. So Matt, what does it mean to be a journalist in 2021? Is it all politics now?
At about the third sentence, I was thinking, "huh, Matt Y is trying out a new style for this post." By the third paragraph, I was thinking, "huh, this sounds a lot like that 'I might be wrong' guy..."
I do wish the guest writers were more prominently announced - a first paragraph explicitly saying it's a guest post would help more than just the byline (which I don't usually look at until it's clear something is up).
This reminds me of my high school history class, where the teacher constantly tried to use some okayish jokes to make his boring subject material more engaging, but all I got from it was a sense of frustration and half as much learning per class period.
I didn't think this was unfunny, but I didn't think it was very funny, either. I would rather read a more concise article then go watch some of my favorite funny stuff on youtube.
It's exactly because that's hard that I would prefer it not be tried. I would much rather see something that does its best at one, and lets me use the saved time from cutting the other to go get a better source of it somewhere else.
Here, I think the humor was the weaker half, plus this is a blog about informative not about funny, so I say cut the funny, keep the info, give me back my time. And if I want some levity afterwards I'll watch a tiktok with the minutes saved
Comedy is more important than ever these days, and Jeff has earned those awards featured in this column. Here, here.
But seriously, I have far more hope for improved technology and better adaptations than I do for drastic reductions in carbon. And a re-commitment to nuclear power will be part of the solution. (There is no way in hell that wind and solar will replace more than a small fraction of the world's power supply anytime soon.)
And finally, I vote for giving the idiot activists of XR the Biggest Douche in the Universe award for running around telling children they'll all be dead in 10 years if their parents DON'T DO SOMETHING IMMEDIATELY TO REDUCE CARBON!!!! It's child abuse.
Very unfortunate to see India being singled out here. US does 7x more per capita emissions than India and has 4x less people. I feel this is a very out of touch attitude on how much of burden the poor of India are being asked to bear and how toxic politics of such a move will be in India.
I think India should follow the path of other nations and reduce coal production and gasoline usage for air pollution reasons, over and above the climate benefits. The air indices in Indian and Chinese cities are scary bad.
Agreed completely, Ravi. This author seems to be implying that India is basically doing nothing and being proud of it, when nothing could be further from the case. The government is making heavy investments in solar and other energy sources like nuclear and wind. And the whole fuss about India “watering down” the coal language is ridiculous. Phasing down is still a good thing, isn’t it? Even the US hasn’t completely phased out coal. India is doing its part. The main question we should be asking is: is the developed world doing enough to help the developing world transition?
"People who can comfortably reduce their emissions while keeping a comfortable standard of living should do so. People who can’t, don’t have that obligation"
Okayyyy..... but then you're giving up on 'solving' the climate crisis, if that's your public policy. India & China are by far the largest emitters of carbon, and per capita doesn't matter to the planet. If India and China 'don't have that obligation'- and then Africa as its billion plus population becomes wealthier- then you're essentially saying you're doing nothing about climate. Reducing carbon emissions in the US, which only emits 15% of the world's carbon, will do nothing significant to reduce global warming
I don’t get the joke about Attenborough. Here’s my rework:
The highlight, for me, was watching Twitter explode after Sir David Attenborough, said in a speech “In my lifetime I’ve witnessed a terrible decline. In yours, you could and should witness a wonderful recovery.”
Climate hawks and Sunrise activists demanded the 95 year old naturalists’ immediate liquidation, while more sober voices argued that correlation does not prove causation. Critical theorists attempted “structural” explanations for the 95 gigantons of carbon emitted during Attenborough’s life time ranging from increased living standards and surging populations to the phalocentric nature of the internal combustion engine and the intrinsic violence of hydraulic fracturing. One frustrates French activist tweeted “This is no time for “logic” and the patriarchy’s clever tricks. Pistons are ramming through helpless cylinders, ancient shale is being obliterated to cough up oil, mother earth is being raped. Attenborough must die so that Gea may live.”
At the time of publication, Attenborough could not be reached for comment.
If quality humor upsets you, you have a big dump in your pants. Great read!
I thought the post was very funny, and well done.
But I belong to a tribe that thinks that the best way to applaud well-done humor is by teasing in reply. That's why I responded with mock outrage at Mr. Maurer's humor, and then signaled that it was a put-on by claiming that only commenters are allowed to write comedy here. Apparently I was a bit too dead-pan, since only a few people got the joke.
Oh well.
I have witnessed our host suffer the consequences of his own dead-panned trolling on many occasions (e.g. people on Twitter getting outraged at Yglesias for supporting positions that he was in fact ridiculing), so I know how to clean up the problem:
I have deleted the entire contents of my tweet-stream, and will start over again tomorrow with resolutions to do better.
It was a bit! I thought it was probably a bit but it's hard to tell these days.
(Glad you enjoyed the post!)
It was a bit. There is not in fact a "sacred principle" that only commenters can write jokes.
(Did he say "sacred principle"?? Yes, that's the term I used. Not enough of a flag for readers? C'mon, people, what do you need? High Dudgeon Font? Harrumph tags?)
Anyhow, I found the post not only enjoyable but also informative, in a depressing way. Thanks, and I hope we'll see you back here again.
1st. lol at the comments getting mad at the humor, when the bio literally says "comedy writer"
2nd. I also get frustrated with the US isn't listed first in the drop down box. Even worse is when Argentina lists us as Estados Unidas, and I have to scroll down to the U's, then back up to the E's.
3rd. As someone who works on Gas Turbines, I will stay out of climate change debate, except to say... Go Hydrogen.
This time the writing style was different enough that I figured out it wasn't Matt only three paragraphs in. Usually I don't notice until I see something in the comments addressing the writer by name. I wish it was a bit more obvious - maybe a first paragraph saying "this is a guest post".
I figured it out, too, did not think it was at all funny, and was slightly annoyed, but tried to read for content. :) If I had a stylistic criticism it was about how to FEEL rather than even by implication, what to do
Honestly, I didn't read to closely. Wasn't my cup of tea, just opened all the links in new tabs to read. Shhhhhh.
Can someone please explain why I do this literally every time, when in hindsight every time it is clearly not Matt
It always comes down to problems of design. Technically the information is there, but it's not presented in a way that makes it automatic that readers notice it.
Yes. Normally he does an intro. Maybe he was hacked!
What is the energy source for producing hydrogen?
One possible solution is to set up solar or wind power green hydrogen facilities. The hydrogen would then be stored to be burned in Turbines later on. The question is whether this is economical or practical compared to other energy storage devices. It may be less resource dependent since batteries require a lot of mined raw materials.
It may turn out to be unfeasable. Siemens Energy, GE, Mitsubishi and other companies all have projects in the works.
I hate to be a huge downer, but no hydrogen is not practical for most consumer use cases. It's just devilishly difficult to store/transport/control without leaking, it's literally famous with scientists for this property. Then combine this with high explosive potential. There's no realistic, affordable way to store it in a vehicle, a gas station, transport to the gas station, etc.
Hydrogen could be useful for like fixed transport, like powering a train on a set route and you can have highly expensive transport/refuel methods in place. But for millions of individual cars & individual gas stations? No way
Well its good I wasn't talking about consumer use then. I was specifically referring to power plants that combine solar with hydrogen production in industrial amounts.
I agree with the thought. I suspect that with a tax on net CO2 emissions, there would not be one , or two "killer apps." I suspect there would be some zero-emission powered hydrogen, some carbon capture-fossil fuel use, some geothermal, some nuclear, some solar some wind, some things that have not yet been invented.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nytimes.com/2021/08/12/climate/hydrogen-fuel-natural-gas-pollution.amp.html
Currently it’s ~99% dirty.
This is cool in terms of where hydrogen can actually help (since electric is better in many cases: https://mobile.twitter.com/mliebreich/status/1426900737313984514
(hydrogen always technology of the future)... this is true, until it isn't, even though it probably always will be.
Enjoyed this, but disappointed that while Attenborough was lampooned, Greta was not. Also, India just admits they won't play ball, so they should at least get kudos for honesty. China is lying again (we know this because they said something).
Greta got it exactly right. Without commitment to policies that reasonable models can show will reduce net CO2 emissions by X% by year Y, the whole thing was just as she said, "blah, blah, blah,"able.
If net CO2 emissions were priced correctly, India would probably nuclear, geothermal, wind and solar more attractive investments than-coal fired energy generation.
I think you are assuming that the deadweight loss of a tax on net CO2 emissions (revenues stay in each country, potentially rebated to consumers) are much higher per capita in say India that richer countries. That is not at all obvious.
This made me laugh, and it got funnier the more comments I read about people not liking the humor. I'm a bad person.
Also, the substantive points made all seem correct.
I loved this, including both the humor (desperately needed in these times) and the substantive takeaway. It’s possible to see some progress on these issues if you step back, tune out the clickbaity headlines, and look at what’s actually happening. Yeah it’s slow and deeply imperfect, but that’s how progress is actually made.
A lot of people seem to believe that there are quick and neat solutions to complex and difficult problems, and that it’s possible to achieve perfect or nearly perfect outcomes. I’m not sure how you live long enough to reach adulthood and maintain such an outlook.
Great post — excited to have found imightbewrong!
I enjoyed the humor and pithy summary of the climate summit. Better still, I just discovered and listened to Jeff’s “why the Dem’s political brand sucks” 3-part series. I have yet to see the trans Twix commercial, but will look it up. In today’s media, are Jeff and reporters like Peter Hamby weird outliers? Or are there actually many more normies, but simply keeping their heads down?
I'm pro-comedy, but, like... good comedy. This was pretty weak
Mr Maurer:
Your flip and adolescent tone in writing about the greatest threat faced by humankind today is irresponsible and offensive.
Furthermore, it violates this community's most sacred principle:
No humor in the OP. We write the jokes in the comments section.
lol... to be fair, his bio literally says comedy writer.
Well, sure.
But so does Bob Saget's, and we can see how far that gets him.
Maybe Matt is trying to thin out the herd on commenters? Be strong!
Don’t be fooled by America’s Dumbest Videos and Fool House. Bob Saget’s standup is funny and not PG-13.
True. Wife and I saw him in Boise. Definitely not PG.
I would like to see Matt do a piece on what it is to be a journalist. I am increasingly in distrust of journalism. The recent Rittenhouse case realy drive this home. Basic facts along with the general contours of the case were bypassed to jump to political takes. Im struck that I really can’t trust any journalistic institution. Who is following the facts wherever it leads them? The journalist following the Rittenhouse case sounded no different than the attorneys prosecuting (and defending) the case. Rittenhouse’s attorney actually seemed like the most evenhanded person I heard. So Matt, what does it mean to be a journalist in 2021? Is it all politics now?
At about the third sentence, I was thinking, "huh, Matt Y is trying out a new style for this post." By the third paragraph, I was thinking, "huh, this sounds a lot like that 'I might be wrong' guy..."
I do wish the guest writers were more prominently announced - a first paragraph explicitly saying it's a guest post would help more than just the byline (which I don't usually look at until it's clear something is up).
This reminds me of my high school history class, where the teacher constantly tried to use some okayish jokes to make his boring subject material more engaging, but all I got from it was a sense of frustration and half as much learning per class period.
I didn't think this was unfunny, but I didn't think it was very funny, either. I would rather read a more concise article then go watch some of my favorite funny stuff on youtube.
It was funny and informative, which is hard.
It's exactly because that's hard that I would prefer it not be tried. I would much rather see something that does its best at one, and lets me use the saved time from cutting the other to go get a better source of it somewhere else.
Here, I think the humor was the weaker half, plus this is a blog about informative not about funny, so I say cut the funny, keep the info, give me back my time. And if I want some levity afterwards I'll watch a tiktok with the minutes saved
Comedy is more important than ever these days, and Jeff has earned those awards featured in this column. Here, here.
But seriously, I have far more hope for improved technology and better adaptations than I do for drastic reductions in carbon. And a re-commitment to nuclear power will be part of the solution. (There is no way in hell that wind and solar will replace more than a small fraction of the world's power supply anytime soon.)
And finally, I vote for giving the idiot activists of XR the Biggest Douche in the Universe award for running around telling children they'll all be dead in 10 years if their parents DON'T DO SOMETHING IMMEDIATELY TO REDUCE CARBON!!!! It's child abuse.
This guy is not as funny as he thinks he is. I thought the article made some very good points, but man I found it a tough read.
At least it was better than the Chad piece so maybe by the 10th guest post he will be funnier than the 18th season of Family Guy.
Very unfortunate to see India being singled out here. US does 7x more per capita emissions than India and has 4x less people. I feel this is a very out of touch attitude on how much of burden the poor of India are being asked to bear and how toxic politics of such a move will be in India.
I think the good people of India want to spew carbon just as much as westerners snd we better build some seawalls
People of india aren’t doing that today and I am not even sure they could match the amount westerners spewed till now in next 50 years.
It’s nice to blame the poor of the world for not doing enough when the rich out here dragging feet.
I think India should follow the path of other nations and reduce coal production and gasoline usage for air pollution reasons, over and above the climate benefits. The air indices in Indian and Chinese cities are scary bad.
Agreed completely, Ravi. This author seems to be implying that India is basically doing nothing and being proud of it, when nothing could be further from the case. The government is making heavy investments in solar and other energy sources like nuclear and wind. And the whole fuss about India “watering down” the coal language is ridiculous. Phasing down is still a good thing, isn’t it? Even the US hasn’t completely phased out coal. India is doing its part. The main question we should be asking is: is the developed world doing enough to help the developing world transition?
"People who can comfortably reduce their emissions while keeping a comfortable standard of living should do so. People who can’t, don’t have that obligation"
Okayyyy..... but then you're giving up on 'solving' the climate crisis, if that's your public policy. India & China are by far the largest emitters of carbon, and per capita doesn't matter to the planet. If India and China 'don't have that obligation'- and then Africa as its billion plus population becomes wealthier- then you're essentially saying you're doing nothing about climate. Reducing carbon emissions in the US, which only emits 15% of the world's carbon, will do nothing significant to reduce global warming
I don’t get the joke about Attenborough. Here’s my rework:
The highlight, for me, was watching Twitter explode after Sir David Attenborough, said in a speech “In my lifetime I’ve witnessed a terrible decline. In yours, you could and should witness a wonderful recovery.”
Climate hawks and Sunrise activists demanded the 95 year old naturalists’ immediate liquidation, while more sober voices argued that correlation does not prove causation. Critical theorists attempted “structural” explanations for the 95 gigantons of carbon emitted during Attenborough’s life time ranging from increased living standards and surging populations to the phalocentric nature of the internal combustion engine and the intrinsic violence of hydraulic fracturing. One frustrates French activist tweeted “This is no time for “logic” and the patriarchy’s clever tricks. Pistons are ramming through helpless cylinders, ancient shale is being obliterated to cough up oil, mother earth is being raped. Attenborough must die so that Gea may live.”
At the time of publication, Attenborough could not be reached for comment.