Alarming News: I like Morgan Freeberg. A lot.
American Digest: And I like this from "The Blog That Nobody Reads", because it is -- mostly -- about me. What can I say? I'm on an ego trip today. It won't last.
Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler: We were following a trackback and thinking "hmmm... this is a bloody excellent post!", and then we realized that it was just part III of, well, three...Damn. I wish I'd written those.
Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler: ...I just remembered that I found a new blog a short while ago, House of Eratosthenes, that I really like. I like his common sense approach and his curiosity when it comes to why people believe what they believe rather than just what they believe.
Brutally Honest: Morgan Freeberg is brilliant.
Dr. Melissa Clouthier: Morgan Freeberg at House of Eratosthenes (pftthats a mouthful) honors big boned women in skimpy clothing. The picture there is priceless--keep scrolling down.
Exile in Portales: Via Gerard: Morgan Freeberg, a guy with a lot to say. And he speaks The Truth...and it's fascinating stuff. Worth a read, or three. Or six.
Just Muttering: Two nice pieces at House of Eratosthenes, one about a perhaps unintended effect of the Enron mess, and one on the Gore-y environ-movie.
Mein Blogovault: Make "the Blog that No One Reads" one of your daily reads.
The Virginian: I know this post will offend some people, but the author makes some good points.
Poetic Justice: Cletus! Ah gots a laiv one fer yew...
The Review & Outlook section of Opinion Journal notes that the news cycle swirling around the latest report on climate change is chock full of B.U.F.:
Climate of Opinion
The latest U.N. report shows the “warming” debate is far from settled.
Monday, February 5, 2007 12:01 a.m. ESTLast week’s headlines about the United Nations’ latest report on global warming were typically breathless, predicting doom and human damnation like the most fervent religious evangelical. Yet the real news in the fourth assessment from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) may be how far it is backpedaling on some key issues. Beware claims that the science of global warming is settled.
The document that caused such a stir was only a short policy report, a summary of the full scientific report due in May. Written mainly by policymakers (not scientists) who have a stake in the issue, the summary was long on dire predictions. The press reported the bullet points, noting that this latest summary pronounced with more than “90% confidence” that humans have been the main drivers of warming since the 1950s, and that higher temperatures and rising sea levels would result.
More pertinent is the underlying scientific report. And according to people who have seen that draft, it contains startling revisions of previous U.N. predictions. For example, the Center for Science and Public Policy has just released an illuminating analysis written by Lord Christopher Monckton, a one-time adviser to Margaret Thatcher who has become a voice of sanity on global warming.
Take rising sea levels. In its 2001 report, the U.N.’s best high-end estimate of the rise in sea levels by 2100 was three feet. Lord Monckton notes that the upcoming report’s high-end best estimate is 17 inches, or half the previous prediction. Similarly, the new report shows that the 2001 assessment had overestimated the human influence on climate change since the Industrial Revolution by at least one-third.
Seventeen inches by 2100. Huh.
Star Trek once had an episode called “Force of Nature” in the seventh season of The Next Generation, in which it was discovered the warp drive was slowly damaging the “fabric of space” or some such. That’s the one wherein Starfleet ordered an intragalactic speed limit of “Warp 5.” In the episode, the theory was proven. Remember how? Anybody?
A female alien scientist in a funny rubber mask threw her shuttlecraft into some kind of warp-thing, creating a rift, at the cost of her own life. She sacrificed herself to end the debate on whether there was a problem or not, and prove that there was.
It was obviously a comment on ecological issues in general, and perhaps on global warming in particular.
She killed herself in a dazzling display of pure altruism.
That’s fiction. In real life, it’s different…which is a problem because if “fans” of global warming who are also fans of Star Trek were intellectually honest for just a second or two, they’d have to concede the altruism was an important persuasive component to the message. Out here in the real world, nobody has behaved that way. Not one single damn time. Everybody who implores us to treat global warming as a serious threat, has something material to gain from our doing so. Material or otherwise.
Scientists are getting grant money, the U.N. is staying relevant, Al Gore is reviving his career somewhat, and so did Dennis Quaid. Hollywood’s made a lot of money off An Inconvenient Truth and The Day After Tomorrow.
The pattern continues. The Anthropogenic Global Warming movement wants more people to take it seriously. They want to win more converts. They would, if there was more demonstrable altruism to be seen, anywhere. And yet everyone who compels us to be more receptive to the idea, is making a buck off of it, is angling for attention, or else both apply. I know of no exceptions.
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
[…] Well look…it’s understandable that when half of us think the world is in imminent danger, and the other half of us do not, the half of us that are fearful are going to react emotionally. Fear is the most powerful emotion there is, and the quickest one to derail logic and common sense. So I don’t begrudge them that. But I’m awfully concerned about this new debate-within-the-debate about whether “the science is settled” or not. […]
- House of Eratosthenes | 02/21/2007 @ 11:27