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...
Via Bird Dog at Maggie’s Farm: Climate Change… Who Cares?
Thanks to the blog of the irrepressible Hilary Ostrov, a long-time WUWT commenter, I found out about a poll gone either horribly wrong or totally predictably depending on your point of view. It’s a global poll done by the United Nations, with over six million responses from all over the planet, and guess what?
The revealed truth is that of the sixteen choices given to people regarding what they think are the important issues in their lives, climate change is dead last. Not only that, but in every sub-category, by age, by sex, by education, by country grouping, it’s right down at the bottom of the list. NOBODY thinks it’s important.
You could make the argument that “nobody” has the right idea about this thing, that all these assorted demographic groups, along with “everybody” as a whole, are guilty of making an awful mistake. Whether or not I agree with that, it bears the beginnings of a semblance of rationality.
What would not be rational, is an argument that “climate change” has failed in any way to garner the sort of widespread attention it might merit. That would be bollywonkers. The issue has had its shot. It had a fair shot. Plus a whole lot more.
Here we get into one of the observations I’ve made over the years about experts, or rather, the people who busy themselves with propagating the experts perceived opinions, questionably secure in the idea that they know the subject matter because they’ve “listened to the experts.” There is: Concluding that the expert opinion must be the correct one. There is: Listening to experts. Those two are two different things. They are not the same.
Conversely: There is not listening to the experts, and then there is listening to the experts and concluding that the experts, for whatever reason, are full of crap. Those two are two different things. They are not the same.
The world has listened, already, to the experts. First one to yell something about fixing the problem by “raising awareness” gets a slap across the face. With a glove. With a brick in it. It’s a dead issue, let’s move on to the next problem.
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Two possibilities: The first, and likeliest, is that Global Weather is the ultimate First World Problem ™. Worrying that today’s temperature is slightly different than yesterday’s is an unimaginable luxury for 90% of the world’s population.
The second, though, is a kind of thought experiment: What if the AGW hysterics hadn’t been quite so hysterical? What if, instead of pulling the ol’ Obi-wan Kenobi when people asked to see the data, they’d… obliged? If they’d been honest, in other words, or half-honest, or even a quarter honest? Climate science is complex enough that most people probably would’ve gone along with the “experts,” had “the experts” not gone out of their way to antagonize people with their gross and obvious lies.
How much damage, in other words, is this “‘Shut up,’ he explained” tactic ultimately responsible for?
- Severian | 12/22/2014 @ 17:41