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...
It would seem not…Rasmussen, via Pirate’s Cove, via Linkiest:
Voters strongly believe the debate about global warming is not over yet and reject the decision by some news organizations to ban comments from those who deny that global warming is a problem.
Only 20% of Likely U.S. Voters believe the scientific debate about global warming is over, according to the latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey. Sixty-three percent (63%) disagree and say the debate about global warming is not over. Seventeen percent (17%) are not sure.
Forty-eight percent (48%) of voters think there is still significant disagreement within the scientific community over global warming, while 35% believe scientists generally agree on the subject.
The BBC has announced a new policy banning comments from those who deny global warming, a policy already practiced by the Los Angeles Times and several other media organizations. But 60% of voters oppose the decision by some news organizations to ban global warming skeptics. Only 19% favor such a ban, while slightly more (21%) are undecided.
What is really being studied here, by everyone who has the good fortune to be alive & aware in these contentious times, is not humanity’s effect on the ecology but rather humanity’s attitudes about disagreement.
We’re taught from toddlerhood to have such a curious relationship with it. Everyone loves to win, of course. You get that rush of winning something, plus you look not only wise, but persistent about your wisdom, doing your thing to make sure good prevails and evil is vanquished. It’s a triple-threat. But, you can’t win an argument if there isn’t an argument.
Paradoxically, it seems we also have this social consensus, from which some may dissent in small isolated pockets, but is never challenged much — that when we get closer to something we perceive to be truth, we know we’re getting closer because the argument subsides. Therefore, it seems some among us figure that if the arguing can be forcibly stopped then that will bring us all closer to the truth. It’s “cargo cult” learning. Ah, we certainly do love to think of ourselves as more learned than the other guy, without taking the time or effort to learn much of anything.
Back to the “science-is-settled” people. They never did have much by way of actual evidence that the science really is settled; they’ve been living in their fantasy bubble on this thing since Day One. I guess they’re drunk on the elixir of winning-the-arguments or something. Problem: Winning at just about anything requires a fastening to reality, most of the time with some actual measurements to back it up. I speak not of the measurements of earth’s temperature, but rather measurements about whether “the science is settled” or “everybody agrees.” Forget about serving the community and bringing the people good, reliable, verified information. Just think about the measurement of this victory they desire so feverishly. Their “measurements” say it simply hasn’t happened, and so great is their desire to win-win-win, that they’re pretending the measurements say something else…and they’re just playing a game of pretend and calling it good.
That isn’t just climate change alarmism; that borders on a psychosis.
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
“Everyone agrees”?
- CaptDMO | 07/11/2014 @ 11:11(Mindful that The Emperors’ New Clothes is getting stale)
Don’t be silly, ….Everyone “KNOWS” Lady Godiva rode a horse down Broadway naked, despite the FACT that no one was “allowed” to look and see for themselves.
You seem to be conflating the scientific debate, which is largely settled, with the political and social debate, which are ongoing.
The best climate debate you’ll ever see
- Zachriel | 07/11/2014 @ 11:37http://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2014/may/23/john-oliver-best-climate-debate-ever
You seem to be conflating the scientific debate, which is largely settled, with the political and social debate, which are ongoing.
No, this post is about consensus.
- mkfreeberg | 07/19/2014 @ 09:09mkfreeberg: No, this post is about consensus.
While there is a strong scientific consensus supporting anthropogenic climate change, you are correct that there is still political and social debate.
- Zachriel | 07/19/2014 @ 10:18