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...
Among the “climate change skeptics” we are instructed to ignore on a daily basis, yesterday it was the canuck who was editorializing and he gave no quarter and held nothing back.
Believe it or not, Global Warming is not due to human contribution of Carbon Dioxide (CO2). This in fact is the greatest deception in the history of science. We are wasting time, energy and trillions of dollars while creating unnecessary fear and consternation over an issue with no scientific justification. For example, Environment Canada brags about spending $3.7 billion in the last five years dealing with climate change almost all on propaganda trying to defend an indefensible scientific position while at the same time closing weather stations and failing to meet legislated pollution targets.
:
Since I obtained my doctorate in climatology from the University of London, Queen Mary College, England my career has spanned two climate cycles. Temperatures declined from 1940 to 1980 and in the early 1970’s global cooling became the consensus. This proves that consensus is not a scientific fact. By the 1990’s temperatures appeared to have reversed and Global Warming became the consensus. It appears I’ll witness another cycle before retiring, as the major mechanisms and the global temperature trends now indicate a cooling.
But I thought the science was solid? Mark Steyn has something to say about that, h/t to blogger friend Rick.
From the “Environmental News Network”: “Science Is Solid on Climate Change, Congress Told.” “The science is solid,” says Louise Frechette, deputy secretary-general of the United Nations.
“The science is solid,” says Sen. Dianne Feinstein.
“The science is really solid,” says TV meteorologist Heidi Cullen. “The science is very solid.”
And at that point, on “Larry King Live” last week, Richard Lindzen, professor of atmospheric science at MIT, remarked: “Heidi says the science is solid and I can’t criticize her because she never says what science she’s talking about.”
Indeed. If the science is so solid, maybe they could drag it out to the Arctic for the poor polar bears to live on now that the ice is melting faster than a coed’s heart at an Al Gore lecture.
Alas, the science isn’t so solid. In the ’70s, it was predicting a new ice age. Then it switched to global warming. Now it prefers “climate change.” If it’s hot, that’s a sign of “climate change.” If it’s cold, that’s a sign of “climate change.” If it’s 53 with sunny periods and light showers, you need to grab an overnight bag and get outta there right now because “climate change” is accelerating out of control.
For those who care, Lindzen could be called dirty in the sense that he’s said to have personally received income from oil interests. Ross Gelbspan wrote an article for Harper’s Magazine clear back in 1995, instructing us to believe that the planet was heating up and that we are henceforth to ignore anyone saying otherwise, especially Lindzen. So our orders are quite clear on this.
Which begs the question. What about, just for the sake of argument, a climate-related dispute that is more easily measured? How about whether it’s raining outside right now? If you’re somehow in a position where you can’t find out, and one guy tells you it’s pouring and another guy tells you it’s all sunshine and blue sky and singing birds — does it matter who’s getting paid by whom?
I mean sure, one of those two guys has to be wrong. Is it the guy who’s making an income? Could be. Maybe. Probably? I’m not so sure. And in the dispute about anthropogenic global warming, you’ve got a situation where both guys are getting paid, since it doesn’t seem there’s a lot of public grant money flowing to these global warming skeptics. Not only does that somewhat excuse Dr. Lindzen — gotta make money somewhere, ya know — but it fairly devastates the “don’t listen to him because he’s getting paid” paradigm even under premises most favorable to it. We are to presume — with no evidence — that there is a reverse-correlation between cashing checks, and being right. Both sides are cashing checks. Your point?
The same muck is supposed to be sticking to Dr. Ball. Except…if you bother to pay attention to the details…not quite so much. His indictment has to do with advising Friends of Science. His page at SourceWatch, the liberal pro-global-warming tattletale reference, lists not a single other detail persuading me to ignore him for any reason at all. What of the FoS outfit? “In an August 12, 2006, The Globe and Mail revealed that the group had received significant funding via anonymous, indirect donations from the oil industry.” Huh. If they’re anonymous, how do you know they’re from the oil industry?
I took a peek at Globe and Mail article to find out.
Friends [of Science] dared not take money directly from energy companies. The optics, Mr. [Albert] Jacobs [geologist and retired oil-explorations manager] admits, would have been terrible.
This conundrum, he says, was solved by University of Calgary political scientist Barry Cooper, a well-known associate of Stephen Harper.
As his is privilege as a faculty member, Prof. Cooper set up a fund at the university dubbed the Science Education Fund. Donors were encouraged to give to the fund through the Calgary Foundation, which administers charitable giving in the Calgary area, and has a policy of guarding donors’ identities. The Science Education Fund in turn provides money for the Friends of Science, as well as Tim Ball’s travel expenses, according to Mr. Jacobs.
And who are the donors? No one will say.
“[The money’s] not exclusively from the oil and gas industry,” says Prof. Cooper. “It’s also from foundations and individuals. I can’t tell you the names of those companies, or the foundations for that matter, or the individuals.”
When pushed in another interview, however, Prof. Cooper admits, “There were some oil companies.”
Omigosh! So as the pro-global-warming movement spreads a whole lot of unfounded rumors about climate change, actively encouraging people to assess for themselves the merits of complicated climate models and the effect of greenhouse gases by — peeking out their windows and muttering about this hot summer or that mild winter — the oil companies are doing something besides taking it up the ass?
How ominous. I can hear that spooky organ music playing now.
But what I find really interesting is, relying on Source Watch to plumb the depths of whatever might slander Dr. Ball’s name so I don’t have to be burdened with reading through what he has to say…and that seems pretty safe — this is the extent of it. Dr. Ball gets his filthy lucre from FoS, FoS accepts private donations, and there’s oil companies in there. Somewhere. So I’ve heard.
You know…it just seems to me, if Dr. Ball has some firm evidence for what he’s claiming, that’s more important to the argument than how he pays his mortgage and buys his groceries. And if he doesn’t, well that would be more important too.
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.