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...
Now that the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has released the summary of it’s fourth assessment report, we’re all back to arguing about global warming. Just when everyone coast-to-coast is freezing their asses off. But of course an isolated weather pattern has nothing to do with global climate change. Really, it doesn’t. Except…six months from now when it’s too hot to go outside and do anything, and you’re tempted to connect your local discomfort to “global warming,” your nearest global-warming alarmist will utter nary a peep of scientific protest about this false connection you’ll be making. He’ll just rock back on his heels, smile, and whistle a happy tune.
But for now, they’re right. Global climate change is something you can’t see or feel for yourself.
Well while we’re back to arguing about it constantly, I can’t help but notice something. When we talk about long-past records, global warming skeptics would like to discuss temperature. Global warming alarmists, on the other hand, would like to talk about carbon dioxide. Because of this, for the most part neither one of the two camps will introduce any evidence that actually contradicts anything introduced by the other camp. And if you’re willing to accept what they both have to say, then this utterly devastates the connection made between carbon dioxide and the earth’s mean temperature.
Anyway. The article that appeared this morning by Pete du Pont in Opinion Journal nicely summarizes the argument for skepticism. It starts off with a rough overview of the history of earthly climate, at least what we know about it, but you should really go read the whole thing. Not a demanding reading assignment by any standard.
…looking back in history we see a regular pattern of warming and cooling. From 200 B.C. to A.D. 600 saw the Roman Warming period; from 600 to 900, the cold period of the Dark Ages; from 900 to 1300 was the Medieval warming period; and 1300 to 1850, the Little Ice Age.
During the 20th century the earth did indeed warm–by 1 degree Fahrenheit. But a look at the data shows that within the century temperatures varied with time: from 1900 to 1910 the world cooled; from 1910 to 1940 it warmed; from 1940 to the late 1970s it cooled again, and since then it has been warming. Today our climate is 1/20th of a degree Fahrenheit warmer than it was in 2001.
Another thing I like about this article is it nicely summarizes the (uncontested) facts about Rachel Carson’s book Silent Spring and the DDT scare it caused. I found out during an impromptu horseshoe-arrangement water-cooler debate that Silent Spring has not lost any of its luster over the years as a golden calf among the environmentalists, and those inclined to give radical environmentalist causes undue amounts of attention and reverence. There are a lot of fairly intelligent and well-read folks walking around who don’t realize there’s even any disagreement about it.
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.
It’s silly just on the face of it. Here we are debating about whether something’s unanimous. Now if we’re debating, that contradicts unanimity. A second-grader should be able to understand that.
And the other thing is this whole thing about science. Scientific methods are being claimed as the exclusive domain of those among us who do our arguing out of fear.
Most disturbing of all…those who come to the conclusion that the earth is in some kind of danger, and claim to have used scientific methods in arriving at that conclusion…if they find out about someone else who agrees with them, I notice they figure that person must have also used scientific methods in reaching his conclusion. Just because it’s the same one. The newcomer might have decided to agree just because the tea leaves told him to…and they don’t even consider this as a possibility. The conclusion reached, is being used as a litmus test for determining what methods were used, and the soundness of same.
Is that science? Hmmm?
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.