Posts Tagged ‘Global Warming’

Words to live by

February 22, 2012

Megan McArdle wrote the following when discussing the fake Heartland memo:

After you have convinced people that you fervently believe your cause to be more important than telling the truth, you’ve lost the power to convince them of anything else.
Precisely.  That would be my primary filter when choosing who to listen to, and who to associate with.  If you believe it’s ok to lie to advance your cause, then nothing you say, do, believe, or think will ever have any positive value.
She also wrote
in truth, it’s hard to feel too sorry for Heartland, given how gleefully they embraced the ClimateGate leaks.
That is mostly true.  The ClimateGate leakers were decent human beings, so they xxx’ed out personal information before posting the emails.  Peter Gleick and the 15 people he sent the information to, OTOH, didn’t do that.  Because, after all, instead of being decent human beings, they’re righteous warriors for the truth of global warming climate change, and those who disagree with them, or work for someone who disagrees with them, don’t deserve privacy or basic human respect.

The problem of Faith

July 27, 2008

There’s an interesting article on Atheism that Wired did in November 2006. I’ll be getting to more of the issues it raises later, but I thought this point was critical:

There’s good evidence from research by anthropologists such as Pascal Boyer and Scott Atran that a grab bag of cognitive predispositions makes us natural believers.

The problem is, that’s correct. And it’s true regardless of whether or not your “beliefs” are “super-natural”. The modern environmental movement is a constant refuge for those who want to believe, but no longer have a “God”. Consider “Anthropogenic Global Warming”. It doesn’t matter that the “warming” of the 20th Century all happened from 1900 – 1950 (when the “temperature of the Earth” went up 1.0 degrees C), and that the temperature actually dropped 0.2 degrees C from 1950 – 2000 (down 0.5 C from 1950 – 1970, up 0.3 from 1970 – 2000), it doesn’t matter that the Kyoto Accord wouldn’t accomplish a damn thing, even if all it’s signatories followed it rigorously, all that matters is that Mankind is Evil, and must Repent it’s ways.

Then there’s “nutrition”. The news hit last week that a study looked at ways to lose weight, and found (once again) that fat is fine, and carbs are bad. That it doesn’t matter whether the fats are saturated or unsaturated. That low carbs and don’t worry about the calories (or the fats) is better for losing weight, and better for your cholesterol, than low fats and calorie restriction. What’s the response: lots of religious zealotry about how meat is still bad, blah, blah, blah. The people who “study” nutrition “science” hav their beliefs, and nothing will change them. That’s not science, that’s religion.

IMHO, we’d be a lot better off if all those “natural believers” just picked a real religion to join, focused their need for belief on their religion, and stopped inflicting it on science and politics.

Abundant, Cheap, Clean, Reliable Electrons

July 5, 2008

This is a nice example of “not clear on the concept”

So I have arrived safely in Aspen. I’m listening to Thomas Friedman urging America to lead the way towards “abundant, cheap, clean, reliable electrons”. His approach sounds like the approach near and dear to my heart–can the talk of a “Green Manhattan Project” and use prices to signal inventors to get cracking on the problem.

Oh, says I, they want nuclear power!

Nope, because that would make sense, and require leftists to give you one of their religious jihads.

Repeat after me: Pebble Bed Nuclear Reactor.

I, by the way, have a handy-dandy, can’t fail test to tell you if someone actually believes in human caused global warming, and believes it’s a serious problem:

Every single such person is a huge fan of nuclear power. Because that’s the only power tech that can take over for all those dirty coal and gas fired power plants.