Tuesday, March 13, 2007

New Global Warming Post

I guess I'm in a big linking mood tonight. Not to worry, though--I'm working on a good self-written post, I'm just waiting for the big event to happen so I can blog about it.

Until then, though, let's go to a great Australian blog, and one of the newest on the blogroll at left, Ker-plunk. Why Ker-plunk for a title?

One day Chicken Little was walking in the woods when - KERPLUNK! - an acorn fell on her head. "Oh my goodness!" said Chicken Little. "The sky is falling! I must go and tell the king."

And so the blog begins.

Today we can read Ker-plunk's "10 Questions For Climate Fascists".

1. When did the debate end?
2. How is the science settled?
3. How do you explain this? (see picture at link)
4. What the heck has happened to the Hockey stick?
5. Why believe climate models?
6. Why is symbolism more important than effectiveness?
7. Why the IPCC censorship?
8. Why are all the predictions of only doom and gloom?
9. What caused the Medieval Warm Period and Little Ice Age?
10. Why the hooey about sinking islands?

I'll add an 11th question: Why must you physically threaten and harass scientists who don't agree with you?


allen said...

1) when the people who are above discussion and compromise discovered the issue.
2) see above
3) explain what?
4) memes are used until their lose their effectiveness. Then they're discarded without comment or explanation.
5) because they tell me what I want to hear
6) because claims to superiority are preferable to demonstrations. Less tiring and fewer surprises.
7) disagreement is a sign of stupidity, insanity or evil. You don't want people like that participating in anything with your name on it, do you?
8) because stampeding people in itself is gratifying but it also serves to suppress all the tedious debate that attends the process of democracy.
9) see what I mean?
10) An assumption of superiority generally requires a low standard of evidence.
11) see 7, 8 and 11.

Ellen K said...

They beat naysayers to death metaphorically speaking for the same reason that the Catholic Church kicked out Galileo in another age. To debate the "conventional wisdom" is to argue with what knowledge limited minds can accept. In the Renaissance conventional wisdom said the Sun orbited the Earth as the center of the universe and the planets made the music of the spheres as they passed in homage. They also believed the world was flat. Similar attitudes worship political expedience over factual evidence. So we have politicians stating exactly what scientific findings are real and which are not,even if the facts contradict the conventional wisdom. On this path lies madness....