The climate bugaboo, the strangest intellectual aberration of our age, rampages because in the me and now we have cast aside three once-universal forms of learning that gave us perspective: a Classical education, to remind us that in reason and logic there is a difference between true and false; a scientific education, to show us which is which; and a religious education, to teach us why the distinction matters.
With perspective, no one would waste a single second of his own time or a red cent of other people’s money trying, Canute-like, to make “global warming” go away.
Saturday, December 18, 2010
A Perspective on Climate Change
I always enjoy watching and reading Lord Monckton:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
12 comments:
He is enjoyable. It is just a shame that he is a liar who knows nothing at all about science.
I'm sorry. We're talking about Lord Monckton here, not Al Gore. Please stay on topic.
When I take scientific explanations from a politician, rather than a scientist, I'll know it's time to leave education.
Good to know that you don't listen to Al Gore.
Never have listened to or cared much for Gore. Didn't vote for him either. But I do listen to the people he listened to.
Wait Mike...seeing ALGORE was only in one national election (President 2000) that implies you voted for George W Bush in 2000...is this true or did you do a B Hussein Obama and vote "Present", i.e. vote third party or not vote
Oh Mike, of course you don't listen to scientists. If you did you'd be saying "gee, climate science is so new and the climate is such a complex phenomenon that there's no way, at present, to make worthwhile predictions about the reaction of the climate to, well, much of anything."
That's what you'd be saying if you listened to scientists.
No, Allen, that's what you'd be saying if facts didn't jive with your preconceived notions and ideology. That's what you would .... oh, wait a minute ... that's what you always do.
Climate science is new?
Not really. It is older than relativity, quantum mechanics and of about the same as evolutionary biology.
Not exactly, Mike.
If John McCain had been the GOP nominee in 2000, I would have voted for him. Knowing I would never vote for Gore, I briefly entertained the idea of voting for W, then thankfully realized the folly of that. In the end, I flipped a coin between Pat Buchanan and Ralph Nadar. I'll leave it up to you to guess who "won" my vote that year.
Well Mike I wouldn’t have voted for either man but I gather you were voting against someone (Bush or Gore) as opposed to voting for someone (correct me if I’m wrong). I can’t argue with that….I had similar experiences in the presidential elections of 92 & 96 and the Louisiana governor’s election in 1991 (Voted for the crook Edwards…held my nose and did it).
BTY, Merry Christmas.
And, same to you, Mike.
You could argue I was voting against the two parties. The same was true that year for the Illinois governor's race. The GOP was coming off years of corruption and indicted governors, but the Democrats offered Blago.
I voted Libertarian. I just can't vote for someone who disgusts me - I'd feel too dirty.
Post a Comment