- Was at my son's Boy Scout meeting last night so I missed the Obama speech at West Point. I'll try to watch it at some point; about all I know for sure is this: I surely wouldn't tell the enemy when we would begin pulling out. If you want a more immediate reaction, Instapundit has a handy compilation of many links.
- Got to have a jones for this, a jones for that. But this runnin' with the Joneses, boy, just ain't where it's at.
- Further in re the Climategate mess: I'd been waiting to see what Ronald Bailey, the ace science reporter for Reason magazine, would have to say about all this. Read it here.
- Mike Huckabee, the once and potentially future presidential candidate, is taking a lot of heat for his decision to commute the sentence of the man who killed four police officers in cold blood in Washington state on Sunday. He should. Although you'll still get people who argue about the propriety of using Willie Horton against Michael Dukakis all these years later, the power to grant clemency is one of the most important powers a governor has. And it would appear that Huckabee made a mistake here. Instead of blaming the prosecutors or the system, he should simply acknowledge that he made a mistake. I know that politicians hate doing that, but I always think better of a person who is willing to admit error than one who tries to pin the blame on subordinates. Don't you?
Wednesday, December 02, 2009
Lightning Round - 120209
It all happens so fast, sometimes you need a lightning round:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
8 comments:
Mark,
great article by Bailey. He is an excellent science writer but is capable in many areas. He used to write an economics column in Forbes that was always interesting.
Rich
Thanks, Rich. Bailey puts the crux of the matter very well:
Only through such transparency can other researchers determine whether or not climate models are adequate forecasters of future climate change or are merely prejudices made plausible.
We need to know the truth, one way or another. And transparency is absolutely essential.
i'm am no fan of huckabee, but everything i've seen is that he is forthright and honest about the clemency thing.
the dude was a minor, sentenced to 50 billion yrs in prison. all huck did was reduce his sentence to 47yr, eligible for parole.
what his act did was make sense out of an extreme situation. it was those who followed that screwed the pooch.
Mark,
Here is another interesting and informative take on Climategate from Popular Mechanics contributor Peter Kelemen, a professor of geochemistry at Columbia:
http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/earth/4338343.html?page=1
Rich
Rich,
I read the PM piece. Here's the thing, though. Look at his concluding statement:
Because this is unprecedented, we are not sure what is going to happen. But global warming is very likely, and reasonably probable outcomes could be fatal. Ignoring it would be like Russian roulette. Want to play? I do not.
Even if you accept his premise, and I'm not sure I do but will accept it for the sake of argument, the question remains: what do you do? And are massive regulatory schemes that can't be imposed universally -- the Indians and Chinese, who represent a third of the world's population, have already told the Copenhagen cabal to pound sand -- likely to do any good? Do you want to play Russian Roulette with that?
Mark,
I keep saying this, and I mean it: I am a skeptic on most of the proposed solutions. We are more in agreement on this than you can imagine. I, too, doubt that any of the cap and trade proposals will do anything. They haven't dented the effect of AGW in 20 years, and I see absolutely no reason why they will any time soon. Particularly because of the refusal of the new rapidly rising BRIC economies, but also because these legislative proposals are non-starters in most or all of the G7 countries as well. But I also happen to agree with the statement "But global warming is very likely, and reasonably probable outcomes could be fatal."
And I do fear that doing nothing could be catastrophic.
Have you heard of Bjorn Lomborg? Interesting guy. I like his approach to this topic. Here is a quick profile if interested:
http://www.esquire.com/features/75-most-influential/bjorn-lomborg-1008
Basically, he prefers R&D to cap and trade (for the same reasons we do) and thinks science will hold the answers. But he does want to see governments throw money into R&D.
Rich
I know Lomborg -- he's been around for a long time. He's also been a bete noire for Jones, Hansen and the rest of the Branch Carbonians (I read that term for the AGW priests recently and think it's perfect).
Here's what we need: honest scientists who can tell us what we need to do, if we need to do anything, and then dedicated engineers to develop and implement the solutions. That's not what is on offer currently. And we'll never get there unless we stop what is currently on offer. I've said this before: we don't have science right now -- we have scientism.
Back about 20 years ago I was on the forefront and led the beer industry in developing recycling programs. Huge savings$$$$.
I obviously support such efforts and efficiencies that impact the environment.
....
"But global warming is very likely, and reasonably probable outcomes could be fatal."
Maybe for catastrophic global climate change from let's say a large asteroid, but NOT from made up this made up MMGW religion!!!
We have NO credible proof that man or even McDonald's has any effect on the global climate.
"And I do fear that doing nothing could be catastrophic."
But the only reason you have for such illogical reasoning is your blind faith in YOUR Branch Carbonian Religion.
The fact is doing something could be much worse than doing nothing.
...
"They haven't dented the effect of AGW in 20 years..."
Yet you suggest we pound that sand even harder and expect different results?
Rich, how is that hockey stick graph working out for ya?
Post a Comment