House of Eratosthenes

We don’t discuss just politics here. Over in the sidebar you will see “Building A Timberframe Home,” as in, “From Scratch.” This guy over in Kentucky, he’s blogging about building his house. He’s been doing it since 2003.

The frame is done now. Throughout the process, he’s been documenting all the technical details, well, a lot of them anyway. What tools he used, where he got the wood, how he built the computer model, how he selected the timberwood company, etc.

I think this may very well be the most under-rated site on all the “innernets,” I really do. If you’re surfing out of boredom…and if you’re here at The Blog Nobody Reads, you probably are…head on over. You don’t need to find more pictures of Erica Chevillar, nobody knows if Sherry Argov is married or if there are pictures of Sheri Doub’s red bikini. Yes, I know what your Google searches are. (Mine aren’t much different.) Head on over, and look at something wholesome and edumacationable. The swimsuit sirens will be waiting for you when you’re done.

Sphere: Related Content

No Comments »

That Weird Show
Friday, June 30th, 2006

That Weird Show

I continue to be told by friends and acquaintances that I need to get into the habit of watching The West Wing (1999), that I would really enjoy it, it’s so well written that it’s natural to form an addiction to it regardless of one’s party affiliation.

Huh.

Lookee what I found, clips and everything.

I’ll have to agree, it’s “well-written” in the sense that whoever wrote it, clearly enjoyed writing it. It’s “well-acted,” too, in the sense that the actors really enjoyed doing the acting. But how do you get addicted to this?

What a colossal amount of mental masturbation on the part of the people producing this strange show. It’s like, if I made a habit out of watching it, the producers should be digging into their pockets for some money they can pay to me.

I’m sure some will think the above is a critique against the show for failing to uphold my personal beliefs. Well, guess what. I just got done watching a clip of some Dr. Laura Schlessinger doppleganger being picked apart…by the designated picker-aparter, President Jehosephat whatzisname. And, ideologically, I was on the President’s side, never having had much sympathy for bible fundamentalists, or for Schlessinger for leading people astray with her degree in Physiology. The clip soundly addresses these two of her vices. But guess what? I didn’t find it satisfying, in any way, shape or form.

The problem seems to come up, when I actually think.

Does anyone think the real Dr. Laura would sit there like a quaking wallflower, wilting beneath the stern and oh-so-witty — and non-stop — lectures of President Jezebel whozeewhatzit? Does anyone seriously envision such a thing even for a moment? Yeah, sure…a lot of people would like to see it. But if you don’t really think it would go down that way, I fail to see what’s fun about it.

This show seeks to elect Democrats, something that apparently was easy to do before 1999, when it came out. Since that year, it doesn’t seem to be possible. Hmmm. You know, maybe it doesn’t matter whether I can bring myself to appreciate it or not. I’m like the hog farmer feeding the swill to the pigs. I don’t care what the pigs see in it, just keep the crap comin’.

Update 7/2/06: The West Wing may very well have the funniest thread on all of Jump The Shark, at least, a close second to Dukes of Hazzard. A few examples (to the implied question of “When, if ever, did this show ‘jump the shark’”)…

So far, so good. I rarely watch one-hour shows but this one has got great pace and a good balance of drama and humour to tie it together. I plan on riding this show out until it hits the ramp.

What a leftist, liberal, unfunny piece of shit this is!All anybody does is talk at a jackrabbit pace w/o saying anything noteworthy, while racing down halls or around a room. SHUT THE F**K UP and say SOMETHING!!!Also, even tho I’m a fan of Martin Sheen the actor, I dont want a real life left wing libby running my country-its bad enought we have two faced f**kin Clinton there, and god forbid we have red Gore taking over! Plus this show sucks a big one, as Kirstie Alley used to say about what she did to her husband! Of course, this is by the same assholes who gave us Sports Night, which sucks MAJOR wad! All this needs is Fat Rosie O’Donuts appearing, and since she agrees to all this damn propaganda shit on here, its only a matter of time til Masive JTS moment!

It’s a well written and well thought out show that brings out the ire in folks like the gentle person above. It’s real enough that the haters of righteousness are as offended by it as they are by real politicians who don’t share their prejudices.

To the previous poster, this is the same guy who posted the one before yours. I’m standing by my assessment of this show as “The LEFT Wing”, cause I still say this is a bunch of left wing, pinko liberal crap that Hollywood likes to shove down every Americans ass each and every week! Of course, your butt buddy Clinton loves this and its producers, so all must be fine with network TV! As Rob Lowe’s movie character,the young no#2 in Austin Powers, he should “Liquidate” this piece of SHIT ASAP! I’ve said my piece!-for now!

This show will likely NEVER jump the shark. Some episodes have been less than stellar, but in general, the writing, storylines and the ACTING cannot be beat. Rob Lowe has acquitted himself of everything bad anyone’s ever said about him; I’ve always been mad for Martin Sheen (ever since “The Execution of Private Slovik”); Allison Janney is wonderful; I could go on… The only character I’m not crazy about is Josh. He’s smart, but he sometimes comes off as smarmy and obnoxious and he treats his secretary like crap… This week’s episode that featured Stockard Channing was WONDERFUL. The last scene with her and Martin Sheen battling in the Oval Office was brilliant.

May I correct myself as to what my previous post said. I was NOT insulting Rob Lowe the movie actor-he’s done many fine roles, but I was merely praising his finest role, as the young Number 2 in Austin Powers 2-the Spy Who Shagged ME! Him, as that role, should have begged Dr.Evil to liquidate this piece of Shit for… one Million Dollars! And then I would have said “Yeah, Baby!!!”

To the insult slinging repeat poster above: Your confusion about your sexual preferences (and your transference to others about same) aside, this show is a wonderfully written drama that repeatedly takes unexpected and interesting twists in the name of both reality and good storytelling. Check your politics at the door and you might recognize this show for the class act that it is.

To the previous poster, I cant help not checking my politics at the door when I watch this show because..its a political show, DUMBASS! And its still a liberal, leftist piece of shit! Anytime the networks want to put on a funny, conservative point of view, Hollywood shuts it down faster than you can say Jack Robinson. But when an unfunny piece of shit lik this comes on, the liberals in H’wood praise the shit out of this boring assed shitfest! But enjoy it anyways, cause not many others are, as the ratings point out!

Previous poster: It’s responses and writings like yours that make what was once a fun web site about television into one of far too many places on the web where typed anonymous insults become far easier to come by than a rational defense of an idea. You don’t like the show? Don’t watch it. You want to insult me? Come over to my house and say what you have to without the cloak of anonymity. Anything else isn’t worth the time of day.

I like The West Wing. Even though I don’t agree with the politics I enjoy the stories. The guy who plays Josh does an outstanding job. I hate that bastard! Or should I say I love hating him. The only character I really dislike and would replace is Josh’s secretary. I don’t like the writing for her and I don’t like the actress. She talks too fast and just doesn’t add anything to the show. Can’t believe I actually like Rob Lowe’s acting now… whodathunkit!?

To the poster two before this-Yes, I’m the poster three before this! You dont like my rantings, DONT f**kin read them! You still got a problem, I will GLADLY come over to your house-just leave your email and address to the home site of this webpage, and if you live near me, I will DEf stop over for a little “Chat” I live in NJ, and if you’re far from me, you can send me a plane ticket, cause I’d LOVE to do some “Convincing” about this fuckin totally shitty show! Otherwise, respect my opinion of this crappy program. I have a right to voice my opinion, and if it differs from yours, then thats all the better-I’m sure you dont like quality, funny comedies that I like, and thats what makes the world a better place! So, unless you’ve learned to accept a varied view then yours, I guess we’ll be doing some dancing soon! Cant wait to meet you!

To the New Jersey Nothing; I respect you’re opinion only slightly more than I respect the person belching it, which is astounding when you try to quantify not at all. You’re just another inadequate person who prefers hating life to living it, so good luck on your meager existance.

To the poster who is insulting NJ-bug off! Just because someone has a different view of yours about this show, doesnt mean you have to insult him AND NJ! I dont like this show at all, and I do think its a tad leftist for me and my tastes, but I wouldnt threaten saomeone or insult his state! Why dont you “Bug off!”

And it just goes on and on like that. It seems these two guys, it should be obvious who I’m talking about, are authoring between them maybe 90% of the posts on the thread, in places. Oh, and in fair disclosure, neither one of them is me.

I do find it additionally amusing the idea that anyone would try to turn anyone else on to this show by saying “check your politics at the door.” What the hell could that mean? How do you check your politics at the door, when the people making the show are willing to do anything but?

Sphere: Related Content

1 Comment »

A Hilarious Truth
Friday, June 30th, 2006

A Hilarious Truth

People ask me why I don’t believe in MMGW (man-made global warming) when so many scientists say it’s a done deal, I’m not a scientist, and I haven’t seen Al Gore’s movie. Certainly, by my own rules my opinion of the movie is worth a lot less than someone else who has seen the movie, so maybe I should shut up. On the other hand, the doomsayers say they are really concerned about people like me. They say people like me, are holding up the whole show. So maybe my opinion isn’t unimportant after all. Why don’t I just drop the skepticism and become a true believer?

Well, I’m relatively old by now, at least compared to a lot of “Inconvenient Truth” viewers and fans. This stuff isn’t new to me. Back when I was a kid, this is what liberalism was: political agendas advanced through impending doom. Agent Orange, Mutually Assured Destruction, Second Ice Age, plastic in the landfills, flaming rivers, and, yes, the ozone. I’m sure your perspective changes when you’ve dropped the nine bones per scalp to see the movie, and maybe your perspective changes when you’ve sat through the movie. But kiddies, perspective changes when, within your lifespan, the “Vote Democrat Or We’re All Gonna Die” thing goes into its second and third lap. If you were born after 1972, you may not fully appreciate that, and if you were born after 1979 you almost certainly won’t. That’s one reason. But an even bigger reason, is crap like this: The former Vice-President’s appearance on the Daily Show, with host John Stewart. Go on, watch it. It’s eleven minutes long. Watch.

Consider: Our continuing survival, together with the planet’s ability to sustain any life form, is being threatened. We are failing in our “moral obligation to our children.” In ten years we will cross the point of no return, and nobody can get our President to educate himself about what’s happening, darn it. Al Gore comes along to show us what is happening, and he has no other agenda, political or otherwise. In fact, he honestly fails to understand why anyone would think such a thing. Just consider all that.

Is it appropriate to crack these kinds of jokes when you’re discussing the issue?

Would you be acting this way?

I’ve addressed this peculiar behavior before. I’m supposed to believe someone really, truly, honestly, believes we’re five steps from Ragnarok, and it’s our fault, and time is running out on any effort to prevent certain doom. And this guy is jolly and giggly about it. Guffaws at every joke. Just his incredible optimistic vision, I guess. Sorry, I can’t sign on to that.

At about the three-and-a-half minute mark, Gore and Stewart have a good ol’ gut-laugh about the idea of Gore making royalties off things melting. Oh, how droll. Gore is finding this all so very amusing, finishing off by saying “well, there is a lot of melting going on…” then screeching to a halt in mid-chortle, looking very dour. “Unfortunately.”

That just encapsulates the problem I have with movement. It’s so political. I suppose all grassroots movements must be, but this is a little too much. We’re all gonna die, so let’s get some yuks out of it? This is simply not how people behave when universal armageddon is at hand, and they’re having trouble raising conciousness about it.

Reviewing back in the nineties, things get even more bollywonkers. Al Gore says he’s been making this movie, in some form or another, for 20 or 30 years. He’s been giving the presentation since before he became Vice-President. Okee dokee, so Bill Clinton is President, we’re “trashing the planet” as they say, the Veep knows what huge trouble we’re in but very few other people do. Vice President is a pretty high position; how does it come to pass, that the Clinton adminstration doesn’t become the Climate Crisis Presidency? Why were we so spun up on hate crimes, hiking the minimum wage, and Hillary healthcare?

On a planet that is doomed to become a barren rock, who gives a rat’s ass about extra prison time for Nazi skinheads, and free medicine for old people?

Someone has instructed Al Gore that he should fight his reputation as a boring guy, by giggling whenever he talks about right-wing idealogues, right-wing talk radio, right-wing Republicans, and anything else right-wing. He really needs to reconsider this. If I’m talking about the world coming to an end, I can see a chuckle slipping past my lips maybe one time — if someone cracks a joke that is completely unexpected, and outrageously funny. One time. Any more than that, is pushing it. You can’t say “let’s put politics behind and solve this thing” — especially when you’re a politician — giggle twelve times in eleven minutes, and look credible.

Not to anyone outside of those who decided to agree with you before you even stepped out on the stage.

Sphere: Related Content

No Comments »

Noonan II
Thursday, June 29th, 2006

Noonan II

Peggy Noonan writes about our former First Lady, current junior senator from the state of New York, and God help us, maybe someday President. Pure gold.

Media people keep saying, as Hillary gears up for her presidential bid, that her big challenge in 2008 will be to prove that she is as tough as a man. That she could order troops to war. That she’s not girly and soft.

This is the exact opposite of the truth. Hillary doesn’t have to prove her guy chops. She doesn’t have to prove she’s a man, she has to prove she’s a woman. No one in America thinks she’s a woman. They think she’s a tough little termagant in a pantsuit. They think she’s something between an android and a female impersonator. She is not perceived as a big warm mommy trying to resist her constant impulse to sneak you candy. They think she has to resist her constant impulse to hit you with a bat. She lacks a deep (as opposed to quick) warmth, a genuine and almost phenomenological sense of rightness in her own skin. She seems like someone who might calculatedly go to war, or not, based on how she wanted to be perceived and look and do. She does not seem like someone who would anguish and weep over sending men into harm’s way.

Makes me giggle like Butthead. Hit me with bat…huh-huh, huh-huh-huh.

Sphere: Related Content

No Comments »

Net Neutrality Rejected
Thursday, June 29th, 2006

Net Neutrality Rejected

The Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee has rejected, on an eleven-to-eleven tie vote, a Net Neutrality policy amendment.

A U.S. Senate committee on Wednesday, with a tie vote, rejected a proposal that would have required broadband providers to give their competitors the same speeds and quality of service as they give to themselves or their partners.

The Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee�s 11-11 vote means the net neutrality amendment will not be added to a wide-ranging broadband bill as it goes to the Senate floor. The amendment, offered by Sens. Olympia Snowe, a Maine Republican, and Byron Dorgan, a North Dakota Democrat, would have prevented broadband providers such as AT&T and Comcast from charging extra based on the type of content transmitted by Internet-based companies.

Late Wednesday, Sen. Ron Wyden, an Oregon Democrat, said he�ll place a hold on the broadband bill because it lacks strong net neutrality requirements. By placing a hold on the bill, Wyden is saying he may object to the Senate beginning debate on that legislation. A hold on a bill can lead to a filibuster, if Senate leaders aren�t able to fix the senator�s objections.

“If [broadband providers] get their way, not only will you have to pay more for faster speeds, you�ll have to pay more for something you get for free today: unfettered access to every site on the World Wide Web,” Wyden said on the Senate floor. “To me, that�s discrimination, pure and simple.”

The reporter went on to challenge Sen. Wyden on why the senator thought that was going to come to pass. Oops, well, no he didn’t. Or if he did, the question and the accompanying answer failed to make it in to print.

I’m wondering if bottled water is discrimination? Is cable TV access to the local channels, is that discrimination? Those used to be free.

This thing is a crock, and it reaks like one. My thoughts on Net Neutrality, are here.

Sphere: Related Content

No Comments »

On Titties and Terrorists
Thursday, June 29th, 2006

On Titties and Terrorists

The FAQ mentions it (Question #11), and I have discussed it repeatedly, like here and here and here and here and here and here and here and here and here and here and here and here. I just can’t, it seems, shut my cakehole about it.

What is “it”?

“It” is a pair of things, actually. Here at The Blog That Nobody Reads, we like to critique the prevailing viewpoint, that all-important Conventional Wisdom. We blossom forward with unsolicited opinions, when that Conventional Wisdom is most opprobrius to old-fashioned common sense. And the pair of things that “It” is, would be the two subjects that repeatedly inspire comments, design to influence the unspoken orthodoxy, that are…well, let’s just call them what they are. Bull squeeze. Moose feces. Wombat-rabites bollywonkers crazy codswallop.

Where these two subjects rise up, it seems the more impressive the office held by the person speaking out about them, the more nonsensical is the crap coming out of that person’s mouth. People say stuff with regard to these subjects that, if life & limb were depending on the verity of the stuff they’re saying, they’d stop in mid-sentence and then start mentally spanking themselves for the foolishness of the comments they’re passing through their voice boxes, or placing in ink over their signatures.

The two subjects are terrorist attacks, and young ladies who aren’t wearing very much clothing.

I’ve commented before on my complete lack of success trying to figure out what these two subjects have to do with each other. I still don’t understand what the common ground is. But there must be some.

We have people in positions of power, prestige, and public trust, who say people in our executive branch should be blamed for — hurricanes! Yes! And yet, when evil men conspire for years at a time, taking lessons in how to fly a plane but not to land it, go to one last stripper show on September 10, say their prayers, bathe in their martyr’s cologne, do their holy fasting, rent cars, catch planes, slash the flight attendants’ throats with box-cutters, hijack the plane, say some more prayers, and then with a hearty “Allah Ackbar!” steer the aircraft into buildings…this whole event is something that happened. You can’t describe the event while mentioning the word “Islam” or “Muslim,” not unless you’re talking about hate crimes unfairly perpetuated in the wake of the event…or pontificating with dread about how some of our airport security people may be thinking about some racial profiling. Oh, no, never speak about those who did something that was done. You only speak of our (Republican) President, and the cause-and-effect influence he may have had on the freakin’ weather.

Yes, acts of God are blamed on men, and acts of men are blamed on…well, these speakers won’t say what. Oopsie, look what “happened.” It “happened.” What “happened on September 11, 2001.” It’s gotten bad. It’s gotten to the point where I’m harboring some real misgivings against that H-word. Nobody did it, per se. It “happened.”

Flashback…

And regarding the other article, the young ladies wearing immodest cheerleader costumes, or bathing suits, or waitress uniforms, there is a much greater assortment of effluence. Some of the statements seek to assert that when a waitress job involves wearing a uniform that leaves a significant patch of skin uncovered, and a young lady takes it upon herself to apply for that position, somehow she’s being “exploited” even though she’s initiating the application process herself. Stupefyingly, some among us will seek to deprive the lady of that choice, while holding themselves up as paladins of the “womens’ choice” cause. Some of the other comments seek to disassociate the lady from other positions she might hold, which have nothing to do with dressing immodestly, are not affected in any way by her choosing to do so — in effect, culminating to her dismissal from various “day jobs” when she’s caught wearing a bikini in a completely unrelated and unassociated setting. And, on occasion, even under an assumed name.

All of these cognitions, sentiments and proclamations are fecal in nature. They are worth nothing, save for fertilizing qualities. No one in their right mind, would actually consume them, since they’re simply a waste product from something else. You wouldn’t bet your own life, limb, treasure, or esteem on the idea that the September 11 attacks simply “happened,” or that when a cheerleading squad including girls as young as 6 or 7 years old is required to cover up their bellies with some fabric, the prohibition against bare midriffs has nothing to do with proper dress for 6-year-old girls, and is intended to prevent “eating disorders.” These ideas are all absurd. They are articulated, by people who hold positions of high honor and trust, with the expectation that the comments will be remembered among a narrow, fanatical audience that happens to like them, and soon be forgotten by everyone else. To the public at large, you can expose what’s ludicrous about these statements, simply by repeating them two or three times. They are not constructed for the purpose of being inspected critically. They are constructed with the explicit expectation that the subject must be changed, irreversibly, entirely, before the last syllable of the statement has echoed off the farthest wall.

And yet, all too often, the effects of these haphazard remarks, are enshrined into public policy. Pretty soon you have candidates for President of the United States, running on platforms that say terrorism is just a “nuisance.” And pretty soon you have teachers and bank managers, being fired because pictures were taken of them wearing bikinis somewhere else, on their personal, private time.

We indulge in “modest” bullshit about why we were late for work; why we aren’t wearing the sweater Grandma gave us for Christmas; that our wives’ asses aren’t fat; being from the Government and being here to help you; that the check is in the mail. But on the subject of dangerous international criminals who would give their very lives to take a few of us down, and on the unrelated subject of good-lookin’ young women in skimpy clothes, logic takes a complete, pure, undiluted, five-star don’t-even-page-me holiday. “Modest” bullshit, on those two subjects, isn’t good enough for us. We wade in neck-deep into triple-A grade, twenty-four-karat, 99+44/100 percent pure platinum bullshit. We use this high-grade quality bullshit, it seems, on no other subject save for those two…and on those two subjects, we haul it out with a reliability and with a punctuality we display nowhere else.

So I’m calling this “titties and terrorists.” The subject of titties comes up, and the subject of terrorism comes up. And, before you wait too long, people are lending their good names to complete and utter bullshit — not utility-grade bullshit, but the premium, ultra-high-Nitrogen-content bullshit. We can’t have a family-friendly sports bar in my neighborhood, because the waitresses wear little orange shorts. We must pass a global test before we do anything about terrorists. Your wall calendar is oppressing me. “Waterboarding” is torture. The jokes created a hostile work environment. Saddam Hussein was no threat. Women are not for decoration. Blah blah blah…crap, crap, crap. An endless stream of crap dribbling out of people’s mouths. Makes you want to take a shower when you’re done listening to them.

What’s frustrating, is these people are saying these absurd things, which no sane man can possibly believe or find legitimate for even a fraction of a second, to salvage their own reputations, not to ruin them. For the purpose of building their credibility up, not to tear it down. And…can we really fault them? It must work, this process of spewing-crap-to-get-a-good-rep-going. It must work, because if it did not, people wouldn’t keep doing it over and over and over again.

Courtesy of today’s Best of the Web, we have a fascinating tidbit about an anti-war dove, Philip Slater, departing the plane not only of common-sense, but of reality. Ironically, he wants to “Get Real About Atrocities,” and then he proceeds to do anything but.

Perhaps the reason Americans seem so comfortable about bombing and invading little countries around the world is that the United States, unlike Europe, has never experienced “collateral damage”. If we had ever been bombed and invaded ourselves, had our infrastructure demolished, been subject to foreign soldiers breaking into our homes at night, seen our children slaughtered and our houses destroyed, we would be, I suspect, less gung-ho about war and less cavalier about inflicting these horrors on other people.

Now I have to ask: What is going on in Philip Slater’s head? Did he think James Taranto wouldn’t be picking this up and running with it?

There’s a giant leftist movement going on, which seeks not only to enshrine and codify a leftist agenda into law, but to deny reality. It seeks to offer solutions to problems, life-threatening problems at that, by prevailing upon the public-at-large to stop thinking about the problems.

They must be opposed. They must be defeated. The survival of our country may very well depend on it. Even if you buy into the idea that terrorists are soft, cuddly and harmless…and many do, and you have to deny a lot of reality just to get to that point…it’s quite another thing to say that said terrorists can be safely ignored for years at a time.

We have been attacked. Liberalism, as we know it today, eventually prevails on even a fairly capable mind, to come to the conclusion this never took place. It’s dangerous stuff.

Update 7/1/06: Since this one post is receiving unusually high visibility across the “innernets,” I feel it appropriate to give credit for the cartoon with actual fanfare, rather than with the modest HTML link behind it I usually provide. If you click the image you will be taken to the website of Cox and Forkum, whose wonderful work is a must-see for whoever may not already be so acquainted. Do take the time to check them out.

Welcome Pajamas Media fans.

Sphere: Related Content

5 Comments »

Memo For File X
Wednesday, June 28th, 2006

Memo For File X

It appears that in this movie I have not yet seen, An Inconvenient Truth (2006), words are tossed out that leave the impression there is perfect agreement from all credible scientists: Earth getting warmer, disaster looms, man is the cause. The only debate remaining about this, concerns “dirty” scientists, if you will, who have been bought off by coal and oil interests. This may be the thing captured by film reviewer Roger Ebert:

Gore says that although there is “100 percent agreement” among scientists, a database search of newspaper and magazine articles shows that 57 percent question the fact of global warming, while 43 percent support it. These figures are the result, he says, of a disinformation campaign started in the 1990s by the energy industries to “reposition global warming as a debate.”

This strongly implies, and is indeed being interpreted by the pro-global-warming folks who have seen the movie (or else something else is?) as saying, all global warming skeptics are either non-scientists or else bought off by the energy companies.

The word “all” makes the statement an absolute. So this conflicts with the following:

SourceWatch is a Wiki-powered repository for notes about sources. It’s used for gathering dirt on sources who achieve recognition, while articulating viewpoints contrary to the interests of those who maintain SourceWatch. SourceWatch has an exhaustive list of “Climate Change Skeptics,” and seems to have done a meticulous job of gathering newspaper articles, journal articles, and other evidence against global warming skeptics — especially anecdotes about money changing hands from the energy industry.

The SourceWatch list of climate change skeptics, includes the following. Some have documented ties to coal and oil concerns. Interestingly, some do not.

Individual Skeptics
1. Dennis Avery
2. Sallie L. Baliunas
3. Robert C. Balling
4. David Bellamy
5. Bob Carter
6. Ian Castles
7. John R. Christy
8. Ian Clark
9. Paul Driessen
10. Bill Gray
11. Andrei Illarionov, chief economic adviser to Russian Federation President Vladimir Putin
12. Aynsley Kellow
13. William Kininmonth
14. Richard S. Lindzen
15. Bjorn Lomborg
16. Stephen McIntyre
17. Ross McKitrick
18. Patrick J. Michaels
19. Alan Moran
20. Alan Oxley
21. Garth Paltridge
22. Tim Patterson
23. S. Fred Singer
24. Carlo Stagnaro
25. Philip Stott
26. Wolfgang Th�ne
27. Jan Veizer
28. Lord Lawson

Organizational Skeptics
1. Scientific Alliance (UK)
2. George C. Marshall Institute (US)
3. International Policy Network (UK)
4. Institute of Economic Affairs (UK)
5. Competitive Enterprise Institute (US)
6. Institute of Public Affairs (Australia)
7. Friends of Science (Canada)
8. Lavoisier Group (Australia)
9. New Zealand Climate Science Coalition
10. The United Kingdom House of Lords Select Committee on Economic Affairs
11. Australian APEC Study Centre
12. Cooler Heads Coalition

Throughout all of the 28 individuals listed above, if any one amongst them can be tied to the energy industry economically, I would expect SourceWatch to make the tie and get it documented. And indeed they do, where they can. But the tie isn’t always there…even though I have been told, by many global-warming proponents, that the tie should always be there.

Will check this out line-by-line myself.

Gore continues to sacrifice large chunks of his personal time, to head off the oncoming weather crisis. Interestingly, though, all of the things he’s doing, are things that increase his reserves of political capital — he does nothing, so far as I know, to deplete that political capital. No demands that anybody actually do anything that would inconvenience anybody. No accelerated timeframes for converting to solar power. No proposals to get eighteen-wheeler diesel trucks off the road. No proposals to relocate the nation’s financial center out of Manhattan, away from water’s edge. In fact, to the best I know, all year long he hasn’t done anything outside of P.R.

Odd, since one has to doubt movies and photo-ops are going to save our planet.

What if a global warming skeptic received money from the energy industry? Is it possible they could have deposited this money, and subsequently, articulated some skepticism that turns out to be correct? Definitely possible; in fact, unless one is trying to assert some out-and-out skullduggery is going on, it’s difficult to ascertain what any one scientist’s source of income has to do with anything.

Update 6/29/06: In an intellectual exercise of Devil’s Advocate, I’ve picked #2 as the lucky girl: Sallie L. Baliunas. Her Wikipedia Entry contains an impressive assortment of information; nothing derogatory, not even the much-talked-about energy industry funding. In fact, the only negative statement on the page that I can see, is this: “However, her viewpoint - that solar variation accounts for most of the recent climate change - is not widely accepted among climate scientists.”

This just goes to show what a problem science is having nowadays. Real “science” stands mute on what viewpoints are widely accepted and what viewpoints are not. Real science constructs a viewpoint out of the available facts, calls it a “theory,” tests the resilience of the theory through the failure of repeated efforts to tear it down, and invites assistance from colleagues in trying to tear it down. Only fake science is in the business of “accepting viewpoints.”

My own viewpoint is, this statement shows why Wikipedia is not-quite-official.

Regarding Baliunas’ energy-industry funding. I do not doubt for a single second that the funding history is there. But if I were more accepting of the MMGW (man made global-warming) ideas, and enthusiastic about making other people more accepting, it would be critically important to me to be armed with this anecdotal evidence about Dr. Baliunas. So where is it?

Curiouser still: This website purports to document “How ExxonMobil Funds The Climate Change Skeptics.” Their profile on Dr. Baliunas calls an abrupt halt to this topic, after proclaiming “A darling of the anti-climate movement, Baliunas has been a central scientist in the fight against action on climate change. She is used by virtually all of the Exxon-funded front groups as their scientific expert.” So we do have backup…in aggregate. The sole specific pertaining to Dr. Baliunas, in this profile anyway, is a citation on a Seattle PI story from the summer of 2003 which says,

The energy industry provides significant funding for groups that employ some of the authors or promote their new study. Soon’s co-authors were Sallie Baliunas, also from the Harvard-Smithsonian Center; Sherwood Idso and his son, Craig Idso of Tempe, Ariz., who are the former president and the current president of the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change; and David Legates, a climate researcher at the University of Delaware.

What an interesting article this is. It makes reference to a “worldwide storm of e-mail among climate scientists, some of whom have proposed organizing a research boycott.”

Boycott? Scientists inflict assault on other scientists through boycotts? I thought scientists inflicted assault upon theories, with facts. Now, why would a scientist rely on a boycott, when it would be so much more scientific to rely on facts?

You know, it’s not that this questioning of energy industry funding isn’t healthful. I think it is. And I would go so far as to say, if the scientists who are skeptical of the emerging orthodoxy of climate change, and MMGW, are interested in promulgating their skepticism — I would look to them to take the initiative in producing a study that can be held up high, as utterly clean, sanitary and pristine, untouched by energy industry funding.

Legitimate questions are to be raised by the lack of such a study.

I would chastise the other side, too: A question is not an answer. Even if the absolutism stands that any & all credentialed climate-change skeptics are tied to the energy industry — and I have strong doubts that it will, since it appears to exist only in rhetoric — this would not be proof, nor would it even be circumstantial evidence, that the ecosystem is in a catastrophic or irreversible slide into oblivion.

As it is briefly touched-upon in the FAQ (Question #10), I have a bristling disagreement with the prevailing viewpoint about what “science” is. I agree with this prevailing viewpoint that science is sealed into a pristine environment, to be untouched by the “unwashed masses.” And I further agree with the prevailing viewpoint that once science has done its work, the “unwashed masses” have a role to play in what to do with what science has found out. And it seems to just naturally follow that if science says our environment is being harmed by our actions, and our continuing survival is placed in doubt by the unchanged continuance of those actions, it’s up to the “unwashed masses” to change the actions.

Where I disagree, is the point of hand-off between the intellectual elites sealed into that pristine envrionment, and the unwashed masses. Scientists are testifying about…stuff. In my mind, it’s their place to testify about facts. And it’s also their place to testify about what the facts mean. If you lack the proper education, you lack the reliable faculties to figure out what it means when Star A is 1′13″ from Star B on June 21, and the distance between the two is 1′06″ on December 21. Certainly, if you come up with an idea of what this means, and a “real scientist” comes up with a different idea, the real scientist’s idea is going to be a great deal more credible.

But let it be noted, that the above example dealing in parallax involves simple math, in which there is one legitimate answer and an infinite number of illegitimate ones. I use the term “illegitimate” to describe an assertion that is made with an irreconcilable contradiction to available facts.

Tainted with the stench of energy industry funding, or no, climate change dissent doesn’t fall within this boundary. Climate-change skeptic scientists are “testifying” about their opinions…and that in itself is a perversion of science…and we, the unwashed masses, are being instructed to ignore what they have to say — not because their theories are irreconcilably offensive to empirical facts, but because of funding issues. Funding issues which are not always specifically stated, and are often simply suggested. Funding issues, plus the testimony of other scientists, with other opinions, who are also perverting science by testifying about their opinions.

This is a fine line. As a layman, I do not need a scientist to say “I think X.” It is critically important to me, for the scientist to say “I think X because in order to think !X, you would have to explain Fact A, B and C.” I do not have the expertise to realize that, reliably, on my own. Once Explanation W comes along, to reconcile !X with Facts A+B+C, it means very little to me when the scientist stands on his scientist-podium and says “I still believe in X, because I think Explanation W is bollywonkers.” That means nothing…or at least, nothing more than a layman saying the same thing. You find a Fact D to make new problems for Explanation W, and we’re having a different conversation. But if a scientist has an article of belief that he doesn’t like W, when he’s already invested himself against it politically, what it basically comes down to is, I don’t care.

And here, we’ve descended far, far beneath that. We’re being told Explanation W is to be discounted…because Explanation W has the fingerprints of energy industry funding.

I think there’s a saying that touches on this issue. If you have the facts on your side, pound the facts. If you have the law on your side, pound the law. If you have neither on your side, pound the table. Nobody’s given me any reason, to regard the corporate-funding slander against the climate change skeptics, as anything outside of that. None whatsoever.

Thing I Know #129. Leaders; votes; clergy; academics; pundits; prevailing sentiment; political expediency. Wherever these decide what is & isn’t true, an empire will surely fall.

Update 7/26/06: Significant overlap between the list above, and the sixty scientists who called on Canadian PM Stephen Harper to re-visit the science of global warming this April.

Also more overlap between those, and the table of names at Envirotruth.

Sphere: Related Content

No Comments »

Every Cloud Has
Wednesday, June 28th, 2006

Every Cloud Has

It may be hard to believe, but some people have been known to interpret my attention to what they say, as an unfair attack on them — even if I simply quote the exact text of what they said, word-for-word, paragraph-for-paragraph, changing nothing.

Those more sympathetic to my point of view, have criticized me — rightfully so, I think — for allowing my software-development roots to show up a little too much, when I write for the benefit of people. I’m accustomed to a discipline in which, if you leave something out, you create a “bug” — risking the Blue Screen Of Death, null pointer assignments, passing data to a subroutine in an uninitialized state, etc. — so, a good “programmer” leaves nothing out. Consequence: Once my comments are digested, there is nothing more to be said. The better I do my job, as I have applied myself to it, the shorter will be an ensuing discussion amongst people who have read my work.

Let’s address both of these critiques…although, for obvious reasons, I think much more of one of them than the other.

Hat tip to IMAO: Kevin Drum comes up with a hitherto-un-commented-upon benefit for the War on Terror, to be realized from the New York Times’ outing of the Terrorist Finance Tracking Program. Kevin Drum’s opinion is reproduced, without augmentation, deletion, or any kind of molestation whatsoever…and in spite of overwhelming temptation, without any subsequent comment from me. At all. None. Zero.

As long as I’m asking dumb questions, here’s another one. No one is going to believe me when I say that I’m not trying to grind any particular axe here, but….I’m not trying to grind any particular axe here. I’m just curious.

OK. So the New York Times has now exposed two anti-terrorist initiatives: the NSA’s domestic spying program and the Treasury Department’s financial tracking program. The administration says that exposing these programs is bad because terrorists will stop using telephones and international credit transfers now that they know the U.S. government can monitor these activities. Thus, we have fewer ways of catching bad guys.

Fine. That’s true. And yet, isn’t there an upside too? If the bad guys stop using telephones and bank transfers, doesn’t that reduce their effectiveness considerably? No phone calls, no wire transfers, satellites watching you, drones attacking out of nowhere, websites hacked, no one who can be trusted � at some point their whole operation grinds to a halt out of sheer paranoia.

Now, I assume that the people running these programs aren’t idiots. If they think that keeping them secret is a net positive, they’re probably right. But nobody even mentions the upside of exposing them. Surely there is one, isn’t there?

Sphere: Related Content

No Comments »

Morals In My Throat?
Wednesday, June 28th, 2006

Morals In My Throat?

“Republicans just want to shove their morals down everybody’s throats.” How many times have you heard that? How many times have you heard “Republicans are just pandering to the Religious Right, and the Religious Right wants to shove their morals down everybody’s throats”?

And yet…here we are on June 28, 2006. We drive to work, we have lunch wherever we want, we buy booze, we go home, we surf the “innernets” looking for “pr0n,” we have sex with our women. What, exactly, could we do without having someone else’s morals shoved down our throats, that we can’t do?

Hang on, the Republican-bashers tell us. It’s coming.

Well, Jon Stossel is kind enough to remind us of something that has come and gone, and a decade ago was not only coming, b

House of Eratosthenes

Recent

Items of Interest

Monthly Archives

What They Say

Links

Community Members

Site Admin

This Is Good XIFriday, June 30th, 2006

That Weird ShowFriday, June 30th, 2006

A Hilarious TruthFriday, June 30th, 2006

Noonan IIThursday, June 29th, 2006

Net Neutrality RejectedThursday, June 29th, 2006

On Titties and TerroristsThursday, June 29th, 2006

Memo For File XWednesday, June 28th, 2006

Every Cloud HasWednesday, June 28th, 2006

Morals In My Throat?Wednesday, June 28th, 2006

This Is Good XI
Friday, June 30th, 2006

That Weird Show
Friday, June 30th, 2006

A Hilarious Truth
Friday, June 30th, 2006

Noonan II
Thursday, June 29th, 2006

Net Neutrality Rejected
Thursday, June 29th, 2006

On Titties and Terrorists
Thursday, June 29th, 2006

Memo For File X
Wednesday, June 28th, 2006

Every Cloud Has
Wednesday, June 28th, 2006

Morals In My Throat?
Wednesday, June 28th, 2006