About Me

Name: John Ostrowski
Biography
Loading...

Create Your Own Blog Find Other Townhall Blogs

Comments

Archives

Do-not-listen-list: eco-fanatics

Michael Asher over at DailyTech has a blog post claiming that a new study on global warming-related articles in scientific journals shows that less than half of the articles are either implicitly or explicitly pro-anthropogenic global warming.

Of 528 total papers on climate change, only 38 (7%) gave an explicit endorsement of the consensus. If one considers "implicit" endorsement (accepting the consensus without explicit statement), the figure rises to 45%. However, while only 32 papers (6%) reject the consensus outright, the largest category  (48%) are neutral papers, refusing to either accept or reject the hypothesis.  This is no "consensus."

Finally, cooler heads are actually starting to prevail. Asher contrasts this with IPCC's claim that it is 90% likely that recent warming is anthropogenic in nature and with previous studies that have showed a much higher acceptance of the eco-fanatic line.

Now, what we need to start thinking about are social sanctions against the nutcases that have been hyping up global warming, scaring people into believing them, bilking "socially conscious" citizens out of millions via carbon credits, and extracting billions from the government for research.

My proposal: a Do-Not-Listen list. This would not be anything official, because the last thing we need are more laws/bureaucracy. Instead, we would simply publish the names of the most notorious fear-mongers in the environmental community. Of course, first and foremost would be Al Gore. In the future, any claims these people made would simply be ignored by anyone who had read the list. Enviro-whackos have fooled the public too many times -- DDT, overpopulation, global cooling, global warming, nuclear power, etc. For some reason, people continue to listen to them. Any blatant eco-fanatics that need to be on the list besides Gore that you can think of?
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

More on Michael Vick: the problem of the collective

It has recently become much clearer to me exactly why Michael Vick should not be in trouble. In our current legal system, prosecutors act in the name of a collective -- i.e. The People v. John Doe. Why? In a more perfect system, prosecutors would act on behalf of victims in pursuit of restitution for damages done by the offender. There would be no public financing of prosecution or defense. Citizens would either pay for their own lawyer, or rely on citizens' groups or charities for finance (perhaps some sort of insurance system?).

Either way, as it currently works, the prosecution's actions on behalf of "the people" or "society" blur exactly who is being helped here. In the case of Michael Vick, the prosecution is clearly not acting on behalf of the victims, for the victims are dead dogs. Given that they are dogs, they do not have the legal status that would allow them to collect restitution anyhow. We can therefore throw out any preposterous ideas that include collecting restitution on behalf of the dogs' families. If a better legal system were in place, then, no one would be charging Michael Vick on behalf of the dogs, unless we changed our entire conception of personhood to include dogs and other pets. Let Michael Vick go, and focus on the real criminals.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Your property or your equal?

How, exactly, should the law characterize pets? Property or equals. Either we accept that pets are property, subject completely to the control of their owner, or we get into all sorts of difficult problems. For example, if not property, are they really equals given that they have no free will? In fact, not only have they never possessed free will, they never had the natural capacity to possess it. If less than equals, what treatment are they entitled to? Humane treatment? Must we do what is best for them, given that a domesticated animal may be unable to care for itself. This seems reasonable, until one considers caging animals. Are we caging our pets for their sake, or for our own? Perhaps sometimes it is both, but oftentimes it is for our own good. And what about euthanization? Surely it is usually done to put the animal out of misery, but sometimes it is not? There is no real way to classify animals as non-property. They are not equals, and the law should not seek to restrict human behavior concerning non-human living things, given that other humans are not injured.

Why am I bringing this up? Well, of course, the Michael Vick case. One might say, the concept of dog fighting is so obviously malovelent (in regards to the dog's welfare) that it should be illegal. How do you know this? I have been operating under the assumption that dogs (and other non-human animals) are controlled mostly by environmental-stimulus-and-response. This is why I have denied that they have free will. How do we know that there is not some positive physiological response in dogs to fighting other dogs? And even if we did know, we still must come up with a consistent philosophy for animals that centers that someplace between property and equal.

For some reason, humans have a pathetic response to images of animals in pain. We get broken up. As a comedian once pointed out (Chris Rock, perhaps?), a good number of people responded more emotionally when watching a dog gassed by al-Qaeda than they did when watching the towers fall. Why? Shouldn't we be beyond basing legislation off of feelings (this assumes, of course, that governmental legislation is necessary at all, which I don't believe, but will pretend I'm a minarchist)? Several writers have pointed out that Vick made the mistake of killing dogs and not people. If he had killed people instead, he would have been accepting an award from Planned Parenthood or NARAL right now, instead of pleading for mercy on national television. Poor, poor Michael Vick, another victim of statism and human sentimentality.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

New York Authoritarianism

I found two interesting stories today that are relatively unrelated, but have in common New York authoritarians.

The first, from the Reason blog is this bit on Giuliani that they found in an old New York Times article. Says the former mayor:

We look upon authority too often and focus over and over again, for 30 or 40 or 50 years, as if there is something wrong with authority. We see only the oppressive side of authority. Maybe it comes out of our history and our background. What we don't see is that freedom is not a concept in which people can do anything they want, be anything they can be. Freedom is about authority. Freedom is about the willingness of every single human being to cede to lawful authority a great deal of discretion about what you do.

"Freedom is about authority."

WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH

All hail Big Brother Giuliani (who will play his Goldstein if he is elected?).

Also, more from Bloomberg's Nanny State comes this story in the NY Sun. Apparently, a councilman from Queens wants to ban smoking in cars when there are passengers under the age of 18 in the car.

Sayeth the wise council member, James Gennaro:

"I am just seeking every opportunity I can to denormalize smoking and to try to put it out of the reach of kids ... I've lost family members to lung cancer and I've seen what happens."

As long as you've seen what happens and know better than us Mr. Gennaro, then I  suppose we should let you make decisions for us.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Crazy animal activists

Usually good for a laugh, now they're getting downright scary:

Rosenbaum, a highly regarded pediatric ophthalmologist who had been regularly harassed by animal-rights activists for his research work with cats and rhesus monkeys at the Jules Stein Eye Institute at UCLA, noticed a device underneath his luxury sedan. The bomb squad was dispatched to the scene and hauled away a makeshift — but deadly — explosive. A faulty fuse was the only reason it didn’t go off.

Aren't humans animals too? I suppose this sort of hypocrisy doesn't bother the idiot extremists who compromise the far end of the animal rights movement. Witness one of their “communiqués":

We have seen by our own eyes the torture on fully concious primates in his lab ... We have seen hell and its in Rosenbaums lab ... Look up Arthur Rosenbaum to find out about his experiment from two thousand four threw two thousand seven. ‘animal liberation brigade’

Maybe they haven't heard of spell check. Or proofreading. Either way, they're stupid as well as evil.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Newsweek: voice of the state

After about 20 "Final Notices," my subscription to Newsweek ended. I had subscribed for two years to the "mainstream" weekly news magazine that falls furthest to the left because I though balance was good. Along with my changing beliefs has come the realization that Newsweek  is not so much liberal as it is pro-state. Anyway, it's a shame my subscription has ended, because the most recent issue has done a particularly good job of reinforcing the image of it I've come to hold -- that of a propaganda rag for the establishment.

"The Truth About Denial" is what the article that really caught my attention is called. It purports to reveal all the true motivations behind those skeptical of global warming. In reality, it reads like a hit piece written by some disgruntled green activist (one without any background in science whatsoever). It's really a site to behold -- it's an article filled to the brim with anti-"denial" quotes, but nary one defending those skeptics who think prudence and good sense should win this battle. There is nothing balanced about the reporting job done here. I don't know where in the paper copy of Newsweek it falls, but I would hope in the opinion section. Consider some choice quotes [I've added my own comments in brackets]:

A conservative think tank long funded by ExxonMobil, she told Boxer, had offered scientists $10,000 to write articles undercutting the new report and the computer-based climate models it is based on. "I realized," says Boxer, "there was a movement behind this that just wasn't giving up."


[The "conservative think tank" they are referring to is the AEI, which is not so much conservative as neoconservative, meaning not conservative at all. Nonetheless, according to the leftist Source Watch, Exxon Mobil donated $252,500 to the AEI in 2001. This is compared to the $30 million that AEI has received from other large donors. How this makes AEI funded by Exxon Mobil is beyond me.]

...

But outside Hollywood, Manhattan and other habitats of the chattering classes, the denial machine is running at full throttle—and continuing to shape both government policy and public opinion.

[If all else fails, accuse your opponents of running a "machine" that has much more power than is actually possible. No need for real debate here, ad hominems are enough for Newsweek.]

...

"There was an extraordinary campaign by the denial machine to find and hire scientists to sow dissent and make it appear that the research community was deeply divided," says Dan Becker of the Sierra Club.

[Couldn't find a more non-partisan source than the Sierra Club, no-siree.]

...

In what would become a key tactic of the denial machine—think tanks linking up with like-minded, contrarian researchers—the report was endorsed in a letter to President George H.W. Bush by MIT meteorologist Richard Lindzen. Lindzen, whose parents had fled Hitler's Germany, is described by old friends as the kind of man who, if you're in the minority, opts to be with you.

[Crafy, crafty Newsweek. They have denied the importance of an MIT meteorologist by stating that he likes being in the minority. And having already discredited him, Newsweek is above responding to his (correct) observation about Kyoto:]

After the about-face, MIT's Lindzen told NEWSWEEK in 2001, he was summoned to the White House. He told Bush he'd done the right thing. Even if you accept the doomsday forecasts, Lindzen said, Kyoto would hardly touch the rise in temperatures. The treaty, he said, would "do nothing, at great expense."

In no way can this embarrassment of a story be called objective journalism. It is propaganda pure and simple:

- It cites the Sierra Club and various Democratic/pro-global warming Republicans, but not any skeptics.

- It makes no attempt to refute the scientific arguments put forth by skeptics, opting instead only to attack their funding and motivations. This is a classic ad hominem attack. Continuing in this vein, Newsweek repeatedly refers to skeptics or those opposed in any way to the establishment line on global warming as "deniers" who are part of a large "machine."

- It makes no attempt at introspection. Billions and billions of government money is going to global warming research. If the threat is found to be nonexistent, the funding disappears. Also, government can justify tax increases by telling the public they will be fighting global warming (well, they could if the public bought the establishment line; in the story, Newsweek is forced to admit that the "denial machine" has been successful in keeping the public skeptical of apocalyptic fantasies that the green/media/government cabal wants you to entertain).

Newsweek never ranked very highly with me, but this story makes them sink even lower.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (1) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive
« Previous1Next »