Slashdot Mirror
Climate Data Re-examined (updated)
An anonymous reader writes "An important paper that re-examines historical climate data was published on 28 October in the respected journal Energy & Environment. (The paper is also available here.) According to an article in Canada's National Post, the paper shows that a "pillar of the Kyoto Accord is based on false calculations, incorrect data and an overtly biased selection of climate records." (USA Today also has a story.) This paper will undoubtedly be controversial and should stir a vigourous data review." Update: 11/05 14:54 GMT by T : newyhouse points out a similarly contrarian 2001 Economist article by Bjorn Lomborg, author of The Skeptical Environmentalist .
No, you're right, there's been so much evidence that they *are* evil incarnate that it would have to be something pretty spectacular.
Bush himself I don't consider that evil, just dumb and weak willed. Its the others around him that trouble me. Of course its entirely possible that an administration made up of a group of people closely connected with the oil industry, many of whom have had significant positions in major energy companies, could be unbiased and working for the betterment of mankind. However, it doesn't really seem all that likely, does it? I tell you what, if, after Dubbya is hopefully (please Jesus Buddha Allah I love you all) tossed out of office next year, these guys own as many shares in renewable energy companies as they do in oil companies, I'll admit they're not evil.
Meanwhile, here's a picture for you.
Read Pynchon.
You're mighty brave in cyberspace, anonymous boy (or girl). Of course if I dare criticise the mighty Republican Empire I must be a Frenchy loving eurotrash kneejerk liberal. Why don't you include the fact that French people smell like garlic and are cowards in wartime, too? Well, I guess we'll call it even then, you sure showed me with your well reasoned arguments.
By the way, good to see you are still able to justify unilateral warmongering to stop evil regimes who might commit such heinous acts as... unilateral warmongering. If only my mind was as elastic as yours, I might be a conservative too. Unfortunately I suffer from this weird mental inflexibility... I like to call it consistency. It teaches me that only governments who have not backed and in some cases installed fascist dictators and military regimes, and also launched repeated unilateral wars against sovereign states get to go around preaching about peace, democracy, and non-aggression.
Read Pynchon.
Well, I think it is perfectly natural that the rest of the world is afraid of US domination. Imagine if the Russians had won the Cold War and America was a smoking shell of an economy - how would you feel about Soviet domination of all foreign policy issues? How frightening would it be to see a huge foreign nation militarily intervening wherever and whenever it pleased with no chance for anyone to stop or defeat it?
Of course Europeans see checking US power as crucial.
I do not believe the US government gave a damn about Saddam being a brutal dictator. The US supported him in various ways, including militarily, for many years before 1991. If you are dismayed by mistrust, you should consider why America has lost the trust of its non-core allies (i.e. everyone but the UK and Australia). There is a long history of US support for exactly the type of regime Hussein ran in Iraq.
I find it unbelievable that you never heard the US described as a superpower. In many international law academic circles the US is often called a 'hyperpower' now to reflect its total military dominance.
Read Pynchon.
The real issue here is about power. Both sides want the political power to control environmental policy decisions and will do whatever it takes to grab and keep that power. There's no moral high ground here, and anyone who claims their position is absolutely right and that's not negotiable, is clearly viewing this as a religious war.
It's interesting to me that all the terrorists (radical Islam, Green Peace, neo-Nazi's, Stalin-brand communists, and even the medievel "crusaders", to name a few) are in it for religious reasons. And to the man (or woman), they are convinced that they are acting in their victims best interest.
Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their consciences.
-- C. S. Lewis