Thursday, 24 December 2009
Pass
As I knew they would, the editorial staff at the Taipei Times hit the 'pass' button to my challenge below. They did however, publish this letter by one Bruce Higgins.
2 comments:
Comment moderation is now in place, as of April 2012. Rules:
1) Be aware that your right to say what you want is circumscribed by my right of ownership here.
2) Make your comments relevant to the post to which they are attached.
3) Be careful what you presume: always be prepared to evince your point with logic and/or facts.
4) Do not transgress Blogger's rules regarding content, i.e. do not express hatred for other people on account of their ethnicity, age, gender, sexual orientation or nationality.
5) Remember that only the best are prepared to concede, and only the worst are prepared to smear.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Hello, Michael:
ReplyDeleteI am the 'Bruce Higgins' refrered to.
The ironic thing to me is that, after all the poison spewed by Dr. Walther (and in my view entirely contrary to what people playing on their credentials as PhDs should do), he ends up supporting a central proposal Lomborg has made.
I see others heading this way, as well, after Copenhagen, but my guess is that those who profess most ardently about saving the planet will loose interest in the dirty, mundane (and less expensive) tasks of actually raising the lot of humanity. Much of this movement seems to be fueled by 'joiners' who may not really have any thoughts of their own about the cause, but feel a great hunger for life to matter.
And, as Phil Jones often wrote, "Cheers."
Bruce
Bruce,
ReplyDeleteYes, Walther could "hardly believe it himself". His is yet another example of parenthetical oughtism - he has no grasp of economics or politics and thus cannot conceive of the implications of his position beyond the parenthetical of >Co2=bad. Indulge me another example...
I recently had opportunity to talk with a senior person in one of Taiwan's largest solar energy companies. He was in complete agreement with me about the value of investment in modern nuclear plants (despite the obvious disadvantage this may pose to his own industry), yet he looked stunned by my insistence on the importance of cutting back government spending. The thought that there may be some connection between the two seemed as if it had never occurred to him before.
Is this all the fault of specialization in the sciences? I don't know, but it is no shock to me to find confirmatory evidence of what knowledge coupled with ignorance tends to result in.
best,
mike