Monday, February 26, 2007

A Convenient Truth
Mike Rappaport

I haven't seen An Inconvenient Truth.  I assume the title is meant to refer to the fact that global warming is an inconvenient truth that must be addressed, even though we wish we didn't have to.  It is this aspect of the title that bothers me, because it seems to me that, for many people in the environmental movement, global warming is a Convenient Truth.  As David Friedman said, and I quoted a couple of days ago:

Global warming provides arguments for things that a lot of people, mostly left of center, want to do anyway—shift lifestyles away from automobiles towards mass transit, reduce consumption of depletable resources, and the like. Environmentalism is in part a real argument, in part a religion, in part an aesthetic; the second and third parts make people too willing to accept the first.

Saying it is an inconvenient truth, like they feel real bad about cutting back on these aspects of modern life, is just spin. 

https://rightcoast.typepad.com/rightcoast/2007/02/a_convenient_tr.html

| Permalink

TrackBack URL for this entry:

https://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341bf6e253ef00d834e838fb53ef

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference A Convenient Truth
Mike Rappaport
:

Comments

Your comments about global warming are starting to paint you as a curmudgeon. After reading many of your posts on global warming, this seems to summarize your position:

"I don't think global warming is happening because a lot of scientists think that it is happening and they are very passionate about it. Of course, I don't need to be an expert (or even well read) in climate science to dismiss their work because I've seen similar behavior before and its turned out that the believers were wrong. True, there may be tens of thousands of people researching climate science and there may be dozens of lines of analysis that lead one to the same conclusions but all of that is not relevant. One only needs to look at the group's passion and some individuals who are ridiculed. True, there are lots of areas where the passionate scientists were right, such as natural selection/common descent/evolution, but counter examples don't refute my premise. It also doesn't make any difference that in many areas (such as plate tectoics and astrophysics (universe is expanding)), one lone, passionate scientist was accepted because others looked at his data and eventually came to the same conclusion as him because the data supported his theory and not others."

"And finally, I don't need to see An Inconvenient Truth to know that I won't like it. The stuff I heard on Ebert and Roeper was enough to convince me."

Posted by: David | Mar 1, 2007 9:24:40 AM