Gus Van Horn

Glenn Reynolds points to a news story detailing the numerous conflicts of interest of one Rajendra Kumar Pachauri, an IPCC official. Reynolds rightly notes his abuse of government power as he quotes from the article:

In December 2007, [Pachauri] became a member of the Senior Advisory Board of Siderian ventures based in San Francisco. This is a venture capital business owned by the Dutch multinational business incubator and operator in sustainable technology, Tendris Holding, itself part-owned by electronics giant Philips. It acquired a minority interest in January 2009 in order to "explore new business opportunities in the area of sustainability." As a member of the Senior Advisory Board of Siderian, Dr Pachauri is expected to provide the Fund and its portfolio companies "with access, standing and industry exposure at the highest level."

I have no quarrel with Reynolds, but I do have a question.

If, as Wikipedia puts it at the start of its article on the subject, "A conflict of interest ... occurs when an individual or organization is involved in multiple interests, one of which could possibly corrupt the motivation for an act in the other," [formatting dropped] when will people stop taking for granted government funding and "supervision" of science, and start to ask whether and when one's involvement in both government and science can constitute a conflict of interest?

The answer to that question is possible only with a proper understanding of the nature (the only social institution that can legally wield retaliatory force) and proper role (to protect individual rights) of government.

The answer is not always, No. For example, a scientist working as a patent examiner is acting in a manner proper to both a scientist and a government official by bringing his expertise to bear on how to protect the rights of inventors. A scientist who performs research for the Department of Defense on how to make a smart bomb is being paid to perform a legitimate function of the government (national defense) that happens to coincide with his research interests. In each case, there are objective ways to detect, deter, and punish conflicts of interest.

But a scientist receiving government funding for climate research is -- in today's context of a government-controlled economy -- in a postition to "justify" vast new plundering and control by the government with his findings or even just a willingness to sew panic. He is paid by what is effectively a giant guild of thieves intent on finding a ready excuse to plunder even more.

As the nation speaks of "going Galt" regarding the Bush-Obama economic crisis, perhaps it should remember another figure from Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged regarding Copenhagen, ClimateGate or not:

"Why did you refuse to work for Dr. Stadler?" she asked.

The hint of his smile grew harder and more stressed; this was as near as he came to showing an emotion; the emotion was anger. But he answered in his even, unhurried drawl, "You know, Dr. Stadler once said that the first word of 'Free, scientific inquiry' was redundant. He seems to have forgotten it. Well, I'll just say that 'Governmental scientific inquiry' is a contradiction in terms." (p. 355)

The second speaker and the name Copenhagen ought to bring to mind is Quentin Daniels: He refused to work for a once-great scientist who sold out by accepting state control of science.

Advocates of big government, including the vast majority of today's scientists, see state funding removing many financial constraints from their work, but they fail to recognize that this is inherently a devil's bargain. Many will object that private benefactors or corporate employers would exercise too much control over their work in the form of being interested in certain types of results -- while ignoring the fact that this will be true of any sponsor of scientific research. (Otherwise, why not just hand money out to any passer-by?)

To them, I pose the following question: What is a cleaner motive for funding research? The hope that valid results will lead to profit from free trade or the hope that spin will lead to plundered loot and coercive power?

-- CAV

Posted at 5:00 AM. Permalink | Comments (2) Backlinks

Admin Note

As a reminder: I'm starting a new job today. Blogging may be irregular for a while and comment moderation may be slow -- but I will get to them! This place was quite the drawing room last week, with two very interesting threads on global warming and one on education/job hunting.

I'll do whatever I can to keep that going.

Extremes in Living Arrangements

I wouldn't want to live like they do, but I still found it fascinating to read about how one New York couple has managed to make their 175 square foot "microstudio" apartment work as its primary home:

"We don't cook," Zaarath said, adding that their fridge never has any food in it. "So when you don't cook, you don't need plates or pots or pans. So we use that space for our clothes."

Once in their running attire, the two change the cat litter box (stored under the sink) and start their small Rumba vacuum -- which operates automatically while they're out, picking up cat hair.

They then jog to their jobs in Midtown, picking up along the way their work clothes, which are "strategically stashed at various dry cleaners."

Just in case the cleaners are closed, both have emergency clothes at their offices.

And I thought we lived in cramped quarters in Bean Town!

At the opposite extreme is Jay Walker's library:

Stuffed with landmark tomes and eye-grabbing historical objects—on the walls, on tables, standing on the floor—the room occupies about 3,600 square feet on three mazelike levels. Is that a Sputnik? (Yes.) Hey, those books appear to be bound in rubies. (They are.) That edition of Chaucer ... is it a Kelmscott? (Natch.) Gee, that chandelier looks like the one in the James Bond flick Die Another Day. (Because it is.) [link dropped]

And, yes, there are pictures at the link!

And if that isn't enough for you, I also ran into a list of the world's eighteen strangest houses. Haven't looked at it yet, so this is as much a reminder to myself as anything else.

The Other Side of ClimateGate

If for no other reason than to see what the global warming alarmists will say to rebut ClimateGate, watch the following video.


Once you get past the condescending tone, it is interesting that even that video concedes there might be some wrongdoing. On the other hand, it makes an argument that prima facie seems reasonable on the count of "trick" simply meaning something like, "hack." Whether that's an honest argument remains to be seen.

Also, Keith Lockitch has an interesting post on the "conspiracy theory" meme I also noticed a while back: "The conspirators are united not by a secret plot, but by a shared philosophy that they promote openly and self-righteously: the philosophy of environmentalism."

Religious Right Shot Down in H-Town

In a dull-as-dishwater race between Tweedledee and Tweedledum that drew a whopping 16.5% voter turnout, Houston has become the largest American city to elect an openly gay mayor.

Parker, 53, has never made a secret or an issue of her sexual orientation. But it became the focus of the race after anti-gay activists and conservative religious groups endorsed Locke and sent out mailers condemning Parker's "homosexual behavior."

Locke, 61, tried to distance himself from the anti-gay attacks while courting conservative voters who could tip the election in his favor. Meanwhile, gay and lesbian political organizations nationwide rallied to support Parker by raising money for her campaign and making calls urging people to vote.

The story makes much of Houston's demographic makeup and the fact that most of its voters are Democrats, but that misses the point about Houston, which has long been (relatively speaking) a hotbed of capitalism and a pretty socially tolerant place.

I see two stories that this report missed: First, I would hazard to guess that more voters were repelled by Gene Locke's Bible-thumping supporters trying to make hay out of Anise Parker's sexual orientation than were intent on making a statement by voting for Parker. Second, Houston is long past the need to make such a statement.

But I repeat myself.

Recipe Update

In failing to follow my own instructions last night, I may have solved a problem with the Marrakech Lamb Stew I posted not too long ago. It tasted just about right last night, so I revised the recipe. (I can't completely rule out having missed a key spice the first couple of times I made it, but skipping the step also was convenient.)

Also, David Veksler posts an interesting Swiss Steak recipe I might try some time soon, assuming I can find venison. I guess that will be the goal of my next foray to Whole Foods...

-- CAV

Posted at 5:01 AM. Permalink | Comments (2) Backlinks

Editor's Note: Apologies for the late post. We suffered a DSL outage this morning due to a fire in a manhole somewhere in our neighborhood last night. I'm having to post this over email and will be unable to check my main email account or moderate comments until the telecom company repairs the fiber optics. Thank you for your patience.

Ever since college, I have either worked for the government or in academia. In fact, until I left Houston, I was an academic scientist. But several years ago, I determined that, although I find science interesting, I don't want to remain in academia. There were many things that went into this decision, but I will not belabor them here. The point is that I made the decision long ago, but for a variety of reasons, could not act on it until my move to Boston.

Since I do not discuss my job (at all) or my personal life (beyond a certain point) here, I will also not lay out my exact career objectives. Suffice it to say that the career change I want will most likely involve several steps. Also, there are several alternate paths I could take to meet those objectives. This is because my area of expertise and experience differ too much from what I ultimately would like to do for me to be able to expect to make the entire transition all at once. In any event, thanks to some patient networking and a technological advance I had not heard about, I am happy to say that I can finally take Step One.

The really strange thing is that I am also getting to try one of the paths that I thought was all but closed off to me. And the great thing is that the position is temporary. It might sound counterintuitive, but this works to my advantage in numerous ways. Among them: (1) There is always the potential that the job could become permanent or lead me to another permanent job with the same company based on personal familiarity and the high quality of my work. (2) And yet, because it's temporary, my employer cannot reasonably expect me not to keep looking for work in the other path I was concentrating on (and which I suspect I might prefer). (3) I will be able to list some new skills and industrial experience on my resume. (4) I am now aware of a new type of job for people like me, and know that some Boston-area firms need it done. (5) And, yes, I will be getting paid -- paid, in fact, better than I ever have for anything in my entire life. It isn't riches, but it isn't chickenfeed, either.

I am a bioscientist, which to anyone familiar with Boston, might make getting a biotech job in the area sound like a no-brainer despite the state of the economy. Well, yes and no. My area of expertise and laboratory experience occupy an unusual niche, which recent moves by a couple of major pharmaceutical firms had caused to all but evaporate from the local job market: Those jobs mostly went out of state shortly before I arrived here, making me something of a square peg for a round hole as far as industrial jobs went. As a result, I was almost certain that my next job would lie on one of the other paths I saw myself taking.

In fact, it had gotten to the point that whenever I would meet an industrial recruiter, I'd describe my expertise and end with the following quip, "If that made any sense to you, you know what I do, and if it didn't, you see what my problem is!" I have since met a recruiter who will be able to help me, but my landing this job happened first and is a great example of the maxim, "Fortune favors the prepared mind," in action.

Some time ago -- perhaps as much as a year ago -- a blogging friend (Resident Egoist) who was aware that I was job hunting emailed me to the effect that I really ought to take a look at Nick Corcodilos's Ask the Headhunter web site. I did, and I devoured the Headhunter's contrarian, yet very well thought-out advice. It did not all apply to me, but his words about networking really opened my eyes and caused me to approach my problem in a much more deliberate and patient way.

My focus became getting to know other people like me in occupations I might be interested and qualified in, rather than bottom-feeding from the slim pickings on the Internet job boards. (That said, one such board nevertheless may have already led me to my next position. It will probably take about as much time as my temporary job will last for that process to unfold, however. Moral: Know which weapons are better, but be ready to use any of them. And no, I haven't stopped looking.)

One of my local contacts -- I'll call him Jim -- I met at a networking event back in February or March. A fellow PhD, he and I commiserated a little bit about how our degrees often priced us out of the market and discussed my (then) upcoming move. We exchanged cards and broke off to circulate, and I didn't actually meet him again until very recently.

By the time I actually moved here, I had acquired a very nice group of contacts, and at the urging of my father-in-law, who was a great sounding board the whole time, I emailed my contacts and basically said, "Hey! I'm finally here and I'm looking for [fill in whatever whoever might be able to help me find]. Here's my resume. Let me know if you hear about anything." Nobody replied for weeks, but eventually Jim did, with a job his recruiter had brought to his attention. The recruiter didn't quite know how to fill his client's opening: What they needed was outside Jim's skill set, but, fortunately, mostly well within mine.

Jim referred me to his recruiter and I got an interview through him. The interview seemed to go pretty well. I even knew several people that my prospective boss had also worked with in the past. I was pretty excited as I left. But then that company went in-house. That was tough: All this time, and my job interview count was still lower than the number of tropical storms I'd had to run from while I was finishing up my work in Houston! And this interview came up snake eyes!

Luckily for me, the in-house guy didn't work out for them and so they asked about me, their top outside candidate. I start Monday and I may have to put in some long hours at first -- and I probably will have a few blogging hiccups until I settle in to a routine. But that's a relatively minor problem for my writing career that I'm more than happy to put up with for a while.

To end on a positive note, I wish to thank Resident Egoist and my father-in-law for helping me learn how to job hunt, which is something academia does not prepare one to do very well, and especially my wife for her love, patience, and support during what has been in some respects a very difficult and frustrating time for me.

And my contacts, especially Jim, even though most don't know about my blogging. I never forget a good turn.

-- CAV

Updates

12-12-09: Removed superfluous HTML tags.

Posted at 12:15 PM. Permalink | Comments (22) Backlinks

"If you value X, then you have to agree with everything I say about Y."

Someone left the following very astute comment to a recent post of mine:

[T]he environmentalists have seized upon global warming as a flagship issue is precisely because it is hard to understand. The better to befuddle their opponents. [minor format edit]

I completely agree that this is the case. Understanding a complex piece of science like global warming is very difficult: There can be major (and perfectly honest) disagreements between experts in the field, mistakes on lower levels than the theoretical, outright fraud, and even whole areas that do not admit of ready investigation at the current level of technology.

Add to that the usual difficulties of making any political argument and the fact that laymen familiar enough with one side of such a scientific argument will often become all but unreachable because there is no way to know every detail of every nook and cranny of a scientific literature (and thus not look foolish to them). What better way could there be to cause one's opponents to waste valuable time and effort than to give them an endless reading assignment consisting of (often poorly-written) academic papers?

This is all true, but until I learned that Senator Harry Reid had "doubled down" on a particularly asinine comment likening opposition to Obamacare to opposition to the end of slavery, I felt like I was missing part of the exact method of argument, which I haven't fully conceptualized yet:

"At pivotal points in American history, the tactics of distortion and delay have certainly been present," Reid said. "They've certainly been used to stop progress. That's what we're talking about here. That's what's happening here. It's very clear. That's the point I made -- no more, no less. Anyone who willingly distorts my comments is only proving my point."

One one level, Reid is not doing the same thing as the warmists. There is no package dealing of a scientific question with one of political philosophy. For example, this debate hasn't included massive reading of medical literature by both sides. Nevertheless, Reid is clearly -- like the warmists -- indulging in a species of the argument from intimidation. But he adds a twist similar to what we see from the global warming alarmists. Who wants slavery? Who doesn't value progress?

And who doesn't value the earth we live on? Reid and the alarmists are, as incredible as it might sound, using self-interest as a means of inducing unearned guilt, and they are doing it by attempting to make people doubt that they are being conscientious enough about what they value. In a culture where most people have poorly-defined values (and even senses of self) and are thus not used to thinking deeply about their own self-interest, such a tactic, I suspect, is highly effective.

To love is to value, which is to understand the full nature of that which one values. (And regarding "full nature," it is crucial to reject omniscience as the standard of knowledge.) In the case of global warming, the question everyone who tries to become a climatological expert will fail to get (along with omniscience) from the scientific literature is: "What is the earth for?" On a metaphysical level, it has no purpose, of course, but on the ethical level, it does: To help us live. And living, for rational animals, consists in much more than the "sustainable" subsistence-level existence (if that) promoted by global warming hysterics.

If we are dead (or physically alive, but miserable), we accomplish no good by adopting the warmists' recommendations. This is very interesting to note since we haven't even reached the level of politics in the philosophical hierarchy! On that level, the current proposed "solutions" to global warming are out the window on the grounds that they violate individual rights.

There is an important difference between agreeing on principles and agreeing on how to apply them. Both matters can involve honest mistakes or evasion. (And the latter, at the personal level can also involve matters of personal taste, but this is not important here.) For example, if we grant, arguendo, that Harry Reid favors progress, we would have to say at minimum that he misunderstands the nature of progress or is misapplying the concept in some way when he equates it with what is in fact physician slavery.

Book Reviews

Fun with Gravity recently reviewed Jennifer Burns's Goddess of the Market, and The Objective Standard is making Robert Mayhew's Winter 2009 issue review of same publicly available from its web site.

I am also pleased to announce that my review of Ian Plimer's Heaven and Earth also appears in the print edition of the same issue of TOS.

More Government Corruption of Science

On the one hand, the simple fact that a scientist works for private industry as opposed to the government or academia (which is functionally almost the same thing as working for the government now) does not impugn his motives. Barring independent wealth, we all have to work for somebody, don't we?

That said, the common (and inverted) leftist premise that the government is somehow the guardian of scientific impartiality is -- finally -- being called into question by ClimateGate.

Might there now be a SwineGate to go along with ClimateGate?

World Health Organization scientists are suspected of accepting secret bribes from vaccine manufacturers to influence the U.N. organization's H1N1 pandemic declaration, according to Danish and Swedish newspapers.

Yes, but only if intellectual activists make the point whenever possible that the bribery was made possible by government interference in medicine in the first place.

In a truly free medical sector, there would probably be something like WHO in its role of keeping an eye out for epidemics and the like, but that "something" would also be non-governmental, like a Consumers' Union. If it cried "wolf" enough, people would stop listening to it and be free to move to a more conscientious and reliable body of scientists for advice on such matters. Such an organization would have a financial incentive -- that WHO does not have -- to avoid bribery and it would lack the backing of government power that WHO does possess.

As things stand now, though, the pharmaceutical firms involved, though not innocent, are getting more than their share of the blame and innocent firms are unjustly suffering "guilt" by association.

Obama Warns of "Command and Control"

It's bad when President Obama warns against too much government control, and worse that neither he nor anyone else has proposed abolishing or at least severely curtailing the powers of the EPA.

Or would that fall under "frightening" the American people too much?

What Obama is really doing instead is using the impending EPA rules to make whatever the Democrats can cook up instead seem reasonable -- as if nothing can be done about the EPA.

A Smooth Road in South Africa?

There are no excuses for the American national soccer team to fail to make a respectable showing in the 2010 World Cup: They drew an easy set of first round opponents:

U.S. national soccer coach Bob Bradley usually has a permanent scowl etched across his face, his lower lip scrunched into his upper lip like he just sucked on a lemon or got a bad meat pie from a Cape Town street vendor.

But yesterday he couldn’t help himself. He broke into a broad smile.

He caught himself, pursed his lips, furrowed his brow ... and lost the battle again. Another smile escaped.

Hard to fault him, though, after the draw for soccer's 2010 World Cup handed the Yanks one heavyweight (England) and two junior flyweights (Slovenia and Algeria) in Group C of the first round.

As an added bonus for me, anyway, England, the team I default to whenever "the Yanks" get yanked, is almost certain to make it to the next round -- especially if our side blows it again.

Objectivist Roundup

It's at Titanic Deck Chairs this week.

-- CAV

Updates

Today: Corrected a typo and added link to roundup.

Posted at 7:03 AM. Permalink | Comments (25) Backlinks

A small bit of news has me pondering cultural activism at the one-on-one level...

The Senate debate on physician slavery continues, yesterday's events possibly setting one pressure group, anti-abortionists, against the bill.

The Senate narrowly rejected an amendment that would have restricted abortion coverage in the pending health-care bill, leaving in question whether Majority Leader Harry Reid (Nev.) has the 60 votes needed to move the bill toward final passage.

This is what passes for good news in the barely-civil free-for-all that is pressure group warfare over loot stolen from productive men by a government turned against them. Anti-abortionists, most notably Roman Catholic bishops, who would otherwise support the bill, have said that they will not support a bill that provides tax money for abortions.

In being on the right side of this debate for the wrong reason, the anti-abortionists accidentally allude to a valid point. The real motive of the stance is, of course, abhorrent: The establishment of a theocratic welfare state. Nevertheless, I would hardly be surprised if some people with a mixture of philosophical premises that included many elements of individualism might sympathize with the stand (regardless of their personal views on abortion) for a reason on the order of, "Why should they -- or anyone else -- be forced to pay money for something to which they are morally opposed?" After all, this stand has to be premised in part on religious freedom, which stems from freedom of conscience.

Only in that context could I possibly sympathize with such a stand, and only if, after I indicate that I oppose being forced to put my money where the mouths of the altruists are, he concedes that I have a good point. "Indeed. Nobody should be forced to pay for someone else's abortion or perform one against his will, but I take things further: I oppose the idea that I should be forced to cover any of your medical expenses, or you mine. Should I be forced to pay for socialized medicine any more than a Catholic should be forced to participate in an abortion?"

I suspect that I will more likely get a nod of agreement, or at least provoke thought, from someone who sees abortion as a matter best left to the individual, at least on the political level.

The bishops oppose government funding only for some things, but they do not oppose it in principle. This inconsistency, necessitated by the war on reality that is their moral code, opens them up to inconvenient questions any time it comes up in the guise of them superficially agreeing with me. All one has to do is ask two questions ("Why do they want X? Why do I want X?), compare the answers, and then look for a chance to call their inherent bluff. Often, the context they have just dropped will supply such a chance.

This possibly convenient obstruction to efforts to establish physician slavery can only buy time. Use it wisely.

-- CAV

Posted at 6:41 AM. Permalink | Comments (8) Backlinks

RealClear Politics posts a link to an article by George Monbiot in The Guardian in which the noted advocate of government controls premised on global warming moves from defense to offense in the aftermath of the breaking of the ClimateGate scandal. I had earlier noted here that I found that an earlier response of his to the leaked emails at least bore some resemblance to what that of a conscientious scientist would be like.

But the global warming debate is a confused mess of state-funded science and pressure group warfare, and Monbiot is firmly in the government coercion camp of the political debate. Today, we see how he reacts as the political activist he is. I must say that I find him much more disappointing on this level.

Monbiot's piece takes three observations as his point of departure. Here they are below, listed as bullet points directly from his piece. I follow each with my brief response in bold.

• The first is the tendency of those who claim to be the champions of climate science to minimise [the] importance [of the leaked emails]. True.
• The second observation is the tendency of those who don't give a fig about science to maximise their importance. Also true, and, moreover, even some who do care about the science might be jumping the gun.
  
• The third observation is the contrast between the global scandal these emails have provoked and the muted response to 20 years of revelations about the propaganda planted by fossil fuel companies. This is where things get interesting.

The meat of this piece is the third point, in which Monbiot slams the "denial industry." Given the saturation of our culture with anti-capitalist sentiment, the very term is a smear and leads in almost predictably to Monbiot's rhetorical approach, which I will return to shortly.

But first, a word about the science. I am not a climatologist, but I am a scientist. I have recently started looking at the scientific side of this debate and find that the anthropogenic global warming hypothesis (or at least parts of it) to be reasonable, but I am still learning about the evidence pro and con. Although I am disinclined to accept the hypothesis, I am still weighing it.

At this point, I have to declare my official position to be agnostic on the scientific questions of (1) whether there is warming, (2) if so, whether it is due to increased carbon dioxide in the atmosphere; (3) if so, whether human activity has caused a substantial portion of said increase; and (4) what effects would accrue from such warming. Nevertheless, as an advocate of capitalism, I am completely opposed to the economic strangulation of the global economy that is being proposed as a "solution" to this alleged crisis and would be even if I regarded the most dire predictions to be likely.

With that in mind, I do have to take issue with one scientific point Monbiot makes.

Even if you were to exclude every line of evidence that could possibly be disputed -- the proxy records, the computer models, the complex science of clouds and ocean currents -- the evidence for man-made global warming would still be unequivocal. You can see it in the measured temperature record, which goes back to 1850; in the shrinkage of glaciers and the thinning of sea ice; in the responses of wild animals and plants and the rapidly changing crop zones.

No. I think you would see an increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide and an increase in global temperature for this time period. However, without proxies (for temperature, carbon dioxide, and any number of other things), you would have no way of discerning whether anything like what we're observing has also occurred before the Industrial Revolution or is within the normal range of variability of the global climate. Proxies are vital to evaluating this theory in the same way that we use historical evidence to evaluate political theories: We simply can't run experiments on the the entire planet, so information from the past is the next best thing.

Also, you would need climate models to integrate all the climate data with your theory to (a) discern whether your theory might indeed accurately describe what is going on now, (b) look into the past to see whether your theory still explains things without man's current output of carbon dioxide, and, thereby (c) determine whether there might be something your theory is still failing to account for. (And, yes, if everything holds up, you can reasonably attempt to forecast what might happen to earth's climate in the future.)

Ditto for "the complex science of clouds and ocean currents." For one thing, these (and many other factors that affect climate) would need to accounted for in anything as complex as a decent computer model of the climate. If correlation does not equal causation, it certainly doesn't equal "unequivocal" proof of the hypothesis that man is causing the earth to warm, and indeed "a novel and radical theory [might] be required."

Moving on...

Monbiot's third argument is something of a cross between, "May he who is without guilt cast the first stone," attempting to hide the elephant we have all just found in plain sight and right under our noses while we watch, and the argument from intimidation.

Predictably jumping straight for the throats of the wicked "energy companies," Monbiot screams payola and cites deliberate attempts by companies to plant "memes" with the help of "PR companies and hired experts." These "memes" are targeted at less educated and less intellectual demographics who are "more confident expressing opinions on others' motivations and tactics than they do expressing opinions on scientific issues." (Would you feel more confident arguing about the minute details of how a carburetor works with a mechanic or discussing his honesty? Some things simply are more accessible to more people.) The "memes" include such ideas as, "climate scientists are only in it for the money, or that environmentalists are trying to create a communist world government."

"Remember," Monbiot says, "these ideas were devised and broadcast by energy companies." Never mind that the measures being considered are worldwide economic controls that include massive redistribution of wealth. Never mind that the climate scientists' government patrons are busy spreading memes of global catastrophe of their own devising. Never mind that our government-controlled education system is so saturated with tenured radicals and global warming alarmists that the best chance at persuading someone that these measures are a bad idea might appear to be to reach out to those not subjected or susceptible to its constant ideological barrage. Never mind that pervasive government controls of the economy necessitate public relations campaigns targeted at voters by all kinds of corporations. And never mind whether these "memes" might actually be true: If you buy them, George Monbiot has just called you a fool or a tool.

I personally don't think that fighting mainly over the science is the best tactic for the embattled energy companies to take. Rather, they should start proudly standing up for themselves as producers on moral grounds and for everyone's freedom on the basis of the idea that a government's sole proper purpose is the protection of individual rights.

It has been the sheepish acceptance of altruism and state controls by the corporations that has caused them to cede the moral high ground to people like George Monbiot and Al Gore, and desperately fight them on the home turf of climate specialists, gambling that either they're wrong about the science or (worse) that they can wrongly convince most of the public that these scientists are wrong. The proper tactic, again, is this: Whatever the science says (yes, no, or maybe), admit it. And then argue from correct political principles that take into account man's nature and the proper role of government when engaging in the political debate about global warming legislation.

-- CAV

Posted at 7:54 AM. Permalink | Comments (25) Backlinks

Unilateral Economic Disarmament

Roger Simon questions the conventional wisdom (HT: Glenn Reynolds) on why Barack Obama rescheduled his trip to to the Copenhagen "climate" conference.

Lately we have heard he switched his itinerary to be there at the end of the two weeks in order to give his blessing and impetus to the decision itself. That's the conventional wisdom anyway, but I am growing suspicious. Things are falling apart with amazing rapidity for the man-made global warming movement, not just because UN’s own climate chief is getting cold feet.

I question Simon's optimism, starting with his assessment of the temperature of Yvo de Boer's feet:

The U.N.'s top climate official on Sunday conceded that hacked e-mails from climate scientists had damaged the image of global warming research but said evidence of a warming Earth is solid. [bold added]

The current political proposals premised on global warming are collectivism excused and promoted on altruistic grounds, just like unilateral nuclear disarmament was in the West back in the days of the Cold War. Barack Obama will show up even if Hell freezes over and pull out all the stops to enact some form of economic controls over the U.S. economy regardless of how grim ClimateGate might look to his political allies. If I'm right and he shows up, it will be his attempt at a salvage operation.

Does nobody recall that despite a near-majority of adults now opposing Obama's physician slavery proposal, Congress still seems bent on getting some version of that ready for the President's signature? Does anyone doubt that Obama will sign it if it reaches his desk? What part of "quite comfortable" with one term are people failing to understand about Obama?

Barack Obama sees the struggling remnants of capitalism in America in the same light as his ideological predecessors saw America's nuclear arsenal: as an evil that needs to be exterminated at all costs. "Climate change" legislation is a way for him to achieve the unilateral economic disarmament of America. He will not abandon it.

Key to both crusades is the failure of their opponents to champion America as a good nation. America's nuclear arsenal defended her against tyranny and protected the freedom of her citizens to pursue their own happiness. America's economic freedom is, likewise, an important means for her citizens to achieve their own happiness. These are good things, but Barack Obama does not see it this way, as hard as that might be to believe.

Winter is Here!

This time last year, I was experiencing an unusual snowfall and a heat outage in Houston -- which apparently has had measurable snow for two years in a row for the first time. This year, I had a lot more snow and indoor warmth when Old Man Winter arrived. I was too busy to snap pictures, but LB has a very nice picture up at 3 Ring Binder.

I'm not sure we got even that much where we are, but I plan to go out and get pictures whenever we get a bunch. I want to be able to remember how nice it looks at first after it gets ugly and nasty from staying on the ground for days at a time!

Head to the Houston Chronicle's web site for more snow pictures. (Around picture 21 or so looks a lot like my old neighborhood.) Snow, far from a constant winter plague down there, is a rare treat, so people have a blast when they do get it.

Objectivist Roundup

In case you went by there earlier to find a truncated version, stop by Rule of Reason again to see all of last week's Objectivist Roundup. (That wasn't why I didn't mention it earlier. I just forgot.)

Sometimes being late has its advantages!

Being Able to Name a Problem Helps

Interested in seeing whether I might like soca music, I went to YouTube recently and looked around, only to be somewhat intrigued by the rhythms, but completely repelled by some of the "vocals." Wondering what was going on, I Googled a few things like "annoying voice effect" and eventually learned a new word: That effect is generated by something called a vocoder and it's as bad or worse to my ear even than excessive melisma.

If the term "vocoder" has you scratching your head, go here, scoot to about 0:10, and be prepared to stop quickly. Average Bro has a pretty good brief history of the phenomenon, if you're interested in that sort of thing. But don't worry: Nobody here will get, "as sick of hearing me moan and complain about vocoders as I am of hearing songs that feature them."

That's because I'll avoid them as much as I can!

It's Over.

Usually, when I play fantasy football, I pad my odds of having a successful season by joining two leagues, but time constratints kept me down to one this year -- the league of grad school friends I've played in every year for over a decade now. We're all "auto drafters" over there, but I like to set some sort of draft order so I don't get stuck with four quarterbacks or something ridiculous like that. I forgot the meaning of "12:00 a.m." this year and ended up not setting a draft order in time.

That looked like a stroke of luck at first: Sure, I had no big-name wide receivers, but I did end up with Adrian Peterson, Brian Westbrook, Cedric Benson, and Antonio Gates. All have been injured or otherwise having sub-par years, and Peterson seems to be suffering, in a fantasy football sense, from having Brett Favre as his quarterback. (I got five points out of him yesterday.) With meager playoff hopes on the line, I got to play the guy with Brett Favre on his roster. It all came down to whether Minnesota would go with Favre's arm or Peterson's legs for their last touchdown.

Can't let that happen again!

-- CAV

Posted at 5:32 AM. Permalink | Comments (4) Backlinks