Last week.
Thursday, May 27, 2010
Sunday, May 23, 2010
Quick report on Shibatani talk on climate change & Sierra water resource management, at Fri May 21 Sierra Club meeting
(The talk was announced here (fixed link))
We need climate communication that tells citizens what they need to know, to make informed and responsible decisions.
But as with just about all communication on climate that's gone on in this county, I found Friday's talk frustrating - largely because it was a talk on what Shibatani has to offer, not on what we-the-public need to know; and he's a hydrology consultant for organizations like NID, so his talk was geared toward their issues. Its two themes were uncertainty and the need for adaptation - I didn't hear much if anything about topics like the following: the fossil-fuel-funded effort to confuse the public about climate, evaluating whose interpretation of the science to trust, ocean acidification, weather vs climate, the difference in robustness of global vs. regional predictions, insurance against risk, uncertainty not being our friend, signal vs. noise, the "bathtub" metaphor, lag time (largely due to the persistence of CO2 in the atmosphere), the fossil-fuel-funded effort to stop AB32, mitigation (prevention) as economically far preferable to adaptation, or where we-the-public should be focusing our efforts.
The talk was aimed at water managers, not at citizens.
...and from the content of the Q&A, IMO the citizens badly need to hear what the talk didn't deliver; "straining at the mosquito while the elephant is running wild" comes naturally when you're in an "act-locally"-oriented mindset, but if it's not countered, it's going to trample us.
And a fair amount of disinformation did slip in - primarily but not entirely in the "uncertainty of climate models" section, since to emphasize what's uncertain without also addressing what's robust & why, doesn't serve the audience well. And I heard mention of cooling in the last 10 years, when actually we've just had thehottest 12-month period in recorded history (plus heat's still going into the ocean (img)). And the talk implied that the climate threat's been oversold, when in fact it's been undersold.
Recommended for those who don't think CO2 is as important as it's cracked up to be: Richard Alley's "CO2- the biggest control knob" AGU lecture.
I also got the impression this was a talk by a consultant (tone: "this topic is complex so if you can't follow it, you need me") not by an educator (tone: "here are the important things for you to know"); though others may have come away with a different impression.
A good general presentation on climate change is the Hayhoe slideshow, followed by Krugman's climate economics and Begley's what-we-should-do, & then as needed, Coby Beck, SkepticalScience.com or the EPA "CO2 endangerment" responses to comments (pdf for now), for addressing commonly held (and promulgated) misbeliefs.
(E.g. to counter the monckton/sppi "29 year temp rise has undershot the IPCC prediction" graph (top one here) from the talk, you can go to EPA Response (4-26) (pdf) ( "Two recent studies have addressed whether recent temperature trends are consistent with model runs, and both...find that the recent trends are well within model variability." )
(plus, as mentioned above, the oceans - where most of the heat goes - have continued to warm.)
This isn't an issue we can afford to stay uninformed about.
We need climate communication that tells citizens what they need to know, to make informed and responsible decisions.
But as with just about all communication on climate that's gone on in this county, I found Friday's talk frustrating - largely because it was a talk on what Shibatani has to offer, not on what we-the-public need to know; and he's a hydrology consultant for organizations like NID, so his talk was geared toward their issues. Its two themes were uncertainty and the need for adaptation - I didn't hear much if anything about topics like the following: the fossil-fuel-funded effort to confuse the public about climate, evaluating whose interpretation of the science to trust, ocean acidification, weather vs climate, the difference in robustness of global vs. regional predictions, insurance against risk, uncertainty not being our friend, signal vs. noise, the "bathtub" metaphor, lag time (largely due to the persistence of CO2 in the atmosphere), the fossil-fuel-funded effort to stop AB32, mitigation (prevention) as economically far preferable to adaptation, or where we-the-public should be focusing our efforts.
The talk was aimed at water managers, not at citizens.
...and from the content of the Q&A, IMO the citizens badly need to hear what the talk didn't deliver; "straining at the mosquito while the elephant is running wild" comes naturally when you're in an "act-locally"-oriented mindset, but if it's not countered, it's going to trample us.
And a fair amount of disinformation did slip in - primarily but not entirely in the "uncertainty of climate models" section, since to emphasize what's uncertain without also addressing what's robust & why, doesn't serve the audience well. And I heard mention of cooling in the last 10 years, when actually we've just had thehottest 12-month period in recorded history (plus heat's still going into the ocean (img)). And the talk implied that the climate threat's been oversold, when in fact it's been undersold.
Recommended for those who don't think CO2 is as important as it's cracked up to be: Richard Alley's "CO2- the biggest control knob" AGU lecture.
I also got the impression this was a talk by a consultant (tone: "this topic is complex so if you can't follow it, you need me") not by an educator (tone: "here are the important things for you to know"); though others may have come away with a different impression.
A good general presentation on climate change is the Hayhoe slideshow, followed by Krugman's climate economics and Begley's what-we-should-do, & then as needed, Coby Beck, SkepticalScience.com or the EPA "CO2 endangerment" responses to comments (pdf for now), for addressing commonly held (and promulgated) misbeliefs.
(E.g. to counter the monckton/sppi "29 year temp rise has undershot the IPCC prediction" graph (top one here) from the talk, you can go to EPA Response (4-26) (pdf) ( "Two recent studies have addressed whether recent temperature trends are consistent with model runs, and both...find that the recent trends are well within model variability." )
(plus, as mentioned above, the oceans - where most of the heat goes - have continued to warm.)
This isn't an issue we can afford to stay uninformed about.
Thursday, May 20, 2010
Union stop-AB32 story today ignores Natl Academies reports, misleads re Stop-AB32 effect
The Union reporter Dave Moller's stop-AB32 story today, State study says AB32 could fuel inflation, comes two weeks after his previous stop-AB32 story.
Today's story omits any mention of yesterday's National Academies' "Strong Evidence On Climate Change Underscores Need For Actions To Reduce Emissions And Begin Adapting To Impacts" climate reports. And further, in saying that proponent Dan Logue (merely) wants to phase AB32 in, in order to ease economic blows, this story builds on a misleading assertion from the earlier story - namely, that the proposed threshold unemployment level for reinstating AB32 was last reached just three years ago - whereas the bigger-picture fact, that the full-year-threshold requirement has been reached for only 3 short stretches in the last 30 years (link), would give the reader a much different, and more accurate, perspective.
Perhaps Moller and his editor were unaware of the National Academies reports? Perhaps they were unaware that the initiative's economic threshold is so stringent as to effectively kill AB32?
Perhaps; but after the previous story I did alert Moller to the "only 3 stretches" fact:
"Ignore is the root word for ignorance."
Today's story omits any mention of yesterday's National Academies' "Strong Evidence On Climate Change Underscores Need For Actions To Reduce Emissions And Begin Adapting To Impacts" climate reports. And further, in saying that proponent Dan Logue (merely) wants to phase AB32 in, in order to ease economic blows, this story builds on a misleading assertion from the earlier story - namely, that the proposed threshold unemployment level for reinstating AB32 was last reached just three years ago - whereas the bigger-picture fact, that the full-year-threshold requirement has been reached for only 3 short stretches in the last 30 years (link), would give the reader a much different, and more accurate, perspective.
Perhaps Moller and his editor were unaware of the National Academies reports? Perhaps they were unaware that the initiative's economic threshold is so stringent as to effectively kill AB32?
Perhaps; but after the previous story I did alert Moller to the "only 3 stretches" fact:
[Dave, your] story doesn't mention that the "one full year" reqt has only been met 3 times in the last 30 years, as documented here:
"...once in the late 1980s (for about ten quarters), a similar stretch in the late ‘90s, and once in 2005-06."
"Ignore is the root word for ignorance."
Climate action now, say National Academies of Science and Engineering reports
The National Academies, fulfilling a congressional request, have issued a trio of invaluable reports affirming the scientific case for a growing and largely harmful human influence on climate; proposing a path and strategies for curbing American emissions of heat-trapping gases; and urging the country to work to cut risks attending life with no new “normal” climate patterns or coastlines.
Read more
(and see the National Research Council press release here.)
Monday, May 17, 2010
The wonders of Nevada City nature
...some of which are more wonderful than others.
A ponderosa pine doing its best to become a flowering plant:
A black morel, I'm told; "probably the greatest tasting mushroom you will ever find" (although I myself wouldn't dare). From last month, in a shady north-facing side yard.
What is this?
And, in the "red in tooth and claw" dept, it seems the Hall's Hardy Almond isn't so hardy after all, at least not in the Glacier Gulch area (microclimate) of Nevada City; the street trees I planted and nurtured (and sometimes neglected) are dying.
They came down with gummosis; I was told to rub the wounds with bleach, but I guess once it's systemic, it's too late.
A ponderosa pine doing its best to become a flowering plant:
A black morel, I'm told; "probably the greatest tasting mushroom you will ever find" (although I myself wouldn't dare). From last month, in a shady north-facing side yard.
What is this?
And, in the "red in tooth and claw" dept, it seems the Hall's Hardy Almond isn't so hardy after all, at least not in the Glacier Gulch area (microclimate) of Nevada City; the street trees I planted and nurtured (and sometimes neglected) are dying.
They came down with gummosis; I was told to rub the wounds with bleach, but I guess once it's systemic, it's too late.
Monday, May 10, 2010
Pie chart showing Stop-AB32 contributions so far
Here's how the numbers (data sources here) came out for me ( warning, it may not be 100% accurate):
$3360 contributions $1000 and under (12 contributions)
$60,000 misc over $1000 (3 contributions)
$102,300 Howard Jarvis Taxpayer Assn (3 contributions)
$498,000 refused to state (1 contributions)
$1,588,000 coal, oil, gas (23 contributions)
Climate hubris - TV weathermen prone, but also [anti-woo] skeptics
In reading this, please keep in mind the distinction between real skeptics (who critically examine evidence) and climate pseudoskeptics (who have closed minds and hold anti-science views); and realize that as a layman you can do just fine avoiding the evidence altogether, as long as you're smart about whose judgment to trust.
The Columbia Journalism Review had a wonderful post titled Hot Air - Why don’t TV weathermen believe in climate change?, examining why so many weathermen are climate doubters: in short*, although they have no climate science training, they're the science alphas of their realm, and it's hard for a lone alpha to see when he doesn't know, or to know who the genuine experts are.
(an education lets you avoid this - when you're thrown in with a lot of people who know far more than you, you quickly come to recognize it.)
And in What, If Anything, Can [true] Skeptics Say About Science?, Daniel Loxton's saying much the same thing, about his community -
So these fellows are being accorded science-alpha status just like the TV weathermen, which encourages them too to see themselves as better judges of climate science than the climate scientists; at which point they too are acting beyond their level of competence, and are disserving those who look to them for information.
Loxton reminds them that:
The Columbia Journalism Review had a wonderful post titled Hot Air - Why don’t TV weathermen believe in climate change?, examining why so many weathermen are climate doubters: in short*, although they have no climate science training, they're the science alphas of their realm, and it's hard for a lone alpha to see when he doesn't know, or to know who the genuine experts are.
(an education lets you avoid this - when you're thrown in with a lot of people who know far more than you, you quickly come to recognize it.)
And in What, If Anything, Can [true] Skeptics Say About Science?, Daniel Loxton's saying much the same thing, about his community -
"...many [anti-woo] skeptics have limited scientific qualifications...Even skeptics who do have scientific qualifications are frequently called upon to comment outside of their area of domain expertise..."yet
"people turn to [real] skeptical media to find out what’s really true about weird things... Skeptics solicit that trust. We make the implicit (and sometimes explicit) promise that we are able to provide the nuanced, objective, evidence-based facts."
So these fellows are being accorded science-alpha status just like the TV weathermen, which encourages them too to see themselves as better judges of climate science than the climate scientists; at which point they too are acting beyond their level of competence, and are disserving those who look to them for information.
Loxton reminds them that:
"...the consensus(*) is the result of the scientific process that as [real] skeptics we supposedly believe in. It is the whole point of the movement. So, when you scoff at the consensus(*) you are scoffing at science itself – in effect you are arguing that the scientific system doesn’t work, at least at this time of civilization."
Thursday, May 06, 2010
We have just experienced the hottest twelve-month period in at least the past thousand years
Brad DeLong on what we should do; since hope is not a plan.
Saturday, April 17, 2010
What conservatives should know about climate change
(from How to Talk to a Conservative about Climate Change, over at Global Warming - Man or Myth?)
------------
"There are three choices the world has to deal with the consequences of global warming:
1. A really statist, tyrannical approach to climate stabilization would be to create a new international agency with broad powers to micromanage the world’s industry and transportation sectors.
2. A regulated, market-based solution such as a carbon tax or a cap and trade system with concessions to developing countries such as China and India. ... has enjoyed great success in Europe but has faced fierce political opposition in the U.S., Canada, and Australia ...
3. A business-as-usual solution where reducing greenhouse gases is optional.
...
In the "business as usual" solution #3 where emissions of greenhouse gases continue to rise, the following consequences are realistic:
1. China and India pass the US as economic superpowers
2. Increased immigration
3. Higher food costs
4. Greater government subsidies (higher taxes)
5. Higher insurance rates
6. Increased authoritarian governments
7. Increased terrorism
8. Nuclear proliferation
9. Regional and global wars between countries with nuclear weapons
..."
------------
Locally, putting global climate destabilization in context
I'm posting this largely because I just need to practice writing - I assure you, if you want to read quality climate writing and insights, NCFocus is not the place. Go spend time with Drs. Michael Tobis of In It For The Gold, Steve Easterbrook of Serendipity, and (for the firehose...) Joe Romm of Climate Progress - among others.
I was talking recently to some local progressive folks, one of whom's an environmentalist and extremely concerned about the ozone pollution here in Nevada County - and I made the point that if we don't address climate change, other causes aren't going to matter. The environmentalist violently disagreed - and indeed, to someone with asthma who ends up in the emergency room, or has to leave our county entirely in summer to escape the abysmal air quality, climate issues will seem distant and comparatively insignificant.
And this perception won't just be limited to the affected individual - we're tribal creatures and we understand our world through stories, stories of individuals from our tribe; historically we never had reason to develop a grasp of statistics, or of scales larger than a set of stories.
But if we don't make an effort to think at that larger level, we'll miss the big picture - a form of blindness which risks catastrophic consequences.
Is the ozone problem a global one?
Does it substantially affect the number of people that our world can support? (will it lead to the death of billions?)
Is it a national security threat?
Will the consequences of each further year we delay fixing the problem continue to hound us for decades or centuries?
I was talking recently to some local progressive folks, one of whom's an environmentalist and extremely concerned about the ozone pollution here in Nevada County - and I made the point that if we don't address climate change, other causes aren't going to matter. The environmentalist violently disagreed - and indeed, to someone with asthma who ends up in the emergency room, or has to leave our county entirely in summer to escape the abysmal air quality, climate issues will seem distant and comparatively insignificant.
And this perception won't just be limited to the affected individual - we're tribal creatures and we understand our world through stories, stories of individuals from our tribe; historically we never had reason to develop a grasp of statistics, or of scales larger than a set of stories.
But if we don't make an effort to think at that larger level, we'll miss the big picture - a form of blindness which risks catastrophic consequences.
Is the ozone problem a global one?
Does it substantially affect the number of people that our world can support? (will it lead to the death of billions?)
Is it a national security threat?
Will the consequences of each further year we delay fixing the problem continue to hound us for decades or centuries?
Wednesday, April 07, 2010
Must-read: Environmental economics 101 - Building a green economy
Yes, you too can get a Princeton education for under $5:
Buy the Sunday (Apr 11) New York Times, since Krugman's article there, on environmental economics and climate policy - is a keeper.
(Dan Logue, if you have children whose souls don't already belong to Scaife Koch & Exxon, please read this!)
I never took basic college Economics(*) so I've had lots of remedial learning to do; and this is the kind of writing that really helps our knowledge level to skyrocket.
(Something to keep in mind when reading Krugman's piece: is he writing to make you smarter, or writing to make you think he's smarter? Intelligent, well educated, competent, intellectually honest people aim for the former: to communicate the most significant concepts and their relations as clearly as possible, so you come away as well-informed as possible.)
Buy the Sunday (Apr 11) New York Times, since Krugman's article there, on environmental economics and climate policy - is a keeper.
(Dan Logue, if you have children whose souls don't already belong to Scaife Koch & Exxon, please read this!)
I never took basic college Economics(*) so I've had lots of remedial learning to do; and this is the kind of writing that really helps our knowledge level to skyrocket.
(Something to keep in mind when reading Krugman's piece: is he writing to make you smarter, or writing to make you think he's smarter? Intelligent, well educated, competent, intellectually honest people aim for the former: to communicate the most significant concepts and their relations as clearly as possible, so you come away as well-informed as possible.)
Saturday, April 03, 2010
Videos of Assessor candidates Kleinhans and Horne from Apr 1 forum
Update: shortened video URLs are:
http://bit.ly/2010_04_01_NCAssessors1
http://bit.ly/2010_04_01_NCAssessors2
I've given these to KNCO's Bob Breck so he can provide them with KNCO's podcast.
The Assessor's race segment - featuring candidates Rolf Kleinhans and Sue Horne - is missing from KNCO's podcast of the April 1 candidates' forum(*), Jeff Pelline reported.
But I caught it - all but the first second or two(?), of Ms. Horne's statement - on video, and have posted it on YouTube in two 5+ min. parts - the candidates' initial statements, and the Q&A.
Initial statements:
Q&A:
I thought it brought out some real differences between the candidates.
Also - Jeff Pelline has asked some further candidate questions; with luck we'll get answers.
http://bit.ly/2010_04_01_NCAssessors1
http://bit.ly/2010_04_01_NCAssessors2
I've given these to KNCO's Bob Breck so he can provide them with KNCO's podcast.
The Assessor's race segment - featuring candidates Rolf Kleinhans and Sue Horne - is missing from KNCO's podcast of the April 1 candidates' forum(*), Jeff Pelline reported.
But I caught it - all but the first second or two(?), of Ms. Horne's statement - on video, and have posted it on YouTube in two 5+ min. parts - the candidates' initial statements, and the Q&A.
Initial statements:
Q&A:
I thought it brought out some real differences between the candidates.
Also - Jeff Pelline has asked some further candidate questions; with luck we'll get answers.
Thursday, April 01, 2010
Tea Party Apr 1 Candidates Forum, cursory report
Updated (added report Apr 1; see also the Assessor's race videos posted Apr 3).
The event was at 6pm, at the Vets Hall in GV. It was shockingly sedate.
Financials:
The TPPs were asking that attendees donate $5 to defray expenses; "All proceeds, after expenses, will go to the five veterans groups that use the facility. Our expenses include the rental of the building, insurance and permits and printing of programs." I'm not sure a) how much the expenses were, or b) how much KNCO contributed - didn't hear back from Bob Breck. The Union publisher Jeff Ackerman told me The Union contributed no $$, just publicity: "We got the word out that the candidates will be there (all of them, by the way) and that it would be a great chance to hear what they have to say before you vote."
(Also - anyone know whether past candidate forums - put on by the LWV or other orgs - have asked attendees to pay?)
Attendance report:
About 150 people showed up; the TPP folks had been encouraged to wear red shirts, but maybe one in 8 people were wearing red. [Some attendees by name deleted.]
Format:
Two tables onstage, one for the candidates and one for the panel of question askers - Ackerman and Kleist from The Union, and Whitten and Breck from KNCO. All Qs were from The Union or KNCO. All candidates for a given office got time to make an initial statement, then the same Q would be asked of each candidate in turn; the turns rotated.
(Does anyone recall if, at other forums, audience members have had a chance to ask questions?)
It was, or was to be, broadcast on KNCO.
Random, not particularly substantive observations:
* The candidates were articulate.
* Diaz v. Pruett for recorder was the only race with tension to it. (One of the two seems tense by nature.)
* A substantial number were unopposed.
* John Spencer hails from Long Beach, some decades back; opponent Lamphier wants to hold evening discussions so working folk can attend.
* Neither DA Clifford Newell nor sheriff Keith Royal favors the "legalize pot" proposition, for reasons that strike your correspondent as shaky - "It won't kill the black market"; "when your neighbor's pot is ready for harvest, it[the smell] will run you out of your house".(*)(*)
* One candidate for Treasurer/Tax Collector seemed head and shoulders above the others.
* Barry Pruett is not related to Bob Pruett of the Sac. branch of the Tobacco Institute, and Jeff Ackerman is not related to southern California attorneys Dick Ackerman (former R-Tustin) or Rich Ackerman (Focus on the Family, Citizens for Better Government, Capitol Resource Institute, etc); I asked them.
Favorite line:
Penn Valley Supe Hank Weston's observation that the job doesn't end at 5pm, it continues while you're shopping - and "It's tough when you're trying to buy a good steak and you get a question about sewage".
Tuesday, March 30, 2010
A community thought experiment, from Ursula Le Guin
The ones who walk away from Omelas (pdf)
Would you choose to leave, or stay?
What do you think your fellow community members would do?
...
Would you choose to leave, or stay?
What do you think your fellow community members would do?
...
Saturday, March 27, 2010
True purpose of TechTest from the Sierra Environmental Studies Foundation?
Updates: Apr 4, see response by SESF's Rebane here; March 30, minor updates(*) and edits for clarity; also see "Misc Facts about SESF/TechTest", a response by SESF's McDaniel (link).
For reference: my original posts on SESF from June 2006, from shortly after its resurrection; noting its odd origin and classification, and asking about its funding.
What's the real motivation - and funding - behind the TechTest college scholarships offered by the local climate-denial group Sierra Environmental Studies Foundation (site)?
The nonprofit SESF (its 501(c)(3) status restored; here's its blog) is a local outfit interwined with the local pro-property-rights, anti-regulation group CABPRO (blog).
SESF's principals include local retired engineers/ climate contrarians/ bloggers/ The Union columnists Russ Steele (blog) and George Rebane (blog). (Rebane has also recently been given a "commentator" spot on KVMR news (alas, not I*) ).
SESF generously sponsors an annual science-and-engineering TechTest for high school seniors - it's being given this very morning, in fact - and grants the highest scorers a total of up to 15k in college scholarships.
The grueling test (pretty much all physics and engineering) is preceded by two "how to work these problems" workshops by George Rebane, and succeeded by a "Survivor's Breakfast" with SESF principals and, last year, with Tom McClintock staffer Kim Pruett.
Students there today told me that last year's high score was 37%, and that the test was "crazy" - as in, very, very hard. Its difficulty is deliberate, "designed to let the eagles soar", according to Dr. Rebane (link).
The SESF intended further interaction with the students through mentoring (link)(*):
"For the coming term, in addition to TechTest2008, we are also setting up a new tutoring/mentoring program as a teacher resource for their science and math students. SESF has a growing list of volunteers who will be paired with students for augmentation and advanced study assignments. We are currently soliciting more volunteers with technology backgrounds who are willing to work with the county's young people."
The TechTest and scholarships get credulous local coverage.
--------------------------
You might ask why climate deniers are pouring such energy into science and technology education - when they do, after all, part ways so decisively from the existing consensus (infographics here) on climate change.
And you might ask where the money is coming from, for the scholarships or other aspects of the organization. Their IRS (nonprofit) Form 990 is no help, since with less than 25k income, they've never filed one.
The principals have said they are all volunteers, they're not being paid for their efforts.
I asked SESF's Director of Public Relations, financial advisor Mike McDaniel, about the scholarship funding. It's not a secret, he assured me; just local (*) people who cared about science and technology and educating our young people; I asked if I could know their identities, and he said he'd check.
The outcome: of the half dozen or so substantial ($500 or over) donors, McDaniel said he'd gone to pretty much all of them asking if they minded having their names known, and of all these donors, the only ones willing to be identified (*) were himself and Telestream (although, he said, clearly they were giving "for different reasons"). And he did say that two couples who donated were not local.
So, largely unknown donors.
What gets discussed at the breakfast? Russ reports:
"[Discussion of the weather] soon lead to a discussion [of] long term climate change and the impact of sunspots have on our climate. The discussion gave me an opportunity to introduce a those sitting nearby to my Dalton Minimum Returns blog, and the paper I wrote for SESF on Cooler Temps - Dalton Minimum Returns"
(I also seem to recall Russ saying he quizzed the students on what they were being taught about climate science in school, and [he] was disturbed that there was no requirement to present the "other" (read, not the consensus) side; but a quick google isn't bringing it up.)
Add all of this to the unwillingness of Russ to say that he and family aren't receiving direct-or-indirect compensation for his climate efforts, and the unwillingness of CABPRO executive director Martin Light (blog) to say what firm's name is on the 1099 or W-2 form the Executive Director receives, and, well, it's intriguing.
[2012-02-04 update: I've extensively edited the "in a nutshell" text below, removing allegations of intent - replacing "designed to" with "has the effect of", etc.]
So - in a nutshell, TechTest ends up advancing fossil fuel interests, as follows:
The TechTest lets SESF cozy up to the young sci/tech elite, the smartest - but still-impressionable - young people in Nevada County. Its extreme difficulty, like Dr. Rebane's often-difficult prose, doesn't so much "let the eagles soar" (actually, the eagles looked pretty darn cowed) as send a message of intellectual dominance, that someone designing a test that we-the-takers can't succeed at, or writing text that we-the-readers can't easily follow, must be smarter than us and better informed.
And the breakfast capitallizes on the influence that such an impression provides - the breakfasters will feel that if such smart people believe human-caused climate change is bogus, then this view has credence.
--------
(Recommended resource for Tech-Test-takers: SkepticalScience.com, for exposing misinformation )
----
"We will be judged by those who come after us, both by what we did do and what we didn't do, in the time given to us."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
