Solzhenitsyn and the Italian earthquake case

“The letter of the law is too cold and formal to have a beneficial influence on society. Whenever the tissue of life is woven of legalistic relations, there is an atmosphere of moral mediocrity, paralyzing man’s noblest impulses.” – Alexander Solzhenitsyn, June 8, 1978

Suing because you tripped on an unmarked crack in the sidewalk is child’s play. In Italy, you can now hold someone legally accountable for not putting a proper warning sign on a crack in the earth’s crust:

In a verdict that sent shock waves through the scientific community, an Italian court convicted seven experts of manslaughter on Monday for failing to adequately warn residents of the risk before an earthquake struck central Italy in 2009, killing more than 300 people.

If you think preventative medicine is driving up health care costs, just wait and see what preventative geology or meteorology will do to FEMA’s budget. Like doctors performing medically unnecessary C-sections to avoid lawsuits, unnecessary evacuations of major cities will become a common CYA maneuver on the part of bureaucrats with no incentive to accept any risk. Apart from the visible financial demands such an arrangement will place on nations already on the brink of fiscal ruin, the hidden implications of a frightened scientific community could still be worse:

“It’s a sad day for science,” said seismologist Susan Hough, of the U.S. Geological Survey in Pasadena, Calif. “It’s unsettling.”
That fellow seismic experts in Italy were singled out in the case “hits you in the gut,” she said.

If the gut is where courage is stored, the metaphor is apt. The risk of public mockery and the scorn of peers will always make a number of innovative thinkers hesitant to stick their necks out, but the threat of jail time will surely cause a dramatic spike in the amount of potential scientific pioneers who choose safer career fields. Read more of this post

Global Warming’s ‘Godfather’ speaks out: Oops, my bad.

Can we finally put the last nail in the coffin of climate change hysteria? The ‘godfather’ of global warming, Dr. James Lovelock, says we can. From the Toronto Sun:

Two months ago, James Lovelock, the godfather of global warming, gave a startling interview to msnbc.com in which he acknowledged he had been unduly “alarmist” about climate change.

There are several lessons to be re-learned here:

  1. Claims of final authority deserve the most scrutiny.
  2. Central reorganization of critical aspects of the economy is wrong in principle and fails even the lowest bar of statist rationalizations – it’s not pragmatic.
  3. Radical environmentalism is as much a religion as Christianity, Judaism, Islam, or Hinduism.

Dr. Lovelock himself comments on each of these.

1. Claims of final authority deserve the most scrutiny.

The corollary to this is: When politically motivated people say an argument is over, you’re probably winning the argument.

Dr. Lovelock notes:

Read more of this post

Climate Change: There they go again…

Climate change

(Photo credit: jeancliclac)

Steve Zwick starts his column in Forbes with a great analogy comparing an addict’s mentality to the Democrat overspending that threatens to destroy the most prosperous and free society in the history of civilization:

Every former addict seems to remember the moment he decided to change: maybe he woke up in prison, or in the hospital; or maybe he injured someone, or lost his job. Whatever the cause, something forces him to accept that his actions have consequences, and that those consequences will lead to disaster for him and others if he doesn’t alter his behavior. Then, in the best of cases – and if it’s not too late – he fixes himself.

What? He’s not talking about overspending?  Climate change “deniers”, you say? Here we go again….

Remember the great horse manure crisis of the late 19th century and the radical alteration of American society to fix it? Read more of this post

Conservatives disagree with me? Must be a biological flaw

In a desperate attempt to avoid reading the vast conservative library or quickly glancing at The PillarsChris Mooney at the Washington Post releases a classic of the “Why the heck do conservatives think the way they do?!” genre:

“Follow the money.” As a young journalist on the political left, I often heeded this well-worn advice. If conservatives were denying the science of global warming, I figured, big fossil-fuel companies must be behind it. After all, that was the story with the tobacco industry and the dangers of smoking. Why not here?

And so I covered the attacks on the established scientific knowledge on climate change, evolution and many more issues as a kind of search for the wealthy bad guys behind the curtain. Like many in Washington, I tended to assume that political differences are either about contrasting philosophies or, more cynically, about money and special interests.

Mooney should’ve stopped at “contrasting philosophies”. Read more of this post

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 39 other followers

%d bloggers like this: