Wednesday, January 23, 2008

let's get it right, shall we?

The Way Wednesday
. . . . . . . . . .

“Jane Roe” Endorses Ron Paul on Roe v. Wade Anniversary
You can read the statement by 'clicking' on the above headline.
. . . . . . . . . .

Global Warming and Pagan Emptiness
Cardinal George Pell on the latest hysterical substitute for religion.

Interview by Michael Gilchrist
January 2008 in The Catholic World Report
. . . . .

CWR: You are one of very few public figures in this country to express open skepticism about man-made climate change and its alleged long-term effects. What is your reading of the scientific evidence for climate change? What is the basis of your skepticism?

Cardinal Pell: I am certainly skeptical about extravagant claims of impending man-made climatic catastrophes. Scientific debate is not decided by any changing consensus, even if it is endorsed by political parties and public opinion. Climate change both up and down has been occurring, probably since earth first had a climate.

Science is a process of experimentation, debate, and respect for evidence. Often it is dealing with uncertainties rather than certainties, and so its forecasts and predictions can be spectacularly wrong. We must not ignore evidence that doesn't suit our cause. Long-term weather forecasting is a notoriously imprecise exercise.

In the 1970s some scientists were predicting a new ice age because of global cooling. Today other scientists are predicting an apocalypse because of global warming. It is no disrespect to science or scientists to take these latest claims with a grain of salt. Commitment to the scientific method actually requires it.

Uncertainties on climate change abound. Temperatures in Greenland were higher in the 1940s than they are today, and the Kangerlussuaq glacier there is not shrinking but growing in size. While the ice may be melting in the Arctic, apparently it is increasing in extent in the Antarctic. Overall world temperatures have not increased since 1998 according to the statistics—whatever the case might be in particular locations.

[Read entire article 'here']
. . . . . . . . . .

Movies for the Next Generation by Elise Ehrhard

January 22, 2008 on
. . .

2007 saw a flurry of secular films that were unabashedly pro-life in their outlook, even when they were far from family fare. Movies such as Waitress; the raunchy, R-rated Knocked Up; Bella; and Juno all achieved measures of success with mainstream moviegoers, from the little independent surprise Bella (which was marketed to church-goers) to the blockbuster Knocked Up.

Their success was no fluke. Writers and producers today understand that any unexpectedly pregnant character in their films must choose life, if the movie is to be successful with young audiences (their most important demographic).

Not only do these films portray life as a beautiful choice; many also mock the abortion mentality for laughs. In Knocked Up, the pregnant woman's unsupportive mother tries to convince her daughter to have an abortion by citing a relative who became pregnant and "had it taken care of." The mother then adds, "And you know what? Now she has a real baby." The audience responds with nervous laughter, recognizing the woman's self-delusion about the "realness" of the aborted child.

Juno, a film Washington Post reviewer Desson Thomson praised for its "euphemism-busting candor," is even more refreshing in it honesty about abortion. Frequently in film, abortion advocates are portrayed as compassionate characters -- the only ones who really care about the young mother. Yet in Juno, the vulgarity and bitterness that is so much a part of the abortion-rights movement is personified in the receptionist Juno encounters at an abortion clinic. She is crass in her attitude toward sex as she tosses a flavored condom at Juno, only helping to cement Juno's misgivings about the procedure she's considering. [read entire entry 'here']
. . . . . . . . . .


Melody said...

It seems to me that enlightened self-interest is the way to approach the global warming crisis. We know that oil is a finite resource; that some day we will run out of it. Much of the world's oil supply is in increasingly unstable and unfriendly areas of the world, where our armed forces are frequently in harm's way. Prudence would seem to dictate that we should work toward energy independence as much as possible; by conservation and increased efficiency, and by developing alternative energy sources (including nuclear). This would have the side effect of reducing our carbon footprint, for what it's worth. And makes more sense than the "throw a virgin in the volcano" mentality that we are seeing so much of.

uncle jim said...

hey, there, melody,
practical advise.
IF the whole thing is not much more than uncontrollable cycles that we cannot yet see, your answer makes as much or more sense than many others out there. Let us at least move away from this dependence on carbon atoms ... we might find a lot of other 'good outcomes' from such an effort.