What a week, with global warming topping my own list of anxieties. As was the case with the original global warming article here, a recent item prompted some interesting responses…

“Mr. Devlin’s response to the USA Today article is as lightweight as the article itself.”
…and…
“The author is guilty of the ‘mile wide, micron deep’ thinking as his victim, the USA Today reporter.”

Yes, that article was a rant. I admit it, I’m guilty, shoot me. I’m not a fan of USA Today and found their journalism neither decisive nor reasonable. This blog, thankfully, is not USA Today. Each of the ‘articles’ that I provide are researched, written, and posted in a matter of hours. There’s simply no room for in-depth, well-researched, exceptionally well-presented ‘journalism’ in the environment of a blog. Yes, my article was lightweight, as is most everything I provide for the blog. I openly admit this on a regular basis—and in that article itself. Here, it’s generally about quick references, condensing, commentary, and opinion — usually with an industrial-, engineering-, or manufacturing-related twist; and sometimes with skewed or feeble attempts at humor. Why? You spend your days knee-deep in seriousness. Your inbox consistently pukes serious publications. So, sometimes, the blog might be a place to kick back, read about sheep farts, or blow off some steam. Hey, at least the blowing off steam part is working well…

“I am not sure why Mr. Devlin wastes his obvious writing talents on making sure the issue is avoided.”

Even if backhanded, I’ll accept the compliment. Thank you. I don’t agree that the blog is a waste, however, as I genuinely enjoy doing this, get a huge kick out of the dialogue with you even when it’s not rosy, enjoy the subject matter and education along the way, and they pay me for it. That’s an extremely rare combination for which I’m grateful.

“Using USA Today as a source is equal to using the New York Times as a ‘source’ for ethics in journalism. It’s been nice. Goodbye.”

Katrina was, I believe, justified in using USA Today as a source, simply from the “America’s best-selling newspaper” angle. It gets even better with their declaration that the global warming debate is over. Ah, well. Yeah, it’s been nice. G’bye, Bob.

“This is not a discussion for amateurs — any more than other scientific subjects.”

You’re right, Hobo Luke. (Now there’s a sentence I never thought I’d write.) It’s not; as I’ve discovered all too rapidly. I’m in way too deep and my head’s spinning from both the information and disinformation. Then again, comments about Icelandic corn on the cob make it all worthwhile. I’m in a position, unfortunately or not, of not knowing and, worse—not knowing where to turn. Who’s right? What’s the correct and wise position, and whose information is better? Towering piles of ‘proof,’ as is increasingly the case with any hot topic, exist on both sides. It can be legitimate or cooked, backed by solid or unintentionally flawed data, and presented by objective or otherwise-motivated parties. The trick, of course, is trying to discern those motivations—when they exist—and see the forest for the trees.

“The author should read Natural Capitalism by Amory Lovins, et al, to gain some real perspective on the magnitude of the problems we face.”

Okay, it’s on my list, along with State of Fear. The latter, novel or not, comes most highly recommended by blog readers. It’s sitting here, with its real and mostly scientific bibliography drooled upon and highlighted for near-future reference. Getting to it is a matter of time, which seems to be at a greater risk than the ozone layer.

In an admittedly quick scan of the book, one passage from the State of Fear appendix strikes me as particularly interesting:

“… And I do claim that open frank discussion of the data, and of the issues, is being suppressed. Leading scientific journals have taken strong positions on the side of global warming, which, I argue, they have no business doing. Under the circumstances, any scientist who has doubts understands clearly that they will be wise to mute their expression.

“In science, the old men are usually wrong. But in politics, the old men are wise, counsel caution, and in the end are often right.” —Michael Crichton

Pardon me. May I see that copy of USA Today when you’re done with it?