Chumps at NWF

A response to the folks at the Inconvenient Truth blog at the World Wildlife Fund site.

Sorry, friends, but what a bunch of chumps. More Kool Aid, anyone?

News you can use: Lots of money, including multinational corporate money, is wrapped up in making you think we can do a lot about global warming. Why? So they can sell us stuff.

Who do you think is going to sell you all those special lightbulbs? Do the research and build the plants to produce alternate fuels? And millions of dollars are at stake in government grants, all to study global warming. Even the NWF website is part of the hype. It's an industry, folks.

GW is real, apparently, but the truth is we can't do much about it because we haven't caused that much of it. 10-20%, maybe.

The good news is, it won't be as bad as the hype. Even the new IPCC makes that much clear. Sorry, Al and company, catastrophe isn't likely. In the short run, all we can really do is figure out how to adapt. Living near the shore of a small Pacific island? Move inland or to the mainland.

For the rest of us, we'll need to work on these serious problems: What will we do with all that heating oil we won't need to heat our homes anymore? What will we do with all the newly productive farm land and longer growing seasons? What will we do with all the super cheap oil that will suddenly become available when demand drops? What will we do with the millions of impoverished Middle Eastern migrants leaving a region now even less inhabitable and even less viable economically, now that the world has turned away from its principal resource?

By the Numbers, New York Times Style

Once again, the NYT reports the news as they wish it was. They do an article which appears to suggest that women are rejecting marriage. And whom does the author, Sam Roberts (and Ariel Sabar, Brenda Goodman and Maureen Balleza, who "contributed reporting," no doubt by calling their friends or mothers or mothers' friends) talk to about this vital topic?

By the numbers:

Axe-grinding feminist professors with an agenda: 1
20-something women: 1
30-something women: 1
40-something women: 1
50-something women: 3
Women currently living in New York City: 2
Never-married women: 3
Women living in "red" states: 2
Working-class women: 0
Currently married women: 0
Women not living in large cities: 0

Nothing outrageous here, except when you consider that Prof. Stephanie Coontz, on whose research conclusions the article is based, is author of “Marriage, a History: How Love Conquered Marriage.” How is it seemingly all feminist social-science research magically supports the conclusions its author has already reached and on which her career is entirely based?

Amazingly, given that she's an "expert," she seems unsure about the historical precedence (and thus meaning) of her research. Ac cording to the article, "Professor Coontz said this was probably unprecedented with the possible exception of major wartime mobilizations and when black couples were separated during slavery." Probably unprecedented? If this is such a major development, and if she is such an expert, and given the pronouncements about public policy she's making (essentially that we shouldn't base it on marriage anymore), couldn't we reasonably expect that she would have been aware of the historical context of her own study?

January 16, 2007

51% of Women Are Now Living Without Spouse

By SAM ROBERTS
For what experts say is probably the first time, more American omen are living without a husband than with one, according to a New York Times nalysis of census results. more