<?xml version="1.0" encoding="ISO-8859-1" ?>




































































  <rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
    <channel>
      <title>Comments On: Who are you and what have you done with the Heartland Institute?
    
      by Harold Henderson</title>
      <link>http://www.chicagoreader.com/TheBlog/archives/2006/07/28/who-are-you-and-what-have-you-done-heartland-insti</link>
      <atom:link href="http://www.chicagoreader.com/chicago/Rss.xml?oid=946135&amp;id=comments" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />      <description>Comments On: Who are you and what have you done with the Heartland Institute?
    
      by Harold Henderson</description>
      <language>en-us</language>
      <copyright>Copyright 2009 Chicago Reader. All rights reserved. This RSS file is offered to individuals, Chicago Reader readers, and non-commercial organizations only. Any commercial websites wishing to use this RSS file, please contact Chicago Reader.</copyright>
      <webMaster>wil@desert.net (Chicago Reader Webmaster)</webMaster>
      <pubDate>Sat, 21 Nov 2009 00:00:01 -0600</pubDate>
      <lastBuildDate>Sat, 21 Nov 2009 22:30:00 -0600</lastBuildDate>
      <generator>Foundation</generator>
      <docs>http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/tech/rss</docs>
      
        
          <item>
    
    <title><![CDATA[Re: Who are you and what have you done with the Heartland Institute?]]></title>
    
    
    <link><![CDATA[http://www.chicagoreader.com/TheBlog/archives/2006/07/28/who-are-you-and-what-have-you-done-heartland-insti/#967362]]></link>
    
    <guid isPermaLink="true"><![CDATA[http://www.chicagoreader.com/TheBlog/archives/2006/07/28/who-are-you-and-what-have-you-done-heartland-insti/#967362]]></guid>
    <author><![CDATA[Harold]]></author>
    <description>
      
      <![CDATA[Thanks, Pat.  That's a key point:  the facts do not determine how we choose to respond to them.  Acknowledging the scientific fact of human-induced global warming does not entail massive world-government intervention, unless that was part of your program all along.  From a purely political point of view I'd expect libertarians to be exploring and improving on market solutions like Richard Sandor's, instead of pissing away their credibility with faux science.  That choice is mysterious to me.
        
        <br />
        
          Posted by Harold]]>
    </description>
    <pubDate>Wed, 02 Aug 2006 08:31:52 -0500</pubDate> 
    <source url="http://www.chicagoreader.com">Chicago Reader</source>
  </item>
        
          <item>
    
    <title><![CDATA[Re: Who are you and what have you done with the Heartland Institute?]]></title>
    
    
    <link><![CDATA[http://www.chicagoreader.com/TheBlog/archives/2006/07/28/who-are-you-and-what-have-you-done-heartland-insti/#948220]]></link>
    
    <guid isPermaLink="true"><![CDATA[http://www.chicagoreader.com/TheBlog/archives/2006/07/28/who-are-you-and-what-have-you-done-heartland-insti/#948220]]></guid>
    <author><![CDATA[pat g.]]></author>
    <description>
      
      <![CDATA[coupla things tangled that presumably don't have to be: 
    
    "Reasonable people follow Keynes on this point if on no other: when the evidence changes, they change their opinions."
    
    thing is, a lot of this isn't about opinion, "reasonable" or otherwise, but about DESIRE: "this is what i want for myself/my world, but can i still want it if x is 'true'?" * but in fact no amount of "truth" NECESSARILY (weasel word, but hey, it's what logic's all about) negates your ever wanting anything, much less indicates any specific actions to be followed, either personally or institutionally ... unless other unmentionable (i.e., "moralizing") factors intervene (like, "why have government at all if not for x?"; or "can't live with myself if x ever happens"; or "individuals can't hack it, the problem's way too vast--but collectively ..."; or "the livability of the planet's far more important than maintaining 'free markets'" ... unless, of course, they're ultimately the same!--like, duhhh) * so: should "government" (as opposed to whatever "nongovernment" surrogate you choose--"private initiative," that delusional rubric, to keep the devil at bay, etc) "do something" about "global warming" taken as "scientific fact" (meaning, i suppose, that we'd place our bets on its being "true"--or vice versa--like lloyd's of london, as harold points out)? * however you answer, the basic "fact" of global warming needn't be denied: you can assent to the "truth" without subscribing to the program--in THEORY, anyway, though in practice i do wonder ... as i suspect the deniers do also: might account for a some of the "resistance" there, like some weird guilt-avoidance subterfuge ...
    
    also unspoken in the heartland's argument is the assumption that whatever havoc's been wreaked on the planet by human agency can ultimately be undone by it as well * but why should anyone assume this?--certainly the weight of "scientific opinion," or at least what i know of it (see, e.g., http://www.nybooks.com/articles/19131), gives no reason for such optimism * and why expect the parties most directly threatened by our negligence and/or indifference, by our reliance on "market mechanisms" (entropy by another name) to do the work of consciousness, to share in this touchingly sanguine, albeit "unscientific," providential notion (a kind of religious "faith," actually, almost purely wishful--or maybe wistful is better), since some of us obviously aren't: too advanced in age to witness the coming devastation; too removed geographically from the areas most at risk * which means that if you're living in the maldives at six feet above sea level max, these anti-global warming assurances start looking specious mighty fast * so where'll ya place your bets, folks?--but then there's florida, so quien sabe? ...
    
    there's more (like popper's "falsifiability" idea, from a philosopher of science no less) but i'm plum tuckered ... sorry to leave y'all hangin' like this
        
        <br />
        
          Posted by pat g.]]>
    </description>
    <pubDate>Tue, 01 Aug 2006 16:46:56 -0500</pubDate> 
    <source url="http://www.chicagoreader.com">Chicago Reader</source>
  </item>
        
          <item>
    
    <title><![CDATA[Re: Who are you and what have you done with the Heartland Institute?]]></title>
    
    
    <link><![CDATA[http://www.chicagoreader.com/TheBlog/archives/2006/07/28/who-are-you-and-what-have-you-done-heartland-insti/#950646]]></link>
    
    <guid isPermaLink="true"><![CDATA[http://www.chicagoreader.com/TheBlog/archives/2006/07/28/who-are-you-and-what-have-you-done-heartland-insti/#950646]]></guid>
    <author><![CDATA[mike van winkle]]></author>
    <description>
      
      <![CDATA[Comments are an option on our <a href"http://www.fromtheheartland.org/blog/2006/07/what_is_it_about_skepticism_yo.php">blog </a> and I often forget to turn them on. As such they have been enabled ... of course I will still be cynically monitoring every comments and callously deleting those with which I disagree ... just kidding.
        
        <br />
        
          Posted by mike van winkle]]>
    </description>
    <pubDate>Mon, 31 Jul 2006 08:43:35 -0500</pubDate> 
    <source url="http://www.chicagoreader.com">Chicago Reader</source>
  </item>
        
          <item>
    
    <title><![CDATA[Re: Who are you and what have you done with the Heartland Institute?]]></title>
    
    
    <link><![CDATA[http://www.chicagoreader.com/TheBlog/archives/2006/07/28/who-are-you-and-what-have-you-done-heartland-insti/#959863]]></link>
    
    <guid isPermaLink="true"><![CDATA[http://www.chicagoreader.com/TheBlog/archives/2006/07/28/who-are-you-and-what-have-you-done-heartland-insti/#959863]]></guid>
    <author><![CDATA[enigma_foundry]]></author>
    <description>
      
      <![CDATA[<i>Michael's response is up at 
     
    http://www.fromtheheartland.org/blog/2006/07/what_is_it_about_skepticism_yo.php 
     
    with some good points, <b>but comments aren't enabled there. </b>I'll sleep on it before replying.</i>
    
    Of course comments are not enabled there.  Those who are fighting TRUTH must use CENSORSHIP....
    
    Look at all the fake "blogs" such as IPCentral.  We need a new name wfor these blogs that are not blogs...maybe something based one the word monologue....Any ideas...?
        
        <br />
        
          Posted by enigma_foundry]]>
    </description>
    <pubDate>Sat, 29 Jul 2006 13:53:27 -0500</pubDate> 
    <source url="http://www.chicagoreader.com">Chicago Reader</source>
  </item>
        
          <item>
    
    <title><![CDATA[Re: Who are you and what have you done with the Heartland Institute?]]></title>
    
    
    <link><![CDATA[http://www.chicagoreader.com/TheBlog/archives/2006/07/28/who-are-you-and-what-have-you-done-heartland-insti/#960281]]></link>
    
    <guid isPermaLink="true"><![CDATA[http://www.chicagoreader.com/TheBlog/archives/2006/07/28/who-are-you-and-what-have-you-done-heartland-insti/#960281]]></guid>
    <author><![CDATA[Harold]]></author>
    <description>
      
      <![CDATA[Michael Van Winkle writes on the Heartland Institute&acirc;&#128;&#153;s blog
    http://www.fromtheheartland.org/blog/2006/07/what_is_it_about_skepticism_yo.php
    that &acirc;&#128;&#156;Sound science, not scare tactics, ought to set the agenda for environmental protection.&acirc;&#128;&#157;
    
    I agree.  But what is &acirc;&#128;&#156;sound science&acirc;&#128;&#157; except the consensus of the qualified scientists as published in peer-reviewed journals?  It&acirc;&#128;&#153;s not what&acirc;&#128;&#153;s convenient for any political philosophy.  The consensus is that
    human-caused global warming is real and will have adverse
    consequences, which may be inconvenient for those of us who value freedom; in another area, the consensus on genetically modified
    organisms is that they are unlikely to be harmful, which may be
    inconvenient for some environmentalists or traditionalists.  Neither side is justified in using its political agenda to claim that the world isn&acirc;&#128;&#153;t the way it is.
    
    Michael writes that the science is hard to understand.  I agree again. 
    But if that were Heartland&acirc;&#128;&#153;s position, it would be printing both sides&acirc;&#128;&#153; positions instead of staking its reputation on one marginal position (that there&acirc;&#128;&#153;s no long-term warming trend) -- just as it recently printed both pro- and anti-ethanol articles.
    
    I often have this problem as a journalist, and one way to tackle it is to become a specialist.  Another way is to observe adverse testimony. Judge Richard Posner is no leftist and no scare-tactician (no libertarian either), but for his book Catastrophe he counted
    peer-reviewed articles and the score was 55-2 for the consensus.
    
    Michael writes, &acirc;&#128;&#156;Global warming for the most part is a POLITICAL argument that the government must &acirc;&#128;&#152;act now&acirc;&#128;&#153; to solve a looming, yet still invisible environmental
    catastrophe.  It isn't a stretch to say that many libertarians (myself included) would prefer to take their chance at dealing with the consequences of warming as it happens rather then authorize the government to enact "preemptive" policies that abridge our freedom. I would bet Harold and many of his reader would in fact agree with this is strategy with regard to the war on terror. But for some reason when it comes to global warming reverse course.&acirc;&#128;&#157;
    
    No way.  First, the case for global warming being a problem is
    scientific, not political.  And it&acirc;&#128;&#153;s not invisible.  Second, it is corrupting the discourse to decide first what&acirc;&#128;&#153;s good for libertarians (or environmentalists, or black people) and then use that to decide what&acirc;&#128;&#153;s &acirc;&#128;&#156;sound science&acirc;&#128;&#157; and what isn&acirc;&#128;&#153;t.  Third, the &acirc;&#128;&#156;precautionary principle&acirc;&#128;&#157; (don&acirc;&#128;&#153;t do anything until you&acirc;&#128;&#153;re absolutely sure) is just as bogus when invoked by libertarians as when invoked by environmentalists.  Cass Sunstein at the U of C has demolished it because it can be invoked by anyone at any time to prove anything.  I hope to get back to this in the blog because it cuts across political lines too.
    
    Michael writes that no debate is ever over.  In theory, yes.  In practice, no.  There are still people who think the earth is flat, or that it was created in 4004 BC, or who don&acirc;&#128;&#153;t buy plate tectonics.  Reasonable people follow Keynes on this point if on no other:  when the evidence changes, they change their opinions.
        
        <br />
        
          Posted by Harold]]>
    </description>
    <pubDate>Sat, 29 Jul 2006 08:15:06 -0500</pubDate> 
    <source url="http://www.chicagoreader.com">Chicago Reader</source>
  </item>
        
          <item>
    
    <title><![CDATA[Re: Who are you and what have you done with the Heartland Institute?]]></title>
    
    
    <link><![CDATA[http://www.chicagoreader.com/TheBlog/archives/2006/07/28/who-are-you-and-what-have-you-done-heartland-insti/#962516]]></link>
    
    <guid isPermaLink="true"><![CDATA[http://www.chicagoreader.com/TheBlog/archives/2006/07/28/who-are-you-and-what-have-you-done-heartland-insti/#962516]]></guid>
    <author><![CDATA[lunatic fringe]]></author>
    <description>
      
      <![CDATA[So buy some sun block and get a hat. What difference does a couple of degrees make? Did you read Crichton's book? I did.
        
        <br />
        
          Posted by lunatic fringe]]>
    </description>
    <pubDate>Fri, 28 Jul 2006 21:18:44 -0500</pubDate> 
    <source url="http://www.chicagoreader.com">Chicago Reader</source>
  </item>
        
          <item>
    
    <title><![CDATA[Re: Who are you and what have you done with the Heartland Institute?]]></title>
    
    
    <link><![CDATA[http://www.chicagoreader.com/TheBlog/archives/2006/07/28/who-are-you-and-what-have-you-done-heartland-insti/#960632]]></link>
    
    <guid isPermaLink="true"><![CDATA[http://www.chicagoreader.com/TheBlog/archives/2006/07/28/who-are-you-and-what-have-you-done-heartland-insti/#960632]]></guid>
    <author><![CDATA[Harold]]></author>
    <description>
      
      <![CDATA[Michael's response is up at 
    
    http://www.fromtheheartland.org/blog/2006/07/what_is_it_about_skepticism_yo.php
    
    with some good points, but comments aren't enabled there.  I'll sleep on it before replying.
        
        <br />
        
          Posted by Harold]]>
    </description>
    <pubDate>Fri, 28 Jul 2006 13:09:13 -0500</pubDate> 
    <source url="http://www.chicagoreader.com">Chicago Reader</source>
  </item>
        
          <item>
    
    <title><![CDATA[Re: Who are you and what have you done with the Heartland Institute?]]></title>
    
    
    <link><![CDATA[http://www.chicagoreader.com/TheBlog/archives/2006/07/28/who-are-you-and-what-have-you-done-heartland-insti/#949028]]></link>
    
    <guid isPermaLink="true"><![CDATA[http://www.chicagoreader.com/TheBlog/archives/2006/07/28/who-are-you-and-what-have-you-done-heartland-insti/#949028]]></guid>
    <author><![CDATA[Harold]]></author>
    <description>
      
      <![CDATA[Dang, there's always one more link to put in!
    http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=16260
        
        <br />
        
          Posted by Harold]]>
    </description>
    <pubDate>Fri, 28 Jul 2006 11:06:25 -0500</pubDate> 
    <source url="http://www.chicagoreader.com">Chicago Reader</source>
  </item>
        
          <item>
    
    <title><![CDATA[Re: Who are you and what have you done with the Heartland Institute?]]></title>
    
    
    <link><![CDATA[http://www.chicagoreader.com/TheBlog/archives/2006/07/28/who-are-you-and-what-have-you-done-heartland-insti/#960811]]></link>
    
    <guid isPermaLink="true"><![CDATA[http://www.chicagoreader.com/TheBlog/archives/2006/07/28/who-are-you-and-what-have-you-done-heartland-insti/#960811]]></guid>
    <author><![CDATA[Dunl]]></author>
    <description>
      
      <![CDATA[>instead of presenting Michael
    >Crichton--a fiction writer with 
    >a flimsy conspiracy theory
    
    reference?
        
        <br />
        
          Posted by Dunl]]>
    </description>
    <pubDate>Fri, 28 Jul 2006 10:49:25 -0500</pubDate> 
    <source url="http://www.chicagoreader.com">Chicago Reader</source>
  </item>
        
      
    </channel>
  </rss>




