Environmental Graffiti has a pretty nice collection of images depicting damages from large-scale mining projects.
Archive for October 28th, 2009
Steven Levitt, one of the Freakonomics duo, went on last night’s Daily Show to defend himself against critics (and to stir up another million or so suckers to buy his book). Anybody paying attention knows that Levitt and Dubner’s geoengineering chapter has created a good deal of consternation around the blogosphere. John Stewart, noting the sharp criticism coming from the environmental establishment, asks whether Levitt has “stepped on a secular religion.” Roger Pielke Jr. then picks up on Stewart’s faux disbelief to ask whether Stewart will get the same treatment that others have gotten, tangentially referencing a thread discussed at length here a few weeks ago.*
Roger knows the answer to his question, of course: probably not. Stewart will likely be given a pass. But that’s cool, because Stewart didn’t flesh out a substantive position. He just prodded Levitt, who I think sought in this interview the moral high ground. And that is where we, intrepid philosophers, enter the picture.
How did Levitt seek the moral high ground? By tragically misunderstanding his own discipline, of course.
More after the jump…
“Scathing,” is about the only word that can possibly describe this article, in which Dana Milbank mercilessly rakes Sen. James Inhofe over the coals. My skin burns just reading it.
[Inhofe] described the Democrats’ proposal as “the largest tax increase in — in history!” Agitated, his utterances disjointed, Inhofe went on: “Now, I also was — was kind of — I don’t want any of the media to think just because I had to sit here and listen to our good friend Senator Kerry for 28 minutes, that I don’t have responses to everything he said.”
Nobody doubted that Inhofe had a response. The doubt was whether the response would make any sense.