Experiencing global warming first hand. On way to Tennessee North Carolina border in the Gt Smoky Mountains National Park
I suppose I must claim self-interest here. I do think it sensible for us all to respond to the theory of man made global warming and its potentially disastrous impact on the planet as if it were true. But I am also a useless bag of shit, or human being. I will therefore be seen from time to time in a car which isn’t an economical planet-pleaser. I will leave lights on. I will forget to recycle. I will travel. I have paid money to carbon trusts who promise to offset the damage my carbon footprint causes, but apparently (according to some at least) this isn’t the way forward. It’s all very hard and I’m not even sure that I can claim that I do my best. But I am doing my best to do my best. If that sounds weaselly and flabby and cowardly, that’s because it is. But I suspect that’s how most of us who believe in the threat of global warming are: will we have the courage to vote for a political dispensation that will force through what needs to be forced through and enact what needs to be enacted? I don’t know. But I do know that we need more heated arguments around dinner tables and less self-delusion and evasion. Act for the worst and hope for the best. In some ways I am sorry I seemed to make an enemy, on the other I am glad to have had the fierce evening with him. Fierce overheated evenings are needed at evening meals all over the world.
This blessay turns out to have been complicated, repetitive and rather laboriously expressed. I’m sorry for that, and if I had more time I’d go back and smooth it out. Heigh ho.
© Stephen Fry 2007
I must say I’m overjoyed at the thought that Minnesota may get a visit from this hyper-intelligent pan-dimensional being.
Seriously Mr. Fry, if you do read these, I’ve been enjoying reading your enlightening commentary. May your intelligence and wit rub off on those that you meet during your visit to the states!
Stephen,
Please please please tell us that you are making fifty episodes at an hour each, to go out once a week. It would be very wrong not to.
Also, I picked up a copy of the spectacled bear book recently, and the landscape photography absolutely fantastic! I hope you have some equally talented photographers with you on this trip.
Now, regarding climate change, I must disagree with you on one tiny detail: the utility of the analogy with Pascal’s wager. Pascal’s wager fails for another reason, which you do not mention (though somebody on the comments has come close — I’ve only had time to skim through the comments so far, so I appologise if somebody has got in before me): Pascal, if I recall correctly, was talking about the Christian God (especially with regards to heaven and hell). What if you put your bets on Jesus, but God is actually a Jew, or a Muslim, and sent you to hell for backing the wrong prophet? What if God is a bastard and rewards bad behaviour? What if God plays dice, and heaven and hell are entirely random? What if the FSM exists, and he rewards piracy? In the absence of any evidence for any of these scenarios, or indeed for the Christian God, one has no way to decide one’s wager.
The analogy for those in groups B and C for Climate Change, if they really are unaware of the evidence, would be: what if more carbon dioxide is good for the environment? What if a warmer climate were beneficial, promoting economic growth, world peace, and an end to infective diseases, parasites and cancer? What if carbon dioxide levels haven’t changed at all? What if some other undiscovered atmospheric compound is causing problems, and we will make them worse by concentrating on something else? What if stopping burning coal will cause floods in Africa? What if reducing carbon dioxide will have a positive feedback effect, until levels get so low that all plants die? And so on, and so on.
I imagine that the readers of this site know enough science to know that such what-ifs are absurd, and anyway, are irrelevant in the light of the vast body of evidence indicating climate change and carbon dioxide’s role in it. But if somebody is truly unaware of such evidence, or truly believes it to be inconclusive, and if they know so little basic science that they can not evaluate the scenarios, then there will be no reason to bet on any particular one of them. Betting on one risks angering the god of the other, so to speak.
Dear Stephen,
As I really have nothing to say on the matter of Global Warming (it’s one of those bad habit of mine, the more important the subject the less I have to say about it. As far GW goes, my opinion is that we really ought to leave a place nicer that than when we first came, and it’s pretty obvious that we better do things about it. That’s it. But dear god, don’t get started on who was a better bass singer Darrell Fancourt or Donald Adams, or John Ayldon I will tear people apart on that one), I’ll not bother waffling on about it and allow more science minded people to air their more informed views, without letting mine intrude. Instead, I’ll write on subject that I really care more about, namely Pratchett
Though it did seem only a little insulting, I wasn’t offended. Indeed though, I might have been offended as apparently others were, save for the fact that as far as unintended insults go it was rather funny. When you get down to it, I can’t really be offended at anyone would go to the trouble to insult me that well; it’s another bad habit, but it’s my parents fault for introducing me to Shakespeare at a very early age. The way your phrase stated, though, it doesn’t seem like it’s a criticism of what Pratchett readers do, so much as it seems that being a Pratchett reader is a very bad habit like the sipping of soup or the breathing out of the mouth. I had really no previous inkling that this was bad and embarrassing habit, unlike other things that other people tell have informed me that are bad habits, like Star Trek, or graphic novels, or the tendency, if I’m not paying attention to it, of putting my elbows on the table. Or reading Xanth, which is something nobody has taken me to task for, but that’s only ‘cause I know it’s an embarrassment and don’t normally advertise it (save for under torture or on other people’s blogs). It did seem like you were insulting us all, but I suppose that it is as Martyn Green notes, it’s all where you put your emphasis, and in our case where we imagined your emphasis to be.
But really as some one said, you really need not have apologized for such a small offense. But it was very kind of you to do so.
I just wish to note that us Pratchett fans can never be said to be overwhelmed by the presence of fame. When presented with anybody who has never read the books, we immediately fall over ourselves to recommend which book to start with. I must agree with those who have mentioned “Mort†and “Small Godsâ€, while not my favorites they are a good introduction to Pratchett’s style. Personally, I’d have you start with The Truth, it’s a stand alone, and you don’t need to have read all the other books; it’s also sufficiently late enough in the series that there is a very nice sense of history which doesn’t get in the way of enjoying . Also it’s a very insightful look at journalism, as I find myself getting more involved with the press, I see exactly how dead on that book is. One last bit of advice here, I started with Jingo. Don’t start with Jingo.
Now that I’ve given some of my recommendations, what of yours? Would you mind telling your readers what makes you smile and laugh? Outside of Plum, Adams, and us silly little Pratcheteers, of course.
Cheers,
Abby
P.S. I very much hope you enjoyed your time in Virginia and I hope you got to down to Tidewater area, as it’s too lovely to miss.
Appologies if this turns up twice, or I’m annoying a moderator by being impatient, but this hasn’t shown up in the twelve hours since I sumitted it
–
Stephen,
Please please please tell us that you are making fifty episodes at an hour each, to go out once a week. It would be very wrong not to.
Also, I picked up a copy of the spectacled bear book recently, and the landscape photography absolutely fantastic! I hope you have some equally talented photographers with you on this trip.
Now, regarding climate change, I must disagree with you on one tiny detail: the utility of the analogy with Pascal’s wager. Pascal’s wager fails for another reason, which you do not mention (though somebody on the comments has come close — I’ve only had time to skim through the comments so far, so I appologise if somebody has got in before me): Pascal, if I recall correctly, was talking about the Christian God (especially with regards to heaven and hell). What if you put your bets on Jesus, but God is actually a Jew, or a Muslim, and sent you to hell for backing the wrong prophet? What if God is a bastard and rewards bad behaviour? What if God plays dice, and heaven and hell are entirely random? What if the FSM exists, and he rewards piracy? In the absence of any evidence for any of these scenarios, or indeed for the Christian God, one has no way to decide one’s wager.
The analogy for those in groups B and C for Climate Change, if they really are unaware of the evidence, would be: what if more carbon dioxide is good for the environment? What if a warmer climate were beneficial, promoting economic growth, world peace, and an end to infective diseases, parasites and cancer? What if carbon dioxide levels haven’t changed at all? What if some other undiscovered atmospheric compound is causing problems, and we will make them worse by concentrating on something else? What if stopping burning coal will cause floods in Africa? What if reducing carbon dioxide will have a positive feedback effect, until levels get so low that all plants die? And so on, and so on.
I imagine that the readers of this site know enough science to know that such what-ifs are absurd, and anyway, are irrelevant in the light of the vast body of evidence indicating climate change and carbon dioxide’s role in it. But if somebody is truly unaware of such evidence, or truly believes it to be inconclusive, and if they know so little basic science that they can not evaluate the scenarios, then there will be no reason to bet on any particular one of them. Betting on one risks angering the god of the other, so to speak.
The problem I think we face when discussing global warming is that it easily excites visceral passions, while the solution must lie in marrying a scientific and a bean-counting approach.
I wonder; the carbon that we’re burning today represents the fossilised remains of plants and animals that lived long ago. Now those prehistoric plants got their carbon from the atmosphere in the form of CO2, which they used it to form wood, leaves, etc. this eventually became coal and peat. Phyto/zoo-plankton and the bodies of animals swimming and sinking gradually formed oil. So the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere has been falling gradually and continuously for all the time that the fossilisation process has been occurring.
We know that the earth was continuously habitable at all points in the past up until today by virtue of the fact we’re alive – life hasn’t arisen, died out completely, then re-emerged.
My point is that if we burn the last lump of coal and use the last gallon of petrol, we will have returned carbon that existed as a free gas in the prehistoric world back to the air. The prehistoric world was habitable at the time, so we don’t need to fear a literal annihilation resulting from global warming, though if CO2 causes global warming, there will be an enormous economic cost in adapting to raised sea levels, more frequent storms, land which is unusable due to drought.
If CO2 is completely unrelated to global warming, there will be an enormous economic cost to move away from fossil fuels when they run out and we can no longer use cars or manufacture plastic, or melt steel. Asking whether CO2 causes global warming almost misses the point – whether it does or not, fossil fuel will run out and our way of life will have to radically change.
I want to point out a very accessible and dispassionate look at renewable energy in Great Britain (I’m not the authour or affiliated with the book, but it’s well worth a read). For instance, how many solar panels and wind turbines do we need to be able to do without any coal, gas or nuclear power stations? Is it remotely feasible? Is it really quite simple to achieve? How much would energy have to cost in order for it to be provided from 100% renewable sources? What percentage of Britains’ land would need to be wind farm or solar cell? How much energy do we use each, per day, and how much could we use in the future? Where will we make the savings?
This book attempts to ask those questions http://www.withouthotair.com/ , and they are the questions are central to a meaningful debate on fossil fuels, far more than whether we should have an existential guilt about using resources while we’re alive.
The only reason we have people in class B is because there is a paucity of viable alternatives to using fossil fuels.
Great read as usual!
I love the reference to Vonnegut.
First off, let me wish you luck in finding any food here in the US that does not contain High Fructose Corn Syrup. Personally, I am convinced that the apparent fate of Americans to turn into motorized scooter driving, fork wielding chubs is because of this barely 30 year old sweetener. (Side Note: I can make such remarks about the overweight since I too am a fatty.) Some claim it is natural or if you don’t want it, just don’t drink sodas. I found it in some liver snaps while shopping for my dog. The same dog who eats cat litter. And I’m pretty sure she doesn’t do it for the baking soda clean feeling. So I buy her all-natural treats and organic baked food, and myself a soda on the way out…
And as for Jim and your heated discussion… Well, folks are saying plenty about Jim and American’s tolerance for argumentative chat, and there is plenty that can continue to be said. I think the problem is not that most Americans shy away from confrontation, it’s just that the large majority of them never have to face anyone who holds a different opinion than they do. As a result, anyone whose point of view is even slightly different than their own is one of which to be weary. They are obviously an outsider and outsiders are to be feared. But, since they have never had their beliefs challenged, they respond as they do to general confrontation: either curl up in a ball and play dead or assume the other individual is making a personal attack and strike out as such. You apparently encountered the latter in Jim. Those of us Americans who think calling your lifelong friends morons over the dinner table for their views on the world is an average Saturday night apologize.
But what I did find interesting was your observation that people who live in New York City are less likely to have or express a pride for their hometown. As a life-long New York Resident, it’s not that I take umbrage at that remark (rarely does a day go by when I don’t say, “And that guy/gal is the reason people think New York Sucks”), it’s more that it is a widely agreed upon stereotype that is far from accurate.
The thing is that there are, as you stated, “People from New York,” and then there are “New Yorkers.” People from New York tend to just think of themselves as residents of the city. Maybe they grew up there but never built a deep feeling about it one way or the other. Many of them are not native-born, having come to New York as adults. Some act like asses because they think that’s what you do in New York. Others identify more with the places they have come from so they like NY, but have no passion for it. So it’s not so much that these folks are less likely to talk about their admiration for the City, it’s just that they really don’t have much to speak of. Luckily, the next group is often loud enough to ensure that everyone can hear them.
New Yorkers are a different breed entirely. For example, recently I was riding in a cab near Union Square in Manhattan with two friends: one from NYC and one a transplant from Miami. We were stopped making a turn as a woman who was about 157 if she’s a day was slowly shuffling across the street. I sat in silence watching my money slowly tick away. My Miami friend began shouting for the elderly woman to move faster and that there should be an age limit for living in NYC. Once you are too old you should have to move and why would you even want to live in a place where you have to walk everywhere? We explained to her that this woman is a New Yorker, this is just what she does. She has probably lived here her whole life and would never think of living anywhere else. The city is a part of her and she is a part of the city.
And that is the essence of it all: New Yorkers see the City as one monstrous organism and themselves as an organic component. We thrive on it and it on us. The break down of one results in the strengthening of the other: the subways go on strike, New Yorkers say “poop” and walk across bridges and up 60 blocks to work; the power goes out on a boiling summer day, New Yorkers again say “poop,” buy some Ice and have a block party with their neighbors and all the defrosting food. This I know on a personal level, having spent four years at college in Indiana (Digression: No American tour is complete without participation in a college football Saturday, preferably at Notre Dame, but since the regular season is over, any College Bowl game would do well). Now the people of Indiana are wonderful and my circle of friends now spans the US, but each return to NY was accompanied with a sigh of relief. There is an unusual comfort in the insanity of NY. The speed at which life moves makes the slow moments just that much more significant.
And, most importantly, our brisk exteriors are not from a lack of emotion or concern for our City and its individuals. In fact, it comes from our need to protect and preserve it entirely. We are a city of immense culture and diversity, but we don’t take well to those who come in and mess with our routine. Every swear, middle finger, “come on,” and “move it,” is like a little “I Love You,” to New York.
Ok, maybe not that. But, if you think it’s typical for New Yorkers not to express their love of their City, it is really because you are looking to hear it spoken plainly and with obvious pride. The think is, since New Yorkers see it as their city, praise for any parts are praise for the whole. When New Yorkers say they love the Yankees, bagels, pizza, central park, Broadway or anything, they are saying they love New York because to them they are one in the same.
Yes, New Yorkers are a enigmatic, often times annoying bunch. But at least we’re open about it.
Oh, and no cultural study of the United States will be complete without addressing the soda, pop or coke conflict. I’ve seen it divide families.
Hmm, and somehow I managed to come full circle back to high fructose corn syrup. Wow, it is that good…
Stephen,
Yes, your blessay this time was a little long winded, however, it was on an important subject. I would like to make two points.
Firstly, if we take the science out of the debate, and look at pure risk and economics, it has to be addressed, and I think this was the crux of your argument.
I have an example to illustrate this. Employees in a local building were complaining that to many women had contracted cancer. More than would be considered normal. After an exhaustive scientific investigation, no answer was found. However, a risk assessment conducted at the same time concluded that to continue using the building would be both morally and economically disastrous for the employer.
Secondly, and more ironically, it may force the world to come closer together, as we all strive to overcome a potential common problem.
Nothing forces people closer together than adversity.
Cheers,
Dave.
I was very interested to read about the cultural differences in debate around the dinner table between the U.S. and Britain. I am Welsh and went to University in Cardiff. My fellow students were predominantly English and I learned very quickly that the Welsh sense of humour often caused offence to my English classmates. Whereas I was always used to looking for self-deprecating jokes, and also giving the setup line for someone elses punchline, my delicate classmates often didn’t understand at all and thought I was being cruel.
As for Global Warming, there are two facts that are inarguable. One is that the Earth is getting warmer. Two is that there has been a massive rise in atmospheric carbon dioxide (and other greenhouse gases) linked to Man’s activities.
The debate on Global Warming is centred around whether or not the two are linked. And nobody knows for certain. In fact it is thought that many of Man’s industrial and travel activities are currently keeping Earth cool, by releasing particulates into the atmosphere that actually shade the Earth. Jet aircraft are thought to offset a lot of the possible atmospheric warming effect through their contrails actually reflecting solar energy back into space.
It’s all going to be OK though because the UK government are going to raise taxes on fuel and fine people who don’t recycle etc. Of course it would be ludicrous to expect government to legislate for companies to reduce packaging, encourage the purchase of local produce and ensure that their products meet a standard of energy efficiency and ban ’standby’ on electrical items.
Dear Mr Fry
Delightfully, the word ’statal’ does exist. Herewith an excerpt from the OED:
1. Of or pertaining to a State (of the U.S. or other federation), as distinguished from national. rare.
1862 E. Bates in Official Opinions Attorneys Gen. X. 388 I have no knowledge of any other kind of political citizenship, higher or lower, statal or national. 1880 A. Tourgée Fool’s Errand & Invisible Empire ii. xi. 489 Public education flourished as a part of the statal economy. 1949 Times 7 Feb. 5/3 All the states outside this special category have already been merged with provinces or have joined one or another of the six great statal groups.
I have been enjoying your written ponderings since I stumbled upon this site a couple of months ago Mr Fry, you are a delight to read.
There is nothing I can add to the vast array of commentary on GW here, although your insight into the American habit of becoming personally insulted when their views/opinions are challenged may prove useful in future discussions with a person of American origin who appears to have this habit. I had never managed to identify quite why I found discussion anything with him so irritating until you articulated the cause.
Now on to matters far more significant, the vast numbers of recommendations as to which Prachett you should read first. As a person who reads extensively across broad areas of fiction, I have been known to get twitchy when confronted with an absense of reading material, there is something you must know about Mr Pratchett’s work… it’s boring. I have on several ocasions had a Pratcheteer thrust one of his works upon me for my reading pleasure, I have yet to manage to finish a single one as they bore me to tears. Please consider this advice carefully before following the advice of Pratcheteers here, it is entirely possible to live a fulfilling life without having to enjoy Pratchett novels, in fact one’s life may well be enhanced by the absence of such banal teduim.
cheers
Gabe
i love the word connecticut. i try to get people to say it if a close subject ever comes up. i remember thinking connect-i-cut?!?! oooh (i watched lots of american tv) connecticut ;D
unfortunately everyone else seems to know the real prounciation, which is a shame and its a shame i cant spell pronounciation, oh wait i think that got it
i’d never really thought that global warming could be the conspiracy of the century, just memorised (learnt some of i guess) it for the exams. I am an A tho, i try. Thing that gets me tho is that the summers are meant to be really hot, i know this is probably meant to be a gradual thing, but the summer just gone seemed to be a step back.
I dont like heat tho and since monitors are backlit maybe everyone can turn their bulbs off. Please i’ll just end up with skin cancer, think about my health
[...] Check it out! While looking through the blogosphere we stumbled on an interesting post today.Here’s a quick excerptYou can’t make assumptions, that was the message. I could just have easily written: ‘Being deeply dippy about Terry Pratchett doesn’t mean I love digital devices, breathe only through my mouth and bring my head closer … etc’. … [...]
[...] brings me to this piece by Stephen [...]
I think this American documentary is a wonderful idea. It is remarkable how foreign my own country can feel. The civic and state pride is an interesting and relevant view to take. I am known as a rather rediculously patriotic Seattalite. However, these identities are not entirely defined by state lines; there are more geological regions with commonalities that tie people together. What I know is Washington. Here we’ve got this mountain range cutting through the state, resulting not just in enviromental but also in cultural differences. I’ve got to talking with some locals in original coffee shops-many would identify more with Portland, OR, or even Vancouver, B.C. than with, say, Spokane, WA.
I do hope this documentary will explore Western Washington with more than Starbucks, we are composed of a bit more than computers and coffee, truly…
The rainforest is beautiful.
Well Stephen, you’ve certainly gone up in my estimations. Anyone who recognises the God like genius of My Cousin Vinny is OK in my book. Not that I’ve got a book, but if I had one, you’d definitely be on the ‘Nice Chap’ pages. That film is the mostest underratedest of all underrated movies.
I suppose I better comment on the issue at hand: Boo to global warming! To be honest, I’m a little too poor to personally effect climate change, but Boo to it anyway. I barely leave any footprint at all, let alone a fancy pants carbon one, even in its cheapest allotrope. There’s plenty out there with diamonds on the soles of their shoes. I couldn’t even make a pencil.
Would you be so kind as to tour Norfolk/Suffolk.
We also like a jolly good ding dong.
When you get to the Pacific Northwest, please do come to Portland, Oregon. If you let me know you’re coming, I’ll bake you a cake of your choice, make a pot of tea and walk you around the Pearl District.
Personally, I wish we’d all go back to coal and get rid of the catalytic convertors on cars – remembering the black buildings of my childhood, there was an incredibly clear link between what we burnt and what the places we lived would look like.
The other thing I don’t get is how the critics of global warming always trot out the economic growth argument. Surely a switch towards renewable or fusion energy sources is also an opportunity for economic growth, creating new industries, and eventually giving an edge over countries who have a dependency on increasingly expensive fossil fuel energy – something we are told has slowed growth over the last 2 years! Is it me or is that not a reason in itself to look at the alternatives?
(Ironically, it might be market forces rather than political action that solves the issue – and will allow both sides to believe they were right).
I’m also reminded somewhat of telecom firms and ISPs and then VOIP or the iPhone. Either you can stick your head in the sand and pretend it’s all going to go away and pretend your old business is fine (and then pay millions for the wrong firm at the height of a boom) or you can get in early and be a player. Guess which I’d be doing if my business was non-renewable fossil fuels?
Oh, and Margaret Thatcher – a woman who I despise on many levels – understood and believed the science (she was, after all, an Oxford educated chemist). Hardly someone you’d have down as your typical Leftist / liberal / hippy type A.
And as a quick response to Danegeld – there was a mass extinction since most of our fossil fuels were laid down. Perhaps something worth avoiding? (Even if the causes are not man-made).
Thought I would log in with a few thoughts. I am American, born, raised and living in the American South…but I DO believe in global warming, and I am not the only person living in the U.S. in a city not located on either the West or East Coasts who does. Though I admit it often feels that way.
I’m sorry we elected George Bush–twice–and that we as a country seem to have our heads up our arses.
Thanks for the intelligent blessays.
I was very happy to see you talking about the “American” way of discussion, because it’s something I’ve scratched my head at for a while. Without wanting to express or provoke any anti-American sentiments, I too have a very great problem with people who skirt around any productive discussion by saying “let’s agree to disagree” (in the best possible scenario, of course, the worst being the kind of personal offence-taking you describe above). As I myself wrote in a blant [I like these awful neologisms] a while ago, I don’t really understand the concept of creating respect by using phrases that seem artificial and counter-productive.
If you as a Briton have a problem with it, just imagine how hard it must be for us Germans, who cause consternation whenever we open our mouths in a foreign country…
hair removal…
hair removal, laser hair removal, hair removal product, hair removal cost…
Great stuff – I need to go back and read all the comment, but wanted to add mine while it’s fresh.
On Global Warming, I have a slightly different perspective.
First – We absolutely should take steps to ensure we ruduce and if at all possible, ultimately stop polluting this planet. Even without any discussion of global warming, we can see with ease the environmental damage we have been doing since the Industrial Revolution. Common sense says stop doing that.
Furthermore, I don’t believe that cleaning up our act necessarily strangles economic vibrancy or industrial/technological progress. We are smart enough to address environmental isssues without introducing technological stagnation or regression!!
Second – I remain completely unconvinced by the arguments that Global Warming is a phenomenon brought on entirely by our pollution of the planet. I firmly believe that the Earth has natural climate cycles that we have no comprehension of (can you say “ice age” boys and girls?). Any attempt to interfere with that natural cycle is likely to be futile, and certainly expensive. My biggest fear is that we spend the next 100 years and more trying to force the climate to mimic some false “average climate” based arbitrarily on temperature and rainfall averages as measured in 1800, 1950 or whatever.
Oh – and as a Scot now resident in Mississippi, don’t *start* me on cultural differences!!!
donquixote Said:
“One more thing, though. Pascal’s Wager, as silly as it is, is not quite as silly as you say it is. Obviously, God would, as you say, see through a purely pragmatic “belief†in Him. However, belief in God, be it the Judaeo-Christian God, or the Islamic God, or any other kind of God you care to mention, goes hand to hand with a religious and therefore moral framework. If you believe in the Christian God, surely then it’s only logical to love thy neighbour and follow the 10 commandments?”
Ah – American Christian. Probably from the Bible belt? One of my favourite bullshitisms from this country. The implication, of course, is that if you do not believe in a God you must be immoral.
What a pile of tripe. Morality does not equate to religion, and religion does not equate to morality – American prisons are full of people who ‘found god’ before, during or after their immoral acts. Morality simply means you understand that hurting others (through theft or the tittilation of your neighbour’s wife, etc.) and/or breaking the law of the land are really not good things to do.
Eric…
IÂ’ll admit it. i have been to your blog SIX times since your last post looking for a new postÂ…….
Ralph Wiggum…
Hats off to you my good man….
Stephen –
I’m an American from a family of debaters — argument and debate over the dinner table (or drinks) is practically the air I breathe. This causes no end of consternation to my wife, who, (as you generalize Americans), inevitably feels she is being attacked.
In short: I highly respect your ability to step back and regard an opposing outlook dispassionately (at least in writing) and logically. You have an ability to break things down into digestible chunks that is unusual, and greatly welcomed when I do find it.
That being said: I disagree with the bulk of your conclusions in this post RE global warming, but would absolutely _love_ to raise some hell about it with you.
I’ve always felt that reasoned debate with one’s opponents is the _only_ way to truly hone one’s own arguments, and you are exactly the type of personality that I get along with even when I disagree.
I’m not A, B, or C. I am, it seems, part of group “D”. Yes the planet’s climate is changing; and no, it has little, if anything, to do with man; and the attempts to avoid something that we cannot influence would be actively harmful.
As a guy who lives right next to a giant lake that was carved by a glacier (Lake Michigan), in an area that sees 90 degree (Fahrenheit) days in the summer, I can say _absolutely_ that the Earth’s climate changes, and has been doing so since long before the rise of human Industry. One needs only look at the agricultural villages buried under the ice of Greenland (let me say that again… The _ice_ covering _Green Land_) to know that the planet undergoes large swings in long term climate.
The flipside of that is that dumping massive regulation on people in efforts to avoid such change will do more damage to human freedom than doing nothing. That is, the futile efforts to prevent something that has as much to do with the output of our sun as the output of volcanoes is going to hurt many, and help nothing.
Ironically, it is the vast wealth of industrialized nations that has lead to many of the technological innovations that are causing the USA to become _more_ environmentally sound even as we produce more wealth. I myself have invested in a company (Cree) that is working on making LEDs bright enough to use as lighting in businesses and homes. When they do figure it out, it will be an advance that leaves mercury-filled, flickering, heat-producing flourescents in the dust — 20-year bulbs that produce clean light and run for pennies a year.
Who is creating this? China? No. Russia? No. Germany, perhaps? Nope. The most industrially free society on the planet is inventing most of the technology that will enable _everyone_ to be more environmentally sound in the future, and ironically, the socialistic “environmental” regulations that folks such as you are trying to rationalize with calls of “what could be the harm?” would stifle exactly that innovation.
You’ve got my email. En garde!
Pete…
I love your site. They really look very nice. The articles provided are long enough to provide great content but not so long as to be totally engrossing, if you know what I mean….
the insurance companies don’t want you to know…
Information on the life insurance industry…
Laser Hair Removal…
Remove unwanted hair today…
[...] this post, (scroll down to “Getting Overheated”) Fry discusses how Englishers and Americans [...]
[...] Fry, the British actor from Rowan Atkinson’s Blackadder series and others, posted a very revealing blog article concerning this phenomenon. He’d been dining with an American colleague when things turned [...]
I have the debate bug myself, and often have to remind people of the difference between a debate and a row
Perhaps I’m too aggresive at times, I suspect so, though i don’t mean to be.
As for the environment, there’s all sorts of evidence, from the hokey to the downright scary – I admit, I’m still on the fence. I find it difficult to fully believe that us human rabble can have such a profound effect on the planet.
Global warming as they call it may be the result of our hobnail boot stamping all over the place or on the other hand simply a result of the planet’s constant state of flux.
This planet will keep turning, disinterested in the little human drama we all take so seriously. Coastlines will change, landmasses, types of species, I wager it will go on long before we have moved on or away.
That said, I try, to keep my carbon foot print down as much as I can. I’m not the best eco warrior out there by a long shot, but I’m not the cavalier litter dropper I might sound like.
Whether we are responsible for the changes in climate, or not, I think it’s downright shameful how we treat the planet, and to top it off, almost suicidal.
Stick almost any other animal in an enviroment of some sort, and they’ll pick a corner in which to poo, and keep the rest clean and disease free as best the can. Not us, no. From litter to landfill, we’re destructive, and dangerous, (we’re many other things too mind you, wonderful, sweet and kind, don’t get me wrong).
Why do we need the environmental sword of damacles to spur us into action? Isn’t it enough we live here in the first place?
Yes, believe it or not this is the real “Jim” that Stephen mentions in his blog….Can’t believe I stumbled onto this. At least I made some sort of impression on the man (even if it was a very negative one it appears)…….My account of the day’s events and the dinner in particular differ slightly from Stephen’s…..More later if anyone expresses a desire to hear my side of the story….
“Jim”
“Jim” again. First off, my real name is Bob (although Jim works just as well). Stephen asserts that he uses the alias to protect my anonymity. Thanks, Stephen…very kind of you. Early in his “blessay” he mentioned that he had visited the following states: Maine, Vermont, New Hampshire, New York, Connecticut, Rhode Island, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Maryland, Delaware, DC, Virginia, West Virginia, Kentucky, Tennessee and North Carolina. In the very next paragraph he mentions that he “has gone down a coal mine.” Of the aforementioned states only VA, WV, PA, KY, TN, & MD are currently coal producing states…the latter two with somewhat limited production by comparison. One could deduce from this that the visit to the coal mine was probably located in any of the previously mentioned four states: VA, WV, PA or KY. In the same paragraph he mentions that he “got drunk @ a distillery” (hopefully those blessed souls had more luck w/ an intoxicated Fry than I did!!!)….more than likely that would be in either KY or TN for those of you familiar w/ the US bourbon business…again process of elimination rules one of those out as well…further narrowing the state or commonwealth. With WV being the largest coal producing state in the Eastern US, one could well make the case that the logical deduction would be that Stephen’s visit to a coal mine was in fact a WV coal mine….. West “By God” Virginia…and indeed that would be a correct deduction. Voila!! The coal mine segment was filmed in the great Mountain State!!!
Later in his “blessay” he mentions that “Jim” has a, “vested interest, a deeply vested interest, in this whole issue.” Furthermore he quotes, “It doesn’t of course make any difference that he is a very senior figure in a company that…..no, I want to protect his anonymity so I’ll just say that he is in the fossil fuels business.” Hell, Helen Keller could see that good ole JimBob was in the coal business in WV!!!
So much for that. I’m not concerned with anonymity…..everyone in my business knows I’m the only one dumb/naive enough in our industry to allow a visit such as Stephen’s to occur in the first place. I’ll touch on that and the details leading up to his visit in my next post…..
[...] Fry, in his blog “The New Adventures of Mr Stephen Fry†recounts a heated discussion he ad with an American gentleman regarding global warming. He [...]