Here’s a link (scroll through) to the National Geographic piece on the movie.
Here’s a link to my opinion of the movie.
Good camerawork and good moviemaking———-Yes.
Mostly bad ideas. Anthropomorphism, global warming wackiness (seeking to prove what you already believe), a lot of sentiment.
Kids: If you study science, and math, and one day come to make a discovery (even in a field not related to global climate change, zoology, animal intelligence or anything to do with the subject of An Arctic Tale) you will likely have done more than anyone involved in this movie. You will have done much more than me commenting on the movie.
Go for it.
Addition: Check out the comments.
All credit goes to a bloggingheads commentor mysteriously known as AemJeff.
Click here to find out.
Addition: Original link at Pharyngula. A link to the site only. Could not find the original post. Apologies.
A Category 4 now south of Jamaica and heading toward the Yucatan. Saffir-Simpson scale here.
I spent a season in Florida with four hurricanes, and maybe what I most remember as I while driving northeast to Orlando to escape Charley, was how anxious I was.
I sat among tens of thousands of cars jammed on I4, nosing east. I was flipping through even the am stations for updates. Will it be really bad? Will I find shelter? This land is so flat, I remember thinking, just a large spit of sand.
The weakened eye passed right near the Super 8 near Orlando where I luckily found a room. I stood near the breezeway for a few minutes with some teenagers, watching plywood and bits of plastic, a construction cone, and driving walls of wind and rain pass through.
I watched and listened in awe as a steady roar filled the night, then gradually died down.
Fortunately, I didn’t have a house or loved ones to lose.
After the terrible Challenger explosion in 1986, Richard Feynman was included on an independent panel to find out what went wrong. He discovered a profound difference between engineers’ and managements’ probability estimates for number of flights without failure. One potential (and very important) reason that a system-ending failure can go unnoticed is the tendency of managers to believe top-down explanations.
It’s vintage Feynman, inconoclastic, penetrating and brilliant:
“for whatever purpose, be it for internal or
external consumption, the management of NASA exaggerates the
reliability of its product, to the point of fantasy.”
“For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over
public relations, for nature cannot be fooled.”
Just a suggestion with NASA in the news lately…though it’s clear the space shuttles are getting older.
Do it for Mother Russia, Comrade, rest assured we’re capitialists now.
Here’s the link from Drudge.
Don’t forget you can have sex in a tent for Mother Russia too.
Valuable insights into Russian society and transition?….or just a few fluff pieces confirming what we already think we know.
Andy Revkin, of the New York Times, appears on Bloggingheads to discuss Global Warming. It’s a sane, insightful discussion. A quick summary:
1. He’s been writing about global warming for twenty years, and he’s probably the best person I’ve seen discuss how this issue is reported.
2. Revkin thinks global warming is as much an energy issue as anything else. He’d like to see more research into alternatives. Underlying this is his belief that current oil, coal and gas reserves (including nuclear plants, not enough of them) are not sustainable in light of global warming research; while solar and wind technologies are inefficient and unreliable as they stand. He also seems capable of understanding many of the economic issues (pressure on politicians, for example) without censure.
While I’d still like to reserve the right to doubt global warming in its entirety, I recommend it because it’s a good discussion about a potentially important problem.
Here’s a quote:
“…a light broke upon all natural philosophers. They learned that reason only perceives that which it produces after its own design; that it must not be content to follow, as it were, in the leading-strings of nature, but must proceed in advance with principles of judgement according to unvarying laws, and compel nature to reply its questions.”
Immanuel Kant–Preface to the Critique of Pure Reason
Addition: He’s a reporter at the New York Times, and he’s managed not to lose sight of the science involved, and the bigger picture. That’s something.
Update: Watts Up With That has more here. Perhaps he needs to question more deeply and keep taking a look at the evidence.
The Animal Liberation Brigade placed a bomb under the car of an U.C.L.A opthamologist involved in animal research. Fortunately, it did not detonate.
There’s not much to say about people who threaten or justify violence for their ideas. They have failed whatever truth they seek to protect.
Dealing with them seems to be a legal matter. If they break the law, then they must face the consequences of law enforcement, and punishment; where at the very least the threat of violence against them is tempered by the procedures and ethical obligations and oaths those who serve the law make to the rest of us.
Those who put the bomb under the car make no such oath, to anyone. It seems like if you’re the one threatened, you should go on with your life as calmly as possible.
Anyone else see a connection, though?