« The slow crawl of people making my life easier | Main | Seriously... »

Thursday, July 12, 2007



i do think there are folks who care - just not the celebs. there are plenty of people who do think this a cause of the utmost importance, and they make dramatic changes. When you hear Kanye thank Jesus Christ for the grace to drop "golddigger" on his latest platinum record, you don't think much of it right? Most celebs are talking heads just like the politicos. very little of what we see coming out of them is real, but in some cases it is a reflection of what is moving among those of us involved in real life.

btw, can we get beyond the "is global warming happening" question? I love these blogs on it, but it's been a few months since the last one and we're still yet to see a peer-reviewed article disputing it.


Thank you, Thad. Thank you.


I certainly agree that there are people that care deeply about this issue and alter their lives accordingly. I didn't mean to imply otherwise. Frankly, I think their cause is damaged by these big celebrity parades, not enhanced.

And yes, it's been a long three months of me scouring the library for peer-reviewed articles disputing global warming. I kid, but to be fair, most of us haven't read a peer-reviewed article of any kind on global warming. I'm too busy changing diapers, playing Star Wars with my boy, and writing these very serious blogs to read peer-reviewed articles. The three month delay between my amateur posts on global warming should not be interpreted as me being much smarter than I was before. I just didn't get back to this until now.

For what it's worth, I think there is still a fair amount of scientific dispute on (a) whether current warming trends are natural and cyclical or human-induced, or (b) whether these trends are likely catastrophic. The prevailing sentiment is that anyone who doesn't buy the Al Gore science of warming is an imbecile, but that may have more to do with political and popular momentum than with actual scientific unanimity. Is anyone here actually doing thorough scientific research on this issue, or are we mostly depending on what others tell us scientists are saying? If anyone fits in the former category, I’ll gladly hear it.

I just can’t promise “we” will “get beyond” that, though I don’t foresee a barrage of future posts about global warming, and I doubt this corner’s perspective is of any consequence to the scientific community (or to famous folks...or to anyone, really). Sorry if that’s a source of frustration or if it convinces some that I’m foolish or whatever. I’m no climatologist, to be sure, and we’ve yet to see any peer-reviewed articles of any kind on this site (and one shouldn’t hold one’s breath waiting for that to change).

To be clear: It is not my goal to convince anyone that they should or shouldn’t question the science of warming, and I won't scrum over what is and isn't true about climate change. I’m not running from the truth; it’s just not how I care to use this space. I'll leave that to other folks in other venues. There are guys who read and post here who can probably help, if they will. In any case, I’ve been pretty clear that I’m in favor of us taking better care of the earth, whatever that means.


We can certainly get along re: the environment without agreeing on global warming's cause & effect. good post.


this is a fantastic post on so many levels. Thad, you're at your best whenever you're able to tackle a topic by being, all at once, deeply spiritual, covertly pastoral, and darn funny. That's what happened here. good work, as usual.

pepe guzman

after reading this flurry of new posts, i can tell you i am not so worried about the global ecology as i am thad's own physiological ecology. that is a tremendous amount of soda, my good man! what is THAT amount of high fructose corn syrup and caffeine doing to the delicate balance of the system called "thad"? we need to get you started on a detox regiment right away. i am calling chris seay about who he'd recommend for a good colonics experience.


Thanks for your concern, Pepe. For the record, I don't drink all that soda water in one sitting. It just turns out it's cheaper to buy cans in packages of 12 rather than collecting the singles. The variety is, well, just for variety. We have varied tastes, as do our varied house guests. Actually, you should see the fridge in the garage.

But I do drink a fair amount of the stuff. I need the carbonic acid to take care of all of that red meat and bleached flour. It's either that or colonics. I prefer Dr. Pepper to a water hose in the backside.

Sidenote: Firefox does not like the word colonics - says it's not a real word and suggests "colonies" instead. I'm with Firefox. More colonies, fewer colonics.


While I am confounded by Thad's confusion about man made global warming, I wholeheartedly agree about the lameness of Live Earth and the cult of celebrity. I also agree with implication of our consumer driven ethos as the real problem. I would assert that our materialism is a direct cause of local and global environmental problems and that these problems carry with them tremendous moral culpability. It's like a magnified tragedy of the commons, with one person (America and the West) scouring the pasture for all life, leaving the rest of the world to suffer.

I have shown the Affluenza program in the class I teach (it's available in the A&M library if you can check it out, you should do so). It's a great program. Some other's I would recommend are "The Corporation" and "Super Size Me." I think the way we eat one of the more highly suspect practices we participate in regarding our effect on the environment. To this end I would recommend the book "The Omnivore's Dilemma" and that you should listen to an interview with Barbara Kingsolver, who wrote "Animal, Vegetable, Miracle." The link is here: http://speakingoffaith.publicradio.org/programs/ethicsofeating/index.shtml

The comments to this entry are closed.