Things I don’t understand ||

I received this in the mailbox from Encyclopedia Britannica

___________________________________________________________

A Sample of Encyclopædia Britannica’s Distinguished Contributors

Sigmund Freud The term psychoanalysis does not appear (or at least is not indexed) in the Encyclopædia Britannica until well into the 20th century. The first treatment of psychoanalysis as a subject unto itself appeared in the Thirteenth Edition, written by leading authority Sigmund Freud. Read “Psychoanalysis” by Sigmund Freud

Harry Houdini Even a superficial reading of “Conjuring” by American magician Harry Houdini conveys the inescapable conclusion that the magician’s view of the topic was focused on two matters. The first was the debunking of the then-fashionable spiritualists; the second was the greatness of Houdini. Read “Conjuring” by Harry Houdini

Lillian Gish The contribution of silent film star Lillian Gish appeared in 1929. By the time it was replaced in 1939, Hollywood was in full swing and exposition of this sort probably sounded somewhat quaint. Read “Motion Pictures: A Universal Language” by Lillian Gish

T.E. Lawrence For the Fourteenth Edition of the Encyclopædia Britannica T.E. Lawrence, better known as Lawrence of Arabia, wrote on the subject of guerrilla warfare. The element of personal experience that pervades the article is unusual in an encyclopedia but must have been the chief reason this particular author was sought out. Read “Guerilla” by T.E. Lawrence

Marie Curie Marie Curie, who was twice awarded the Nobel Prize, contributed this article on radium to the Thirteenth Edition of Encyclopædia Britannica. Writing in the third person, she modestly described her involvement in a discovery that would have a significant influence on subsequent research in nuclear physics and chemistry. Read “Radium” by Marie Curie | Watch a video documentary on Marie Curie

Orville Wright This fraternal biography may well be unique in the history of Britannica. It appeared in the first printing of the Fourteenth Edition (1929). It was revised several times, first in 1950, two years after Orville’s death, and the last time in 1969 by Charles Harvard Gibbs-Smith, who subsequently wrote the biography of both brothers that appeared in the Fifteenth Edition (1974). The first mention of the Wright brothers in Britannica was in the Twelfth Edition (1922). Read “Wilbur Wright” by Orville Wright | Watch a video documentary on the Wright Brothers

_________________________________________________________

Can you imagine Sigmund Freud writing and defending Psychoanalysis on Wikipedia? Or Orville Wright being allowed to control a biography of his brother without Wikipediots screaming about “Conflict of Interest” and WP:OWN?

Me neither.

Perhaps we’d even have Slimvirgin (aka Sarah McEwan aka Linda Mack) accusing Orville of multiple violations of WP:NPOV and not writing in Good Faith…it might even have been fun to put Marie Curie in front of the ArbCom.

Its a sign of the times I suppose that large numbers of scientists and others feel the need to send open letters to political leaders. These sort of political acts happen when supposedly open scientific channels become blocked by individuals or organizations wishing to end debate.

This one is to Ban Ki-Moon, current UN Secretary General:

Open Letter to the Secretary-General of the United Nations

December 12, 2007

His Excellency Ban Ki-Moon
Secretary-General, United Nations
New York, NY
United States of America

Dear Mr. Secretary-General,

Re: UN climate conference taking the World in entirely the wrong direction

It is not possible to stop climate change, a natural phenomenon that has affected humanity through the ages. Archaeological, oral and written histories all attest to the dramatic challenges posed to past societies from unanticipated changes in temperature, precipitation, winds and other climatic variables. We therefore need to equip nations to become resilient to the full range of these natural phenomena by promoting economic growth and wealth generation.

The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has issued increasingly alarming conclusions about the climatic influences of human-produced carbon dioxide (CO2), a nonpolluting gas that is essential to plant photosynthesis. While we understand the evidence that has led them to view CO2 emissions as harmful, the IPCC’s conclusions are quite inadequate as justification for implementing policies that will markedly diminish future prosperity. In particular, it is not established that it is possible to significantly alter global climate through cuts in human greenhouse gas emissions. On top of which, because attempts to cut emissions will slow development, the current UN approach of CO2 reduction is likely to increase human suffering from future climate change rather than to decrease it.

The IPCC Summaries for Policy Makers are the most widely read IPCC reports amongst politicians and non-scientists and are the basis for most climate-change policy formulation. Yet these Summaries are prepared by a relatively small core writing team with the final drafts approved line-by-line by government representatives. The great majority of IPCC contributors and reviewers, and the tens of thousands of other scientists who are qualified to comment on these matters, are not involved in the preparation of these documents. The Summaries therefore cannot properly be represented as a consensus view among experts.

Contrary to the impression left by the IPCC Summary reports:

Recent observations of phenomena such as glacial retreats, sea-level rise and the migration of temperature-sensitive species are not evidence for abnormal climate change, for none of these changes has been shown to lie outside the bounds of known natural variability.

The average rate of warming of 0.1 - 0. 2 degrees Celsius per decade recorded by satellites during the late 20th century falls within known natural rates of warming and cooling over the last 10,000 years.

Leading scientists, including some senior IPCC representatives, acknowledge that today’s computer models cannot predict climate. Consistent with this, and despite computer projections of temperature rises, there has been no net global warming since 1998. That the current temperature plateau follows a late 20th century period of warming is consistent with the continuation today of natural multi-decadal or millennial climate cycling.

In stark contrast to the often-repeated assertion that the science of climate change is settled, significant new peer-reviewed research has cast even more doubt on the hypothesis of dangerous human-caused global warming. But because IPCC working groups were generally instructed to consider work published only through May 2005, these important findings are not included in their reports; i.e., the IPCC assessment reports are already materially outdated.

The UN climate conference in Bali has been planned to take the world along a path of severe CO2 restrictions, ignoring the lessons apparent from the failure of the Kyoto Protocol, the chaotic nature of the European CO2 trading market, and the ineffectiveness of other costly initiatives to curb greenhouse gas emissions. Balanced cost/benefit analyses provide no support for the introduction of global measures to cap and reduce energy consumption for the purpose of restricting CO2 emissions. Furthermore, it is irrational to
apply the ‘precautionary principle’ because many scientists recognize that both climatic coolings and warmings are realistic possibilities over the medium-term future.

The current UN focus on “fighting climate change”, as illustrated in the November 27th UN Development Programme’s Human Development Report, is distracting governments from adapting to the threat of inevitable natural climate changes, whatever forms they may take. National and international planning for such changes is needed, with a focus on helping our most vulnerable citizens adapt to conditions that lie ahead. Attempts to prevent global climate change from occurring are ultimately futile, and constitute a tragic misallocation of resources that would be better spent on humanity’s real and pressing problems.

Yours faithfully,

List of Signatories (to be attached)

Powered by ScribeFire.