William M. Briggs

Statistician to the Stars!

Page 148 of 671

Climate Hustle, Readers Write

ransom7

Hustling along

I was over at the UN yesterday and met Marc Marano, who interviewed me for his upcoming documentary tentatively titled Climate Hustle.

With fedora jauntily tipped back to reveal my sparkling hazel eyes, tie loosely knotted and purposely mismatching the pocket square, all counter-balanced by my genetically British teeth and Honda-sized honker, I launched into my defense of the slogan, “Actually, the science is settled.”

It is, too.

Used to be, before the tsunami of money washed over Science, drowning much common sense, a scientific precept was that when a theory made rotten predictions, the theory was condemned. The coupled GCMs around which climatology revolve have been making rotten predictions for decades. Therefore, in the days or yore, we would have said there is something wrong with the models.

And that is still so for those traditionalists among us who cling to the old ways. We say the models stink, because why? Because the models stink: they do not make skillful predictions. You would have done better with persistence. To us old timers, that means something about the models is wrong.

What, exactly, is wrong, I haven’t a clear idea. Too many tunable parameters in the models to know with any certainty. Anyway, if we knew, we’d be able to fix or adjust. We don’t know, so we can’t.

But to young whippersnappers, and especially to their worshipful followers, model accuracy means nothing. What matters more than anything is how consonant the theory which drives the models is with their “lifestyles”—or with their livelihoods.

The theory has become more important than reality. This is so true that even attacks on the theory using reality are seen by believers as confirmation of the theory. “Why is he denying my theory? He must be evil. My theory is stronger than his hate.”

A secondary problem is the expansion of democracy. Yes. Oh, yes. I know you don’t believe it, but it’s true. Somehow we have developed the idea that everything can be put to a vote. Why else do we see these bug-witted attempts to convince us of the theory’s truth because this-or-that percentage of scientists believe it? Why else would people take to the streets for “climate justice”, in hopes their mere numbers would sway?

With my fellow gloom-and-doomers and grinning curmudgeons, I see no way out of this. Comfort yourself with the thought that, except for God, nothing good lasts forever.

Readers write

At the time of writing, I have 185 emails in my Inbox, all containing ideas for posts, another 200 or so in a folder of post ideas saved for future, and 656 in a third folder called “global warming” sent in by readers, again all with material that demands my attention.

First, from the southernmost tip of the right ventricle of my heart, I thank you for these emails. Please keep them coming. Your emails make this blog work, and provide all of us which prime material.

Second, please understand when I don’t write back and say thanks. I eventually try to thank everybody and answer each question, but I am many, many months behind and I’m not confident I’ll catch up.

If I would have had a secretary, I would have had to let her go for such negligence. But as the amount of money I get from Big Oil, and from all other sources, for my avant-garde work in climate denialism is, at last count and rounded to the nearest dollar, rapidly approaching single digits, I can’t afford a secretary. So there is nobody to fire.

Oh course, it doesn’t help that I seem to taken the wrong position on every culture matter. But no matter.

I got this email this morning:

…often your website is the only interesting thing I can find upon rising and drinking my morning coffee. At other times, the fall back to statistics or assaults on specific individuals that I’ve never heard of makes me feel uninformed and is not interesting.

I enjoy posts that are “pro stuff” not just “anti stuff”. This website tips in favor of the “anti stuff” approach.

What say you about the “balance”?

Update

Richard Carrier’s Argument To Show God’s Existence Unlikely Is Invalid And Unsound

Self-described world-renowned author and speak Richard Carrier.

Self-described world-renowned author and speak Richard Carrier. Image source.

In the comment section to an earlier piece of mine on Strange Notions, Richard Carrier invited me to “interact” with him through his article “Neither Life nor the Universe Appears Intelligently Designed”, found in The End of Christianity, edited by John W. Loftus. This article is the “interaction” Carrier requested. I apologize for its delay.

Introduction

Richard Carrier’s argument to show that God probably didn’t create the universe, and therefore He probably doesn’t exist, in Carrier’s “Neither Life nor the Universe Appears Intelligently Designed”, like many attempts to use probability in defense of atheism or theism, is invalid and unsound, and based on fundamental misunderstandings of who God is and of the proper role of probability.

It is also a maddening, rambling screed, little more than bluff, bluster, and bullying, as well as an endless source of egotistical phrases, pace “critics know (and when honest, admit)”, “what any rational person would conclude”, “everyone else who’s rational and sane”, and “no rational person can honestly believe”. Nevertheless, let us “set aside ignoramuses who don’t know what they’re talking about and don’t even try to know” and analyze his main errors (it would take a monograph to examine every mistake).

His argument, repeated in different contexts, is essentially this. If God did not exist, life, the universe, and everything in it (including our minds) would look just the way they do. But if God exists, He could have created life, the universe, and everything in innumerable ways and, Carrier conjectures, surely not in the fractured, imperfect, pain-guaranteeing way we see. Therefore, because “the probability that a ‘designing’ god exists but never intelligently designed anything is likewise virtually zero, since by definition that’s also not how such a god behaves” and for other reasons Carrier creates, it is likely God does not exist.

The first and last part are pure bluff. We have no idea what a “designing god” would do for a living, nor what the universe would look like had God not created it. To say we do assumes we have (absent God) an explanation of why there is something rather than nothing, which we do not have. Note carefully that “something” includes quantum fields, the “laws” of the universe, mathematics, anything you can think of. To say we know what the universe would look like had God not created it, is to claim one knows precisely why whatever physical, mathematical, mental, and philosophical foundations exist, exist the way they do, without circularly drawing on those foundations for their explanation. And that is impossible.

The second part is bluster. Call it the Carrier-as-God thesis, which can be summarized: “If I, Carrier the god, were to design the universe, it would pink and happy with ‘bodies free of needless imperfections’ with endless complimentary ice cream for all. Since the Christian God obviously did not create this delightful world, he must not exist.” This is as silly as it sounds. How can Carrier presume to know why God did what He did?

The last part is bullying, probabilistic persiflage. Carrier thinks that by thumping the reader with (unnecessary, as it turns out) mathematics that science is happening, and thus nothing else need be said.

Carrier’s main argument

Carrier first defines “nonterrestrial intelligent design”. “By ‘intelligent design,’ I mean design that is not the product of blind natural processes (such as some combination of chance and necessity), and by ‘nonterrestrial,’ I mean neither made by man (or woman) nor any other known life-form.”

Anything that happens by necessity, must happen; necessary events are determined, i.e. caused, to happen in the way they did. But nothing happens because of chance: chance is measure of knowledge and not a cause; it is not an ontological force and thus cannot direct events. Chance cannot be creative, though necessity, which implies design, is creative by definition. “Natural processes” cannot therefore be “blind.”

God is not a “life-form”. He nowhere takes up physical residence, nor does He live amorphously in some outer reach of the universe. God is not a creature, nor is He the same as the universe. In his inadequately described “designing god”, it’s clear Carrier doesn’t understand he is rejecting a god classical theologians also reject. Carrier’s god is not the ground of being, He whose name is I Am, existence itself, a necessary being who sustains all creation in each and every moment. Carrier’s god is instead a smart, long-lived creature possessed of fancy toys, perhaps made of pasta, who occasionally likes to tinker with bits and pieces of the universe but who is subject to the wiles and rules of the universe like other beings, though perhaps not to the same extent, an extent which Carrier always left vague.

Bayes

Carrier introduces Bayes’s probability theorem, but only as a club to frighten his enemies and not as a legitimate tool to understand uncertainty. I must be right, he seems to insist, because look at these equations. Bayes’s theorem is a simple means to update the probability of a hypothesis when considering new information. If the information comes all at once, the theorem isn’t especially needed, because there is no updating to be done. Nowhere does Carrier actually needs Bayes and, anyway, probabilistic arguments are never as convincing as definitive proof, which is what we seek when asking whether God exists.

A simple illustration. Suppose we accept the prior evidence (a proposition) “A standard deck of 52-playing cards, from which only one card will be pulled, and only one of which is labeled eight-of-clubs” and we later learn that “Jack removed the Jack of hearts from the deck.” Conditional on these facts, we want the probability of the proposition, “I pull out an eight-of-clubs.” This probability is obviously 1/51 whether we start with the first proposition and update with the second using Bayes, or just take both propositions simultaneously. Incidentally, this example highlights the crucial distinction that all probability is conditional on evidence which is specifically stated (there is no such thing as unconditional probability).

Carrier artificially invents for himself various sets of “prior” information which he later tries to update using Bayes, but it’s all for show. Just like in the cards example, nowhere did he actually need Bayes for any of his arguments. Carrier further shows he misunderstands his subject when he says “Probability measures frequency”. This is false: probability measures information, though information is sometimes in the form of frequencies, as in our card example. Suppose our proposition is “Just two-thirds of Martians wear hats, and George is a Martian.” Given that specific evidence, the probability “George wears a hat” is 2/3, but there can be no frequency because, of course, there are no hat-wearing Martians.

Probability errors

There is more than ample evidence Carrier is confused about the difference between probabilistic and philosophical argument. Here are some examples.

In order to form his priors, Carrier says the frequency of observed designed universes “is exactly zero.” A statement which, of course, assumes what he wants to prove, a classic error in logic, an error he duplicates when he insists he knows “full well” that intelligent extraterrestrials must, somewhere or somewhen, exist. In both places, Carrier has substituted his desire for proof.

Again, “Yet any alien civilization selected at random will statistically be millions or billions of years more advanced [at designing life than we are].” Which alien civilizations are we selecting “at random”? What proof beyond conjecture and desire is there that (a) any other alien civilization exists and (b) that if any does exist it will be technologically and “statistically” more advanced than we, and that (c) even if they are more advanced, they would want to use their technological prowess to build lifeforms? This statement is nothing but an unproven science-fiction argument from desire. There is no set of premises which all can agree on that would allow us to deduce a probability here.

“You cannot deduce from ‘God exists’ that the only way he would ever make a universe is that way. There must surely be some probability that he might do it another way. Indeed, the probability must be quite high, simply because it’s weird for an intelligent agent of means to go the most inefficient and unnecessary route to obtain his goals, and ‘weird’ means by definition ‘rare,’ which means ‘infrequent.’ which means ‘improbable.'” Carrier constantly assumes he knows not only what God would do, but what various lesser gods would do. His case would have been infinitely strengthened had he given the evidence for these beliefs, rather than merely stating them.

“Conversely, the probability that a ‘designing’ god exists but never intelligently designed anything is likewise virtually zero, since by definition that’s also not how such a god behaves.” Who says? Has Carrier conducted a survey among deistical gods and their designing proclivities? Or is he merely assuming, without proof, that the gods must needs design (maybe it scratches some intergalactic itch)? Anyway, Carrier’s god can’t create a universe (defined as everything that exists). That level of heft requires the God of infinite ability, the only way to get something from nothing.

“Hence it’s precisely the fact that God never does things like that in our observation that makes positing God as a causal explanation of other things so implausible.” So much for miracles, then; and a rather dogmatic dismissal at that.

Design and intelligence

Carrier misunderstands other aspects of probability, too. He appears to believe, like many, that evolution occurs “randomly” and is a “product of chance”. That’s impossible. Nothing is caused by “chance” or occurs “randomly” because chance is not a cause and neither is randomness. Chance and randomness are measures of our ignorance of causes, and are not themselves ontological realities. It is always a bluff to say that “randomness” or “chance” caused some effect. You either know the cause or you do not. If you know it, state it. If you do not, then admit it (using probability).

Intelligent design enthusiasts make the same mistake, and when they do, to his credit Carrier is there to show us. “Michael Behe’s claim that the flagellar propulsion system of the E. coli bacterium is irreducibly complex and thus cannot have evolved”. The system’s evolution, to Behe, was completely “improbable.” Yet improbability arguments don’t work for or against evolution. If a thing has happened—and the propulsion system happened—it was caused. That we don’t know of the cause is where probability enters, but only as a measure of our ignorance of the cause. Whether we know or don’t know of the cause, there is still a cause. Things don’t “just happen.” That’s why when we see that organisms have evolved, which is indisputable, we know there must be some thing or things causing those changes.

What about the start of all life, i.e. biogenesis? Carrier says, “by definition the origin of life must be a random accident.” Thus does hope replace reality. Life could not have sprung up “randomly”, for randomness isn’t a cause. As it is, there is no direct evidence of how life arose, a gap which Carrier replaces with bluster, a science-of-the-gaps theory. I have no idea how life got here. God might have done it, or merely designed the system so that it had to arise. But something caused it. To say “I don’t know what the cause was” is not proof that “God was not the cause”.

How about the start of the universe? Carrier says, “Suppose in a thousand years we develop computers capable of simulating the outcome of every possible universe, with every possible arrangement of physical constants, and these simulations tell us which of those universes will produce arrangements that make conscious observers (as an inevitable undesigned by-product). It follows that in none of those universes are the conscious observers intelligently designed (they are merely inevitable by-products), and none of those universes are intelligently designed (they are all of them constructed purely at random).” And “Our universe looks exactly like random chance would produce, but not exactly like intelligent design would produce.”

No, no, no, no no no no. It’s now a cliché to say so, but this isn’t even wrong. It is impossible—as in not possible, no matter what—for “random chance” to create even a mote on the speck of a quark let alone an entire universe. Anyway, how would Carrier or anybody know what a designed universe looks like? No guidebook exists. To say this one isn’t designed is stunningly bold, a belief without evidence of any kind—except the desire that it not be so.

Motivations

Perhaps the following sentences reveal how Carrier so easily fooled himself: “Hence I have demonstrated with logical certainty that the truth of Christianity is very improbable on these facts. And what is very improbable should not be believed. When enough people realize this, Christianity will come to an end.” And, contradicting himself in the matter of certainty of Christianity, he later says, “Christianity is fully disconfirmed by the evidence of life and the universe.”

Carrier nowhere in the body of his argument spoke of Christianity, but only vaguely of ETs, gods, and some curious ideas of what God would act like if He were Richard Carrier. Strange, then, that he should be so confident he has destroyed all of Christianity. And no other religion.

People’s Climate March: The Face Of True Belief #PeoplesClimate

Note the muumuu.

Nice people

Ready for a surprise? I liked everybody I met. I mean it. I liked them so much I hated what I had to write below.

I liked the group which wore real cabbages for headpieces, some of which had cabbage horns. I liked like the anarchists from West Virginia University who were sure the capitalist system which allowed them to go to school and come to this march had failed. I liked the old lady from Miami who flirted with me and told me to be nice in what I wrote “Or I will find you”. Everybody liked the healthy topless women with mariposa stickers on her pertinents.

I liked the guy who said he had home-built his own electric car which could go 100 MPH for 100 miles, built from lithium batteries scavenged, somehow, from Chinese submarines. I liked the Sikh who darted out from under his “Sikhs 4 Climate Justice” sign to flirt industriously but in vain with a pretty Polish girl in a revealing red dress, and who, while managing to get his picture with her, said, “In future, we’ll be able to tell people this is when we first met.”

I liked the young lady who said she had played in orchestras for major movies and who gave me her CD Plastic Bag (one song features what sounds like one being opened) and who very sweetly asked if I would like to cover her musical career.

Remarkably, I saw separately (and without foreknowledge) three of my former students, all of whom I like—and still like.

I even liked the young man from Deep Green Resistance who was advocating, but vaguely promising not to himself participate in, but would, he said, support wholeheartedly if it occurred, “industrial sabotage” and other forms of “militant action” against “nodes” which when taken out would set off “chain-reaction events” to destroy the country.

I liked that absolutely everybody was sincere, absolutely everybody was concerned, absolutely everybody was kind, open, and eager to talk. It was a party and people were of good cheer. I enjoyed myself.

Belief

Absolutely everybody believed. They believed a lot of things. Everybody believed that the world was in deep kimchee, and they believed it was far past the time to do anything about it, which is why they believed something should be done now. Namely eliminate capitalism, which everybody disliked. Everybody believed that all the Arctic ice was melting, or already had melted, and everybody believed that climate change was already killing people—30,000 a year murdered by climate change was the figure often repeated.

Many carried signs stating what they believed. “CO22 dumping is morally wrong”, “Fracking = Death”, “Promote gender equality and empower women”, “Combat HIV/AIDS Malaria and Other Diseases”, “Limit Temperature Increase by 1.5 Degrees”, “Free Tibet. Save the 3rd Pole”. A mother pushing a stroller had, “Do you have Feelings about climate change? Let’s Talk.” A group boasted, “We can end climate change.” Climate change could be stopped? Another group thought so and chanted they had to power to stop it.

A man had the sign, “From Gaza to Detroit, clean drinking water is a right.” A lady had “If you like drinking water, stop ozone slaughter.” Another: “1 child per family. (Or adopt) (Domestically)”. The “domestically” was added as an afterthought, a caret in between “or” and “adopt”. A young lady had “We have a right to snow and ice.” One young man wore a t-shirt which said, “Ask me, I’m the expert on the solution.” I asked him what the solution was. He only giggled. Well, they do say that laughter is the best medicine—and is therefore a universal solution.

More: “Carbon DIEoxide” and “End CO2lonization” brought back the laughter theme. More than one marcher wore, unsurprisingly, an “Ithaca is Gorgeous ” t-shirt. Another had a t-shirt which advised, in all capitals, “Disobey.” I asked if I should disobey his shirt, but if I did, I further asked, wouldn’t that make me an obeyer? He looked puzzled, thought for a moment, smiled, and said, “Yes it would.” He kept marching.

A set of marchers carried the sign: “Climate Change is real. Teach Science.” I asked one holder, “Don’t all teachers teach about global warming? Do you know any who aren’t?” This made him pause. He said, “Oh, I just got the sign today. It’s probably happening, though. Some teachers don’t want to teach about evolution.”

One older gentleman carried a double-sided sign which read “The moral equivalent of” on one side, and on the other, “tearing down Penn Station.” I asked what was the moral equivalent. He said, “Everything that is happening.” He didn’t elaborate, but we agreed, the both of us and in detail, that the current Penn Station is awful.

There weren’t only signs. There were puppets, too. The largest was meant to be, I was told, Mother Nature, but it looked more like one of those frowsy fiftyish women in muumuus who are always holding a bottle as the gumshoe grills them in a 1940s film noir. Another crew held aloft a stretchy, block-long shiny silver tube, at the end of which were hanging objects which looked like the dreadlocks from Arnold Schwarzenegger’s Predator. A smiling young woman told me it represented a mop. “Domestic workers are cleaning up climate change,” she told me.

A group of about a dozen marchers wielded giant white paper birds on sticks, all “soaring” above a paper mâché nest, which was pulled along separately. I couldn’t stop anybody long enough to discover its meaning. Some befeathered native shamans capered about a paper mâché god. I was told they were offering it prayers. It was a popular display because the shamans were dressed in loin clothes and dancing. There was also a drum which beat out a repetitive tune.

On the south side of the park, not too far from Columbus Circle, on a grassy knoll just at the park’s edge, sat about forty yoga people. They all crouched in that cross-legged with pinched-fingers, hands-on-their-knees pose. They had a sign which read “Earth Vigil”. Now I don’t want to detract from these earnest young, almost entirely white, people, who were obviously dedicated. But more than a few would open their eyes to peek at the crowds and smile.

The crowd in the parade went nuts over the yoga people. Every marching contingent came to the edge of the police fence to take snapshots (there were vastly more marchers than spectators at any rate). One lady shouted happily, “Oh look! They’re meditating!” The Hare Krishnas who Hare-Krishna’d by looked down their noses at the yoga people.

A young man came up to me when I was noticing this and said he was happy the parade was inter-faith. He was excited about inter-faith, and noted especially that, to his understanding, Buddhism “was very sex positive, unlike Christianity” and that a lot of people came to Buddhist meetings “to meet girls.” But though he didn’t believe in labels, he often attended a Unitarian Universalist service. He also attended all the good marches, including Occupy Wall Street. To pass the time he took out his soccer ball and bounced it on his knee.

Just about that time some women religious from the Sisters of Mercy of the Americas passed by, all coiffed LCWR regulation style, carrying signs demanding justice. I asked one sister what justice meant. She wasn’t sure, and neither was her sign-mate, but she told me to talk to the sister in charge who, said said, might confirm that “justice” meant “acting in harmony with all creation.”

The sister in charge didn’t answer that, but lamented that it was difficult to attend marches like this because all women religious had to raise their own funds, “which is now harder, since we’re all getting older.” I asked if they had any new recruits. She said “only twenty-five”—and that was from all over America (or maybe it was the Americas). None of the sisters mentioned Jesus or anything like that, incidentally.

The two keys

It might not seem like it, but the two confused sign-carrying sisters were the key to the parade. Rather, one of the two keys. Your reporter lost count of the number of times he asked somebody what the poster they were carrying meant, or asked why they had come, but who couldn’t answer except to point and say something like, “You should ask her. I don’t really know too much about it. I just came with my friends.”

This lack of curiosity was especially found in the union marchers, who always like a public event, anything to further their cause. The people wanted to like what their friends and colleagues liked, and to be friendly, they joined in on the fun. Union members thought their appearance would help increase jobs and pay, and the regular people felt it was an excuse to have a good time. It’s not that all these folks didn’t believe in “the cause”, but that they couldn’t or didn’t want to articulate it. Marching was just the thing to do.

The second and larger key was more depressing, best illustrated by the group representing Physicians for Social Responsibility (I coincidentally knew one of the contingent: New York is really a large small town), a group which had initially been against nuclear weapons, they being a “public health threat”, but seeing as that threat dwindled, and that the docs were unwilling to disband, a job well done, they cast their eye towards global warming.

This was a group of scientists, so surely they would understand how science worked. I asked them how did they answer critics who showed that global temperatures for the last eighteen or so years bounced around a little, but showed no increase. Didn’t that mean global warming wasn’t true?

“It’s a temporary blip” said one. Another said, “A lot of the heat is in the ocean.” I reminded this doctor that the global climate models claimed to incorporate ocean circulation, and so if the models the IPCC relied on missed saying the heat was in the oceans, the models must be wrong. So why did he still believe? He considered but didn’t answer.

And then I asked him, as I asked many people during the parade, “Actually, for more than two decades, the models have been saying the temperatures would be way up here, but they haven’t increased at all, or only by a little. Doesn’t this mean we shouldn’t believe the models? That they are in error? Isn’t that the scientific way?”

The spokes-doctor narrowed his eyes, now full of suspicion, concentrated on chewing his gum, and considered who I might be. He said nothing, even after a follow-up question. I thanked him and left.

I never from anybody received an answer to any of these science questions. If anybody ever understood me, and most did not, the questions were beside the point. It didn’t matter what the science really said. These people believed.

People’s Climate March: D-Day

ClimateMarch

Today’s the day!

According to the Mashable’s Andrew Freedman, “the ‘People’s Climate March’ will likely mark the moment when global warming transitions from being a science and policy issue into a full-fledged social movement. Perhaps it will become as large as the gay rights and civil rights movements.”

The worry is that Freedman will be right. Whatever (small-s) science there was will soon be long forgotten, if it hasn’t been already, and all that will matter, like Freedman said about gay and civil rights, will be your level of devotion.

Which had better be all or nothing, or out the door you go, exiled, forced to spend your days writing blog posts for the remnant, hoping for the occasional donation (button on the upper right). You might think you can get by keeping your mouth shut, but it won’t do. If you want to enter into the secular cathedral, full-throated approval is necessary.

Of course, you will not be required to believe what you’re saying. Belief is for the masses and useful idiots. But if you don’t believe, the price you pay for entry is your soul.

Freedman says:

…six busloads of Minnesota climate activists are on their way to New York, along with a “climate train” that set out from California and picked up activists during its trek across the country. At least 3,000 college students are slated to turn out from New York area universities alone. Around the world, more than 2,000 events are scheduled for Sunday as well. In total, about 100 million people globally will be represented, according to the organizing committee overseeing preparations.

Again, the fear is not that Freedman and a handful of devout activists, but that the secular saints which rule our days, believe that wholly fictional “100 million” figure. Strike that. The concern is that politicians will believe others will believe that number, which would give the politicians (they would feel) justification to call for “action”—which will translate into more control for themselves.

And less freedom for you.

See if you can find the (small-s) science in the following:

The People’s Climate March is backed by an unprecedented coalition of 45 major labor groups, including heavy hitters such as the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) — a group that Henn said “doesn’t mess around” — along with prominent grassroots environmental organizations like 350.org as well as religious organizations.

Now SEIU’s contribution to global climate modeling has been even less than Al Gore’s. So why are SEIU and other labor groups concerned? If it really is true that Chicken Little’s worst fears will be realized and that the sky, laden with excess carbon dioxide, really does fall, union members will be just as bad off as even Apple Corporation employees.

Never mind. The answer is as plain as Joe Biden’s thinning hair plugs. For most, global warming was never about the science. It’s a good bet something north of 80% of these marchers won’t know the difference between Celsius and Fahrenheit or even why clouds float. But they’ll believe with all their hearts that the climate is out of control—and that what other people have should be theirs and that, dammit, something ought to be done about it.

Schedule

I’m at the march today and will be writing about it afterwards. Some of the material, and maybe even all of it, will appear on this blog. But some might appear in other places. I’ll keep you updated.

———————————————-

Note: The series on Summa Contra Gentiles will continue next week.

« Older posts Newer posts »

© 2016 William M. Briggs

Theme by Anders NorenUp ↑