Do you really have to mention that nuclear Brand?

What a traitor.

http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog

"Traitor???"  Do you have his signed oath to agree with you forever and ever?

Perhaps Brand and your opinions diverge, where once they did not---does this make him a traitor to you, or you to him?  Or could it be simply that your views have diverged and you are both trying to cipher out, as best you can, the way to live.  

I suppose Lovelock is a traitor too, then?  You can't tar him with the brush that he has sold out, like that guy who is on the nuclear industry payroll wih ex-gov. Whitman---so Lovelock is simply a traitor then?

Do you hold no views today that you did not hold when you were 30?  Are you a traitor to yourself then?

The guy who I know is the best example of never changing his views is GW Bush---are you suggesting that his kind of consistency is what we should aspire to?

"An optimist is someone who thinks this is the best of all possible worlds. A pessimist is someone who is afraid that the optimist is right."

This is a magnificent collection of images, and Frans Lanting should be congratulated.

It is also good to relate the images to distant past episodes in the history of the Earth and its ever-evolving biodiversity.

One needs to be cautious, though, in captioning anything.  It is, I believe, a serious educational failing of many TV documentaries on scientific or historical subjects, that the image shown is often not at all the same thing as what the narrator in the voice-over is talking about, and never is any warning given of a discrepancy.

Over against Lanting's remarkable images, Stewart Brand's accompanying blurb hardly makes my heart sing with joy.  And that has absolutely nothing to do with Brand's controversial, personal evolution -- but one wonders why he should have been deemed suitable at all to offer a commentary.  Perhaps, because he is beginning to seem dinosaurish?  (Rawooauwer!  I want that hunky beach volley-ball player first, him and his eco-friendly ball!)

Why is the eyesight of horseshoe crabs "primordial"?  Just because they are living fossils?  And are we really supposed to believe that their eyesight is "employ[ed] mainly for finding sex partners"?  And not, say, reading the "Beware of pharmaceutical researchers" notices?

On plants, with their "ferocious spiky leaves," on the one hand, vs. hungry herbivorous dinosaurs on the other: Yes, it is very interesting to reconstruct the paleo-ecological relationship between plants and dinosaurs.  And the study of coprolites, fossilized poop, tells us a great deal on the subject.  (Remember Laura Dern, as the paleobotanist, in "Jurassic Park," plunging into that improbable mound of Triceratops poop, in order to figure out what that poor sick darling had been eating, and which might have disagreed with her.)

But "ferocious" is a rather purplish attribute.  Even as giraffes manage, with their long hard tongues and tough lips and protective-goggle-like eyelids and lashes, to feed on very unpromising foliage, so obviously did the great sauropods of the Jurassic and the Cretaceous manage, and that too, without the advantage of great dentition.  All the more so, then, must the ornithischians of the Cretaceous, in particular the large ornithopods (e.g. Iguanodon for Belgium, Parasaurolophus for Alberta, New Mexico and Berkeley) and the ceratopians (e.g. Centrosaurus for Alberta, Triceratops for Montana and NYC), cuisinart-o-saurs, with the most advanced heavy-duty dentition that the Earth has ever seen, have affected the evolution of the then fairly new flowering plants.

On Archaeopteryx: It was certainly not "the first" feathered reptile (whatever we may mean by "reptile").  "The oldest known," perhaps, but that is hardly the same thing as "first."  (All you creationists out there are warmly invited to leave at this point, and play your "Noah and the Brontosaurs" videogame, so long as you have your pajamas on already.)

From what I have read and observed, Archaeopteryx had a relatively short wingspan, and broad wings, ideal for maneuvering through thick foliage, which indeed corresponds to the environment in which its fossils have been found.  And from analysis of its pectoral girdle, it seems not to have been a strong flier.

By contrast, the Magnificent Frigatebird (Fregata magnificens) has a very long wingspan, with relatively narrow wings, ideal for soaring, swooping, diving and whatever, over open water, which indeed is where it lives.  It is a magnificent (so to speak) flier.

Baffling, how the two animals could be said to resemble one another.

Now, it is indeed true that the appearance of frigatebirds superficially resembles that of pterosaurs.  Pterosaurs are the first of the three great lineages of flying vertebrates, the second being birds and the third being bats.  The evolution of the forelimb to form a wing in each case is quite distinct: funny, how convergent evolution works.  (I told you creationists already, haven't I: you are up past your bedtime!)

Pterosaurs are not quite the same thing as birds.  We are indeed all cousins -- "Chickens are our cousins!" is for real -- , but some of us are more closely related than others.  We Primates are not at all distantly related to bats, actually.  Pterosaurs belong to a large and important group of diapsid tetrapods called archosaurs, which appeared and diverged in the Triassic period, 230-ish million years ago, and which include some large scary animals in Arizona's Petrified Forest, and crocodilians, and dinosaurs -- including birds, who are just fancy-schmancy modified dinosaurs.  So in that sense, pterosaurs and birds are somewhat closely related.

But we must be clear: Archaeopteryx was by no means a pterosaur; it was much more closely related to theropod dinosaurs, e.g. Tyrannosaurus rex and Velociraptor mongoliensis, the latter especially.

On the other hand, it is believed by some paleontologists that the behavior of the pterosaurs, with their long, narrow wings, was in some ways similar to that of such ocean-faring birds as frigatebirds (and gulls and their allies, including skuas and albatrosses and terns).  That is indeed one of the most exciting and likely speculations in paleo-ecology, IMHO.

I have no idea what actually took place before that very uninteresting blurb was produced, with Stewart Brand's name at the head.  But my guess is that "frigatebirds are like Archaeopteryx" somehow stupidly bumped "frigatebirds are like pterosaurs."  A simple typo, I guess.  Or at least, that is my most generous interpretation.

Chickens are our cousins! So are other sensitive animals! Enough is enough! No more factory farms!

(Beware: Stay away, if you do not like the suggestion that people of the same gender can be naturally sexually attracted to one another.)

Poor Laura Dern heroically took the first step in kissing Ellen de Generes on primetime TV, which in a way has worked for Ellen, but which kind of self-torpedoed Laura, career-wise.

And yet, Laura plays in a way the straight heroine who saves the day for a gay beloved ex-pal, in "Jurassic III."

As I read it, Sam Neill ("Dr. Alan Grant," dinosaur paleontologist) and Laura Dern ("Dr. Ellie Sattler," paleobontanist) were originally "an item" (as in "Jurassic Park I").  (Cf. all that chaos-theory nonsense with the no-doubt-straight and obnoxious and aggressive Ian Malcolm, mauled in a vaguely heroic context by the T. rex, played by Jeffrey Goldblum, on top of Sam Neill's more basic sort-of jealousy.  But in what way was Dr. Grant really jealous?)

And Laura/Ellie may really have had serious expectations regarding Alan Grant, but he, in spite of all that serious bonding, still held back ...

In "Jurassic Park III," we see a development that explains lots.

She has got married to some bigshot in the State Department, and lives in DC and/or vicinity, and has dinosaur-loving kids.

He is still alone, but is involved in a  fascinating, new, strange, wonderful discovery of a part of himself that he was never quite sure was there, evoked by an adorably scrumptious and brilliant graduate student, (improbably named) Billy Brennan, played by the adorably scrumptious Alessandro Nivola.

The story is not at all well-written: Who cares that a Spinosaurus, whatever that really is, can bite to death a T. rex.  But we should stop and take notice, when Grant and his companions are about to be cut to pieces by the velociraptors, and, in one of the most improbable episodes in all sci-fi movie history, the egg-loving raptors are dissuaded by the sound that Grant produces.  The trick, apparently, is to blow into that digital solid reconstruction that young Billy made with the computer (??!), and produce a mournful sound by blowing into it.  So Alan Grant (very oddly) owes young Billy his life ...

Meanwhile, young Billy had been nearly pecked to death by pterosaurs (Pteranodon sp.).  He tried to do something heroic, and rescue the basically-cute formulaically-in-trouble kid, with his athletic, prestige-seeking wind-sail operation, but that worked only so far ...

Not to be a story-spoiler: There is indeed a happy ending.  

Chickens are our cousins! So are other sensitive animals! Enough is enough! No more factory farms!

Put a nice pro-nuke article up.  Otherwise this blog might be accused of bias.  Fair and balanced.

http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog

The most significant fact of American political life over the last three decades is that there is a conservative movement and there has not been a liberal movement. Liberalism, to be sure, has all the component parts that conservatism has: think tanks, lobbying groups, grassroots activists, and public intellectuals. But those individual components, unlike their counterparts on the conservative side, do not see one another as formal allies and don't consciously act in concert.

From the Chait piece DR mentions in the previous article.  Brand and Lovelocke absolutely are traitors.  It's way past time to stop coddling rats like these guys.

Nuclear power is a disaster on every level.  Period.  No cuteness from Brand now is going to rehabilitate his image.

It would be like forgiving someone for supporting this administration without insisting they admit they were wrong.  Brand and his ilk must publicly repudiate their support of nukes and explain their temporary insanity, just like folks  like Friedman must do  on their support of the Iraq war.  

As I suspected the Friedman teevee piece was pure greenwashing of "clean" coal, nukes, and fuel farming. Once a traitor always a traitor?

  No matter how great "The Whole Earth catalogue" was, Brand can't ride free on that anymore.  Just like Lovelocke can't ride the free "Gaia" train into a nuclear paradise.

RFK jr has delayed offshore wind power with every rotten political connection he has, while NRDC has embraced "clean" coal.

The battle lines have been drawn.  A traitor is a traitor.  Integrity counts.

http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog

amazingdrx, I agree with your stance on nukes and "clean" coal but am troubled by your calling Brand and Co. traitors.

Perhaps it's because I'm old enough to have seen all too many eco-purges that backfired, but I don't see the point in demonizing Brand.  Sure, we disagree with him on this issue, but he could be helpful on another one where we do see eye to eye.

Purges only work when you already have a clear majority of support . . . and even then they have a tawdry smell.  

You want another bushwacking?  You are headed in that direction right now.  They have swiftboated Edwards out of the running already.

These guys need to know they are a problem.  Maybe they will apologize and join the team again?  Maybe not.  But we can't afford to act like weaklings anymore.

People who bother to vote can generally understand simple issues at least.  like:

No I don't want nuclear waste in my water, or

coal is filthy and no one is telling me it will ever be "clean", and

only 10% ethaniol in my gas reduces my mileage 10% so I have to buy (and burn) an extra gallon to go the same distance.  And it takes a gallon of gas or diesel to make a gallon of ethanol.

If folks think liberals are going to give them this stuff anyway, they just won't care who they're voting for.  It'll be eternal oil wars and declining standards of living for this has been nation.

Give them a viable, clear, honest alternative or we all lose.  Even as the "Brands" get a big shot think tank job in the process.  Kristol works at "time" magazine now.

http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog

"Traitor" is a strong charge, which should carry a correspondingly high standard of evidence.  Having a difference of opinion, even about a very serious subject, is not grounds for such accusations.

I happen to think that Brand and Lovelocke are dead wrong, but not necessarily for their position on nuclear power.  I don't like nukes, personally, but I recognize that the subject is extremely complex and I don't have enough information to perfectly evaluate whether it is an appropriate and/or necessary part of the solution.

Brand and Lovelocke are wrong because they have taken an extreme position supporting a single technology as a solution to our energy and climate problems.  Any problem this complex will have a solution that is correspondingly complex, and pretending otherwise is disingenuous.  But that alone is not grounds for excommunication.

Now, if you can find the paper trail showing that they have taken money or other favors from interest groups to lend their reputations in support of bad ideas, then fine: call them traitors, whores, sell-outs, or whatever.  Or call them Patrick Moore, if you wish.

But a difference of opinion is not a sound basis for accusations of treason.  It's long past time that the green movement understood this.

Everyone knows, or should know, that Amazing is neither a lawyer nor a politician.  But he has a heart of gold, and a style of his own.

In this context, apparently, "traitor" means someone who spoke very well once upon a time, and deservedly gathered a following; but who more recently changed direction or emphasis in a questionable or even dangerous way -- as perhaps the ever wise and prudent GreenEngineer is suggesting -- , and so might bring all his following along with him in that same unfortunate direction.  A "traitor" therefore is someone with great authority who commits a bad, puzzling, unhelpful, distracting realignment of priorities.

I think.

Moreover, perhaps Amazing has the sense of a good bargainer, who knows that the initial outrageous suggestion will never be agreed to, but the fact of making it will at least drive the final agreement in that direction.

I think.

P.S., not that anyone is very interested, but in my "gay appendix" comment, I absent-mindedly left out a crucial detail of the mollifying-the-velociraptors scene: What Billy had reproduced digitally-to-physically was the "resonation chamber" (?!!) within the fossilized brain (and sinus?) of a velociraptor.  Oblong in shape, like a flute or recorder, it had, as I recall, holes at both ends, and one on top.  Anyway, the velociraptors were impressed, when Alan Grant blew into it.

Chickens are our cousins! So are other sensitive animals! Enough is enough! No more factory farms!

That's it allright.  A tough bargaining position is needed.  The voting public does not trust or respect and will not follow leadership that accepts lies in order to get elected.

Ethanol, clean coal, and nukes are obvious scams that only lots of obsfucation and advertising sloganeering can greenwash.

Citizens are not generally energy experts or engineers, but they can sense a con game.  And they are particularly sensitive after the Iraq war scam.

Appealing to corporate cash to get elected at the expense of the facts will backfire on the green movement.  That is what I see happening right now.  Every candidate in sight taking money from corporate scammers.

Here's a hint.  I keep passing gas stations that advertise with hand painted signs, "Ethanol free gas".  I guess Friedman hasn't seen any of those signs?  It might be a good idea to ask a few of these "experts" what the price of gas is right now.  Like asking Rudy the price of bread?  Hehey.

Maybe traitor is too harsh a word, but I think the betrayal is very clear.  Money, fame,career advancement, and the perks of power in return for the dissemination of "conventional" wisdom.

http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog