Another Quiz, Inconvenient Truths, and Words

Your Five Variable Love Profile

Propensity for Monogamy: Your propensity for monogamy is low. You see love as a gift that you should give to many. It's hard for you to imagine being with one person at at time... Let alone one person for the rest of your life! Experience Level: Your experience level is high. You've loved, lost, and loved again. You have had a wide range of love experiences. And when the real thing comes along, you know it! Dominance: Your dominance is low. This doesn't mean you're a doormat, just balanced. You know a relationship is not about getting your way. And you love to give your sweetie a lot of freedom. Cynicism: Your cynicism is low. You are an eternal optimist when it comes to love and romance. No matter how many times you've been hurt - you're never bitter. You believe in one true love, your perfect soulmate. And if you haven't found true love yet, you know you will soon. Independence: Your independence is low. This doesn't mean you're dependent in relationships.. It does mean that you don't have any problem sharing your life. In your opinion, the best part of being in love is being together.

The Five Variable Love Test

I call Bullshit. I find most of these quizzes quite fun and entertaining; this one is simply annoying. So why am I posting it? Just to see if others reactions are similar to mine. For the record:

My propensity for monogamy is pretty damned high… higher than most, I’d wager. TSMP and I were married for 20 years, and were together for 23. I’d still be married if I had my druthers. And it wasn’t hard at all for me to “imagine being with one person at a time… Let alone for the rest of your (my) life.” I was extremely comfortable with monogamy; it was a natural state. And I’ve always been a serial-lover, that is: one at a time. Now the time may have been pretty short on occasion, but it was still “one at a time.” For what that’s worth.

No quibbles with experience level. I made the most of life before marrying TSMP; I made extensive attempts at getting back in the game after her.

No quibbles with the quiz’s take on my dominance, or lack of same. I do have issues with bondage, though.

My cynicism is high. I am not an eternal optimist when it comes to romance. Au contraire, mon frêre. My glass isn’t half-empty, it’s Sahara-desert dry. With calcite rings. “Never bitter?” Oh, spare me, please. I won’t go down that road, but… (I’m sure you get my drift) I DO believe in the soul mate thingie. Unfortunately that wasn’t a mutually-shared perception. True love found, true love lost, game over.

My independence level is high. Take my word for it.

OK, two agreed areas, three areas in violent disagreement. Ergo, Bullshit. Your mileage may vary, of course. Let me know… (h/t: Cassandra)

Now here’s a very interesting article: Scientists respond to Gore's warnings of climate catastrophe. Here are the two lead grafs:

"Scientists have an independent obligation to respect and present the truth as they see it," Al Gore sensibly asserts in his film "An Inconvenient Truth", showing at Cumberland 4 Cinemas in Toronto since Jun 2. With that outlook in mind, what do world climate experts actually think about the science of his movie?

Professor Bob Carter of the Marine Geophysical Laboratory at James Cook University, in Australia gives what, for many Canadians, is a surprising assessment: "Gore's circumstantial arguments are so weak that they are pathetic. It is simply incredible that they, and his film, are commanding public attention."

Say what? Pathetic? Really? You must be joking!

Here is a small sample of the side of the debate we almost never hear:

Appearing before the Commons Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development last year, Carleton University paleoclimatologist Professor Tim Patterson testified, "There is no meaningful correlation between CO2 levels and Earth's temperature over this [geologic] time frame. In fact, when CO2 levels were over ten times higher than they are now, about 450 million years ago, the planet was in the depths of the absolute coldest period in the last half billion years." Patterson asked the committee, "On the basis of this evidence, how could anyone still believe that the recent relatively small increase in CO2 levels would be the major cause of the past century's modest warming?"

Patterson concluded his testimony by explaining what his research and "hundreds of other studies" reveal: on all time scales, there is very good correlation between Earth's temperature and natural celestial phenomena such changes in the brightness of the Sun.

Dr. Boris Winterhalter, former marine researcher at the Geological Survey of Finland and professor in marine geology, University of Helsinki, takes apart Gore's dramatic display of Antarctic glaciers collapsing into the sea. "The breaking glacier wall is a normally occurring phenomenon which is due to the normal advance of a glacier," says Winterhalter. "In Antarctica the temperature is low enough to prohibit melting of the ice front, so if the ice is grounded, it has to break off in beautiful ice cascades. If the water is deep enough icebergs will form."

Dr. Wibjörn Karlén, emeritus professor, Dept. of Physical Geography and Quaternary Geology, Stockholm University, Sweden, admits, "Some small areas in the Antarctic Peninsula have broken up recently, just like it has done back in time. The temperature in this part of Antarctica has increased recently, probably because of a small change in the position of the low pressure systems." (Ed: these quotes are just the tip of the iceberg, pardon the pun. There is much more.)

No, really? But…but… Algore is so earnest, so committed. You’re saying he’s playing fast and loose with his inconvenient truths? G’wan!

Carter does not pull his punches about Gore's activism, "The man is an embarrassment to US science and its many fine practitioners, a lot of whom know (but feel unable to state publicly) that his propaganda crusade is mostly based on junk science."

In April sixty of the world's leading experts in the field asked Prime Minister Harper to order a thorough public review of the science of climate change, something that has never happened in Canada. Considering what's at stake - either the end of civilization, if you believe Gore, or a waste of billions of dollars, if you believe his opponents - it seems like a reasonable request.

My illusions are shattered. Shattered, I tell you. The next thing you’ll tell me is Algore had nothing to do with creating the innernets. Right? I’d expect nothing less from you Doubting Thomases.

By the way, have you read Michael Crichton’s novel State of Fear? (Excerpts at the link) Crichton’s novel is the antithesis of “An Inconvenient Truth” and is also the most extensively footnoted work of fiction I’ve ever read, bar none. If you don’t have time to read the novel, you might try Crichton’s speech “Environmentalism as Religion.” I find it interesting that Algore gets tons of publicity over his junk-science movie, yet Crichton got barely a murmur when State of Fear came out, as I recall. But then again, this phenomenon fits in pretty well with Crichton’s thesis. We all better brace ourselves for a slew of unneeded and unwanted “environmental regulations.” I can read the handwriting on the wall.

Hey! Do you sometimes find yourself sorta stymied by the language (not the profanity, we can all deal with that) they use and feel generally out of it while cruising sites like Firedoglake, Shakespeare’s Sister, or dKos? Do those earnest folks throw out terms you’ve never seen or heard in your normal, day-to-day life? Do you feel clue-free when they talk Bushit for Fitzmas? Well, fret no more. Those helpful Lefties actually have compiled an extensive glossary kossary. Now you, too, can understand the code. Here’s MY favorite:

Rethug, Rethuglican
Epithet for Republicans, particularly those who seek to tar and feather any dissenting voice. In terms of maturity, not too different from the corresponding "dimmycrat", but it's ours, goddamnit.

Yep, it’s yours. Lord knows the Left would never “tar and feather any dissenting voice.” Um-hmm.

For some strange reason the HTML provided for the quiz results in extremely wide spacing. I've tried to fix it but cannot. {sigh} I hate it when this happens...