Vinny Gambini: [Vinny hears a drip in the motel bathroom] Weren’t you the last one to use the bathroom? Lisa: So? Vinny Gambini: Well, did you use the faucet? Lisa: Yeah. Vinny Gambini: Then why didn’tcha turn it off? Lisa: I DID turn it off! Vinny Gambini: Well, if you turned it off, why am I listening to it? Lisa: Did it ever occur to you it could be turned off AND drip at the same time? Vinny Gambini: No. Because if you’d turned it off, it wouldn’t drip! Lisa: Maybe it’s broken. Vinny Gambini: Is that what you’re saying? It’s broken? Lisa: Yeah. That’s it, it’s broken. Vinny Gambini: You sure? Lisa: I’m positive. Vinny Gambini: Maybe you didn’t twist it hard enough. Lisa: I twisted it just right. Vinny Gambini: How could you be so sure? Lisa: [sighs] If you will look in the manual, you will see that this particular model faucet requires a range of 10 to 16 foot-pounds of torque. I routinely twist the maximum allowable torquage. Vinny Gambini: Well, how could you be sure you used 16 foot-pounds of torque? Lisa: Because I used a Craftsman model 1019 Laboratory Edition Signature Series torque wrench. The kind used by Caltech high energy physicists. And NASA engineers. Vinny Gambini: Well, in that case, how can you be sure THAT’s accurate? Lisa: Because a split second before the torque wrench was applied to the faucet handle, it had been calibrated by top members of the state AND federal Department of Weights and Measures… to be dead on balls accurate!
[She rips a page out of a magazine and hands it to him] Lisa: Here’s the certificate of validation. Vinny Gambini: Dead on balls accurate? Lisa: It’s an industry term. Vinny Gambini: [tosses paper away] I guess the fucking thing is broken.
George Monbiot is on quite a tear. His latest riposte begins:
Over the last fortnight I’ve made a deeply troubling discovery. The anti-nuclear movement to which I once belonged has misled the world about the impacts of radiation on human health. The claims we have made are ungrounded in science, unsupportable when challenged, and wildly wrong. We have done other people, and ourselves, a terrible disservice.
Today’s unambiguous rebuke to the anti-nuclear wing of the environmental movement (coming on the heels of Monbiot’s recent string of pro-nuclear columns) represents a serious challenge to climate advocates who don’t support nuclear power as a bridge fuel until renewables can be scaled up to help meet the meet the world’s energy needs.
Monbiot is also going off the reservation in a way that is reminiscent of this column and this one from two years ago.
I agree with Barry Woods that Monbiot has entered “heretic” territory. And one reason for that is that he is providing ammunition for generalizations like this by one commenter at the Guardian site:
It’s a interesting double-bind for environmentalists, of course: if large scientific collaborations are corrupt (as is claimed about nuclear) that leaves large scientific collaborations on climate change (which have essentially identical governance and participating institutions) where, exactly? Conversely, if climate change is bolstered by “listen to the science!” then that leaves the nuclear science where, exactly? Watching a man struggle with cognitive dissonance is always amusing, but in this case strangely moving: the first paragraph has the decency to admit that when it came to wild scaremongering, George was in the front ranks.
Monbiot is in for another wild ride this week. This one is going to be interesting.
