Letters to the Editor
Lynx
Published Letters: 1590 Editor's Choice: 126
-
Conservative Hack
[Read the article: Real inconvenient truths]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Please, please, please stop publishing this conservative moron on Salon. Against my better judgement I read part of the column becuase of the teaser The hot air about global warming and I really should have known better. She parrots right wing bile throughout the column, including ignorant comments about Sandy Berger and the National Archives. It'd be nice if she bothered to find out what actually happened instead of relying on Rush Limbaugh for her news.
As far as her comments on global warming, she should stick to commenting on what she's qualified to comment on, which seems to be Camile Paglia and not much else. Still sceptical? What is wrong with this woman? The vast majority of scientists all over the world agree that climate change is a human caused problem and she says it is sitill to be proved? This is because she doesn't understand science. Her solution is to move into the hills? How stupid can she be? I could write a better column than hers by leaning on the "A" key on my keyboard for 5 minutes. I implore you, I beg of you, stop giving her a platform to spread her ignorance. There's enough outlets for this Fox News imbicile wihtout Salon succumbing. Didn't you just run severeal articles about how the mainstream media has failed? Don't fall into that same trap by publishing more ignorant tripe.
Would someone please, PLEASE, buy this woman a brain?
-
Joan Walsh
[Read the article: Real inconvenient truths]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I was reading Ms. Walsh's blog and came across this description of Camile Paglia:
a lousy writer, a third-rate thinker, a talent-free provocateur, or all of the above
Oh, wait. That's Michelle Malkin she's describing. And yet Salon publishes Paglia, Malkin's twin.
-
Science and the Right Wing
[Read the article: Real inconvenient truths]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]JM Walker, Poco, et al.
Thank you for illustrating further how the Right doesn't understand what science is. We are not decrying Paglia and other Climate Change deniers because they don't "Toe the party line", we decry them because they are ignoring scientific concensus. Experimental evidence, accumulated data, peer review, learned discussion based on painstaking gathering of information all leading into hypotheses which are then debated, discarded, modified and refined. Eventually working hypotheses or even theories are worked out reflecting the best ideas about what is happening and why. This is what has happened with climate change. The concensus or agreement among scientists worldwide is that climate change is happening and it is because of human activity.
This is not some political idea or partisan talking point. To say you don't agree with it because not enough evidence is in simply means you need to do more reading. This is just like the Right Wing idiocy about evolution. Evolution is as close to fact as can be stated in science and yet, because Right Wingers don't understand it, they claim it isn't real.
There'll always be some moron out there claiming that Einstein was Wrong! Unfortunately for them, every bit of evidence that came in since the Theory of Relativity was presented has proved him right.
Just as with that, you'll always be able to find an idiot claiming to be a scientist who disputes evolution or climate change or relativity or even the physics behind the internal combustion engine. This does not mean those that decry their bad ideas are pushing out dissent, it means they're saying they're mistaken and with a little research they'd see this.
-
S.H.A.M. Scam Sam
[Read the article: Real inconvenient truths]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]No wonder you like Paglia! Your post consisted of:
Faulty Statement
Buy my book! (self promotion)
-
JM Walker
[Read the article: Real inconvenient truths]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]what prevents one from accepting provisional likelihood of a theory while maintaining a healthy scientific skepticism?
There's nothing preventing you. You can be wrong all you like. What should stop you? When it isn't healthy. At this point, saying things like
virtually all of the major claims about global warming and its causes still remain to be proved.
is simply irresponsible and an attempt to muddy the waters. This paragraph
Climate change, keyed to solar cycles, is built into Earth's system. Cooling and warming will go on forever. Slowly rising sea levels will at some point doubtless flood lower Manhattan and seaside houses everywhere from Cape Cod to Florida -- as happened to Native American encampments on those very shores. Human habitation is always fragile and provisional. People will migrate for the hills, as they have always done.
Is simply wrong in nearly every way. It is shortsighted, simpleminded and damaging if anyone takes her seriously.
There is nothing wrong with healthy scientific skepticism, after all it is part of the scientific method. What is wrong is ignoring science and claiming your own opinions to be superior based on nothing more than wishful thinking. Her skepticism isn't scientific in the least, it is a parroting of right-wing talking points designed to protect profits another year.
But I support Camille's choice to be skeptical, and apparently that makes me a Rightist
You might not be a "Rightist", but by supporting her right to speak as an authority in matters where she hasn't the faintest clue, you're supporting the Right. You are correct, I have no idea what supposed political strain you adhere to. I simply see what you're supporting here and the Right would approve.
Nobody with his or her head out of the sand doubts that global warming is happening or that humans don't contribute. That is not the issue.
Then what do you think the issue is? If you re-read thtat quote I posted, that sure seems like what she's debating. She's saying humans aren't causing climate change, it is natural and either way, humans will just move to the hills. I'd love to see where she has hills that'll accomodate all the people that'd be displaced. The truth is, she doesn't care either way. The vast majority of people that'll be affected will be poor and not American so they can go hang.