DeeGeeOh wrote:

"I'm not sure that I agree with that; and even if it were true, it'd be a mistake to be allow ourselves to get too smug about it. It seems obvious to me that there's rampant politization on the left here, as well - the proof is the sheer number of laypeople who are willing to weigh in with absolute certainty on such a massively complex and technical matter."

I admit that I am a layperson on the subject, and I also admit that I don't have a comprehensive or very deep understanding of the science of global warming (though I do have enough of a rudimentary understanding of it to identify certain bogus counter-arguments).

That said, I think it is wrong for you to characterize everybody's negative response here as if they are all claiming to have "absolute certainty" about the matter. What many (including myself) are responding to in Paglia's article is the fact that while she presents herself as having thoroughly examined the evidence and arrived at a strong skeptical position, the reasons she provide are wholly inadequate and amount to "I don't like Al Gore's personality," "Climate patterns are cyclical," and "Humans are too insignificant to impact the magnificence of nature." That's weak even to a layperson, and a person of Paglia's supposed high academic standards insults her readers (and herself) with such a lazy, poorly thought-out approach.

"While it's undeniable that there has been shameless and repugnant disingenuity on the half of the right wing on this issue (and it doesn't take the Shell Answer Man to discern a motive), it's equally undeniable that well meaning folks with honest concerns have been frequently shouted down by angry masses of folks who really should just STFU and let the scientists handle it. Regardless of where you sit on the issue of Global Warning, that's something that we all should abhor."

I can agree with you on this. People on the left do need to take a step back from mindless rock-throwing and collect ourselves. I think a much better response is to continue doing our homework on the matter. I, for one, would be quite happy to admit that human-caused global warming were not occurring if there were credible and peer-reviewed evidence to that effect. But there isn't. And yet the mass media keeps treating the matter like it's a 50-50 divide between those who are convinced and those who are skeptical...

This is a pretty weird message from you:

"No it's not, it's my point: cults don't allow outside ideas to intrude on their beliefs. And they won't let little things, like facts, get in the way of their beliefs. They will press on, no matter what."

So besides the fact that you have labeled global-warming scientists as cultists, why do you believe that it isn't true? Here is what your argument looks like to me:

(1) Scientists claim humans are causing global warming.

(2) These scientists seem cult-like in their agreement.

(3) Things said by cult-like people are false.

(4) Therefore, global warming is false.

Each of these statements seems sort of true, in a way, but I think you need to look more closely:

(2) These scientists seem cult-like in their agreement.

Is this really the case? Certainly there are some people, mostly non-scientists, who are at least somewhat cult-like about this subject. But what about the scientists themselves? Can you provide evidence that they have behaved in a cult-like manner? Are there other reasons they might do such things (such as holding a conference in which they eventually agree to sign a statement claiming they believe global warming to be a real phenomenon) besides for a cultish motive? Might not scientists believe the subject is important enough to take action, and try to express this?

Sam Sham Scam also writes:

"And there ARE science cults. (Scientology anyone?) Cults - around homeopathy. Therapeutic Touch. Global Warming and the Environment. Accupuncture. Chiropractic. Organic Foods. Qigong. Yoga. The list goes on. And I'm sick of it."

I don't think you understand what Scientology is. Scientology has no actual connection to the world of academics or scientists. It just happens to use a word derived from "science" in its name. It's not a "science cult" any more than the 1980s punk/goth band "Christian Death" is a Christian cult.

As for the various new age practices you mention, what connection do you see between those and global warming science? You're talking about alternative medicine, which is a world apart from climatology. Personally, I agree with you, those things deserve skepticism, though most of them are probably harmless (as long as people don't forgo credible medical treatment).

JM Walker wrote:

"I would recommend not pursuing a career in textual analysis."

...and then listed what was apparently evidence that Paglia's letter-writers are in fact real people.

Fair enough. Her article does come across that way (and it did when I read her in Salon many years ago too).

I won't be pursuing a career in textual analysis; in any case, I can't seem to find that category listed in the local want ads.