I just peeked in here after a couple of days and noticed a few more interesting posts. The Paglia article will soon scroll completely off the main page, and by then it will be more trouble than it's worth to keep up with, but here are a few closing comments and responses.

To DeeGeeOh: I appreciate your message. A few responses --

"I don't think that simply repeating "Has no bearing on the truth or untruth of GW science" is quite the slam dunk that you might think that it is here."

It's definitely not a slam dunk. I do feel the need to emphasize and maintain a separation between the question of whether global warming is true and criticism/fear/concern about the methods people have proposed for "solving" the problem. Sam Sham seems to be using a very backwards thought process that goes something like this: "I don't like the solutions to global warming, therefore I doubt the existence of global warming." This thought process seems to extend to many people. I would hope some would recognize how backwards it is to wish away a problem because of a distaste for some of its proposed solutions.

"Lots of matters that have no bearing on the actual "truth" or "falsity" of the science are nonetheless plenty relevant to the issue of credibility. It's absolutely fair and right that we bring matters of motivation, psychology, and history into that debate."

There is a place for such discussion, but it can also very easily taint and overwhelm the debate, which people are all too willing to let it do. I have read enough and seen enough to believe that most people's concern about global warming is genuine and based in a self-checking concern rather than overconcern or so-called Chicken Little syndrome. Personally I am a skeptic first about all things, and I know many others who are also skeptics first. Being a skeptic first means that your initial impulse is to examine and question everything about a subject. When people were saying Y2K would wreak havoc on civilization, there was obviously an irrational hysteria there, and it only took a little reading and research to find cracks in the claims. Global warming is different. I've been watching this subject ever since I can remember, and I've seen skeptics (including people I know) attack it from multiple angles. Slowly over time I've seen the harshest and sharpest-minded skeptics own up to the fact that the evidence for global warming is strong and getting stronger. It's not a hysteria or a psychological, peer-pressure based phenomena, and among those with skeptical, scientific minds, the opinion about global warming is not divided on partisan lines.

"For example, it's perfectly admissible to bring up the issue of Al Gore's refusal to engage in a debate if the issue is his credibility to act as a spokesman for a movement."

If the debate were about Al Gore's credibility as a spokesman, then it would be dismissible. But the debate is about the truth of global warming. Paglia brought her distaste for Al Gore into the discussion and then admitted that it so overwhelmed her that she declined to hear out his evidence. What I understand about Al Gore is that he does not want to become the central spokeman for global warming due to his awareness that he is a politically controversial figure. I also would discourage people from making too much of Gore declining to debate people. First, I don't know the context of those stories (I haven't checked up on it and don't even know for sure if it's true) but Gore could have declined debates for any number of reasons, even schedule conflicts. It may also be the case that Gore doesn't want to enter into a debate that pits liberal vs. conservative in what should really be a scientist vs. scientist debate. It would create a spectacle and possibly result in rhetorical pot-shots that would further sully the entire discussion. Gore's repeated point (and one I think is immensely important) is that politics should be set aside when discussing scientific truth. One's political ideology should never come into play when arguing whether 2 + 2 is 4, or whether the earth is flat, spherical, or ovoid. Only the evidence and reasoning should matter. You'll notice that in "An Inconvenient Truth" Gore largely avoids any sort of partisanship. The debate is not about Gore.

"It's a point easily and (in my opinion) persuasively argued (what's the point of having a politician debate a scientist? A layperson won't understand the science and a scientist won't be impressed with anything the pol has to say"

A scientist can make things understandable to a layperson. I don't think Gore was speaking as a politician in "An Inconvenient Truth," I think he was speaking as an amateur scientist who has honed his communication skills and understanding of a subject over time. I think this is part of what makes the movie so interesting. If Gore were speaking as a politician it probably would have been a mediocre film. As history has proven, politics are not the man's strong suit.

"But, even in your superb commentary, I see a little bit of what troubles me about the GW discussion in general (but not the only thing); namely, a tendency to treat your confidence in the credibility of those whom you chooose to believe as some sort of Universal Truth that's unworthy of even discussing."

I don't believe truth is universal, just that strong evidence is universally better than weak or non-existent (or purely rhetorical or anecodotal) evidence. Show me real evidence that pokes real holes in the global warming evidence and I will re-examine my conclusions. I realize these distinctions are lost on some people.

--- more ---