Letters to the Editor
Majorajam
Published Letters: 271 Editor's Choice: 11
-
When Maladroit Contrarians Attack
[Read the article: Real inconvenient truths]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]The knack of global warming discourse for drawing attention to the useful idiots in our commentariat knows no equal. Paglia's piece is simply the latest edition, though the canards she employs, 'Al Gore is not credible- there is no scientific unanimity on global warming' and 'humans are arrogant to think they can affect the climate', are nothing new. The beauty of the former statement is that it both red herring and inaccurate, making it all the more difficult to counter without doing harm to the debate. The latter is simply unsubstantiated by anything other than the author's wandering and starry-eyed prose. As to the inaccuracy of the former, a study conducted by Dr. Benny Peiser- one highly motivated global warming skeptic- was, (after further review*), unable to come up with a single solitary peer-reviewed scientific paper that disputed the basic science of global warming over a period from 93 to 03. So I await with zenithal anticipation Paglia's clarifying what she meant by her libel of Al Gore.
Moving on to the red herring dimension of Paglia's essay, as outlandish as this may seem, skepticism is customarily informed by arguments regarding the substance of something one claims to be skeptical of, rather than hostility. In this case, that means a competing explanation of how the physically demonstrable CO2 forcing ultimately affects the climate system, (and one that leads to less threatening consequences of our dumping the pollutant wholesale into the atmosphere). However, Paglia and her fellow self-proclaimed gadflies provide no such thing. Theirs is more correctly contrarianism/antagonism masquerading as skepticism- and more succinctly, 'skepticism'- of a piece with the top dollar energy industry propaganda in which many in our society, Senator Inhofe for example, have been pickled.
It is also worth noting that this criticism of 'skepticism' applies equally to most if not all of its known arguments. Crichton's favorite psalm, (increasingly de jour of the 'skeptic' community)- the one about those durn hypocritical private jet flying as much energy using in one day as the average American in one year libs- just happens to be the most frivolous. A second of his, 'scientific consensus is meaningless, because historically it is not 100% accurate', is also of the incorrect variety of ruses. Incorrect that is unless, (if and only if), the claim is also that climate scientists are uniquely dull amongst researchers, that science itself is totally irrelevant or that there is a massive conspiracy to defraud amongst these scientists, presumably to take over the world. If none of these are being claimed and shown, their consensus is indeed meaningful and considerably so.
In the final analysis, this piece and others like it are a disservice to the community. They are poorly reasoned, uninformed and supercilious and ultimately only useful for feeding the misinformation factory of credulous hacks like Matt Drudge. Salon can and should be expected to do better.
* See http://www.desmogblog.com/deltoids-tim-lambert-bursts-peisers-bubble
-
One Hand Washes The Other
[Read the article: Don't run, Al. Don't!]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]If indeed Salon is publishing this seriously unserious columnist because of the hits and letters then the love-in between her and Matt Drudge is looking more like a convenience than a coincidence. I'm not suggesting that Paglia's inane anti-Al Gore/global warming opinions are insincere, or that Drudge believes these views to be contrived or cares, but I wonder if she's not cognizant of the symbiotic relationship they've developed. Given today's column, (or at least what I can infer of it by the comments), it is fair to assume she is a Drudge aficionado. Would it then be lost on this ninny of a nihilist that the appearance of such opinions in a liberal publication- to say nothing of a mention of his unholy web site and pointless polls (Drudge is nothing if not a ruthless self-promoter)- virtually guarantees a highly placed link there?
So now I'm thinking that there are plenty of examples of this type of symbiosis in industry. Take the IPOs of the late 90's- systematically under priced, pumped up by phony research and fed to wealthy clients right before they soared a few hundred percent. That favor was returned by the steering of the investment banking business of corporations these wealthy folks control (and occasionally owned) to the issuing banks. Of course, that was finance, money for money's sake, and this is supposed to be journalism, but take it from the Bancrofts- business is business.
-
To build a pigeonhole
[Read the article: The AP says Obama thinks genocide is no biggie]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]The common thread running through righty pigeonholes of lefty leaders is that they've got their gender backwards. Kerry and Edwards were pretty boys lacking the reassuring no nonsense vapid Fred Thompson ten gallon authority and, apparently, Obama's just a goof and therefore likewise not manly. Hillary by contrast has more testosterone than a professional cyclist which was yesterday's Drudge headline against today's for Obama's genocide ain't so bad. Coincidence? Why not.
If there's one thing the right understand it's that the side that saddles an opposition candidate with an unflattering label first wins. They palpably cling to these things, possibly because of their desperate need to win or possibly because they require a thumbnail to compensate for their dumb-as-rocks-ness, or even possibly some combination. I can't say. What's beyond question is the only beneficiaries of this sad re-run are humorists in need of material.
Real Nombre- you sound like you thought you knew your way around a bong before you got singed. Remember: laces out.