Letters to the Editor
-
Sham Scam Sam Saddam Saran Wrap Flim-Flam Blippety Blam Walla-Walla Bing Bam
I've read through all of the (so far) 29 pages of letters in here. (I posted a line-by-line response to Camille that is now on page 9.) At a certain point in these letters, a few people announced that Camille's article was picked up by Drudge Report. After that point, the number of obvious right-wing responders increased considerably.
Among them is this guy, "Sham Scam Sam," who was recently asked why he disagrees with the science of global warming. Here was his response:
"Science - the scientific method doesn't work on consensus (how many people believe something) it works on facts - and there are so many holes in the "humans cause climate change" argument (starting with the hatred many cultish thinkers have for the modern consumer-oriented world) it's terrifying."
I have to respond to this. Sam, or whatever your name is, could you please detail again what you feel to be the many "terrifying" holes in the human-caused climate change theory? The one that you offered, "some believers seem hateful and cultish," is irrelevant to the actual science.
There have been other responders who have made similar arguments -- that global warming's science is impure, and yet all of their reasons have more to do with politics and psychology than with scientific facts or evidence. Why is this? Why do people seem to have trouble separating a scientific question from a personal political position?
Common statements from the right:
(1) "Camille Paglia made people angry, so she must be on to something."
-- This is only true if you assume that people never get angry for legitimate reasons. In my case, I find her argument lacking due to its lack of substance. She writes at length about her own background and about various peripheral topics (including her distaste for Al Gore as a person), but she never actually details why she's skeptical of the science. This is lazy, and such laziness about a serious topic does make me angry. If Camille had offered a scientific argument, at least I could try to take her seriously and dig deeper to see whether her challenge had merit.
(2) "The viciousness of people in the letters to Camille is among the worst I've seen. It demonstrates that leftists and liberals are as herd-like and sheepish as anybody else. The Duke Lacrosse players were cleared of all charges today! Suck it, libs!"
-- Speaking as somebody who is very liberal (and who, like Camille, has in the past felt more affinity with libertarians than with democrats), I agree that group think is a bad thing. That's why I strongly suggest people actually go see "An Inconvenient Truth" and assess the facts themselves rather than taking my or anybody else's word for it that global warming is a real phenomenon. But don't stop there. See other documentaries, including any you find that are skeptical of global warming. Read books on both sides of the issue. Be sure to carefully assess the credibility of the sources you seek. Al Gore is a liberal so there is some reason to question his bias; personally I am convinced that his concern for factuality overrides any partisan loyalties he might have, but that's just me. I also recommend you read the statements issued by scientific organizations (which many here have provided helpful links to, and likely will again if you ask).
Furthermore, a great many of the negative responses to Camille in this thread have been mature, intelligently communicated missives, not juvenile insults. At least half of the responses (probably more) address Paglia's specific points and respond with as much or more argumentative strength and evidence as she does. Keep in mind that Camille herself has demonstrated she's not above cheap pot-shots, so those responses that do take digs at her are hardly out of line with her own approach.
Finally, regarding the Duke Lacrosse case, don't confuse the mostly level-headed Salon readers with the shrill minority extremist liberals. As soon as I heard the evidence in the first week I knew something was wrong with the Duke case, and most liberals knew it too. (Maybe you're thinking of Amanda Marcotte's statements on Pandagon?) It's been clear for a long time that the rape charges were abused for political reasons. I don't think the Duke rape case is a liberal vs. conservative issue any more than global warming should be a liberal vs. conservative issue. In fact, I think the idea that global warming should be politicized at all is stupid, and you'll find most of its politicization comes from the right wing, largely because to admit it's happening would imply responsibility for doing something about it.