Letters to the Editor
-
An inconvenient truth about "An Inconvenient Truth"
Here's an inconvenient truth for you. Did you know that Al Gore did not write or produce "An Inconvenient Truth"? This documentary has 9 producers listed in IMDB, none being Al Gore or any of his family members. The movie was directed by Davis Guggenheim and edited by Jay Cassidy and Dan Swietlik. The film was originally inspired when one of the producers, Laurie Lennard, saw Al Gore's PowerPoint presentation about Global Warming and she pressed her husband and friends to make a documentary about Al Gore and his work. By all accounts, Al Gore did not want the movie to be about him--he wanted to focus entirely on the subject he's devoted so much of his life to for so many decades. It was the moviemakers' decision to frame the movie as they did. But make no mistake: Al Gore's work is the SUBJECT of the documentary, he is not the documentary maker. Calling "An Inconvenient Truth" "Al Gore's movie" is like calling "Gone with the Wind" "Scarlett O'Hara's movie."
If Ms. Paglia can't separate the subject of a movie from its creator, perhaps she has as little expertise in film as she does in science.
-
hot air!
Why are people believing the man who claimed he invented the
Internet? Like you, I was unable to watch his Academy Award winning production. I grew up in Kansas in the days of the
Dust Bowl and the Depression. I rode my horse every day in
temperatures that were usually 125 degrees. We do not have
days that hot any more. I also have read and traveled - and understand the cycles of the earth. These are very powerful
events - and I believe as you do that man is much too weak to be responsible for them. Thank you for pointing this out.
Bev in Kansas
-
Well
I for one am glad that Salon has put Camille Paglia back on their site.
I love to read how she manages to annoy so many readers.
Good job Ms. Paglia, easy to do though isn't it...
-
Global hot air
Your comments on the great global warming balloon were smack on, especially the warning about its potential negative effects on the cause of conservation in general. The evidence that we are, in fact, in a strong, long-term global warming cycle is at present somewhat ambiguous, and evidence that what warming can be observed is primarily caused by human activity is thin indeed. Most evidence of the latter is based not on actual observation and measurement, but on computer models. The attempt to quantify and model a system as overwhelmingly complex as that of the earth's surface, atmosphere and hydrosphere, with such limited and sketchy data as is available (even should the mechanics of the model be correct) is, to say the least, ambitious. As it happens, the models now widely used can't even account for our known recent (by geologic scale) past meteorological history. And how accurately can we predict next week's weather, much less the next century's?
I became a geologist, those many years ago, mainly because it let me walk in the woods and meditate on how the world is made, and actually get paid for it. Your descriptions of the joy to be found in contemplation of the natural world reminded me of what a good decision that was. My fear concerning the global warming hysteria is not that we will wreck the world's economy in pursuit of a chimera (won't happen), but that when the bubble inevitably bursts, it will tarnish the public's image of the entire conservationist agenda. Thanks for pointing that out.
Regards, Gerry
-
Paglia writes "Man is too weak to permanently affect nature..."
Perhaps Ms. Paglia needs to revisit what man has done to the area in and around Chernobyl?
If she's too busy bloviating on matters far beyond her area of expertise to do so, perhaps a 10 minutes investment surfing this site is in order?
http://www.kiddofspeed.com/
Why is global warming a political issue? Ms. Paglia reminds us by dismissing Mr. Gore's film for inaccuracies but then fails to point any of these alleged inaccuracies out.
I've heard she has a brilliant mind. Might be nice to see some evidence of that some time.
-
Contrarianism and round-earth skeptics
What's amazing to me is how many people will write in congratulating her for "puncturing the herd's bubble" despite the fact that she clearly doesn't know the first thing about climate science. Perhaps if she DID write a column claiming the earth is flat, and lots of angry letter writers complained about it, the right-wing trolls would be piling on: "not one of you liberal know-it-alls have PROVED the earth is round! Guess you're all a bunch of sheep. Rock on Camille!"
-
It's all about her
Paglia's articles always come off as desperate cries for attention. She tries to obscure it with her expansive vocabulary and her talent for the elegantly turned phrase, but all she's ever really saying is "look at me!, look at me!" How many times do we have to be reminded of her books and how often must we pretend to care about her personal life?
For instance, when she was discussing Sontag's love of socializing, she threw in an aside about how she avoids parties - even those suggested by her publisher. So what? What is the point of that observation? Are we to applaud her "seriousness" in comparison to Sontag's frivilousness? Are we to admire her humble, selfless nature as she rejects the idea of a promotional book signing? Quite frankly, why the hell would she need a book promotion party when she can shamelessly plug her books in every article she writes for the rest of her life?
Oh Camille - you are so fascinating when you speak of your love for both geology and Warhol, so open-minded in your embrace of both Ann Coulter and homosexuality, so brilliant and sober an author and intellectual! Okay, is that enough attention and praise for you dear? My guess is: it's NEVER enough...
-
another vote for Camille
Damn she makes me nuts sometimes, but her columns and their attendant intellectual blood-baths are truly the most "salon-like" aspect of Salon.com.
Keep 'em coming!