Letters to the Editor
-
Dark Matter is Pixie Dust?
Someone said earlier, about the question of dark matter:
"So I'm not convinced of what is 90% (at least) consensus of scientists believe to be true."
This is nonsense. I'm so tired of people using inappropriate frames for scientific arguments, whether it's Paglia or commenters on a thread. Hello, astronomy is NOT climatology. We're actually living on this planet, we have a lot more access to evidence about climate change--it's just not the same thing!
But aside from using astronomy as a poor analogy to global warming, since when is it logical in principal to assume that what the majority of trained professionals in a given field are saying is wrong? To use another frame, do you also believe that evolution is wrong, just because a vast majority of scientists believe it to be true?
Poppycock.
-
so glad she has the authority to speak on climate issues
"In the beginning was nature." And nature will survive us all. Man is too weak to permanently affect nature, which includes infinitely more than this tiny globe."
I heard Rush Limbaugh say the same thing! No kidding-- I guess they had the same science teacher.
If Paglia is suggesting that the rock we call Earth will continue to revolve around the sun, then I guess she has a point. But if she's talking about all the diversity of life, then she's 'way off her rocker.
How can anyone say that mankind cannot have a permanent effect on nature? Hellooooooo-- extinction is forever, sweetie i.e. permanent. Seen any Dodos walking around lately? Seen any passenger pigeons? No, I didn't think so. Both extinctions are the direct result of mass slaughter by humans. And these two examples are but a tiny fraction of human impacts on nature.
Ok, let's look at global warming (climate change) this way: How can the atmosphere (and consequently the climate) NOT be affected by the 70 MILLION TONS of C02 being spewed into the atmosphere daily by us? It has been adding up over the last 100 years, and now with China and India coming on line with respect to CO2 emmission, well, we ain't seen nuthin' yet.
So, dear Camille, you and Rush can continue to have lunch with other nay-sayers, and hope that the rest of us will come up with solutions that will save your sorry arses.
-
whiskey tango foxtrot
You don't believe in global warming, and we should trust you because you thought about majoring in geology? Are you frakin' kidding me? Though I do trust you when you say you couldn't make it through An Inconvenient Truth; Gore deftly skewers every argument you made in it, but I guess you wouldn't know that.
"Democrats wouldn't want a Republican speaker doing that to a Democratic president..." Uh, you mean like Gingrich did repeatedly to Clinton, or like Hastert did to Clinton when he told Colombian military officials they should just bypass the president and deal directly with Congress? Seriously, do you even read, or is this column little more than a chance for you to plug your book?
And "Democrat Party?" Oy. That pretty much says it all, doesn't it?
-
Blinded by Hatred
Can Camille Paglia think through a problem -- any problem -- without resorting to tired old attacks on liberal strawmen? When I read the headline for this piece, I wondered what would lead her to remain skeptical about global warming. I guess, correctly, that it boiled down to this: it was a liberal issue, and liberals are prone to groupthink, so it mustn't be true. Of course, she ignored the science behind the issue, except to convey her childhood appreciation of geology.
Mind you, conservative groupthink -- which, I would argue, is far more rampant -- remains sacrosanct. Paglia, like Limbaugh, Coulter, and the rest of the conservative clowns masquerading as political thinkers can't make an argument. All they can do is invoke the "L" word as though that alone settled the matter.
-
Science and the Right Wing
JM Walker, Poco, et al.
Thank you for illustrating further how the Right doesn't understand what science is. We are not decrying Paglia and other Climate Change deniers because they don't "Toe the party line", we decry them because they are ignoring scientific concensus. Experimental evidence, accumulated data, peer review, learned discussion based on painstaking gathering of information all leading into hypotheses which are then debated, discarded, modified and refined. Eventually working hypotheses or even theories are worked out reflecting the best ideas about what is happening and why. This is what has happened with climate change. The concensus or agreement among scientists worldwide is that climate change is happening and it is because of human activity.
This is not some political idea or partisan talking point. To say you don't agree with it because not enough evidence is in simply means you need to do more reading. This is just like the Right Wing idiocy about evolution. Evolution is as close to fact as can be stated in science and yet, because Right Wingers don't understand it, they claim it isn't real.
There'll always be some moron out there claiming that Einstein was Wrong! Unfortunately for them, every bit of evidence that came in since the Theory of Relativity was presented has proved him right.
Just as with that, you'll always be able to find an idiot claiming to be a scientist who disputes evolution or climate change or relativity or even the physics behind the internal combustion engine. This does not mean those that decry their bad ideas are pushing out dissent, it means they're saying they're mistaken and with a little research they'd see this.
-
Global warming
How can Paglia question global warming without even mentioning the IPCC report? Talk about forfeiting credibility!! And she's questioning Al Gore's credibility??!! Paglia has about as much authority as Michael Chrichton on this issue.
-
Drudge
Well, Matt Drudge is behind Camille. He just posted a link to her wondrous article.
-
why am I supposed to care about her POV?
I disagree with Alex Tucker. I read her thoughts on global warming and skimmed through her other opinions.
I saw nothing of interest. Disjointed rambling on various topics.
My reaction is: so what?
I know that in many cases, style wins over substance, but for a columnist to have merit, there has to be some substance. I don't see it.
There was a famous author, I think it may have been Doris Lessing, who wanted to see if her work could be accepted on its own merits after she became famous. She submitted a manuscript under a fake name and it was rejected. Then she submitted it under her real name and it was accepted immediately.
I know that many disagree, but my reaction is that Paglia has nothing of interest to say. Without her famous "name," her rambling would be less interesting.
I just wanted to write as someone who was not impressed. I'll probably check her out again to see if she remains this boring, but I didn't see the incisive commentary that she is supposed to be known for.
to quote that old commercial - where's the beef?