Letters to the Editor
-
Camille, come to Fairbanks
Come up here to see for yourself the rapid changes in the permafrost. Come up here and see the transformation of the boreal forest. Come talk to the experts at UAF. And go up to the North Slope and to northwestern Alaska and check out the sudden erosion in villages that have up to now withstood the forces of nature for hundreds of years.
Yes, global warming -- and skepticism of global warming -- shouldn't be a political statement. Conclusions should be based on real science.
So I challenge you. Come to Alaska and speak to the experts who are seeing the effects first hand, the Native people and the objective scientists.
-
S.H.A.M. Scam Sam
It is below you? Well, since it isn't beneath you, look down to where it is below you and try to refute it. Or are you standing on it to make yourself look taller?
You're claiming millions of scientists are wrong, based on what? Your wishful thinking? You post an ad for your blog, decry the Democrats based on pretty much nothing and yet my cynicism is "below" you. In other words you have no answers.
You and Paglia remind me of the old cartoon The Critic where he had a cardboard cutout of himself with a voice chip. Over and over it said "Buy my book! Buy my book! Buy my book!"
Speaking of "a web of cult-inspired lies"
"the players - rich, white, and male - are completely innocent."
No, there is insufficient evidence to prosecute. Not the same thing. You don't know their guilt or innocence any more than I do.
I'm sorry, Sir, but you are wrong. The question of what the "right" temperature is has come up - do you know what it is? Or does it "change"?
Why'd you put change in quotes? Is it not what you really mean? Of course temperature changes over time, that's not the question. The question is Have humans caused an increase in temperature that is measurable and detrimental? and the answer to that is Yes. Dr. Locrian is entirely right. For others like you, I suggest you go to the website www.timecube.com. I'm sure he'll tell you that you're "educated stupid!" (he tells everyone that.)
-
Consensus
I think that JM Walker brings up a good point. Increasingly, I see the term 'consensus' slung about as sloppily and dishonestly as are the traditional wingnut talking semantics (vocabulary word-of-the day in DittoHeadLand - 'capitulate').
It doesn't make a whole lot of sense to use the term 'consensus' unless there is a shared understanding with respect to what the consensus is about, and among whom the consensus is shared. Sometimes, it seems, global warming advocates want to be be able to lob the term into and argument like a hand grenade, and have it cover not only what it's next to but all sorts of peripheral ideas, about which there really is no consensus at all.
-
Headline: Camille Paglia thinks global warming caused by the sun
This canard has been going around among global warming deniers for a month now since NASA instruments found that Mars was exiting an ice age because of abberations in its orbit. The "thinking" goes that since Mars is warming and has no people then our own warming cannot have anything to do with people or CO2. These folks find a kook in Russia who blames the sun (without research or data but, hey, it sounds true in his head) and next thing you know it winds up among the further reaches of the neo-con fantasy land. The scientific consensus is that human induced CO2 is the cause--how Paglia can say that this is not true displays either ignorance or stupidity--and stupid lasts forever. I guess the National Academy of Sciences and the IPCC possess insufficient expertise compared against Paglia's desire to believe otherwise. The issue is not that there are inane people like Paglia in the world, the issue is why would Salon give her valuable space to air such inanities.
-
Camille Paglia is Salon's Paid Troll
Let's face it. Camille Paglia is a paid troll for Salon.
Her job is to write a lengthy diatribe, being sure to include a number of inane, controversial, off-the-wall, or, in rare cases, genuinely stimulating opinions, and to do so in such an arrogant and obnoxious way that it's guaranteed to stir up lots of feedback and discord, and make everyone crazy.
Because it's all about the page views, folks. And remember, page views drive ad revenue.
Do the math.
Consider for example, one standard one-page article, that generates one page of letters. If 10,000 readers read the article and the letters, that's 20,000 page views.
Take one bloated 4-page Paglia bloviation, and the attendant 10 pages of letters. Those same 10,000 readers...you now have 140,000 page views.
Ka ching!!! Ka ching!!!
$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $
-
Lynx
There's nothing preventing you. You can be wrong all you like. What should stop you? When it isn't healthy.
Please, point out which of the following statements I made about global warming is wrong.
1) Global warming is happening
2) Global warming is partially attributed to human influence
You might not be a "Rightist", but by supporting her right to speak as an authority in matters where she hasn't the faintest clue, you're supporting the Right. You are correct, I have no idea what supposed political strain you adhere to. I simply see what you're supporting here and the Right would approve.
You fail at reading comprehension. My original comments regarding the hypocrisy of the "left" in castrating opinions that don't toe the dogmatic line were in no way related to Paglia's statements about global warming. I even clarified that in the letter you've now replied to. Camille's column was several pages long and addressed multiple questions, only one of which was about global warming.
Then what do you think the issue is?
The issue is that I wasn't talking about global warming. Will I need to post again further clarifying or will this suffice?
-
Wrong Is Wrong - And This Is Wrong
"You're claiming millions of scientists are wrong, based on what?"
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.
"You post an ad for your blog"
Here, try Chris Locke's (who Joan Walsh helped attack, recently, though he was innocent of her charges) it's called "Mystic Bourgeoisie": http://mysticbourgeoisie.blogspot.com/
Look at it - not not just the front page but really "look" at it. Then read mine - not just the front page but check out some links, etc. We're not a couple of crazy guys: Chris is a hard-core liberal and I'm a recently-reformed Republican. Despite those differences - which aren't so big to us, though we don't agree on everything - we're, both, sensitive guys who just decided to look closely at the cultish thinking around us. We wish more of you would consider that.
"There is insufficient evidence to prosecute. Not the same thing. You don't know their guilt or innocence any more than I do."
You are not going to like the news tonight.
"The question is Have humans caused an increase in temperature that is measurable and detrimental? and the answer to that is Yes."
Even though Al Gore won't debate anyone on it? Even though skeptics don't get the same airtime as the boosters? Even though most of it's charges have been floating around - in new age circles - for decades? I would suggest you get a grip on yourself and read more than articles you agree with - that's how "truth" is discovered.
DeeGeeOh
"Consensus" means "the debate is over" - it's a means to silence people - and nothing more.
Old Navy Guy
I'm a navy vet myself, and I hope, you will consider how closely the slander "global warming deniers" is to "holocaust denier". It's a cruel idea to throw around - and diminishes the holocaust. As a vet, you should know better.
Anonymous
You should be ashamed.