Letters to the Editor
-
Sorry CaptainGroove, saying it doesn't make it so
Let’s cut to the chase, friends. The Left has co-opted natural climate change and using it as a tool to dismantle Western Industrial Capitalism. This is part of a calculated strategy in their relentless quest to establish their vision of a Global Socialist Utopian Society.
This is silly. We scientists are in the empirical, reality-based community. It doesn't make us infallible, but the conclusions of the scientists of the IPCC cannot and should not simply be written off as Left inspired propaganda for some hidden agenda. That is an insult to our best efforts to try to understand the world as it is rather than as we would wish it to be.
The real cause of global warming has been a slow but steady output of solar energy, this documented by solar astronomers since the mid 1950’s.
Links or other evidence? Make sure it's credible.
-
Please Make It Stop
In the interest of honoring Joan Walsh's genuine concern about how women are treated in cyberspace, I will bend over backwards to be polite this time, even at the expense of saying what I really mean. Having said that -- reasoning with Salon on their insistence on publishing this particular woman is like reasoning with George W. Bush about his war, reasoning with George W. Bush about anything. 'Nuff said? We have all gotten the message -- Walsh is The Decider.
No sooner had I talked myself 'round to sending always needy Salon more money, even though my Premium registration has not expired, than I open to once more find this woman -- whom I refuse to sully my typing fingers by naming. In many ways I love Salon and consider it American journalism's last best hope. I have been secretly pleased I discovered and recognized its virtues long before it became *the* quoted ezine, before Salon broke the Walter Reed scandal -- to choose only one solid Salon accomplishment.
After the last time Salon published -- this woman -- I tried New Republic online, I thought about subscribing to The (paper) Atlantic Monthly, only to realize that Salon has done it: they have created a space online with not only content but spirit, a sense of being a space as The New Yorker is not just a magazine, but a space, a space one wants to return to. (Well, at least one *used* to want to return there.) Salon has cracked the cyber-code. I will not be renewing my subscription, however.
I have given some serious thought as to why. Can't I just ignore -- this woman? Can't I just refuse to click on her articles?
For me, it is in part a money issue. It's part of who we are now -- we think of how the money we spend supports what we hate or what we think is killing us. I don't shop at Walmart either. I don't order Domino's. I don't work out at Curves. I have limited funds and many worthy causes vying for them. So why should I be paying the wages of this writer and woman I despise?
And to this too I gave some serious thought. Why do I hate her so much I refuse to honor her with her name?
She is part of the past -- the liberals' contribution -- that has brought to where we are today: to the Iraqi war, brought us face to face with the imminent death of 30% of the species of the planet, with catastrophic climate changes. While -- this woman -- oh-so-cleverly! found good things to say about Bush and Rush and all those good ol' boys, conservatives took over Congress, won the White House, and packed the Supreme Court. We live with the consequences -- the evaporation of rights, the torture, the spying, the waste of our collective money, the erosion of all sense of community.
While -- this woman -- continues to pleasure herself in public (that is honestly the best description I can come up with for her writing), openly adoring herself for bravely quarreling with feminism, women around the world continue to starve, to waste away from AIDS, to pass AIDS to their children, to work themselves to death not unlike American slave women did, and to die (still!) from unsafe abortions. Would it be asking too much for -- this woman -- to address that? Perhaps she could oh-so-cleverly drag in Madonna, making it worth her while.
What worries me is that Salon so doesn't get it -- and now is not the time or place for that denseness. There has been a sea change in the country. Either Salon catches that wave and rides to glory or it will be washed away, as, thank god, this woman is destined to be.
I don't seek to silence -- this woman. I think she has a brilliant future in journalism -- speaking on Rush Limbaugh and writing for *The Washington Times.* I wish her the best there.
-
Sham Scam Sam -- a troll?
Sham Sam Scam Green Eggs and Ham:
"We just watched Katrina almost wipe New Orleans off the map and you think WE have power over THE WEATHER? That's just the worst kind of hubris."
Straw-man argument. I didn't say we could control specific instances of the weather (though we certainly could have built better levees). But we might be able to incrementally change it over time.
"While the politicians on the Left have already figured out how to make a buck off it (carbon credits) and (this is insane) wants us to stop driving, stop flying, etc."
Straw-man argument #2. Nobody has ever proposed that anybody stop driving. Some have proposed, however, that we tighten the fuel-efficiency standards for cars, or try harder to develop alternative fuel sources (including electric cars). In any case, there is plenty of room for healthy debate on what should be done about global warming. Just because I am convinced it is a real phenomenon doesn't mean I want to dictate how everybody should change their lives to fix it.
"I didn't mean for you to think "all global warming scientists". (Sorry) I think this because, as I said earlier, of what's happening in almost all fields of medicine and science: cult infiltration. You completely ignored my previous posts regarding homeopathy and TT in medicine. Why?"
I still don't see how you are making the leap from "cultists in medicine" to "cultists in climate science." Why are you so certain that scientists believe in global warming solely out of groupthink rather than because they've reached a credible conclusion based on the best evidence and analysis? As for your posts about homeopathy, what exactly did you want me to respond to? I probably agree with you that a lot of those are bogus or at least worthy of skepticism. I just think they're irrelevant to this discussion (other than as a convenient simile).
"I've answered the Scientology question. I don't believe in it - but THEY THINK IT'S SCIENCE - and they'll do ANYTHING to add it into the scientific canon."
This is just a tangent. Just because "some people believe that silly things are scientific" does not mean "all scientific beliefs are silly." You have to judge each subject on a case-by-case basis. Scientology? Lacks evidence and is rejected by actual scientists. Global warming? Has reams of evidence and is considered real by many scientsts. Quite a difference there. What is your basis for delineating cultish science from real science? If you think global warming is "infiltrated by cultists," then what prevents you from thinking that, say, genetic engineering scientists are also infiltrated by cultists?
"It's no accident that the answers given to combatting GW (sending us back to Third World status) line up PERFECTLY with the historical desires of new agers"
So because some extremist people have proposed radical solutions to a problem, that means the problem itself is not true?
If you broke your arm and some new ager came up and said you should fix it by walking over hot coals, does that mean your arm isn't broken?
"First off, there is no "alternative medicine" - only medicine that's proven to work and bullshit that doesn't work."
That's just a matter of terminology and euphemism. Some alternative medicine at the very least has placebic benefits. You mentioned yoga in your list. I think even most mainstream doctors would endorse yoga as a way to reduce stress and stretch out muscles (if not cure cancer).
"Nonsense. What about the people on the periphery of the believer? The mother with cancer whose daughter gives her homeopathic treatments?"
That's exactly why I said "as long as people do not forgo real medical treatment." Funny how you ignored a key part of my statement there. But yeah, I do think something like acupuncture itself is fairly harmless if a person were to do it in addition to everything recommended by a real doctor.
All of this is ridiculously irrelevant to a global warming debate. I don't see any point in much further debate about new agers. You can get the flakiest people in the world behind an issue, but that doesn't necessarily mean the issue itself is not real. If new agers rallied behind the cause of curing cancer, would you then be skeptical of the existence of cancer?
"Not to be dismissive (honestly) but you don't even know the half of this problem. After all we've discussed, we're just scratching the surface of this HUGE problem."
You're hilarious. Some problems are bigger than others. I guarantee you that the existence of a small niche market of acupuncturists is not going to unravel the fabric of society any time soon.
"I mean, if people can be fooled into believing - passionately believing - that water (H20) is medicine, how can they assess other issues - like the truth about the war?"
The idea that water is "medicine" is just a flaky new-ageism. That said, when I'm sick, I tend to drink a lot of water, so I don't find that statement terribly offensive. If you are sick with dehydration, water is medicine indeed. I wouldn't want to spend big money on it, of course.