Letters to the Editor
-
Wow
"We might be able to incrementally change it over time."
Impossible and unnecessary.
"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."
You're not following developments in Europe - the leader on GW - and all kinds of draconian things are happening (you didn't look at my Spiked post, did you?) and, now, it's coming here.
"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?"
Because we've had more debate on this thread than has occured over GW in public. The IPCC isn't just scientists - it's scientists, governments, NGOs (like Greenpeace, which definitely has an agenda) and others. To present their findings as what "science" says when there are tons of scientists screaming it's bogus is bullshit.
"As for your posts about homeopathy, what exactly did you want me to respond to?"
What seemingly intelligent people are willing to believe in - and how, left unchecked, they'll do anything to convince, and subjugate, the rest of us. (That is Scientology's stated goal, isn't it?) If you keep treating these people as a joke, they'll strip us all of our senses.
"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?"
I eat GE corn and it's safe? I didn't believe the DOOMSDAY claims about GE foods, either?
"So because some extremist people have proposed radical solutions to a problem, that means the problem itself is not true?"
Not from these folks. I consider the sources of information.
"Some alternative medicine at the very least has placebic benefits."
That's not medicine (Is the doctor still around?) and to practice medicine that way would be completely unethical.
"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)."
Ah, but they do claim it cures cancer. And they don't discuss "Kundalini Madness" in those endorsements. And did you see this:
http://villagevoice.com/news/0628,belgiorno,73801,2.html
Or this:
http://www.slate.com/id/2162283/
But it's "harmless", right?
"I said "as long as people do not forgo real medical treatment." Funny how you ignored a key part of my statement there."
And you ignored the rest of mine: about how people become delusional, believing they can "heal", causing divorces, and other ugly mishaps, including death. How many so-called "healers" are running around in our society today, Mr. Science? How many can do what they say? How many passionately believe they can?
"All of this is ridiculously irrelevant to a global warming debate."
Not so - we're being sold a bill of goods by these people and, like you, most are willing to poo-poo cults in society because the harm isn't obvious to you, until someone like Coretta Scott King is the victim - when there are millions of victims to this and GW will lead to more. Probably just financial, etc., but victims none-the-less.
"If new agers rallied behind the cause of curing cancer, would you then be skeptical of the existence of cancer?"
New agers DO hang around hospices, touting their wares - like vultures - taking advantage of the desperate, like Coretta Scott King. That doesn't bother you? That MLK's wife died, trying to get access to a quack?
"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."
Accupuncture has been found to call stroke. And there's no such thing as "qi" for them to "fix". Come on, Mr. Science, tell me this dumbing down of science - and the public in general - can't lead to disaster. And, lordy, you don't want to take a chance on (possibly bogus) GW destroying the world but this - which is obvious and something you could do something about - gets a pass? How big of you.
"The idea that water is "medicine" is just a flaky new-ageism."
Sold in health food stores and practiced in hospitals. Some health care that is. And Andrew Weil - the quack with the pixie face - promotes it in TIME Magazine. Not some flakey new age journal in a coffee shop - TIME Magazine. He's also on PBS. Come on, you don't sound stupid. This is a problem.
"I wouldn't want to spend big money on it, of course."
No, but you'll let people die over it. Quite compassionate, that.
-
you are a skeptic
Camille,
Be great if you could clarify what exactly you are skeptical about. You clearly don't get on with VP Gore as a spokesperson, and that's o.k. You clearly agree that the planet is in state of constant evolution or devolution or change, however you choose to see it. I guess one would have to quite narrowly define concensus to get a clear understanding of the collective views of climatoligists.
Basic set of questions to be addressed:
1/ Is Malthus right? Can a species that currently consumes so much have no effect on the global climate.
2/ Can a species that dumps so much into its oceans, lakes and rivers, have no effect on those oceans, lakes and rivers?
3/ Can the current global society justify the extreme inequality in the distribution of natural and manufactured resources?
4/ Did CFC's cause ozone holes, and has the regulation and reduction in their use, reduce the size and duration of ozone holes?
5/ Were the claims of cancer clusters, and species degradation under the ozone holes bogus?
Love to continue, but lets start here and work through it. I've got to get out and service the SKEPTIC tank.
Cheers,
Oh Really
-
Xrandadu Hutman
I think it is wrong for you to characterize everybody's negative response here as if they are all claiming to have "absolute certainty" about the matter.
Did I do this? I don't think I did. But if you will kindly point out where in my postings this idea is expressed, I will gladly retract.
I can see where it looks like by "here" I meant "Salon" - what I should have said was "going on here", or, even better, just left out the phrase entirely. Bad writing on my part, without a doubt (pity we can't edit our posts, but I understand why). In any event, though, I don't believe that I ever came close to insinuating that every negative post here is characterized thus, or even that most are.
And I wholeheartedly agree that much of Paglia's column is a gawdawful mess. Here are some other whoppers:
a) She unambiguously blames the left wing for George Bush's insane brand of "conservatism"
b) She seems to indicate that she thinks that US citizens might someday be forced to face down defend themselves against their own Government, with firearms.
I do find it somewhat interesting that patently indefensible notions such as these are unabashedly offered, in a progressive, left-leaning publication; and yet on those two issues I find barely a peep. Instead, the comments section is dominated by discourse on Global Warning.
We on the left are deluding ourselves if we think that it's only the wingnuts that we need to monitor, or that The Truth of our position is so manifestly clear to all that we can resort to lazy rhetoric and bumper-sticker sloganeering (or worse, mob mentality and supression of honest debate).