Letters to the Editor
-
paglia not necessary
after being a salon subscriber since the beginning, i am finally moved to write. the relentless blathering of ms. paglia is really a disservice to salon. please consider excluding her from your list of writers.
-
bla bla bla
Dear Ms. Paglia,
Are you so self absorbed and narcissistic to think you can blurt out half a paragraph on climate change in a public forum and expect to be taken seriously?? So your professor "asked you to consider geology as a career".... and this makes your opinions valid? Are you nuts? Does Salon even read your stuff before posting it???????
Your comments are irrelevant and unreadable.
Salon should ask a scientific panel to talk about global warming, freezing, whatever, not Camille Paglia for chrissakes.
-
KStone
For the most part, laypeople here are not "weighing in" in the maaner you're trying to ascribe to them.
If you mean that the discourse is generally civil and respectful, and no one is being shouted down, I most definitely agree. That's why I like to hang out here - our worst behavior is better than the best behavior of a most of other blogs and online pubs (but if you really mean to say that you've not witnessed bullying and intimidation by the environmentalists and the far left on this issue, then you either need to get out more, or you are one of those that can't conceive that any dissent at all could possibly be honest or rational. Here's but one suggestion - spend some time at RealClimate, and really analyze what often goes on there).
However, if you mean that no one is advancing lazy, imprecise, unscientific "arguments", or substituting empty codewords for clear exposition, I must respectfully disagree.
Here's but one example of many; it's pretty representative, although not nearly the most egregious example (poster's name redacted to protect the innocent):
Btw, the scientists are handling and have come to some basic conclusions so trying to play like it's an open question is somewhat disingenuous.
Some basic conclusions about what, exactly? What is the "it" that is so ludicrous to suggest is an "open question" (please be precise)? Clearly, the scientists have settled something definitively, in your eyes, so firmly that no further discussion is necessary or warranted. What, exactly, is that? And, as a bonus, who here has asserted otherwise?
-
way to pick a shitty example, deegeeoh
I'm sure it wasn't hard, somplace in the previous 43 pages, to find an unsubstantiated and vague quote like you just did. Instead, though, how's about you refer to the pages and pages of thoughtful, substantiated, well-constructed arguments?
-
joseph
I'm sure it wasn't hard, somplace in the previous 43 pages, to find an unsubstantiated and vague quote like you just did
No, it wasn't hard at all - in fact, it was in KStone's very post. That is why I chose it.
Instead, though, how's about you refer to the pages and pages of thoughtful, substantiated, well-constructed arguments?
Because to do that would be completely and utterly beside any point that I have even come close to advancing.
But your jerking knee is not irrelevant...
-
Ironic
Joan Walsh just published an article about how "firing Imus was the right thing to do." Gee, that's a controversial position.
How's about some of us head over to her talk page and tell her to get her ass over here and do some firing of her own?
-
So, you wanna off Camille, eh?
Here's what ya do.
1) You don't read her writing. You know it sucks. Why raise your blood pressure? Why let the crap filter into your brain?
2) You don't write 43 pages of letters about her.
Basically, you IGNORE THE TRASH HEAP.
Pretend it's getting slowly rotting, buried under yesterday's coffee grounds. Or buried under the disdain of anyone with intellectual honesty.
...
Nothing to see here folks, nothing at all...
-
Not gonna be quiet about this
Salons in which no one talks are boring as shit. I think most of the people who come to this website feel pretty much the same way. So don't tell us "oooh, just ignore her and she'll go away." That's just self righteous preening.
I come to Salon.com in order to read thoughtful articles and honest arguments, and I pay my Salon premium membership (rather than stealing someone else's login) in order to support such authors. I do not, however, condone them spending my money on the salaries of right wing hacks. It's a rare event when they do, and I'm relieved that my Salon peers are willing to deconstruct every last word of her babble. But if you think that just being quiet and well behaved is an appropriate and realistic response, I think you're at the wrong place.
-
Sham Scam Sam on pseudoscience
You keep ignoring the points of my statements, and you keep trying to redirect the debate to "alternative medicine" (or whatever term) instead of climate science.
"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."
The debate over possible solutions and the debate over whether global warming is real should be separated. Even if you don't like the proposed solutions, there is no reason this should taint the debate over the claims.
"Because we've had more debate on this thread than has occured over GW in public."
That's hardly true. It certainly is untrue within the realm of scientific journals, who have been examining global warming (and debating its merit openly) since the 1970s.
"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."
I am all for mythbusting, skepticism, James Randi, Penn & Teller shows, and so on. I have been an active member of CSICOP (the Committee for Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal) so I know exactly what you're talking about. There's been lots of debate in those circles over global warming, too -- especially in the 1980s and '90s. Nowadays most of the hardcore skeptical community has been convinced that global-warming science is credible. They still regard faith healing, ESP, Uri Geller and so on as complete BS, of course.
"(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."
What's your deal with Scientology? It's not a scientific movement, it's a religion. You might as well bring in the Mormons while you're at it.
The important difference between global warming and all the garbage you're mentioning is that global warming science is tested and studied by actual scientists. They propose theories and hypotheses that have to be falsifiable and peer-reviewed many times over before they even come close to being accepted. This is the exact opposite of how all pseudo-science, cult, and religion works.
If you want to debate that actual scientists doubt global warming, that's one thing. Let's hear which scientists you mean, from which universities and research groups, and what peer-reviewed scientific journals they've contributed to.
But if you're going to try to lump in global-warming scientists with people who stick crystals up their butts or believe their souls are descended from aliens who live in clams, then you're way off.
"I eat GE corn and it's safe? I didn't believe the DOOMSDAY claims about GE foods, either?"
You did not answer my question. My question is this: How do you separate credible modern scientists from cultish modern scientists? What is your basis for delineation? How can you say "all global-warming scientists are cultish" at the same time you say "all neuroscientists are legitimate"? You haven't provided any actual substance on this, and since it should be the main focus of a real global-warming debate, I feel justified in asking.
"Ah, but they do claim [yoga] cures cancer. And they don't discuss "Kundalini Madness" in those endorsements."
I guarantee you that 99% of yoga instructors do not claim that if you have a tumor you should do more yoga. You're falsifying your own examples. That's pretty low from somebody who claims to care about veracity. You don't even follow the principles you want everybody else to follow. That said, I am sure there are some charlatans out there who pump up claims of benefits in order to do more business, and I wholly support outing them as in the examples you provided. I also think they're a subject completely separate from global-warming science.
"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?"
Do they test their methods in peer-reviewed journals? Are their results falsifiable? Do they use control groups? No? Then why are you attempting to lump them in to the same category as actual scientists?
"like you, most are willing to poo-poo cults in society because the harm isn't obvious to you"
Poo poo, I say! No, I think some cults are potentially harmful -- like those that encourage people to avoid seeking real treatment. But I choose my battles in life and I don't consider most of those peop;e public enemy #1 compared to other things (real things, with actual evidence behind them from reputable people...).
"Come on, Mr. Science, tell me this dumbing down of science - and the public in general - can't lead to disaster."
You're hilarious. You think acupuncturists are dumbing down society, but school boards that refuse to teach evolution (without teaching "intelligent design" side by side) are not? Last time I checked, no new ager had managed to get his quackery in high-school classrooms. But yeah, I do agree that society is getting dumbed down. I also think that Al Gore's movie is the opposite of such dumbing-down. It actually presents an educational picture of the world (nobody here -- not Paglia nor any letter writers -- has pointed to a single falsehood in the film).
"And Andrew Weil - the quack with the pixie face - promotes it in TIME Magazine."
Weil promotes the benefits of drinking water? I have heard some of his stuff, since I lived in Tucson, Arizona where he lives. Almost everything he presents is based on mainstream nutritional information. If he has more extremist, radical notions then I missed them (perhaps they exist, I just haven't heard them). I haven't heard him promote drinking expensive spring water, or drinking water as "medicine," or anything like that. What did he say that was so terrible?
"No, but you'll let people die over it. Quite compassionate, that."
People die over drinking water?
You're getting battier and battier with every message.