Letters to the Editor
-
A few more comments (2)
DeeGeeOh also says:
"But I think that all of us need to be very, very careful - it's deceptively easy for us humans to morph from "only an idiot would disagree with me" to "it's heretical to disagree with me", without even recognizing that we are doing it."
Sure, I don't see any point in trying to stigmatize people or create an all-or-nothing dogma. That said, I do think that people who refuse to look at the evidence (hello, Camille Paglia) and who easily confuse politics and rhetoric with scientific inquiry have something to answer for. Yet trying to make them answer for it is probably not as useful as trying to find ways to present the evidence better and more clearly. I don't know how to do that except to recommend that everybody set aside their distaste for Al "fat headed, 'I invented the internet,' [place favorite potshot here]" Gore and look at what he has to say in "An Inconvenient Truth," which in spite of being a documentary is a very entertaining and easy-to-sit-through movie. Then read all the books you can, or go to Wikipedia and type in "global warming" and click on links from there. At least do that much! So many people do not even seem aware of the basics of the arguments for global warming (Sam Sham doesn't). And, if after you've examined the evidence for a little while you still don't believe it, that's fine -- at least you understand what other people are talking about.
Another thing about Orthodoxy. You say we shouldn't descend to a dogmatic position, and I agree. But I would ask the same of the opposition: Don't be so dogmatically opposed to trying tu understand global warming. You especially see it when people use what I think are pretty weak arguments, and then when those arguments are broken down, they refuse to admit it. For example, we've heard from several people here (as well as Paglia) that man couldn't possibly have such an impact on the environment because man is simply too insignificant and powerless to affect nature in such a profound way. When I hear this argument, I don't even know where to begin to address it: That we've put a man on the moon, that we've dried up entire oceans (the Aral Sea in Uzbekistan is a prime example), that we've harnessed atomic energy enough to pretty much wipe out all human life on the planet, that our mining techniques result in the razing of entire mountains...I could go on and on. Yet even if you point out such counter-examples, people opposed to global warming often refuse to admit that their argument's central premise is weak. That, to me, is Orthodoxy.
//////
Joseph: I appreciate your comments. One thing:
"The lesson from these past 7 years that I need to learn (and rehearse and reinforce), that Xrandadu needs to learn, that any truly thoughtful and rational and passionate person needs to know, is that, while reason and logic have their time and place, relationships – actual human to human connection and trust and sharing and understanding and loyalty and encouragement and sacrifice and withholding of judgment – may matter a lot more when it finally comes down to working together to make changes for the greater good."
I can not argue against this at all. I would hope that eventually everybody can set aside partisanship and "group loyalty" and what basically amounts to primitive tribal instincts -- whether related to the global-warming debate or issues of religion and nationalism -- and realize we're just humans trying to be happy and get along and survive. I don't think Sam Sham is probably a bad person, though I do think some of his rhetorical techniques are questionable, and I don't think any of this should be about "who's a bad person" or "who is right." I don't care about how others see me, but I do personally care a great deal about whether what I believe in is true, and especially HOW I come to conclude or be convinced what is true. I don't want to believe in things for impure reasons that are ultimately rooted in my biases and inchoate feelings. I want to believe in things because the best and most accurate, scrutinized evidence available, and even then I don't just want to blindly "believe," I want to understand and comprehend and have future capacity to refine and adapt those beliefs based on new information. That's thinking. Truth is born of arguments, and arguments are a process. The process should not be tainted by things like, "Al Gore is for that thing, and I don't like Gore, therefore I don't like that thing." Heck, even if it was Ann Coulter giving the presentation in "An Inconvenient Truth," I would admit the information was pretty convincing, even though I'd have to swallow hard my contempt for her.
---- more ---
-
More comments (3)
Pedestrian 0: You didn't write to me, but I want to respond to this --
"Thank you for throwing a bomb into the global warming "debate," where Stalinist self-censorship and coercion has surpassed the outrageous levels of the date-rape panic from the 1990s. I see the lockstep conformity of much of the left hasn't changed in a decade and a half."
Personally I agree with all the people who are glad to have Camille Paglia around. I like reading her, I like her style, and I have been reading her since she came on the scene (and when she was at Salon in the mid-to-late 1990s). I used to write her emails in response to her articles then, too, when Salon didn't have an open forum like this. Often I disagreed with her. Disagreeing with somebody is quite different from trying to get them censored. I don't want Paglia censored, but I do think she should substantiate her statements better because it's better writing. Her global warming arguments are insubstantial and she deserves criticism for them. This isn't about "Stalinist coercion," at least not anything I have seen in this message forum. The worst people have done is to threaten to not renew their Salon subscription....scary Stalinist stuff, there. I enjoyed her take on the sexism/feminism debate and specifically remember her remarks about date-rape, which were a much-needed dose of pragmatism and reality, even if she did skate along the edge a bit. I like iconoclasts, even the ones against the sides I am in favor of. They sharpen people's games, make them work harder. But the iconoclasts need to sharpen their games too. Certainly Paglia does.