My Photo

August 2022

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
  1 2 3 4 5 6
7 8 9 10 11 12 13
14 15 16 17 18 19 20
21 22 23 24 25 26 27
28 29 30 31      

« Ruminations - 17feb2008 | Main | Thoughts for an Election Year »

18 February 2008

Comments

Mike McD

Great piece. Great Test. I will forward to my education friends to see if they can put this into their curriculum.

Anna Haynes

NCVoices proprietor here - confessing that I do need to tighten up the text in the "read with caution" preamble, and remove the "censorship alert" section since that's no longer occurring.

If Mike McD, your SESF host, is not a climate crisis denialist, perhaps he could share this news. If he is, it signals more about his credibility than any other metric.

Have you watched the Oreskes video yet? There's an interesting anecdote about her talk in a comment on another blog:
"After the lecture, I asked Dr. Oreskes if Scripps scientists were ever invited to appear on the local conservative talk-radio shows (i.e. Rick Roberts and Rodger Hedgecock). She laughed and replied with an emphatic “no”.
...
The fact that even an organization as prestigious as the Scripps Institution of Oceanography cannot get a fair hearing on its own home-town conservative talk-radio shows tells you all you need to know what conservatives think of scientific expertise these days…
"

George Rebane

Anna, if the report about the conservative talk-radio not giving Scripps a fair hearing is true, then I join you in deploring it. I also see a new label - "climate crisis denialist" - in your comment. Your use of "denialist" continues to paint the situation black and white with no ground in between. It seems that if one does not sign up for the full course on AGW, then one is immediately cast into the common pool of philistines of all stripes. Pity, that your view continues to be so robustly simplistic.

Anna Haynes

George, have you had a chance to view the Oreskes talk yet? I'd be interested in hearing your views on it.

> Your use of "denialist" continues to paint the situation black and white with no ground in between.

Perhaps I'm confused because you haven't made your position clear - you seem to affiliate with, and not distinguish your views from, those who *are* out-and-out denialists.

If you want to make your position more clear, you might consider commenting & sharing your views on some of Russ's global warming posts. I don't think I've ever seen you disagree with him, and one of the hallmarks of independence is (at least occasionally) thinking differently.

It would also be helpful if you could briefly tell me(and your other readers) whether (or, if in parts, where) you agree or disagree with the overall IPCC consensus that global warming is real, that it can't be explained away by natural causes (i.e. that human-caused emissions of greenhouse gases is contributing to it), and that, if we don't tackle this problem, we run the risk of disaster.

(reminder - my understanding is that pretty much all the major scientific bodies in the world have endorsed this consensus, with the exception of the petroleum geologists)

(I'd also highly recommend the Kirsch page on this.)


Our house is burning.

Douglas Keachie

Hard to believe that al the mainstream media is so leftwing, considering who owns the media. Maybe there's a bunch of righty's who've figured out there's more money in left wing commentary and news than right wing commentary and news? The exception, RussCo and friends would be suppressed if the media were actually controlled by left wing politicos. Last time I looked these owners were all in it for the money?

The comments to this entry are closed.