Meta madness
I received two emails tonight from a person who had the following to say about my post on Doctor Roy Cordato.
This is the second email:
I would have commented, but I would have had to create a sign-in, and after looking a many of the posts and comments, it just didn't look like a group I would want to spend much time with.
This is the first:
How does anyone benefit from the vicious personal attacks you make? Global climate is an extremely complex subject. The science behind alarmism is, at best, alarmingly uncertain. The proffered solutions could destroy the national economy. Now is the time for some common sense, and your efforts subtract from that. Hence my question, what benefit from your viciousness? How does this help move the public debate forward?
This person, let's call him David, is a Ph.D. who includes the abbreviation, Esq., after his name.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I understand why David is put off. He has nailed me on my lack of tolerance, patience and respect for the so-called science coming out of the John Locke Foundation. I consider their "reports" intellectually dishonest and I don't mind saying so.
With Art Pope spending upwards of $250,000 to promote his anti-government agenda, I'm not sure there's any other way to confront them other than in the face with bare knuckles. Call it street-fighting. Call it cheap shots. Call it vicious. The only question I have is whether it's effective . . . not whether it's fair.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
To the substance of the matter, I'm not aware of any specific "proffered solutions" that would "destroy our national economy." (Talk about alarmist!) Nor am I convinced that someone who believes that "reports" from the John Locke Foundation contribute to the public debate would be comfortable around here under any circumstances.
But I'm open to anything . . . so David . . . if you want to talk about this, join in the public conversation and move the debate along. Otherwise, you're just a bystander.
- James Protzman's blog
- Login or register to post comments
I dont think
you have ever shied away from "ad hominem" attacks on Republicans. Quite the opposite.
But the bigger question here is, how does attacking all science as being flawed move the debate forward?
Draft Brad Miller -- NC Sen ActBlue :::Petition
Boggles the mind, don't it?
A, you know, it almost sounds like he's trying to tell you that
... so, like, you can't, like, understand it all, man, so you shouldn't even, like, worry your pretty little head about it.
That has got to be one of the most lame-assed apologies ever dreamt up by anybody. >:( (God, please do not let this guy be a teacher.)
I've been told that physics is an extremely complex science. However, I don't let that mysterious complexity keep me from believing that gravity will bring a 747 down if its engines stop working.
Likewise, I don't think I need a Ph.D. in climatology to get that when the worlds' glaciers and ice sheets are in the process of melting -- not "might start melting soon," but currently melting like Frosty on a Key West beach -- you and me are both gonna be in a world o'hurt.
[Unless you are momo or lcloud. In which case, you might have some sweet beach front or sound side property if you live to be 150. Of course, since the oceans engine will have stopped working it'll probably be a balmy 4 degrees C in July, but that's beside the point. /snark]
It seems to me, a poor sinner, that even though science usually leads to more questions, if you pay attention, it actually does give off some pretty defensible answers on the way to the next puzzle.
I thought our national economy was already destroyed
Robin Hayes lied. Nobody died, but thousands of folks lost their jobs.
Let's make this clear.
The people who lie about this, that the science is "alarmingly uncertain", are all willing to live in Wilmington if an ice shelf slips into the ocean - right?
"Common sense"? These people are completely without morals. They are willing to continue along our path to destruction, all in the name of profit. All the while, being too ignorant to read the UNANIMOUS scientific consensus about global warming.
Where are the candidates?
As a Scientist -
I am convinced global warming is a real, continually increasing problem. I am convincedy by science.
"The science behind alarmism is, at best, alarmingly uncertain."
Excuse me, but alarmism is not a science. If someone becomes alarmed by studying the science behind global warming - good! They should be alarmed.
Yes, global climate change is cyclical but never before in the history of mankind has:
*the amount of pollution spewed into the air been at the current level.
*the number of trees cut down and removed as a carbon sink been at the current level
*the number of people occupying the planet been at the current level.
All the factors that are exacerbating the climate change are increasing - not decreasing.
So go ahead - let the pendulum swing - don't come crying when you find out it cannot swing back.
I meta man
When I wrote about the JLF position on mercury is said:
Backst wrote back about:
The quote above was the extent of anything that could be remotely described as a "personal attack". This has become a talking point with the John Locke Foundation.
This is what a personal attack looks like: In an article no longer available online Bakst wrote: I hated science when I was in school, an aversion he seems to have nurtured into adulthood. It's not extreme. I'll save those for later.
Agree
"The extreme nature of these personal attacks" has become the latest mantra of the government haters. Poor Puppets, nobody takes them seriously any more so they slide into victim-hood.
I'm guessing David Esq., is another one from the show.
Aww ....
You called him a lawyer and it hurt his feelings.
Maybe he should have stayed awake in science class - then maybe, just maybe, he'd know what he was talking about.
fffftttt...:p