3 ms·

I was going to comment that this borders on ad hominem: > FoxNews.com tells us that we finally have a 'smoking gun'--proof that scientists are manufacturing a

I was going to comment that this borders on ad hominem: > FoxNews.com tells us that we finally have a 'smoking gun'--proof that scientists are manufacturing a global warming crisis so that they can… they can… You know, calling out political theater instead of acknowledging that reasonable people are concerned when they see scientific misconduct. I was going to explain that this sort of Fox News reference is not so good for the discussion - let the points stand, noting that one critic of yours is abrasive does not make the criticisms invalid. But, then I came upon this a little lower, which is a bit less subtle about it: > It's interesting stuff ... not interesting in the way that the rabid anti-science fuckhead (pardon me!) reality-denying luddite denialsphere types are saying, though. Why might the science be wrong? Because it's moved from science to an identity issue. Us vs. them. This guy isn't helping.

rauljara 17y ago
Not to disagree with you that ad hominem attacks aren't helpful, but the article laid out a lot of interesting data based arguments which you yourself completely ignored. Intentionally or not, you instead preceded to cast "the science" into doubt in an ad hominem fashion. Ad hominem attacks are besides the point, and degrade conversion, but just because people use them doesn't make everything they say wrong.
thaumaturgy 17y ago
This argument was framed in an "us vs. them" context a long time ago; that indeed has been one of the primary tactics and successes of the media engine of the right wing. It was obvious in Rush Limbaugh's earliest shows, and it's obvious in Fox News today. I don't think it's altogether wrong for some people to be getting frustrated by this.
slyn 17y ago
"Why might the science be wrong? Because it's moved from science to an identity issue. Us vs. them. This guy isn't helping." This is exactly why I choose to avoid the whole global warming climate debate thing. It is so hard to find any sort of unbiased information because everyone who talks about it has an agenda and forces it in your face. An Inconvenient Truth was actually gag worthy, an hour and fifteen minutes of Al Gore masturbating his ego over his crusade, five minutes of ridiculous cartoons, and maybe fifteen minutes of actual statistics. Obviously a station like Fox News or a talking head like Sean Hannity is going to push a right wing viewpoint to the death, so there is really no point bringing them up in any serious debate about basically anything. Even this posting, I just have a hard time taking this particular blog seriously given the "Evolution, development, and random biological ejaculations from a godless liberal", as the description, whether it is intended to be humorous or not. The whole global warming debate is not as clear cut (if you can call it that) as something like stem cell research where the issue was basically science vs morality/religion. Both sides have their own statistics, both sides try their hardest to refute the other sides' science, and even the people who actually agree with each other that there is global warming often have different opinions on what can actually be done (if anything) to fix the problem. When something like the climate-gate situation becomes public, it makes it even harder to actually take any of the science seriously, because one can only assume that the studies, experiments, and modeling is being done with the intention of proving one side right or wrong, which will undoubtedly lead to all sorts of unintended cognitive bias.

rauljara 17y ago

Not to disagree with you that ad hominem attacks aren't helpful, but the article laid out a lot of interesting data based arguments which you yourself completely ignored. Intentionally or not, you instead preceded to cast "the science" into doubt in an ad hominem fashion. Ad hominem attacks are besides the point, and degrade conversion, but just because people use them doesn't make everything they say wrong.

thaumaturgy 17y ago

This argument was framed in an "us vs. them" context a long time ago; that indeed has been one of the primary tactics and successes of the media engine of the right wing. It was obvious in Rush Limbaugh's earliest shows, and it's obvious in Fox News today. I don't think it's altogether wrong for some people to be getting frustrated by this.

slyn 17y ago

"Why might the science be wrong? Because it's moved from science to an identity issue. Us vs. them. This guy isn't helping." This is exactly why I choose to avoid the whole global warming climate debate thing. It is so hard to find any sort of unbiased information because everyone who talks about it has an agenda and forces it in your face. An Inconvenient Truth was actually gag worthy, an hour and fifteen minutes of Al Gore masturbating his ego over his crusade, five minutes of ridiculous cartoons, and maybe fifteen minutes of actual statistics. Obviously a station like Fox News or a talking head like Sean Hannity is going to push a right wing viewpoint to the death, so there is really no point bringing them up in any serious debate about basically anything. Even this posting, I just have a hard time taking this particular blog seriously given the "Evolution, development, and random biological ejaculations from a godless liberal", as the description, whether it is intended to be humorous or not. The whole global warming debate is not as clear cut (if you can call it that) as something like stem cell research where the issue was basically science vs morality/religion. Both sides have their own statistics, both sides try their hardest to refute the other sides' science, and even the people who actually agree with each other that there is global warming often have different opinions on what can actually be done (if anything) to fix the problem. When something like the climate-gate situation becomes public, it makes it even harder to actually take any of the science seriously, because one can only assume that the studies, experiments, and modeling is being done with the intention of proving one side right or wrong, which will undoubtedly lead to all sorts of unintended cognitive bias.