 
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
|
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
68.98.175.238
In Reply to: Scientists respond to An Inconvenient Truth posted by clarkjohnsen on June 15, 2006 at 09:28:21:
...makes it plain that it is a reliable critic of non-conservative ideas. It's like quoting Fox News for an "objective" assessment. I'm sorry, but a critique of Al Gore's position would better come from a neutral source. One can always find a critique of a socio-political position that can be made to sound legitimate. That's the nature of rhetoric and discourse.My father in law is a climatologist and has been a critic of global warming for years. But he's also one of the most didactic, superior and disconnected people you could ever hope to meet. One of those people who just likes to think he "knows" what other people don't get. I wouldn't trust an idea of his with a nickel.
I can't prove it, but my feeling is that there's an aesthetic parallel between anti-global warming ideologues and Holocaust deniers. That may sound like going too far but I suspect it's true.
eb
Follow Ups:
You present him as a fool... begging for that old Mark Twain's quote.
nt
Is your FIL automatically all those things because he dislikes the GW idea? I wonder...
You really think it's possible that all my enmity toward my father in law comes from his position on global warming? That suggests your brain has an auto-pilot function that magically turns everything into a form that's easy for you to digest and dismiss, when you deem it to your advantage to do so. Sure reminds me of the way Fox news, so blatantly the most biased of all the major news organizations, declares itself as "fair and balanced" just to distract from the predicability of it's own slant. It's really all quite funny.The other thing that's so amusing is that I've followed the contours of your "thinking" on this forum for a couple of years now and I can't think of anyone else who's more completely predictable in terms of opinions of both movies and politics, when the latter subject comes up. You've always struck me (and many others have publicly made the same observation) as the very picture of the closed mind, so I can only chuckle when you toss that description my way. I can't think of anyone who knows me who has ever described me that way.
As far as my father in law is concerned I see his position on global warming as called into question by the many other ways he demonstrates his utterly self-absorbed know-it-all qualities. This is a man that abandoned his kids when they were five years old, never contributed any child support while holding well-paid jobs as his wife supported three people on a pittance, then announced to me and his unsupported daughters how happy he was when his income finally reached "six figures." Then he told a later girlfriend that he didn't want kids because he's already "raised his children."
This is also the guy who has never said an affectionate word to either of his kids but reported to them how his "sides ached from crying" after his dog died...
Just the kind of guy who sees only what he wants. If I could only tell you the many other ways in which he transparently enjoyes holding contrary opinions because he thinks it shows he "gets" something that eludes other people.
Yeah, he's Mr. Intellectually Reliable, isn't he.
eb
You have an apparently knowlegeable guy, a specialist in his field, a climatologist, and you, instead of learing something from him, simply declare him incompetent - while you yourself don't seem to know first thing about that subject.Your best defense in this question - dumping it on me... figures, as you have nothing else to state.
I say - drop your silly prejudices and spend some time talking with him. It is likely you will abandon the childish "he knows it all" and simply realize he knows a few things about his field of expertize.
Our problem today is too many people with your mindset. Knowing exactly zero about this field, they don't have any problems putting forward very forceful positions - just read this thread. Any doubts regarding their knowledge are met with ridicule, and you are doing in that department just great.
When you learn perhaps 1% about that field what your FIL does, then perhaps your views will be taken seriously too. Until then, with Al Gore as your source, I would be more willing to talk with your FIL than with ten people here.
As far as your presentation of your FIL personal life... I think you should rethink posting such stuff here, as it surely does not present YOU in any good light - how exactly does it make you look I will not state, but I think you get my tilt.
If your intent was to thusly present all anti-GW climatologists as bad people, this would be just ridiculous, but speaking badly of someone who is not here to defend himself is at best ungentlemanly.
Well it's not my intention to brand all anti-GW climatologists as bad people. I just find it amusing that this particular intellectually dubious guy espouses it (actually we maybe see him every few years and I've no clue what his current thinking is; nor do I care).I've not actually expressed my own opinion on the matter. My position is essentially a version of Pascal's Gambit. Knowing that there are strong opinions on both sides it appears the risks of ignoring the concern are infinitely greater than the inverse. So I go with a position of caution and of careful stewardship of nature.
Although I can't offer scientific proof of it I'm sure the earth's resources are not infinite, and I am not inclined to the position that the earth has a limitless power to heal itself. I do know that factory farming, for example, has a tremendously pernicious effect on the natural world, and I'm quite sure that agribusinesspeople ignore these devastating effects from a position of self-interest. I take this as a representative example of human behavior that I extrapolate and assume exists in other forms.
The problem with that Pascal's position, while reasonable on surface, is that one gets blown around like a dry leaf, lacking critical mass to analyze and select the issues of concern.There are all kinds of alarmists around, and if one were to apply that logic to all of them all life on Earth would have to stop - there would be no air travel, no nuclear power, no agriculture and who knows what else. My FIL is that sort of a person, and you should see him fight any home improvement idea his wife had over the years.
Pretty much ALL human activity involves risk/benefit analysis, and if manking always went with limiting risks, we would still be living in caves.
No one is suggesting limitless power to heal, but we also have evidence of Earth surviving many things on the way to today... ironically, though, that doesn't mean a particular form of life is guaranteed to. We have our wishes, and then there are cosmic realities - it the Earth is destined to become 20 degrees hotter, killing all human life, due to hotter Sun, for instance, then there is nothing we could do to avoid that.
Limited resources is an entirely different category.
z
a
But of course being the biggest hypocrite on this board you would never notice mean vindictiveness in that guy's post... but the message hurts? Learn to take it like a man.
makes it plain that it is a reliable critic of non-conservative ideas."Well put. If this article had appeared in a peer-reviewed scientific journal, then the arguments might have had more weight, but as it is, this is nothing more than (conservative) political posturing and kvetching.
All that talk about articles to the contrary not appearing... are you familiar with the Lysenko period?
though politically, we are making our way there. The scientists haven't bowed yet. However, a handful do get paid off, as in these conservative-press articles.
Ever tried pissing against the freight train?
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2024, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
