Re: [asa] ESA: Wilkins Ice Shelf under threat

From: John Burgeson (ASA member) <>
Date: Wed Dec 03 2008 - 17:47:21 EST

Thanks, Murray

On 12/3/08, Murray Hogg <> wrote:

> I'm becoming increasingly cynical of the anti-GW position on the simple
> basis that it's adherents so often seem to resort to rhetoric rather than
> reason.

Where you live you probably don't hear Rush Limbaugh or Shawn Hannity.
I listen to these Luddites on Tuesdays when I drive to/from the food
pantry where I volunteer.

They are so wrong they are funny. Except that they have a following of
simple-minded people over here who really really believe their stuff
(stronger term here but I refrained from it).

As you can see from my article, I also surf around on the anti-GW
sites. They tend to use more "scientific language" but underneath it
all is a political position.

By surfing on the Heartland site you can find out what other "hot
buttons" they care about. Tobacco cause cancer? Foolishness.. Second
hand smoke? Silliness. Running out of oil? The Gold thesis has proven
there is lots more. I won't attempt to relate their HIV nonsense.
> I'm sure there are at least SOME reasons to question GW, and I imagine that
> there are credible scientists who still hold out against GW, but given that
> we seem to be reaching a position where it becomes (as per the Judson
> article you cited) simply a case of bashing scientists as biased,
> incompetent, or dishonest, I don't know that I want to play.

If those of us who want to debate SCIENCE, we have to, in the debate
pointing out -- again and again -- that it is NOT a "liberal plot." It
sorrt of has parallels with the YEC rhetoric of 20 years ago.
> And as for suggesting that GW is merely a grand left-wing political
> conspiracy - well, I think that the fact that people even raise politics as
> a central issue should tip us off as to where THEIR interests lie. When
> one's own motives are primarily political / ideological it becomes so very
> hard not to assume that others are motivated by the same sort of
> considerations - albeit the values of the left rather than the valued of the
> right.

Yeah. But raising that particular motivation is fraught 9love that
word) with danger. Questioning one's opposers motives, even though
they are so obvoius, just doesn't work.

> I welcome your contributions on this - particularly as they pertain to the
> science rather than the politics of the debate. The later are, of course,
> important but hardly serve to inform us as to what's actually happening in
> the world climatologically speaking.
I keep trying. I would LOVE to find scientific arguments that say (1)
the GW thing is way overblown and (2) more CO2 is good for humanity.
At this time, I just don't think such arguments exist.

To unsubscribe, send a message to with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Wed Dec 3 17:48:08 2008

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Wed Dec 03 2008 - 17:48:08 EST