Polemic Literature Does Not Address Reality

[pizzuti]

I want to offer a disclaimer that the following addresses my views on the ability of non-experts (particularly authors) to critique scientific or political theories through fiction, and DOES NOT reflect a stance on the reality of global warming or attempt to validate or invalidate Global Warming Theory as truth.

Comments

[jdhenchman]

You seem to denounce, quickly and viciously, anyone who dares question whatever the "consensus" of the establishment happens to be at the moment. A good dose of skepticism is always more valuable than simply regurgitating the self-interested claims of environmental alarmists, short-term thinking politicians and journalists, wind industry officials, and pseudoscientists that you've linked to, who have long since dropped the self-questioning that comprises real science. (Just as one example, the Crichton critics you cite points to little more than the UN pronouncement on global warming and statements by those who profit from alarmism as some sort of definitive proof that should shut off all debate.)

Are the people (well, mostly straw men) you rudely disparage as no more valuable than UFO enthusiastics and Star Trek fans always accurate? Of course not. But your tone indicates you believe they have no place at all in the debate over important questions, and such an intolerant view would be very damaging.

[pizzuti]

I do not claim that Global Warming is the God-spoken truth and incapable of falsifiability or change. It is indeed only a theory, albeit a strong and robust theory. Nor do I think that critics like Chrichton are having any negative effect on scientists or the scientific process - I wouldn't expect those practicing sound science to be swayed by those who clearly and obviously are missing the point

[pizzuti]

You can politicize the political repurcussions of the scientific debate all you like. For example, if science finds that a phonomenon looks a certain way and has certain consequences, you can say those consequences are not sufficent enough to cause alarm. Economic Conservatives and Libertarians can suggest that they don't care if these warming-related changes will happen or can suggest that adapting to global changes is easier than stopping the release of greenhouse gasses. (Which are claims GWT opponents often make while simultaneously denying the phoenomena in the first place). However, you can't deny the reality of observations that have been made from outside the process of observation because of your political views on the economy. It doesn't relate, and simply molds public attitude against science while having no effect on the consensus within science whatsoever.

[pizzuti]

Also, I'd characterize your blanket denunciations of scientists, journalists, and policy-makers alike as pawns of zealous environmentalists are rather vicious in themselves, though strongly reminicient of Chrichton's fictionalized characterizations. I know for a fact that journalists do not simply print or brodcast information from press-releases, and most newspaper editors (I've spoken to many) actually say they over-emphasize GWT dissidents because they're trying to "give equal attention to both sides" while one side is in actuality much larger than the other. If you are going to purport that human nature is so corrupt that the millions who are involved in all of these processes are so easily duped, I can't imagine what defense you'd have for the "think-tanks" of admitted ideologues who make an alternate claim.

[anonymous]

from CU computer lab ARMORY 211 (IPA?=)