OK, OK, I’ve Tried Ignoring Them

But then this letter to the editor appeared in the the Daily Collegian Online, a newspaper “published independently by students of Penn State.”

Folks, this got to me, so I’m going to copy and paste the whole thing. I hope author Al Black of Sydney, Australia, doesn’t mind.

Here it is:

“Global Warming Arguments Lack Proper Evidence, Logic”

John Stevenson may in fact be “president, Penn State Environmental Society”, but he’s clearly no scientist, as his “rebuttal” of Samuel Settle’s letter consists of:

1) ad hominem attacks on the writer, including implied guilt by association “funded largely by conservative foundations and ExxonMobil”.

2) Laziness “I chose to trust the IPCC and the UN”. Why?

3) Dismissiveness “I know” to avoid discussing inconvenient facts, such as the virtues of CO2.

These 3 characteristics virtually define the Warmist’s response to rational questioning of the tenets of their faith. Yes folks warmism is a pseudo-scientific religion, not a scientific fact.

Concerning the media’s relation to climate change, read the following article: http://www.hawaiireporter.com/story.aspx?82b01afe-e154-4c48-93cb-8b2caf5100ab which says in part “True science does not result in support for what one believes, what anyone asserts, what someone says, whom you recommend or prefer, or outcomes you prefer. It proceeds with evidence, properly collected, reviewed, discussed, and replicated.” 45 Climate Scientists working for the IPCC all doing peer review on each other’s work to establish a “consensus” does not constitute real science. The fact that this Political organisation along with the Politician Al Gore “won a Nobel Prize for its work” will in due course detract from the Nobel Committee’s prestige rather than add to theirs.

Studies published about the same time as his letter prove the Earth is currently cooling, the ice packs are growing, and we have an increase in the number of Polar bears, all over the last decade while CO2 generation has increased. I would apply this evidence to the Global Warming Hypothesis which predicted the exact opposite of these trends and reject it completely. We have plenty of real environmental problems to work on!

Al Black

Sydney, Australia

Here’s the link to the original.

I found this so astonishing that I read it aloud to my husband, who, after listening carefully, nodded and said, “He forgot to say the earth is flat and the sun revolves around the earth.”

I wish I’d had this letter several weeks ago. It’d make a fine college final for a composition class. I would expect even a rather dim first year student to pick up on the pattern: the author replicates the problems he attacks in his own arguments.

I especially love his final paragraph. Support? Hey, people who are RIGHT don’t need to give no stinking support.



Sorry. I can’t let this go. The pedantic instructor in me wants to give at least some explanation. I’ll go point by point.

1. “[F]unded largely by conservative foundations and ExxonMobil” may suggest an ad hominem attack–certainly if one believes “conservative foundations” equals something like “selfish morons” and ExxonMobil equals a more obvious “greedy capitalist pigs” it’d be ad hominem. But without seeing the original to which Black responds, I’m guessing–a dangerous practice in its own right–that John Stevenson more likely used the terms to show bias on the part of these groups. If Stevenson’s use was NOT associated with an attempt to show biased stances on the issue, I’d agree the use might be a problem. As is though, many argue and offer support indicating that a number of vocal conservatives oppose the idea of global warming, not because it’s a hoax, but because trying to stop it would inevitably lead to a reduction in free enterprise, more taxes, and so forth. Exxon, of course, wants to sell fossil fuels. Hence, they have vested interests in global warming being a hoax. Nicht wahr?

2. I have to agree with Black here. I’d like a little more on why a world organization was reliable. For example, the IPCC bowed to pressure and said that anthropogenic global warming was 90% sure. The scientists said 99% but they were pressured to reduce the number by politicians. Do the research yourself. Or trust me–would I lie to you? {Insert Evil “Warmist” laugh}

3. Dismissiveness? I’d have to see the original letter, but who doesn’t know the benefits of CO2? It’s the dangers that most are unaware of, isn’t it?

OK, I keep forgetting how ignorant the population is. But anyone who’s at least gotten through junior high SHOULD know.

What’s the current CO2 number? How fast is it changing? Huh? Huh? Where are the basics here or anywhere? How often do you see citations in anything these days? Where’s the bleeping CHAIN of evidence? Rant, sputter.

But, anyway, now the letter gets good: “the Warmist’s response to rational questioning of the tenets of their faith”

“Warmist”! Now THERE’s an ad hominem attack! Classic name calling, and following it is a straw man distortion about “the tenets of . . . faith.”

Wow. And I thought the main tenet of science was that everything is open to question. Now I discover that, like evangelicals, “Warmists” aka scientists and those who honor science actually have some sort of delivered knowledge to guide them. From Whom Al Black doesn’t say.

To emphasize his “logic,” Black follows with this: “Yes folks warmism is a pseudo-scientific religion, not a scientific fact.”

And what support does Black give for this? Nada.

And, by the way, standard American punctuation for the sentence would put commas after “Yes” and “folks.”

Oh well. I’ll breathe into my paper bag a bit now.

The final paragraph of this letter is really the only part worth commenting on. Anyone else notice that Black fails to cite any of these studies proving the earth is cooling? Wasn’t he saying evidence counted? For others, I guess.

OK. Now I’ll really go away and do something more productive–rake manure from the horse runs.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: