Friday, February 9, 2007

Global Warming "Deniers" Equal to Holocaust "Deniers"?

http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2007/02/09/no_change_in_political_climate/

According to Ellen Goodman of the Boston Globe: “Let's just say that global warming deniers are now on a par with Holocaust deniers, though one denies the past and the other denies the present and future.”

Below is a copy of my email to her. Feel free to write her yourself at goodman@globe.com.

Your attempt to smear rational skeptics of the environmental movement’s doomsday claims as akin to “holocaust deniers” is absolutely unconscionable. Furthermore, it’s amazing that the Left who so disparage the practice of “blacklisting” are so quick to smear their opponents rather than offer rational counterarguments.

How can you compare those that dispute the known, certain death of millions of Jews to those that dispute the uncertain and controversial forecasts of climate computer models?

Whether man is causing an actual warming trend and what if anything will be the consequence to humans is highly speculative and a matter of considerable debate within the scientific community. Even if warming is occurring in the “present” as you state then look around – are you seriously in imminent danger of death? Do you believe that you will wake up one day and be floating in a river with the polar bears? Would that be Armageddon?

Your tactics are not only offensive and irresponsible but remove any shred of analytical or journalistic credibility.

4 comments:

brian said...

Although I agree that the theories of humans affecting the world's climate are speculative they are certainly not beyond the realm of "likely". Humans have affected almost everything on the earth that is easier to measure than the climate. Forests, lakes, oceans etc...These issues need to be researched and debated not quelled with comparisons to the holocost or warnings of a world eviroment police for that matter.
My problem with your letter (and other parts of your blog) is that you assign enviromentalism (and other veiws) to "The Left". This exactly why our country cannot have an honest debate on most subjects. I'm suprised you didn't mention the "drive by media". For the life of me, I do not see how being concerned for the enviroment makes you a liberal.
Let,s take the fisherman who profits from his craft and the lumbermill owner who profits from his. The lumbermill poisons the river and kills all the fish. By your logic, the fisherman will be the altruistic, enviromentalist, liberal and the mill owner the capitalist, achieving, conservative.
This type of labeling has effectively quelled many of the debates that you raise in your blog.

Nick B said...

Doug, isn't it true that the same people who funded the holocaust are at the head of the industrial machine right now??? i can totally see where Ellen is coming from...I believe you need to think "outside" the box.

Bradley said...

Here, here to the Rational Capitalst's Post.

Ellen Goodman does a great disservice to those who seek to discover the truth about the relationship between global climate patterns and human action. Her tactics are fascist in nature as they seek to stifle inquiry and argument with intimidation.

I predict that next step from intellectual goons such as Goodman will be to push for hate speech codes that apply to individuals who criticize or attempt to refute the global warming hypothesis. Do I sound paranoid? Well, check the posting on this site that describes very real efforts to form a global "environmental body" to police and punish "violators" of environmental law.

brian said...

My argument still stands. Drawing this debate along political lines is not constructive. What Ellen, Doug and Brad did do, was force me to actually read the report. Here it is
http://www.ipcc.ch/SPM2feb07.pdf
This is scary stuff and I can't believe it is a liberal conspiracy. maybe it is.
It appears to me that scientists are using sophisticated measurements of actual data to determine the likelihood that human activity is causing the now undeniable warming trend. They conclude that it is likely. The argument that even if our activity is causing this warming trend, it may not even be a bad thing, is far more conjecture than is presented in this study.
What would constitute proof that there is a problem? If it is proven, should there be enforcement of standards? Who should enforce it? Will the free market solve this problem on its own(if there is a problem)? Or more likely, are we moving into uncharted territory?