next message in archive
next message in thread
previous message in archive
previous message in thread
Index of Subjects
Index of Subjects --Apple-Mail-9-597408298 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed; delsp=yes Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Lois, On 8-Jun-08, at 9:23 PM, Lois Codling wrote: > So for Chris to claim that the scientists who signed the Petition > Project are a group of deniers comparable to those who deny that > smoking causes lung cancer, among other 'nasty' politically > incorrect things, says absolutely nothing about the argument, even > if he is correct. What I actually wrote (below) says nothing of the sort: > There are a coterie of climate change deniers who (primarily for > ideological, or more frequently financial, reasons) would like to > keep alive the notion that anthropogenic climate change is still a > "debatable" topic. It is interesting (and insightful) that many of > these same people, organizations, public relations and ad firms, > etc. that constitute the "denial industry" are (in one guise or > another) the same as those who were employed by the tobacco industry > for years making claims that there was no evidence that smoking was > related to lung cancer. > This does not in any way refer to, "the scientists who signed the Petition Project," as you incorrectly imply. It is, moreover, demonstrably true. For example, the CBC-TV's Fifth Estate documentary, "The Denial Machine" contains an excellent discussion of the topic saying: Who Is Keeping The Debate Of Global Warming Alive? "The documentary shows how fossil fuel corporations have kept the global warming debate alive long after most scientists believed that global warming was real and had potentially catastrophic consequences. It shows that companies such as Exxon Mobil are working with top public relations firms and using many of the same tactics and personnel as those employed by Phillip Morris and RJ Reynolds to dispute the cigarette-cancer link in the 1990s. Exxon Mobil sought out those willing to question the science behind climate change, providing funding for some of them, their organizations and their studies." http://www.cbc.ca/fifth/denialmachine/ I then continued by writing: > I don't take this "petition" at face value. The facts of climate > change speak for themselves irrespective of what we may be sick of > hearing or not. And continued in the following post to say that: > My concerns are with this process, and the political agenda it > promotes, not with the individual signatories (none of whom, even if > they are all "real", do I know). In view of what you wrote: > The path to truth is by dealing with arguments, not by slinging mud. The first step is to pay attention to what I actually wrote (and not a concocted version of it). As for an "ad hominem argument," by employing terms such as "slinging mud" it could be argued that this is precisely what you have done. The larger point, however, is excellently stated by Joseph Romm, in his Salon article, who wrote that: "What matters is scientific findings -- data, not opinions. The IPCC relies on the peer-reviewed scientific literature for its conclusions, which must meet the rigorous requirements of the scientific method and which are inevitably scrutinized by others seeking to disprove that work. That is why I cite and link to as much research as is possible, hundreds of studies in the case of this article. Opinions are irrelevant." http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2008/02/27/global_warming_deniers/index.html Trying to prove or disprove the validity of climate change using petitions, is itself a diversionary tactic. To paraphrase Romm, in this context, petitions are irrelevant. What matters is scientific findings. Kind regards, Chris Christopher Majka - Atlantic Canada Coleoptera http://www.chebucto.ns.ca/Environment/NHR/atlantic_coleoptera.html c.majka@ns.sympatico.ca --Apple-Mail-9-597408298 Content-Type: text/html; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable <html><body style=3D"word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; = -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; ">Lois,<div><br><div><div>On = 8-Jun-08, at 9:23 PM, Lois Codling wrote:</div><br = class=3D"Apple-interchange-newline"><blockquote type=3D"cite"><div>So = for Chris to claim that the scientists who signed the Petition Project = are a group of deniers comparable to those who deny that smoking causes = lung cancer, among other 'nasty' politically incorrect things, says = absolutely nothing about the argument, even if he is = correct.<br></div></blockquote></div><div><br></div><div>What I actually = wrote (below) says nothing of the = sort:</div><div><br></div><div><blockquote type=3D"cite">There are a = coterie of climate change deniers who (primarily for ideological, or = more frequently financial, reasons) would like to keep alive the notion = that anthropogenic climate change is still a "debatable" topic. It is = interesting (and insightful) that many of these same people, = organizations, public relations and ad firms, etc. that constitute the = "denial industry" are (in one guise or another) the same as those who = were employed by the tobacco industry for years making claims that there = was no evidence that smoking was related to lung = cancer.<br><br></blockquote></div><div><br></div><div>This does not in = any way refer to, "the scientists who signed the Petition Project," as = you incorrectly imply. It is, moreover, demonstrably true. For = example, the CBC-TV's Fifth Estate documentary, "The Denial = Machine" contains an excellent discussion of the topic = saying:</div><div><br></div><div><b>Who Is Keeping The Debate Of Global = Warming Alive?</b></div><div><br><div>"The documentary shows how fossil = fuel corporations have kept the global warming debate alive long after = most scientists believed that global warming was real and had = potentially catastrophic consequences. It shows that companies such as = Exxon Mobil are working with top public relations firms and using many = of the same tactics and personnel as those employed by Phillip Morris = and RJ Reynolds to dispute the cigarette-cancer link in the 1990s. Exxon = Mobil sought out those willing to question the science behind climate = change, providing funding for some of them, their organizations and = their studies."</div><div><br></div><div><a = href=3D"http://www.cbc.ca/fifth/denialmachine/">http://www.cbc.ca/fifth/de= nialmachine/</a></div></div><div><br></div><div>I then continued by = writing:</div><div><br></div><div></div><blockquote type=3D"cite"><div>I = don't take this "petition" at face value. The facts of clima