Remember, we are loosely paraphrasing, while making sure to cover all relevant major points:
UFOs and scary science fiction scenarios have no proof, climate change is the same, the end.For a contrast with the idiocy of this "editorial" in the Times, see the basic facts, in stark contrast.
Out of the blue, after going on and on about Y2K fears, and the like, at the very end of his piece, the author (who doesn't even deserve to have his name mentioned), brings up climate change for the very first time, and simply decides that it is in the category as these other, largely imagined,or even farcical, fears.
What is even more important are the author's reason's. What are his reasons?
None. He just decides it. (If one does google this person, you will see that this is not necesarily by purposeful omission. He is a professor of philosophy, in New Zealand.)
As for the NY Times' reasons for publishing this abject piece of manipulative and extraordinarily ignorant piece of crap?
Who knows. Maybe they think it is provocative: say, along the lines of suggesting that we don't know if the Times publishers are having gay, extramarital sex and cocaine parties with insider coal industry executives (but leaving out that we don't know), just that it "seems to us" they are. The end.
This has been an editorial.
2 comments:
The NY Times should be ashamed of itself.
I think that climate change is probably over hyped some. That does not excuse the Times publishing a piece that goes on and on about about the most overblown examples of excessive Y2k fears of the unknown and "Frankenstein," and suddenly decide that climate change is the same. Climate change is based on science. Our atmosphere levels of greenhouse gases are changing significantly. They are continuing to rise.
B,
What the Times did was print a piece where someone wrote a piece ultimately designed to assert that climate change is like Y2K -- a horrible comparison in its own right -- and without a whit of reason, evidence,or support, while ignoring a fantastically large body of science.
Someone is entitled to have even the most ridiculous opinions,and with no support ("I think blue streamers contribute to healthy Idaho potato crops." Why? "I just think it.")
But publishing it on a leading editorial page is another matter.
Here was even worse,though,because it goes to a critical topic; it goes to a critical topic on which there is a great deal of misinformation and misunderstanding -- which this piece also contributed to; and it very manipulatively postulated, on top of that.
As for being somewhat overhyped, maybe someone pronouncing the end of the world is taking a very pessimistic,or overblown view. But this issue is being underhyped, if anything, because it is (at this point) still abstract; because the effect is going to lag behind the cause by many decades or more; there are a lot of vested and ideological interests promoting poor information, further confusing the issue; and because while we may be adding amounts to the atmosphere in a linear fashion,the response of the globe,a study of climate records going back millions of years tell us (as does basic scientific knowledge)is most definitely not going to be linear.
In fact,as things slowly (at first) start to change, critical processes tend to build upon themselves (a few good examples are offered here), and then major shifts occur until a new stasis is reached.
There is absolutely no reason for that new stasis, other than that we don't want it to be, to be radically different from what the world is today. Past climate shifts occurred like this also, and this could be the largest external climate stimuli or "forcing" the globe has ever seen (depending on if and how much we continue to add.)
Post a Comment