|
it doesnt seem possible for there to be a coherent conversation about global warming here. folk who do not like the idea of it are operating from quite a marginal position in the bigger world, and so you would think that the presentation of good, reliable systematic information would be important for their positions--but we dont get that--instead we get either bluster or sophistries. it'd be nice if, for once, something of the actual informational base for this marginal position--the one that prefers to imagine that there either is no phenomenon or that it is caused by arbirtary factors, not human activities and certainly not co2 emission levels. these hand waving moves in the direction of "the field"...these claims that "real scientists agree with me" dont cut it.
not only would it be nice to see something of the informational base, but it'd help as well for there to be some critical approach to authorship and/or funding and/or venue in which the material being cited appears.
short of that, the anti-global warming position is not credible and its proponents simply spin their wheels....
if the basis for the view that there is no global warming is not rooted in data but rather in political committments (e.g. its part of being-conservative these days for some reaons--that comes first, information second) it'd be nice to be a bit forthcoming about that.
short of this, there is no debate. there is often--as abve--not even a conversation--there is only the exchange of random aesthetic positions, on the order of "i like hip hop" followed by "i hate hip hop" and then nothing. lots and lots of nothing.
given that it is the anti-global warming position that is decidedly in the minority, i think it incumbent on these folk to actually make thier case.
this thread sure as hell aint doing it--but then again it has not happened here.
for example, the reason i considered the op incoherent was that it presupposed linkages and cause-effect relations that are arbitrary outside of a certain political viewpoint. it is what they call a sophistry.
the linkage to meat production --and by extension to dietary choices--was peculiar and the results so far array as
a. i eat meat and do not accept global warming
b. i eat meat and accept global warming
c. i do not eat meat and accept global warming
with the "i do not eat meat and do not accept global warming" remaining logically implied but not present so therefore potential.
supplemented with:
1. i eat meat and am defensive about it
2. i eat meat and a militantly not defensive about it what the fuck why should i be defensive
3. i sometimes eat meat
etc.
why not ask about the correlation between the type of car you drive and your position on global warming, or your general political views and your position on global warming.
or why not present an actual case for the anti-global warming position?
or is there no such case, is it all just a matter decided a priori?
__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear
it make you sick.
-kamau brathwaite
|