Brilliant CK, maybe you should call him out on his close minded wingnuttery.

Africanus on April 26, 2010 at 1:55 PM

I believe I did. And he continues to produce, apparently under the impression that he's actually making arguments.

james23 on April 26, 2010 at 1:09 PM

Congratulations, Exhibit A, and thank you for your cameo. May you remain forever untroubled and untouched by unfamiliar words and concepts.

cthulhu on April 26, 2010 at 3:03 AM
jeff_from_mpls on April 26, 2010 at 9:17 AM

It is beyond the political system to decide the truth of GW or the origin of the universe or evolution or anything else, and even trying corrupts and deforms both politics and science. The best that the political system can do is put in place a process for hearing and addressing the concerns of citizens. If a large and powerful enough segment demands action, then action will be taken, or the political system will be imperiled. If a durable majority is persuaded of the truth of a fiction or set of fictions (GW is an emergency, specific emergency measures will address it), or persuaded that addressing that fiction will lend meaning to their lives, then they'll get their way.

Preventing that from occurring is a political project. It will involve getting authoritative opinion on scientific matters, but the GW alarmist position is much more vulnerable, politically and otherwise, to defeat where its proposals impose burdens greater than the public has any good reason to believe GW itself will impose, where those proposals show no reasonable or scientifically supportable chance of meeting their own purported objectives, and where they in fact imperil our ability to handle GW or any other crisis. Why should the right plant its flag on radical denial when politically the coalition of denialists + unsure + believing realists is much bigger, and can unify around a more prudent, resilient, constructive, and fair process?