Karen, I see nothing silly or wrong in mentioning that 17 thousand scientists have signed a petition denouncing global warming. And I find it astonishing that you would.
Michael, I'm just sick to death of that list and I really don't want to go another round on it. That list does absolutely nothing to inform the discussion of global warming. The signatures on the list are, assuming that they're legitimate, of people with BS degrees in some field of science. Who knows if they know anything about the subject? A BS in science, even a relevant field of science, won't even get you considered for an entry level position at EPA. I'm not trying to argue global warming with you, Michael. I have no expertise nor position on that subject. I'm only pointing out that your list doesn't shed any light on the subject.
I don't believe the issue is about Stossel's reporting, as much is it about your disagreeing with his analysis and perspective.
I'm not taking issue with Stossel's perspective, only his analysis. I have often argued on these boards, as Stossel did in his ABC piece, that the public isn't rational in its assessment of risk. (In this case he challenged the public's assessment of environmental risk as well as the risk from consuming genetically engineered foods and from producing scientifically enhanced offspring.) My concern is disinformation regardless of the source or the subject. You posted a speech that he had made that contained at least one piece of disinformation. Since I was in a position to speak with authority on that point, I posted to correct the record.
My SI hobby horses are civility and critical thinking. You and I have exchanged numerous posts on the latter. IMO, too many people applaud anything published that supports their POV, whether or not it is accurate or logical. I think that advocates who make over-the-top statements, in addition to lowering the general quality of discourse, are doing their causes no favor in the long run.
Karen |
