Personally, as I've noted before, the whole debate seems to me to be a religious sideshow. Regardless of what you think about global warming, there are lots of good reasons to avoid burning fossil fuels. But the global-warming discussion in the media is a consensus identity narrative designed to achieve political ends, not an effort to find facts or protect the environment. And this also accounts for the backlash.Let's start with the fallacy that global warming discussion in the media is a "consensus" narrative. The media, in the interest of "balance," almost as a matter of course uncritically promote bogus anti-warming talking points.
Also, Putz, who used to write for the Exxon-funded TCS Daily, and himself links to fringe anti-warming crackpots like Roy Spencer (more on Spencer here), is in no position to lecture others on the merits of good faith inquiry.
Finally, why does Putz turn a blind eye to the GOP's and the right wing blogosphere's intense, religious denial of warming? He promotes every knee-jerk "global warming is fake" post from the likes of Ace of Spades, who are no doubt in agreement with denialist Republican nutjobs like James Inhofe.
If the warming activists are, as Putz says, correct that we should curb fossil fuels, and the Inhofers are wrong, why attack the activists and promote the Inhofers?
No comments:
Post a Comment