Dialogue is, sadly, not always possible

I got the following email, from an old friend who has become decidedly right-leaning since 9/11, with this subject line:

Increasing Clouds and hunderstorms for Climate Alarmists, by Paul Driessen from Townhall

Excerpt:  “In short, our Earth’s climate may well changing, as it has repeatedly throughout history. But the changes are natural, and they are thus far hardly catastrophic – nothing like the wooly mammoth ice ages or Little Ice Age, and little different from any of the 20th century. Moreover, the changes are natural in origin. They are not due to humans, and they are not occurring in ways the alarmists and their models predicted

We truly need hydrocarbon energy: to lift more people out of poverty, maintain our living standards, and ensure the wealth and technology to adapt to any climate changes that nature may visit upon us (with or without some contribution from human carbon dioxide). Climate alarmism undermines all of this.”  


And, because we’d agreed many times, as recently as last week, to avoid partisan political discourse, I wrote back with this bark of anguish:

Don’t send me this kind of thing, OK?  The visible and toxic shroud of man-made pollution over much of the world has nothing to do with climate, fine, let’s pretend we agree the only problem here is those goddamned agitating, lying commies who want to end capitalism.
Her reply:
Jeez Eliot, I sent you a scholarly piece which showed how more and more scientists are coming together (across the previous divide)!
My reply:
“Climate Alarmists” is a term developed by the fossil fuel industry and their public relations machine to dismiss the science behind human activity’s role in global warming (there was an excellent Frontline piece on this branding of “alarmists” a couple of years ago).  The term is deliberately dismissive, these scientists are hysterical, alarmists.   It would be like me sending you a scholarly article from Al Gore headlined “sun sets on climate change deniers”, no matter how scholarly the article might be.
Oh darn, in popping on to google to get the link to the Frontline piece, I had to scroll through a full screen of posts debunking the “hooey” — by those who believe Global Warming to be a commie hoax– of Frontline’s ham-fisted hatchet job on Climate Change Skeptics.  
Note–  alarmists vs. skeptics. Who are you going to believe?   We are not deniers, dear, we’re simply informed skeptics seeking to allay the damage done by biased alarmists with a political agenda.  

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s