The NY Times published this op-ed titled "So You Want to Convince a Climate Change Skeptic." In my opinion -- clearly not the publisher's -- it violated the publisher's motto 'All the news that's fit to print.' At the end is a note that one correction was made. Undisclosed is that the title was also edited -- "Denier" was changed to "Skeptic." For proof see the URL, and "deniers" is still used five times in the body.
Nobody I know of denies climate change. Firstly, there are the four seasons. Secondly, average global temperatures have risen over the past few decades. Thirdly, there have been record cold temperatures in Bangladesh and India recently (link1, link2). But I wouldn't expect the op-ed author to report that. His aim was obviously to make a straw man to burn.
What about science? The author presents absolutely no science or even links to it. He likely expects any reader to grant that the existing science is entirely on his and the climate alarmists' side. He says don't try to convince a skeptic/denier with science. That's a waste of time. Instead appeal to the interlocutor’s values and how they differ from his or another alarmist's. Does the author give his values? No, but I bet they include substantial bullying and coercion by governments aimed at achieving his and other alarmists' climate goals. I have no problem with individuals or organizations trying to reduce their carbon "footprint", but not by using or encouraging force against others.
Pathetic.
No comments:
Post a Comment