"Dan Nosowitz, while I appreciate your concern for the sanctity of truth in media. I feel as though you come off as more of a bully than anything. It makes me sad that one of the longest articles published to PopSci is basicly an attack ad. In my opinion the way in which you composed your article came off like a highschool facebook fight. ie( putting his picture up, talking on your emails, posting his account info, and discrediting him for his socio-economic status) It almost seems as though you are begging your more extreme readers to harrass the man. while I myself do believe in global warming, I also feel that since all the data gathered during the storm has yet to be fully analyzed, one cannot definately prove that the storm was in fact caused by global warming. therefore in my scientific theory, both opinons (however unlikely) in this situation are valid, Which makes you (Dan Nosowitz)look bad when you state your opinions as fact. when situations like this occur and both parties feel justified, it's a sad day for science indeed. And finally instead of going through all the trouble to force the global warming link onto the hurricane sandy wiki page, you could have just created a paragraph about sandy on the global warming page. But I guess im the only one who thinks outside the sphere." -Thyork
"You can't look at a breaking news story in the way you look at, say, a bio of a living person," says Walsh. That rule about no original reporting? That can be bent in the interest of having a complete and up-to-date view of a news story when verification is hard to come by. "
So, 'The rules don't apply to me because I'm right.'
Oh he's a Libertarian? You don't say.
tommasz: Why do I think certain people will still be arguing over whether not global warming exists long after the few remaining humans die of scurvy from living on nothing but fish and poorly desalinated water?
Is there some literature about libertarians and climate-change denial? Because, for a group that esteems reason and free agency, I find their irrational and paranoid hatred of the mainstream of climate science to be weird. Out of the libertarians I know, the attitudes range from "it's a complete scam perpetrated for political reasons" (with no expertise or analysis of the available science) to "climate change is real, but human ingenuity ensures that it won't be a big deal and therefore does not need to be addressed". However, they otherwise place themselves amongst the camp of rational skeptics.
I have a relative who is probably dying of cancer, and other relatives who say "I told her not to smoke, she has cancer because she smoked". They are intelligent people, but many people really don’t like ambiguity. (Is that the right word?)
« Older Finally, it's almost over. Obama and Romney tie in... | Should the feelings of empowe... Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
Buy a Shirt