Re: [Phys-l] Global Warming [was: Is evolution something to believe in?]

[John Mallinckrodt <ajm@csupomona.edu>]

I suspect that this list is likely to be overwhelmingly populated by  
advocates of the scientific consensus position on global warming.  So  
it's interesting that this debate is so quickly joined and even  
dominated (3-1 before this writing) by those who feel themselves  
members of a persecuted minority, that those voices should be so bad  
mannered, and that they should become so indignant when the  
shortcomings of their own behavior and arguments is pointed out.

Let's review:

1. Rick began this side thread (from a discussion of evolution) by  
writing in part:

> When scientists question human induced global warming, the first  
> (knee-jerk) response from the 'mainstream' community is to attack  
> the credentials and/or the motivations of the critics.


Note the gratuitous insertion of the adjective "knee jerk."  Rick  
goes on to point to the mass mailing from the Oregon Institute of  
Science and suggests that the uproar over that mailing was little or  
nothing more than an attack on the authors' credentials.  He finishes  
by expressing dismay, albeit winkingly so -- i.e. " ;-( " -- at the  
character assassinations he finds in previous threads.

2. Alfredo responds to the mischaracterization in Rick's post by  
politely reminding us that the reaction to the OIS mailing(s) was at  
least significantly if not entirely about the remarkably dishonest  
nature of their methods.  And, unlike Rick, he provides links for  
those who may have missed the episode and are interested in learning  
more.

3. Bob responds to Alfredo's reasoned reply with the unhelpful and at  
least disingenuous comment, reproduced here in its entirety:

> Thanks for so nicely making Rick's point!


4. Alfredo responds to Bob's provocation (for that is sure what it  
was) with a brief caricature of Rick's position that might be less  
forgivable under very different circumstances and goes on to provide  
a lengthy and rational response to the impudent implications of Bob's  
comment.

5. Ron reacts to the brief caricature, completely ignores the  
disingenuous provocation that stimulated it, and shrugs off the vast  
bulk of Alfredo's comments writing:

> With due respect, the response above is a gross misrepresentation  
> of what "Rick's point" was. I suppose the idea here is to  
> exaggerate/misrepresent his position in order to trivialize his  
> argument or to marginalize his opposing viewpoint? Wait, wasn't  
> THAT his point?!


6. In a similarly restrained response designed to get at the  
substance of the arguments and avoid the "character assassination  
that he so abhors, Rick writes:

> This is a totally false and totally bull-**** interpretation of  
> what I said. I think it is time to put Alfredo on my kill list. I  
> won't trouble the list with any more of this crap.


Despite my compulsion to comment on what I see as uncivil and unjust  
attacks on Alfredo, I am confident that most readers of this list can  
review the conversation so far and come to their own conclusions.

John Mallinckrodt
Cal Poly Pomona