Ryan Waxx:
I notice that you left out my third statement, which was:
Possibly because it completely describes your comment quoted above?

So… you weren’t criticizing ad hominem attacks, just acknowledging their existence while engaging in them? I agree, those damn usual tools, forcing us to be lowered to their level of discourse against our will. They like to give oral pleasure to nutria, thus they’re wrong.

Andrew J. Lazarus: Referring to me, Ryan Waxx wrote
Later Waxx agrees with this statement of mike’s.
It would appear that the ad hominem attacks by liberal fanatics are so devastating that they engender something quite similar from conservatives.Careful guys. Spittle can ruin your keyboard.

I notice that you left out my third statement, which was:

This entire thread is consistently ad hominem

Possibly because it completely describes your comment quoted above?

Rob in CT: “Part of the problem is that this generation will probably never take AGW as seriously again.”

I doubt that, since if the general idea is correct (and I think it is), then it will become increasingly obvious to those people, who will be alive and witnessing it.

But whatever. The scientists who wrote those emails messed up, and it WILL hurt. It will primarily hurt by bolstering those who already didn’t want to believe in AGW (and let’s be honest — wouldn’t we ALL rather it be wrong? I sure would!).

I guess I am one of those who feels bolstered. There has been a lot of stuff out there critical of the received wisdom about AGW, and I am now just seeing it. Of course, pursuing this has always been a low priority.

But for a long time, I felt that, maybe, just maybe, I was being reactionary in not believing in AGW. It didn’t feel right, esp. given the obvious hypocrisy of so many of its proponents (notably AlGore), but the proponents always had a bunch of papers they could throw at us. I always get suspicious when I see this sort of hypocrisy – if they believe that the earth is about to end if we don’t do something major right now, then why aren’t they leading by example, instead of putting us all to shame by their profligate ways (note the discussion upsteam about the head of the IPCC). So, the emperor isn’t wearing as many clothes as we all thought he was.

I do see AGW as less likely. Partly, this is in response to the discovery that those at the center of it apparently cannot explain or really understand why their models (absent major fudging, as evidenced by both emails and code) fail to predict the last 10 years. And partly, it is realizing that the models that we have heard so much about appear to depend on large positive feedback to CO2 increases, while small negative feedback seems more likely to me, right now, given all I have seen.

But I would ask you why you do believe in AGW, despite all that has come out in the last couple of weeks. Likely not having done your own original research in this area (as most of us have not), what is there that causes you to believe? Is it some sort of innate belief system, like mine, where I innately and automatically question authority, especially when combined with hypocricy, only maybe the opposite? Do you subconsciously want it to be true? Or, are you someone who innately trusts authority? Or, maybe something else?

Richard, I hope you are conscious of the irony.

rbj:
The scary thing is that a lot of the college & twenty-somethings use The Daily Show as their primary news source.

That’s the scary thing? The scary thing is it’s the best news source around.

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2009/11/29/week-discusses-climategate-obamas-copenhagen-trip

As usual in this sort of show there’s little depth in the commentary but I thought George Will summed up the pessimistic and critical interpretation fairly and sharply, while Paul Krugman’s defense seemed lame and barely coherent in places; of course neither will have the impact of Stewart’s mockery.

I doubt that, since if the general idea is correct (and I think it is), then it will become increasingly obvious to those people, who will be alive and witnessing it.

But whatever. The scientists who wrote those emails messed up, and it WILL hurt. It will primarily hurt by bolstering those who already didn’t want to believe in AGW (and let’s be honest – wouldn’t we ALL rather it be wrong? I sure would!).

Ryan Waxx: Fanatics are immune to irony.

Later Waxx agrees with this statement of mike’s.

mike: Why is liberal commentary on conservatives and conservatism so consistently ad hominem?

It would appear that the ad hominem attacks by liberal fanatics are so devastating that they engender something quite similar from conservatives.

Careful guys. Spittle can ruin your keyboard.

Stewart is one of the primary news sources for the younger crowd. He is obviously a committed leftist, and acts like so many of them, the crowd who would go into hysterics when GWB was called “shrub” before he was elected President (and much worse after that). This is the crowd that put President Obama in the White House, and one of the key people behind that was Stewart.

Part of the problem is that this generation will probably never take AGW as seriously again. The part about Al Gore and the Internet is already viral. Sure, they are more environmentally conscious than their parents, etc. And, probably believe in AGW and a lot of Utopian things more too.

Finally, no surprise that Fox News continues to gain viewers, while the media that tried to suppress this story continue to plummet in readership/viewership. If they suppressed this story, what else have they not supplied their customers? It will be interesting to see if Stewart has shamed them into covering this or not.

This entire thread is consistently ad hominem

Yeah. How come you people have to be like that?

</sarcasm> That was a joke. It’s not one side or the other, but both that have made reading VC really tough these days. A sole wingnut is easy enough to ignore, but when we get a few on each side using asinine rhetorical tricks (“it’s obvious you are wrong” “stop embarrassing yourself” “everyone thinks you are nuts” “only stupid people believe” “I know you are but what am I”), the whole thing goes down the crapper pretty fast.

So are you suggesting that the Climate Inquisition should try him on charges of suspected heresy against the One True Faith?

Those heretics are sneaky, you know. Even when you come up with a creed that everyone must swear to, they still find ways around it.

mike:
Why is liberal commentary on conservatives and conservatism so consistently ad hominem?

This entire thread is consistently ad hominem because the usual tools can not (as evidenced by them not even TRYING, even after a couple pages of comments)… CAN NOT justify three major networks refusing to report on a story this big.

Thus, they MUST scream “look at Fox bias!!! LOOOK!” at the top of their lungs, because that’s the only way to distract from the obvious, unarguable example of bias of three major networks all deciding that a major story is not worth covering because it favors the wrong people.

A question for the tools: How many days has it been since the story broke, hmm? If Fox News waited that long to cover the Enron scandal, what FRACTION of that number would you wait before concluding that Fox News was showing its bias?

This post — the one you are commenting on — is a pretty good example of the technique [JHA's alleged "technique" of "tweak[ing] and question[ing] the reality of global warming].

Is it? All I see here is JHA noting that Jon Stewart, of all people, is reporting something the major networks haven’t bothered to, and making the real point that needs to be made: “Don’t cut corners.” Given that Jon Stewart obviously thinks global warming is a genuine problem (you did watch the whole clip, right?), why do you regard this post as attacking the AGW cause? Is not talking about this is the only loyal course if you believe AGW needs to be addressed?

My view of his views is that he is deferential to policies aimed at preventing negative externalities, which at the least is different than your usual agw opponent.

Re the comments about Professor Adler’s GW and AGW views and “tweaking the subject,” I see nothing inconsistent with believing in both but tweaking to continue to refine his knowledge–I think that is what scientists (and presumably lawyers) should do. Paraphrasing Keynes, when the facts change I change my mind–what do you do, sir? But Professer Adler can speak for himself.

Richard Aubrey: Brian.
Sorry to make you so sad.No… I’m not.
Your comments ref Fox seem to be aimed at dismissing it in advance, just in case it says something you find inconvenient.
That’s an old, old tactic.Hardly ever works.
So, for you, what’s the Cathedra of news?

how come you don’t complain when people do exactly the same thing about the daily show or the nyt or msnbc or cnn or well just about every news show that is not fox? is this one of those things that are only acceptable when conservatives do it? it’s funny how half the above commenters considers the news legitimate when it conforms to their beliefs and yet so far you have only called me out. way to show your own biases!

and yes, i don’t think fox is legitimate. to figure out which segments are true and which are made up conservative propaganda i have to go to other news sites. what’s the point? it’s a much better use of my time just to go to those other sites! (although i do still watch fox news occasionally just for the comedic value)

Could you point to any posts that are intended to tweak or question the reality of global warming? I’ve read JHA posts for a long time and I seem to have missed them all.

This post – the one you are commenting on – is a pretty good example of the technique.

He doesn’t come out and explicitly deny global warming but he posts thousands of words quibbling with it, tweaking those who say it is a problem and so forth.

Dudeman: Andrew J. Lazarus: The scary thing is the others who use Fox as their news source, when it is so clearly meant to be a comedy.

I don’t know what is more ironic: (1) the post notes that MSM has failed to cover the issue, but Comedy Central did – and FOX has; (2) the quoted source for the FOX criticism (not to Laz, Valerie Jarret is looking for an intern); (3) that the point of the criticism is that FOX will fire folks for inaccurate reporting;

Fanatics are immune to irony. It bounces off their iron conviction.

bob: Instead he makes dozens of posts that are intended to tweak and question the reality of global warming.

Why is that?

Could you point to any posts that are intended to tweak or question the reality of global warming? I’ve read JHA posts for a long time and I seem to have missed them all.

Mr. Adler has, I believe, stated in the past that he believes that global warming is real and that man’s actions contribute to it.

If so, there are serious questions about how we will be affected and what we should do about it.

But how many of Mr. Adlers dozens and dozens and dozens of posts about global warming focus on any of these issues?

Instead he makes dozens of posts that are intended to tweak and question the reality of global warming.

Why is that?

There’s a whole lot of projecting going on there. here’s a hint, not everyone thinks and acts the way you do. Some of prefer to form opinions after watching both shows.

other than that, your post is a perfect example of someone who thinks fox news is legitimate. it would be hilarious if it wasn’t true…but it is so it’s just sad.

Lets put the whackos at MSNBC and Foxnews in one lumped group and dismiss them entirely from any true academic debate.

Lastly, DonP decries generic, unsupported slurs against his favorite news source while levying the same at NBC. Since no commenter here should have the time to give him a thesis outlining specific examples of Foxnews ignoring, sensationalizing, or just plain creating news, I will just direct him to the unedited clips over at mediamatters.org

silly silly:
i spot a redundancy.

Why is liberal commentary on conservatives and conservatism so consistently ad hominem?

Brian K:
The really scary thing is that they’re less biased and more truthful than Fox News, which considers itself an actual news organization. Plus the comedy on the daily show is intentional while the comedy on Fox mostly results from the really stupid things they say.

Nice generic, unsupported slur. Did you pick that up on Moveon, DU, or make it up all by yourself?

Perhaps we just need a simple IQ test before we allow all these poor, ignorant Fox watching souls to cast a ballot. They might elect someone you don’t approve of, if left unchecked.

They aren’t nearly as intelligent as you obviously are, to spot all that bare naked Fox bias. (Let me guess, you have a pin up of Rachel Maddow on the back of your door? Or is it an autographed Keith O. football on your mantel?)

But I regret to inform you that there are far more of them then there are of you. But then again, numbers aren’t important, unless they are votes of course.

Based on the most recent ratings book sitting on my desk, about 8 times as many as tune in to MS/NBC, CNN et. al.

In the meantime we’ll all be watching for the “Real News” (or any coverage) of the Climate story on MS/NBC and the broadcast networks. Based on their track record, I expect to hear about it sometime in January. Then it will be the story about prosecuting the whistle blower.

The scary thing is that, if you’re going to get your news via TV, The Daily Show is rivaled only by The Newshour.

rbj:
The scary thing is that a lot of the college & twenty-somethings use The Daily Show as their primary news source.

The really scary thing is that they’re less biased and more truthful than Fox News, which considers itself an actual news organization. Plus the comedy on the daily show is intentional while the comedy on Fox mostly results from the really stupid things they say.

silly conservative

i spot a redundancy.