This is actually somewhat rare. It's one thing if individual bloggers face off, like some squabble between Andrew Sullivan and Glenn Reynolds, but the big league blogging sites, like Pajamas Media, Townhall, Politico and RealClearPolitics, usually refrain from any specific finger-pointing or name-calling.
Still, I agree that this Politico piece of AGW sputum is an exception. As I was reading it, I was thinking in the back of my mind, "Wow, what is this, 2003?" Then I get down to the comments and some guy's exclaiming, "Wow, this looks like a piece from 2003!" It just reeks of nostalgia. The only thing missing was any mention of the polar bears and their sad, plaintive plight.
The problem, as with any AGW article these days, is that the question that immediately arises is, do they know what they're claiming is complete bullshit — and thus they're just flat-out lying to us? Is it money, power, sex? Ego, pride, reputation? Or are they honestly so naive as to believe everything they read in the MSM and disregard the rest? As the renown TigerHawk would ask, can you think of a third alternative?
First, if you dare:
Galileo Moment for GOP
I have no comment as I read it yesterday and my mind has mercifully deleted the entire contents — and I refuse to go through such an ugly ordeal again. My guess is that he was entirely correct about the warming part, right up until he used the word "man".
The response from RealClearPolitics is not only a superb piece in itself as he totally dismantles the guy, but it also has some interesting background on Galileo, which is actually why I'm posting it. I don't do straight AGW anymore. The whole topic is just so 2010.
Galileo and the Scientific Pose of the Left
I would only add that despite my having a plethora of questions for the author of the first article, the very first question — as it relates to the title of his post — would be, "What does global warming have to do with the GOP and politics?" From the title of his post, alone, he exposes the fact that this is an ideological rant bent along established party lines, not an independent review of a scientific question. It's just amazing lefty writers don't understand how clearly we see through the ideological patina they cover themselves with.
As a small footnote, Bird Dog did one of his semi-annual "Tell your friends about Maggie's Farm" posts the other day. When you describe it to them, you can now add, "It's the kind of site where you'll see the words plethora and patina in the same paragraph!"
I mean, is dis a classy joint, or what!
