Mr. Alexander -
You wrote in your explication of the climate change kerfluffle over George Will's column based on a falsehood, "There is a disturbing if-you-don't-agree-with-me-you're-an-idiot tone to much of the global warming debate. Thoughtful discourse is noticeably absent in the current dispute."
That is somewhat true, but by creating an equivalency between the two sides of the argument you do a serious disservice to the country and the world.
Those who support the theory of anthropogenic global climate change have seen scores of peer-reviewed scientific studies on the issue. The United Nations has collected an unprecedented number of scientists and governments to work together to come to a consensus on the issue, and even with all of these disparate interests one has been reached. Reasoned, researched and supported arguments based on data, review, and recreated experimental results have been published in scientific, news and cultural publications over and over and over again. This thoughtful discourse has been going on for close to thirty years in public, inviting reasoned and thoughtful opposition to the scientifically derived conclusions they've drawn. When good points are made or theories are disproved the conclusions have changed, and then study and experimentation begins again.
For decades there has been thoughtful discourse on the topic of global climate change, and the result of that thoughtful discourse is a general and supported understanding that humans have a significant on the situation and that a change in behavior could ameliorate the negative impact on people.
Those who deny the theory of anthropogenic global climate change assert that all of this reasoned and thoughtful discourse is the production of the New World Order of governments, a conspiracy with no apparent goal, and somehow is making people rich. Regular "studies" that quote scientists and positions are later denied by those same scientists who say their data and experiments are being misused and misunderstood. Columns like Mr. Will's misuse and misstate scientific data, and even when the organization that produced the data publicly state that misuse there is no change of position.
As a result, the opposition to that consensus develop straw men to knock down -- it was warmer when Vikings came to the Americas, scientists though global cooling was happening in the 1970s, the hockey stick is too steep, etc. -- that have little or no bearing on the issue at hand. The goal is to confuse and slant the arguments away from data, science and reason and put it into the realm of opinion and politics. Yet newspapers, television reporters, columnists and others treat the two sides of the argument as equals and expect reasoned responses to unreasonable arguments.
When you are asked to defend a position, a position that has been and continues to be repeatedly and scientifically defended, against straw men there are only two possible defenses: ignore the attack or ridicule it.
For most of the 1990s and early 21st century the scientific community took the first tack, and simply ignored the irrational and unscientific arguments against anthropogenic climate change. As a result the Limbaughs and Wills and paid shills for oil companies were able to define the debate. Now the second tack is the only one left, or the potential for great human harm will become reality.
So please stop equating the two sides of the argument, and stop pretending that ridicule is not a tool that has been forced on us. We've made all the reasoned, thoughtful, defended and rational arguments that can be made. We've even continued to research the issue and work to be more detailed, more correct, more understanding. And we will continue to do so.
Bus as long as outlets like the Washington Post will continue to give valuable column inches to incorrect, false, misunderstood and misconstrued data points that prop up straw men there is little choice but to add ridicule and hyperbole to our already thoughtful arguments.
Because you leave us no choice.
Nathan Rudy