Epic SF Fail
Feb. 3rd, 2009 01:27 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
Via Tor.com: Global Warming is good for us.
I may have lost my temper slightly in the comments and posted one longer than the original article.
I may have lost my temper slightly in the comments and posted one longer than the original article.
no subject
Date: 2009-02-03 01:48 pm (UTC)The internet seems to suggest that the author is an environmental activist.
no subject
Date: 2009-02-03 02:01 pm (UTC)This (http://www.worldwildlife.org/what/wherewework/sers/WWFBinaryitem2738.pdf) is the only thing I can find along those lines for her, and it's a good report, but she's listed as only one of four co-authors and (significantly) with no affiliation in the "experts attending" list.
Without any more information on what her environmental activism consists of, I'm not willing to assume that a) she doesn't believe anything she wrote, and b) this doesn't need public refutation anyway.
no subject
Date: 2009-02-03 02:08 pm (UTC)That was a really interesting bee article you linked to, thanks...
no subject
Date: 2009-02-03 02:27 pm (UTC)Devious. Very devious. ;)
no subject
Date: 2009-02-03 03:24 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-02-03 03:45 pm (UTC)I don't have any confidence that the Tor commissioning editors didn't commission someone from the lunatic nutjob fringe to raise controversy (and the article's full of dogwhistles), and I didn't look up $random_person beforehand, but after all that, you're probably right and it's an attempt at satire.
I'm not going to regret explicating it for the even-harder-of-noticing than I am, though!
no subject
Date: 2009-02-03 05:07 pm (UTC)Of course it doesn't have a very high success rate, but i think if/when it does, it's probably a lot more effective than being disagreed with in a straightforward manner.
I suppose there needs to be a campaign of various amounts of being-hit-over-the-head-with-it and in a wide variety of places...
no subject
Date: 2009-02-03 05:21 pm (UTC)And, yes, regardless of the author's actual stance, I'm sure the article was meant to be controversial. Calm, in-depth rebuttals in the comments are a good thing if they make people think instead of instantly dismissing/accepting the article at face value. If the author wrote it specifically to attract detailed rebuttals, it would be heartwarmingly cunning.
no subject
Date: 2009-02-03 07:30 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-02-03 09:44 pm (UTC)Still, regardless of the spirit in which the article was meant, your response was fantastic: detailed, remarkably calm, informed and lucid. Everything you said was worth saying, especially if you're right (and I'm sure you are) that Tor.com has some idiots on it that would agree with the sentiments expressed in Buckner's article. That's the case regardless of whether she herself does!
I rather like
Or possibly she's gone weird since 2002 and really does believe what she's written. A horrible thought, but sadly not implausible.