Slog
News & ArtsTuesday, October 27, 2009
Politics Right-Wing Think Tank: Polar Bears Love to Swim
Posted by Will Kelley-Kamp on Tue, Oct 27, 2009 at 4:50 PM
The Washington Policy Center—which endeavors to "improve lives through market solutions"—accused the Dow Constantine for King County Executive campaign in a tersely worded letter of mischaracterizing the organization's position on global warming:
Recently, you and your campaign spokesmen have claimed that we at Washington Policy Center “don’t believe in global warming” and that we are climate “deniers.” You have repeated this assertion several times on television, in ads and in other venues. Your assertions regarding Washington Policy Center’s views on climate change are false and we ask that you correct them.
If you check the WPC's website for information on environmental issues, you get headlines like "Cap-and-Trade Could Cost Washington as Many as 18,292 Net Jobs, $5.7 Billion in Personal Income" and "Is the Growth Management Act Working?." A banner ad advertises an anti-Al Gore documentary called "Not Evil Just Wrong" that claims to expose "the dangers of global warming hysteria."
In one blog post, they reckon that climate change will benefit Pacific Northwest forests, and criticize the media for downplaying the positive effects of global warming. Maybe they don't deny global warming, they just think it won't be such a bad thing.
8
So you researched their complaint and determined that they are right: Constantine did, in fact, mischaracterize their position. Then you wrote a post that trails off without explicitly saying this, fails to take Constantine to task for his politically motivated lie, and mysteriously implies that their position is only maybe their position. Keep classy, Stranger!
10
David, is there a substantial critical difference between believing Global Warming does not exist and believing that it does exist but that it will have a net positive effect on the planet? Don't both positions encourage the same exact response?
11
What I'm trying to say is, is it worth it for the Constantine camp to release a statement saying: "We were wrong about them being wrong, but they're still wrong, and dangerously so"
They're contending that the Washington Policy Center advocates a dangerous approach to this problem. Whether that's because they hate Jews or have bad science is immaterial to their argument.
They're contending that the Washington Policy Center advocates a dangerous approach to this problem. Whether that's because they hate Jews or have bad science is immaterial to their argument.
13
The Washington Policy Center's documents are another example of reckless, irresponsible, childish thinking about real problems. They advocate questioning over preparation and hope over action.
Constantine has every right to call them out for their refusal to incorporate actual science into their conclusions.
Constantine has every right to call them out for their refusal to incorporate actual science into their conclusions.
14
@5 David, how is denying the negative effects of global warming that different from denying global warming? Arguing semantics is a stretch; substantively, they are the same thing. But keep reaching if it makes you feel better.
15
So this is how they operate:
Deny
Deny it was our fault
Accept it was our fault, but, it's too late to do anything so fuck it, let's make some money!
Deny
Deny it was our fault
Accept it was our fault, but, it's too late to do anything so fuck it, let's make some money!
16
The "global warming is actually a good thing!" line is just the latest fall-back lie. I guarantee these folks were claiming global warming didn't exist before they started claiming that maybe it existed but it wasn't man-made before they claimed that it had been blown out of proportion and was just a short-term trend before they claimed that it will actually be a benefit.
It works like this: Demand exhaustive proof of your opponent's position and then ten years later, when faced with overwhelming scientific evidence, adjust your position slightly to something more difficult to falsify and do it again. Claim to only be interested in "open debate" the whole time, while offering absolutely no facts to support your side. Delay. Rinse. Repeat.
All nicely summed up in this helpful comic strip.
It works like this: Demand exhaustive proof of your opponent's position and then ten years later, when faced with overwhelming scientific evidence, adjust your position slightly to something more difficult to falsify and do it again. Claim to only be interested in "open debate" the whole time, while offering absolutely no facts to support your side. Delay. Rinse. Repeat.
All nicely summed up in this helpful comic strip.
Advertisement
Most Commented on Slog
-
Hating People Doesn't Make Them Thinner by Jen Graves
-
Los Angeles Gay Bar Bans Bachelorette Parties Until Marriage Equality Is Attained by David Schmader
-
Fill in the Blank by Grant Brissey
-
This Reminds Me of the Great Calculator Scare of the Late '70s/Early '80s by David Schmader
-
Idiot Tries to Defend Bigoted Anti-Gay-Marriage Preacher on Anderson Cooper by Paul Constant
-
Six Moms with Too Much Time on Their Hands and a Shitty Website Decide to Fight Gay Superheroes by Paul Constant
-
Why Mayor McGinn's Wife Canceled Her Family's Seattle Times Subscription by Eli Sanders
-
What the Hell Is Wrong With Seattle's Pride Parade? by Dominic Holden
-
The Saturday Morning News by Unpaid Intern
-
NYC Man Ticketed for Not Riding in the Bike Lane by Jonathan Golob
RSS
Facebook
Twitter
Comments (16) RSS