Arguing like a simpleton

At the risk of giving an Op-ed piece more readers than it deserved, below is a letter to the editor in response to that piece which the newspaper refused to publish.

 

The OP-ed piece was written by a university professor and writer.  The thesis of the article was unclear, but it rehearsed the usual themes of catastrophic global warming being inevitable, and point at right wing politicians as the culprits and as obstructing evildoers in general.

 

I have written previously against the belief in man-caused global warming, and grounded my objections in scientific terms.  My having a science background, it is amusing to observe Arts majors speak with greater certainty of the conclusions of science than scientists do themselves. 

 

To wit:

 

Here we go again: another Arts major who is more confident in his grasp of science than real scientists are.

 

Here is a news flash for Professor of cultural studies and communications Latham Hunter: the globe is not warming, and none of his scientist friends can explain why.

 

Here is a piece of advice from another writer: when you argue like a simpleton, you can only persuade simpletons.  If you take it as intuitively obvious that Stephen Harper is an evil man devoted to the destruction of (a) the country he governs and (b) the world, you cannot persuade people who find these assumptions contentious and even repellant for a thoughtful person to hold.

 

The professor seems to have had his head in the clouds for so long that he has forgotten some basic philosophy 101.  I speak of the far-fetched argument.  Stephen Harper may believe in developing the Alberta tarsands, but from that it does not follow that he is in favor of “colossal water pollution, habitat destruction…” not that such things in Alberta would affect us in Hamilton anyway.  As for carbon emissions, I’m sure that even the professor is in favor of some of those, such as the carbon dioxide emissions he gives off by breathing.