Contrarianism without consequences - Paul Krugman Blog - NYTimes.com
Let’s talk about the “brief mention” of global cooling that Dubner feels has been misread. Um, that was a page and a half — and it was the first page and half of the chapter. Why shouldn’t readers conclude that it was supposed to be an important story?
And there’s context. The “scientists used to predict global cooling” is a favorite argument of climate change deniers — see any number of George Will columns. If you put that story at the front of your chapter on climate, anyone, and I mean anyone, who has been following the debate will conclude that you are endorsing that position.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Not moderated but I do delete spam and I would rather that people not act like assholes.