[ExI] paul ehrlich want to hit back at us again

[spike]

	...On Behalf Of Christopher Luebcke
...
	
	>...Spike, I read the article (the full one at the Washington
Times--ugh), and what you're implying, while it may be true, is not in the
article. Context is important:
	
	>...""Most of our colleagues don't seem to grasp that we're not in a
gentlepersons' debate, we're in a street fight against well-funded,
merciless enemies who play by entirely different rules," Paul R. Ehrlich, a
Stanford University researcher, said in one of the e-mails"...

Hi Chris, thanks, ja do let us consider the context of the statement and its
implications.  First of all, I disagree with Dr. Ehrlich, we ARE in a
gentlepersons' debate, at least as far as scientists are concerned, for
scientists generally are not and should not be political activists.
Scientists are poorly suited to...:

"...a street fight against well-funded, merciless enemies..."

Scientists do not work that way, we do not rumble.  We study, we think, we
model.  We generally are not politicians, the class that is far better
suited to "...play by entirely different rules..."  Political activism is
best left to the politicians.  Do let us advise, but not get into political
street fights.  We are gentlepersons, best suited to a gentlepersons'
debate.


	>...Ehrlich (of whom I'm no great fan) is not making the statement
you're ascribing to him. Are you aware of him making claims elsewhere that
any and all criticism of climate research should be treated exactly the same
way? Are you aware of any scientists working in the field who've made such a
claim?... Christopher

OK I see your point and I agree.  

My own experience was from a college class in Environment and Man I took in
college.  Ehrlich's book Population Bomb was on the reading list, but the
professor suggested we read that book with an open mind and a critical eye,
which I did.  By that time the book was about 11 yrs old, and already there
were several predictions that clearly were not just wrong but laughable.

Regarding Ehrlich's comments, it is the lamestream press that is most guilty
of lumping all brands of climate skeptics together, tossing in creationists,
truthers, birthers, those who believe climate change is real but beneficial,
and those who mostly accept in principle the notion of gradual climate
change and only want to benefit humanity while making an honest but
outrageously huge buttload of money off of it.

spike