I think it’s important to note that someone like Mr. Mead, who could fairly be considered a “Washington insider,” has a professional necessity to be “nonpartisan,” i.e. to generally support the powerful.
Thus arise the repeated, rhetorically shrouded attacks on the campaign against climate change, wherein the people and “political savvy” are attacked, with a disclaimer at the end attesting to the soundness of the science.
As we’re being politically savvy, let’s not stop at this blog’s borders: things like Mr. Mead’s attack on Mr. Gore’s opinion piece serve to discourage environmentalists and hearten the misinformed and dishonest denier movement. I’ve read the op-ed in question, and it seemed to me that Mr. Gore did a fine job clearly rebutting common fallacies about climate change science. It was not “poorly conceived.”
One could argue that he should have focused more on rebutting denier claims in detail, and less on Copenhagen and potential legislation, but these are questions of intended audience and perceived persuadability. I expect a strong justification for calling Mr. Gore’s op-ed poorly conceived.
I can’t help but suspect that Mr. Mead is still, at this late date, suffering from Gore Derangement Syndrome. For more on this tragic, nation-destroying disorder, go to http://howhegotthere.blogspot.com/ or check out the archives at The Daily Howler.
Let’s be clear, I totally support constructive criticism, but this is not it.
Wow, Jules, you’re amazing! You’ve peered into the future, read Mr. Mead’s yet-unwritten critique, and found it wanting. Care to comment on next month’s Google stock price?
You mean it is possible to discourage environmentalists? That’s certainly a cheery thought…
The first rule of blogging is that you must never let down your readers with “light blogging.”
YM93hF Good point. I hadn’t thugoht about it quite that way. 🙂