Just because Hayward seemed "like a straight shooter" in a series of email exchanges doesn't mean that his positions are reasonable or legitimate.  The American Enterprise Institute is a right wing think tank that places business interests (i.e., money) above all else.  I don't know about you, but I don't consider that a reasonable or legitimate position.  Because Hayward is part of the institute, he takes that position, which means that his positions are also unreasonable and illegitimate.

Jeff Hoffman

Jeff, I guess I just don't have the iron-clad certitude you do. I actually enjoy engaging people with different perspectives -- I even hold out hope of learning something, or modifying my own views in light of new facts or arguments.

95% of your comments here tell people -- pundits, politicians, other commenters -- that their views are "unreasonable and illegitimate." As far as I can tell, that leaves you almost nobody "legitimate" with which to engage. Just you, alone with your certainty. How's that working out?

www.grist.org

I have no problem engaging anyone with any legitimate point of view.  Would you engage a racist who claimed that non-whites are inferior?  Everyone has some point at which they don't consider positions legitimate enough to bother with a discussion.  That said, let's talk about this particular type of group.

If someone posits that business concerns should take precedence over, say, environmental ones, that person is just advocating a position that serves his or her personal interest.  That's what I mean that the position is not legitimate.  That said, I've also been convinced by people with other points of view.  The difference between those situations and this one is that those people weren't just pushing points of view that would benefit them personally.  If you just advocate a position that would benefit you personally to the detriment of others (human or otherwise), why should I not call that position illegitimate?

Jeff Hoffman

Good post. I too wondered about the Hayward's alleged "hundreds of scientists who have signed various statements saying we lack total mastery of the subject." What scientist claims total mastery of any subject, far less a subject as complex as global climate change? Who is he talking about, and what statement? I can think of denialists, such as Exxon hack Stephen Milloy; I can think of moderates, such as Roger Pielke, Jr.; and I can think of scientists with an unusual take on the issue, such as William Ruddiman, but I honestly have no idea who Hayward is thinking of, assuming he's in fact referencing genuine scientists.

But I'll give Hayward for not dismissing the possibility of climate change. As crazy as it may sound, on the right, this is proof positive of an open mind.

Well, Dave?  You accused me of not wanting to engage with groups or persons with whom I disagree.  I responded with an offer to engage you about what my problems are with the credibility of groups like the American Enterprise Institute.  Your failure to respond to me seems like the lack of engagement of which you accused me.

Moreover, this was a blindside attack on me.  I wasn't disagreeing with your post, but actually supporting some of what you said (Hayward "comes close to going off the rails," etc.).  I realize that we strongly disagree on some stuff, but your post seems like a gross overreaction to I-don't-know-what.

Jeff Hoffman