All Scientists are Sceptics ~Professor Bob Carter

Whenever someone asserts that a scientific question is “settled,” they tell me immediately that they don’t understand the first thing about science. Science is never settled. Dr David Deming

Perhaps the most frustrating aspect of the science of climate change is the lack of any real substance in attempts to justify the hypothesis ~Professor Stewart Franks

A lie told often enough becomes the truth.
-- Vladimir Ilyich Lenin - See more at: http://thepeoplescube.com/lenin/lenin-s-own-20-monster-quotes-t185.html#sthash.aTrSI3tG.dpuf
A lie told often enough becomes the truth.
-- Vladimir Ilyich Lenin - See more at: http://thepeoplescube.com/lenin/lenin-s-own-20-monster-quotes-t185.html#sthash.aTrSI3tG.dpuf
A lie told often enough becomes the truth.
-- Vladimir Ilyich Lenin - See more at: http://thepeoplescube.com/lenin/lenin-s-own-20-monster-quotes-t185.html#sthash.aTrSI3tG.dpuf

Thursday, 9 June 2011

Fairfax's Farrelly displays stupidity

Writing in the National times section of the Sydney Morning Herald, she says: "Cane Toads  of the air thrive on stupidity."
I am always amazed by how readily Fairfax's journalists think they can press our buttons. Fairfax are deniers of the "science" of Anthropogenic Global Warming. It's not so much that they're rude, lowbrow or just plain wrong, although these, too, are often the case. The most destructive effect of the journalariat is the poisoning of the logic-well itself; followed by the incremental death of the argument tree that is root and branch of intelligent civilisation.

Farrelly writes:
Take Alan Jones. Though it pains me to say it, he is forcing me to change my mind. Not on climate change, or cycling, or the right to public protest, all of which he opposes, but on censorship.
Do you know Alan Jones' position on  climate change, or cycling, or the right to public protest, Elizabeth?

I can't speak for Alan but having listened to him,
  • on climate change he would say that climate has always changed. I think that you are a little confused as Alan is against the Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) Hoax;
  • on cycling, he is not against cyclists but against the stupidity of tearing up streets for cycle lanes that are rarely used by cyclists;
  • on the right to public protests, Alan has supported the NO CARBON (Dioxide) TAX rallies.

Have you listened, Elizabeth?
Foucault argued that unreason died with the enlightenment. But the shock-jock phenomenon proves repeatedly that if you make an argument sufficiently idiotic, the sheer scale of stupidity makes it hard to defeat.
I would think that Foucault could have meant the Main Stream Media who have a very blinkered view of the AGW debate. Over the last few weeks, Alan has interviewed eminent climate scientists who have exposed the AGW hoax? Did you listen to these interviews, Elizabeth? 

If not, why not enlighten YOUR unreason.
Interviews of Richard Lindzen here and Tim Ball here. Alan has also interviewed Vincent Gray here. (Many of Vincent's newsletters are reproduced on this blog.)

Australia's Panasonic Climate Commissioner Tim Flannery acknowledges that Richard Lindzen is a foremost authority of climate. Tim Flannery's credentials have been constantly challenged, the latest being a new text - The Weather Makers Re-examined. The Weather Makers is shown to contain
  • 23 misinterpretations, 
  • 28 contradictory statements,
  • 31 untraceable or suspect sources, 
  • 45 failures to reflect uncertainty, 
  • 66 over-simplifications or factual errors, 
  • 78 exaggerations and over a hundred unsupported dogmatic statements, many of them quite outlandish.
Farrelly continues:
The rules of logic are not difficult. As taught to philosophy sophomores, they cover deductive and inductive reasoning, true and false syllogisms, building arguments with consistency, validity and soundness and - crucially - how to spot a fallacy. Pretty basic.

If only the reptiles of the press would apply some logic to the AGW debate. Why do they constantly not report stories that go against the falsified AGW hypothesis?
  • Where has it been reported that atmospheric CO2 is under 400 parts per millions in volume - a trace gas?
  • Where has it been reported that 97% of Atmospheric CO2 is from nature and only 3% from man's emissions?
  • Where has it been reported that the rise in temperature PRECEEDS the rise in atmospheric CO2?
  • Where has it been reported that the Climategate CRU tricked up their data?
  • Where has it been reported that the hockeystick graph was fraudulent?
  • Where has etc etc etc.
The MSM have failed in an evenhanded reporting.  .....how to spot a fallacy. Pretty basic.

    No comments:

    Post a Comment





    All serious comments published after moderation.
    Comments should be polite, and respect all views.
    No bad language. Spam never makes it!