Feed on

Talk about Straw manning it. Hilariously, Matthews links to the highly debatable Cook paper where the 97% claim comes from. But that’s not really the point. The point, yet again, is that for such an enlightened, leading, scientific, research and data oriented website as Vox claims to be, is totally and horrendously disingenuous when it is calling people “Deniers.” That garbage is the stuff of hundreds-deep blog comments in extremist sites, but for a “first class news organization?” Really? Are they really running with a big story that is arguing that the “Denier” position is that the Earth is not warming? Are they really running with a big story that is arguing that the “Denier” position is that people have nothing to do with it?

That is complete and total bullshit and they need to be called out on it far and wide. And tell me again why I am supposed to be charitable to this sort of nonsense? Pathetic.

By the way, I look forward to the next Vox post showing a room full of people, 99 of which arguing that trade is good debating a single soul arguing the opposite. Or the subsequent post showing the 99.999 scientists debating 0.001 scientists who deny the safety of GMO foods. Here’s some help on the “GMO Consensus.” (HT to Jayson Lusk for the references)

I’m embarrassed to say that I care enough to have posted.

3 Responses to “Vox: The Real Climate Deniers and Anti-Science Zealots”

  1. Harry says:

    Deniers remain an ugly response to any argument, beyond fallacy.

    Today Marco Rubio, with whom some people might disagree, challenged the bishops in charge of the Spanish Inquisition by suggesting that whatever the federal government might do about carbon dioxide, it might not make any difference. This blew a big dog whistle the high priests heard, and the Inquisitors have been alerted to apostasy and diversion from the religion of not only the left but from the Bushes, whom the left sees as the conservative enemy.

    As George H.W. Bush said, “No net loss of Wetlands!” This meant that the federal government would require when I-476 was built that a piece of wet ground near Lukens Steel would have to be replaced by a patch of ground near the Quakertown exit be dammed up and planted in reeds for the Canada geese and of course the ducks of Ducks unlimited.

    But then GHWB was the same guy who called supply-side economics voodoo economics. Ever since his son ran for president I wondered whether he understood the subject in the same way as his father did, caught in the progressive past, and thinking about the fury of the environmental inquisitioners.

    For the historical record, I remember Anne Gorsuch, Reagan’s first head of the EPA. She threatened them, and was crucified. An object lesson, and it was ugly. I will look it up and provide more details if WC is interested.

    But these people are relentless, about to end coal fired energy, which provides power to over half of the country. Do away with that, and nuclear fusion will not keep the lights from going out, nor will it help pay the heating bills next winter for people living above the Mason-Dixon Line, plus Maryland, Northern Virginia, and the District of Columbia.

    My apologies to WC’s foreign readers for discussing a local subject.

  2. Speedmaster says:

    On GMOs …

    A while ago I had my kids learn about Norman Borlaug. And I was proud last week when my 17 year old told me she mentioned Julian Simon on her 11th grade AP English exam.

  3. […] Every time one sees the word “consensus” or “science” as it pertains to global warming, prepare to be misled and bamboozled and keep all matches away from the straw. This “finding” again shows that most Americans “agree” with the “consensus” on climate change.  […]

Leave a Reply