Idiot needs cluebatting.

Go help out.

But we need a body with teeth to be able to say, “actually Brendan, you can’t publish that unless you can prove it.”

7 thoughts on “Idiot needs cluebatting.”

  1. “Perhaps a starting point is a draft point in the codes for governing how the media represent climate change, and a method for enforcing that code.

    And that code needs to extend out to cover new media, including blogs. And perhaps taking a lesson from the Obama campaign’s micro-response strategy: a team empowered with responding to complaints specifically dealing with online inaccuracy, to which all press and blogs have to respond.”

    This bloke can go take a flying f**k at a rolling doughnut if he thinks he can censor blogs who might have the temerity to post something on ‘global warming’…!

  2. Someone needs to sit this maroon down and teach him some Enlightenment values, chief among which would be these principles:

    ‘ . . . that it is time enough for the rightful purposes of civil government for its officers to interfere when principles break out into overt acts against peace and good order; and finally, that truth is great and will prevail if left to herself; that she is the proper and sufficient antagonist to error, and has nothing to fear from the conflict unless by human interposition disarmed of her natural weapons, free argument and debate; errors ceasing to be dangerous when it is permitted freely to contradict them.’

    A new Code of Practice, and a new quango to enforce it. Another Truth Commission, charged with ensuring that nothing may be printed unless it can be proven. The mind boggles. Where do they teach this sort of totalitarian tyranny?

    llater,

    llamas

  3. help out, that is. Dunno if it’ll be ‘censored’ or not so I think I’ll post a coupl’a other places too:

    I have a serious problem with this quote: “If the science is beyond reasonable doubt”.. spoken like a lawyer, not a scientist. There is a huge difference between ‘proof’ and something that has been peer-reviewed – please read some decent philosophy of Science (I’m surprised you don’t seem to have at least not come across Karl Popper or Thomas Kuhn)
    Even gravity isn’t beyond ‘reasonable doubt’ when you get into the nitty-gritty physics as to what gravity actually is (gravitron particles? a force?).

    To be quite honest, what made me more and more of a skeptic was actually reading pro-AGW blogs. The more I read, the weaker I found their arguments, the weaker I found various claims (such as there being a ‘well-funded’ denial lobby. Sorry, I’m very good in maths, and a quick tally of what Exxon and vague ‘coal and petroleum interests’ have spent pales to that of the activist groups. I got my numbers from Exxonsecrets and sundry annual reports).
    Really, if it were a matter of one side being completely right, there would be no need to censor, ad hominem attacks and character assassination, no for shoddy data, and other propagandistic tactics. It would be laughable in the same vein as astrologers and feng shui practitioners.

    I also find it odd the claim that ‘they attack science because they are right wing’ whilst the linked article mentions pollution in Eastern Europe, China and the Soviet Union. Wee bit o’ contradiction there? As for the Sixties – part of why it could be so ‘revolutionary’ is because it was the first generation that was largely freed from having to work constantly – the very comforts of western civilization enabled them to have the free time to pursue such things.

    Why is peer review not trusted? Sometimes some pretty shoddy studies can get past peer-review, particularly if they support the pre-existing beliefs of the reviewers themselves. Anything that runs counter tends to be held to much greater, more rigorous scrutiny. Science (the Journal) is famous for having rejected for publication a rebuttal to an article they published on the grounds that ‘the information was already widely dispersed on the internet’.

    I leave with a quote from CS Lewis:
    “Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron’s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.”

  4. “E pur si muove!”

    Not the first time, this attempt to censor unpopular scientific views contradicting what everyone agrees to be true…

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *