This time it's Guardian weenie Hugo Rifkind accidentally letting his inner loon out in public.
The opening section is merely retarded, dependent as it on trying to create an analogy between engineering and biomedical research on the one hand, and the gerbil warming crowd on the other. Or, put it another way, Rifkind wants to compare two of the most tightly-regulated areas in science and technology to a bucnh of loonies busily playing musical datasets.
Hey, try getting a drug on the market while claiming that you've lost the original data from the clinical trials. As for building bridges, well, the folks in Workington might have had their town cut in half, but at least they don't have to put with people insisting that the bridges are still there, and anyone who says they aren't is in the pocket of Big Construction. Still, since Rifkind raises the point, how about a National Institute for Climate Excellence, huh? We can even use the same acronym.
Still, wacky though it is to see a liberal go all misty eyed about pharmaceutical companies, the real money quote is later on:
The liberal concept of freedom means everyone has the right to their opinion.
There's a fundamental humbuggery here too. Rifkind claims to be ever so 'umble, because he's ready to defer to whatever the scientists say. But hang on a mo, we know exactly what they're going to say: we're all going to die and the only solution is Big Government, Bigger Taxes and Speech Licences. These people are exactly the same type of Guardian-reading tools as Rifkind himself. Liberals like Rifkind might defer to the geeks, but only providing they're liberal geeks. How about those guys in the biotech industry who claim restrictions on genetic modification are strangling progress? Do they qualify for the Magic 'No Public Debate Required' Pass?
(And as for that whole 'Bell Curve' thing....)
For that matter, how about those of us who were scientists, but escaped to the Free World? Are we qualified to have an opinion? We might not be current, but we could point out that 'Climate Science' is an oxymoron.
The whole point of a scientific theory is that its falsifiable - it makes predictions that can be shown to either be true or false. Climate science? Not so much. A cold winter proves the climate's changing, so does a mild one. Ditto, hot summers, rainy summers, cold summers.... it's all good. Besides, if needs be, they'll just compare summer temperatures in 2007 to winter temperatures in 1968 to hide the decline or something. It's not corrupt, it's just science, advanced fraudology. Besides, you need to look at the context, or as Ann Coulter says:
The opening section is merely retarded, dependent as it on trying to create an analogy between engineering and biomedical research on the one hand, and the gerbil warming crowd on the other. Or, put it another way, Rifkind wants to compare two of the most tightly-regulated areas in science and technology to a bucnh of loonies busily playing musical datasets.
Hey, try getting a drug on the market while claiming that you've lost the original data from the clinical trials. As for building bridges, well, the folks in Workington might have had their town cut in half, but at least they don't have to put with people insisting that the bridges are still there, and anyone who says they aren't is in the pocket of Big Construction. Still, since Rifkind raises the point, how about a National Institute for Climate Excellence, huh? We can even use the same acronym.
Still, wacky though it is to see a liberal go all misty eyed about pharmaceutical companies, the real money quote is later on:
Where has it come from, this sudden consensus among Britain’s right-wing punditry that there’s some kind of scam going on here? Yes, Delingpole, I mean you, and plenty of others, too. What gives you the right?And that is why people talk about liberal fascism.
The liberal concept of freedom means everyone has the right to their opinion.
There's a fundamental humbuggery here too. Rifkind claims to be ever so 'umble, because he's ready to defer to whatever the scientists say. But hang on a mo, we know exactly what they're going to say: we're all going to die and the only solution is Big Government, Bigger Taxes and Speech Licences. These people are exactly the same type of Guardian-reading tools as Rifkind himself. Liberals like Rifkind might defer to the geeks, but only providing they're liberal geeks. How about those guys in the biotech industry who claim restrictions on genetic modification are strangling progress? Do they qualify for the Magic 'No Public Debate Required' Pass?
(And as for that whole 'Bell Curve' thing....)
For that matter, how about those of us who were scientists, but escaped to the Free World? Are we qualified to have an opinion? We might not be current, but we could point out that 'Climate Science' is an oxymoron.
The whole point of a scientific theory is that its falsifiable - it makes predictions that can be shown to either be true or false. Climate science? Not so much. A cold winter proves the climate's changing, so does a mild one. Ditto, hot summers, rainy summers, cold summers.... it's all good. Besides, if needs be, they'll just compare summer temperatures in 2007 to winter temperatures in 1968 to hide the decline or something. It's not corrupt, it's just science, advanced fraudology. Besides, you need to look at the context, or as Ann Coulter says:
Global warming cheerleaders in the media were quick to defend the scandalous e-mails, explaining that, among scientists, the words "trick," "hide the decline" and "garbage" do not mean "trick," "hide the decline" and "garbage." These words actually mean "onion soup," "sexual submissive" and "Gary, Ind."
(Boy, it must be great to be able to redefine words right in the middle of a debate.)
Also, of course, the defenders said that the words needed to be placed "in context" -- the words' check was in the mail, and they'd like to spend more time with their families.
I have placed the words in context and it turns out what they mean is: gigantic academic fraud.
No comments:
Post a Comment