Let’s Talk Fallacies

This essay by JW Buckley is a wonderful exploration of a wicked development–dishonest post modern anti-science science in the service of political ideologies.

Yes Houston, we have a problem.

Understand this, in the post modernist world, arguments can be right even if the evidence refutes the assertion, becaaaaaaause politics trumps science and science is nothing more than a construct by the traditionalist oppressors, designed to suppress the new utopia.

I know, it’s confusing to consider–politics trumps science–but that may help you get from there to here–and navigate the treacherous waters of junk science in the service of political agendas.

Have a drink and consider a future with adjustable science–public discussion of science has been affected by such things now for a time–fallacies that work for the political agenda are a valuable thing. 1984 certainly was a great book, wasn’t it? What’s wrong with revisionist history and “adjusted” science?

I would point out that Mr. Buckley asserted something as part of the legitimate concerns of the enviros that is not true. The Ozone hole, as is so well discussed by people like Fred Singer, was not in danger, and we didn’t fix it by screwing around with propellents for sprays and refrigerants. The Ozone hole is a natural thing and I am not an astrophysicist so I will not comment further.


About these ads

13 responses to “Let’s Talk Fallacies

  1. As you clearly demonstrate, it’s hard to see when your head is under the sand. Time to find a real job, as your supporters will fleeing to science before you know it. Nighty night.

    • “Time to find a real job” – Why don’t you take your own advice and find something else better to do? If we’re all funded by those nasty Big Oil companies, why bother converting us?

      Yes, indeed, it’s hard to see with your head under the sand…that’s why you’re a liberal, and we’re not.

      You’re right! People will be fleeing to the real science soon. So how come your side is all empty now, eh?

      And how nice, an “opinion” article saying how companies “realize climate change”. Good for you; now we can all enjoy the end of the world in peace.

      Plus, doge.jpg.

  2. Scott, I have a nice job, called the practice of medicine for probably more than your are old, considering the quality of your post. And how bout you?

    Supporters? You think i am running a cell like the commies do? JunkScience.com isn’t even my website. I write for free. Most of the commenters are professionals with real skills and smarts.

    Do you work for the lefty trollers or was that nonsensical post above an audition for a job as a Soros troll position allowing full time pajamas?

    This is a web site and people who can read and write speak their minds, rarely throw out stupid wild swings so they won’t dishonor their mommas. You think science is going well, and research by the academic left/government complex is reliable, fine, buy a Tesla and recycle. That’ll work.

    Meeeeerry Christmas.

  3. Very convincing mud-slinging John. I have a PhD in political science and have studied environmental politics for a number of years. However, I know conspiracy theorists are rarely moved by the facts, so enjoy your fantasy if it makes you feel better. However, some of the biggest companies have changed their positions on climate change. See the News and World Report article: http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/economic-intelligence/2013/12/10/energy-and-utility-companies-recognize-the-climate-change-reality

    • A political cartoon as support for your argument? Really??? Even the article itself is vague in it’s accusations. It says energy companies are acknowledging the realities of CARBON TAXES, not climate change. As a political expert you should be able to tell the difference in the spin. I also notice there is absolutely NO supporting evidence presented in the article, just more accusations of denial. Show me evidence, any evidence, that mankind is responsible for the small increase in global temperatures since the Little Ice Age. Convince me we should mortgage our futures and that of our kids and grandkids to try to control the weather when all the current evidence says otherwise.

    • Political Science? Now that’s science!

    • Ph. D. in PolySci? I’m impressed, because I never could have done that. I spent my time getting one in something much less rigorous, chemistry. I’ve also spent three decades studying environmental politics from the standpoint of having to read, understand and develop permits and compliance programs for a number of industries. As for your list of biggest companies changing their positions, they are in the business of advertising and selling. They can also let the consumer pay extra for being green. Once you get certain level of real pollution prevention, the rest is very costly add-ons to the cost. Utilities are among the worst for this because almost all of their “green” initiatives get placed in your monthly bill by the state.

      If you’d like to study environmental politics of implementation of the RICE MACT or CISWI, come on down.

    • Isn’t always interesting. The skeptics say that the alarmists are simple-minded followers who don’t know how to think and analyze data and FACTS. So the alarmists by linking and article that states “everybody thinks this way” so it must be right!


      I am SOOOOOOOOOO convinced!

  4. PhD in political science? Makes me breathless–but then I am a lawyer too, went to law school to study political science and government. I tell my friends the US of A is the great experiment and achievement in self governance–going to law school in America is like studying wine and food in France.

    As for the crony capitalists with their short term strategies to deal with enviro fanatics–that’s their mistake, and i am trying to show them every day. My case is all the more compelling because of the Luddite mentality of so many True Believer enviros.

    Eric Hoffer writes lucidly about people attracted to mass movements–who develop tunnel vision and are antagonistic to those who question their “consensus.” I can live with that. People died and suffer under the yoke of politically correct statism. I at least have a fighting chance until we reach a critical mass of sheeple and the oligarchs with PhDs and appointments or designations by the Oligarchy to be the expert army. At that point some serious censorship will replace the organized intimidation from the left that comes with expertise in the Alinsky rules.

  5. Scott, you are part of the problem. That we give out PHD’s for studying politics…it makes me weep. No wonder young people don’t consider a college education very valuable anymore.

  6. Scott never has to worry as his beliefs are religious in nature and all he has to do is believe what he is told by his betters….no need for science or facts when you have polysci……..Also with out studying Mises, Rothbard , Hayek etc., you have less than knowledge and more of indoctrination to show as your claim to expertise………..you can lead a leftist to knowledge but you can’t make them actual think.

  7. rwf1 has the basic point of all this in his first sentence – Environmentalism is not just a religion, but a fundamentalist religion. I should add that I learned at an early age that it is fruitless to argue religion with a fundamentalist. They just get angry when confronted by facts, and you just get frustrated. Scientists do not “believe”, instead they doubt. Question everything.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s