You can feel that most crucial of propaganda processes happening with Climategate: the reversing of the burden of proof. Unfair to all the fraud detectives (Watts, McIntyre, and the rest of them, including Monkton himself) though it undoubtedly was, those noble toilers, until the Climategate revelations erupted, had to prove everything, in defiance of the default position. Their every tiny blemish was jumped upon. Their major claims were ignored. Now the default position is slowly mutating into: It's all made-up nonsense. And the burden of proof is shifting onto the shoulders of all those who want to go on believing in such ever more discredited alarmism. In short, our side is winning this argument, big time.
Sunday, December 20, 2009
QOTD
Brian Micklethwait:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
> In short, our side is winning this argument, big time.
Wrong attitude. Science is winning this argument, big time.
Sides should not matter.
If it were really warming, I'd say it's something that needs to be dealt with (though the draconian measures often suggested are hardly sufficiently called for in any but the most improbable and extreme 'just suppose' scenarios).
And in that case, I'd rather lose a valid argument than win an invalid one.
The nature of the problem is that this isn't, and hasn't been, for a long time, a valid argument, due to their tactics.
THAT we should win just on principle. But even there, it's not a matter of "sides" -- it's a matter of being in favor of Truth, regardless of which proposition is correct.
To some extent, I disagree, for the reasons stated here. This is not to say I agree with the science of the warming alarmists--I don't. But even if I did, the questions remain: is warming worse? Can it (if real) be tamed economically?--or would solving other challenges save more lives?
Scientists may always disagree on these questions. This is why they must be resolved by our elected representatives, taking into account science, economics and "the art of the possible."
Where we agree is on the amount of scientific evidence necessary to influence policy. I fully understand the "precautionary principle," which is not necessarily un-sound. I just haven't seen enough to apply it to climate change.
In short, our side is winning this argument, big time.
If only it were so. Unfortunately, the morons at the EPA and in Copenhagen continue to discount and ignore ClimateGate - and probably always will.
Still, an election cycle might be influenced by this if the message can get past the Lame Stream media.
I am pessimistic. Events have overtaken Claire Wolf - it's time to start shooting.
Post a Comment