Thursday, November 29, 2007
Missing the point in a big way.
Shorter "Celestial Junk" Paul: "Well, sure, we're all gullible scientific illiterates who will happily promote the stupidest imaginable dreck put in front of us, but pointing that out is really, really mean."
BY THE WAY, make sure you appreciate the crushing irony here. After all, it was only a week ago that Paul was all about the credibility and credentials. Today, however, he's publicly defending a man who didn't have the sense to even briefly check into the background of what turned out to be a hilarious hoax.
That's some cognitive dissonance you have going there, Paul. When it finally causes your head to explode, one can only hope no innocent children are injured in the blast.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
10 comments:
The hoaxer states:
It's been a busy time. I published a spoof website in an effort to smoke out some climate change skeptics - not genuine ones, but ones who are highly vocal and yet do not understand the science.
...and Paul responds:
In other words, in the minds of ecophobes, a legitimate way of supporting the environment is to foist hoaxes on the public. I don't know whether to consider this infantile or proof of just how dangerously supercilious ecophobes are.
No, not "in other words," you fucking liar. This wasn't an activity to support the environment; it was in aid of exactly what was stated above.
And it worked like a charm, judging from the whining about this being so un-fayer!
Christ, you'd think this idiots would learn the lesson and stop talking about things they obviously don't understand, but I think it'll take tongue extractions for that to happen.
You got pranked, your boy Rush got pranked, now laugh it off and move on. Do not start whining about commies, leftists, and black-ops (see: The American Thinker blog - truly misnamed). I think CC had a word for these people...what was it...oh yeah. Whiny-Ass-Titty-Babies.
Brain hurts.
What's an "ecophobe"?
Someone who hated "The Name of the Rose?" Who doesn't like hearing the same thing over and over? Who hates the environment?
Maybe Paul will tell us, when he gets over his glee at coining a neologism.
I'm so charmed that you still read Cjunk CC. It's really an honor.
It's like a train-wreck, Junker. Isn't it time for Pappy to be sent off to some raisin ranch somewhere?
I'm guessing here, but I think the eco in "ecophobe" refers to economy and implies that we commie/pinko/lefty/liberal/homofags are phobic with regard to economic development and prosperity.
It's very clever. I guffawed so much I soiled myself.
No problem, Junker. Although it is a bit creepy that you find scientific illiteracy such a singular source of pride, well, to each his own, as they say.
Personally, I'd be embarrassed by displaying that level of horrific ignorance but, then again, that's just me.
debunking scientific studies without a background in the area of knowing how to conduct and publish research seems to be the new fad these days.
Despite my 9+ years of taking classes, conducting research and publishing, I don't have nearly the level of assuredness that these armchair scientists display in their "de-bunking" of climate change research.
If this vocal group really wanted to lend some credibility to their positions there is a fairly legitimate avenue, publish comments on existing research articles or submit a dissenting review paper of their own to one of the many respected scientific journals that publish on the subject. Heck, you don't even have to have a degree to get your articles accepted, you merely have to present a legitimate and well cited argument based on, a pesky concept, fact.
So I suggest we just start laying down such a challenge everytime one of them decides to rant away from now on.
If the best they can do is quote wingnuts in the Lyndon LaRouche Fan Club, I'd say the IPCC wins without a debate.
What's an "ecophobe"?
By chris, at 3:53 PM
A person afraid of echoes =)
Post a Comment