Tuesday, December 04, 2007
Your daily Blogging Tory stupid.
Stupid number one.
Stupid number two.
Stupid number three.
The antidote.
I swear, I'm at the point where I'm just going to assign numbers to the Blogging Tories and have a daily post entitled, "The BTs who are being ignorant, fucking retards today."
I'm sure you can appreciate the time management benefits.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
11 comments:
This amateur porn featuring a daisy-chain of fellatio/cunnilingus is appallingly obscene. Daffy Dumbdaifallah's former boss Jonathan Kay referenced by Daffy, who then refers to Jo-Jo who then refers to Jonathan Kay.
I got Herpes just following those links.
I’m curious why the righties who never fail to question the relevance of the academic credentials of someone like Michael Byers, seem completely untroubled by the fact that Lomborg is a statistician. Furrny too that they don’t mention that a review body in Denmark (the Committee for Scientific Dishonesty) concluded that with respect to his work on the Institute for Environmental Valuation “none of the reports represent scientific work or methods in the traditional scientific sense.” Also, here's a fairly critical review of his book in Salon that puts things in perspective.
The only way you can seriously question the credentials (and the work) of a statistician is to be a statistician yourself, preferably one whose vocation is statistical theory, which defies popularisation (and common sense, quite often). So it's just easier to remain uncritical, especially when the statistician is telling you what you want to hear.
Quite so, but it doesn’t take much to imagine that were the shoe on the other foot and Lomberg was propounding a “doom and gloom” climate-change scenario and touting the virtues of Kyoto as the only viable solution, that he’d be immediately rubbished for being statistician and just playing jiggery-pokery with the numbers? They’d dismiss him accordingly in a nanosecond and would doubtless have a raft of their Cheetos® encrusted “experts” debunking his number-crunching and exposing perceived fallacies in his calculations so fast it would make your head spin. It goes without saying, doesn’t it? That, to use one of the righties favourite tropes, is a delicious piece of “moral relativism” (so-called).
Yeah, as I recall The Lancet study on Iraqi mortality was a juicy target for the innumerate who nonetheless felt confident in attacking the statistical science underpinning the report's conclusions.
Ah well. They're always right, no matter what. What a glorious world they live in. Maybe we should figure out a way to convince them that the Rapture has already happened and that they've been left behind? I mean, they'll believe anything. At least that way, we could expect them to capitulate in the face of despondency and hopelessness and at least shut up.
Do you think just maybe that if they had about 98% of the scientific community behind them on climate change, they'd suggest that the science is settled?
Funnily enough, the exact same charge they level at the Left. “Those bloody arrogant liberals think they’re always right,” they’ll contemptuously snort. Yeah, well… facts, evidence and pesky stuff like that will sort of lead to those sorts of outcomes now and again, won’t they?
Regarding Crabgräss’s question, it is interesting to consider how things would stand were the “consensus” of the scientific community to rest so overwhelmingly on the other side of the ledger in the climate-change debate, is it not? You don’t have to strain the imagination all that much to conjure up the shrieking allegations about “moonbats” and their “fringe conspiracy theories” in that regard were it to be the case. Of course the “consensus” would be reverently lauded as incontrovertible and proof-positive of their absolute rightness on the issue and anyone opposing it would be a “kook” or a “nutter.”
Totally off-topic aside here, but it gives me a chance to ask an annoying question that’s vexed me for years. I’ve always been atrocious at grammar (it put me to sleep at school) and have wondered if there’s a definitive rule when it comes to the possessive when the last two letters of a name are “s”? For some reason ss’s just never looks right, but to simply leave off the last “s” would suggest there are many Crabgrässes. Not an awful thought, but you know…
Hey Crabgräss,
I don't remember which style guide I'm quoting here, but the rule is, if it's a proper noun, you add 's: Crabgräss's comment, Ross's turd pile, Jesus's testicles.
Most English spelling rules are set aside for proper nouns. Another example is that you wouldn't pluralize the members of the Kennedy family as the Kennedies.
Hope that helps.
M@ — Thanks. That's what I was doing, it just didn't look right.
(I was asking and just using Crabby's nick as an example.)
RT: "I was asking and just using Crabby's nick as an example."
Anything that keeps me in the headlines...
I stand corrected, but glad to have contributed to Crabby's well-deserved fame.
Post a Comment