Who cares? The only valid question about Margaret Wente is when are they going to fire her?
[Answer: Never. She's a useful hack for a corrupted institution.]
(review)
But when Friel began checking Lomborg's sources, "I found problems," he says. "As an experiment, I looked up one of his footnotes, found that it didn't support what he said, and then did another, and kept going, finding the same pattern." He therefore took on the Augean stables undertaking of checking every one of the hundreds of citations in Cool It. Friel's conclusion, as per his book's title, is that Lomborg is "a performance artist disguised as an academic."
FWIW: I tried a google search to see if Wente tried to respond to Friel's book. I didn't find anything except for an irrelevant "pajamas media" blog-post by somebody referring to the Sharon Begley review linked to above. The response of the "conservatives" at the site? Sharon Begley is unattractive and she fucks her husband with a strap-on and Bjorn Lomborg is kinda good-looking.
...
Will no one rid us of these braind-dead fucks??? How long must we endure their revolting delusions about the wars they start, the economies they destroy, the planets they poison?
2 comments:
While I agree with your perspectives on most political freak shows I cannot jump on board the man-made AGW bandwagon.
I understand Moinbot writes compellingly but history shows we warm, we cool and so on regardless of the presence of the two-legged egos known as humanity.
Climates change and we must adapt as always. The thing we cannot adapt to is toxicity. When the anti-man-made AGW crowd acts like there is nothing wrong and environmentalism is a waste of time they reveal their true colours.
Unfortunately when the man-made AGW crowd raves about Carbon as our greatest problem they reveal their myopic agenda.
The MMAGW crowd always leads to more taxation, control and a new banking system so our "betters" might shift around the billions they hope to harvest from carbon-taxed suckers.
Both sides have pretty clear agendas and I believe neither are in the best interests of the everyday common working folks.
Based on my explorations I think we are more likely to see a little ice-age in future than we are to see the desertification or sunken coasts.
Bottom line global toxicity is the greatest threat to human and other life and neither special interest group is dealing with that.
Anonymous,
Why is it is supposed to be impossible to reduce and eliminate the toxic elements from our society AND reduce our carbon dioxide emissions.
Whatever your unstated "explorations" were, the fact is that carbon dioxide's ability to absorb radiant energy was measured in the 19th-Century, and the amount of carbon dioxide we're putting into the atmosphere is also measurable.
The vast majority of experts in the field have said that we're going to create catastrophic changes to the world's environment, and so far, the "sceptics" appear to be cranks, oil-industry shills, or the same stupid dunces who believe that we'll yet find Saddam Hussein's elusive WMDs.
Oh yeah, and Wente is a fool.
Post a Comment