- Joined
- Jan 28, 2013
- Messages
- 94,823
- Reaction score
- 28,342
- Location
- Williamsburg, Virginia
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
This is a polemic from the climate skeptic perspective. AGW believers won't like it much. This list is long so there should be something for everyone.
The Delingpole Conjectures: are they plausible, do they matter?
Posted on 17 Feb 16 by John Shade • 4 Comments
James Delingpole is a journalist who takes a lively interest in the words and actions of climate campaigners and climate scientists. His often vivid writing might distract some from his importance as a contemporary philosopher, so here I examine a few recent sentences of his which contain what I have chosen to call ‘The Delingpole Conjectures’:
‘What I really should have said is that these [alarmist climate scientists] are a bunch of lying, cheating, scum-sucking, bottom-feeding, third-rate tosspots who don’t even deserve the name “scientists” because what they practise isn’t really science but data-fiddling, cherry-picking, grant-troughing, activism-driven propaganda.’
James Delingpole, 2015
Source: [url]http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/12/31/global-warming-is-not-the-problem-global-governance-is/[/URL]
Let us see what evidence can be found to lend credibility to these somewhat startling assertions, these conjectures. We (me, and all you good followers of CliScep) are, after all, not at all like the CO2 Cult members, who merely need a simple theory from which all else follows and evidence is of no concern since if it disagrees it will be modified, ignored, or derided, and if it agrees, well they are past the stage of needing its support to win political power. Thus they enjoy the benefits of deductive logic while we struggle with the burden of induction.
We list the Delingpole Conjectures below, and beside each present some evidence in exhibits which of course, given our aforementioned burden, are not given as proof but merely as indications of plausibility: . . .
The Delingpole Conjectures: are they plausible, do they matter?
Posted on 17 Feb 16 by John Shade • 4 Comments
James Delingpole is a journalist who takes a lively interest in the words and actions of climate campaigners and climate scientists. His often vivid writing might distract some from his importance as a contemporary philosopher, so here I examine a few recent sentences of his which contain what I have chosen to call ‘The Delingpole Conjectures’:
‘What I really should have said is that these [alarmist climate scientists] are a bunch of lying, cheating, scum-sucking, bottom-feeding, third-rate tosspots who don’t even deserve the name “scientists” because what they practise isn’t really science but data-fiddling, cherry-picking, grant-troughing, activism-driven propaganda.’
James Delingpole, 2015
Source: [url]http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/12/31/global-warming-is-not-the-problem-global-governance-is/[/URL]
Let us see what evidence can be found to lend credibility to these somewhat startling assertions, these conjectures. We (me, and all you good followers of CliScep) are, after all, not at all like the CO2 Cult members, who merely need a simple theory from which all else follows and evidence is of no concern since if it disagrees it will be modified, ignored, or derided, and if it agrees, well they are past the stage of needing its support to win political power. Thus they enjoy the benefits of deductive logic while we struggle with the burden of induction.
We list the Delingpole Conjectures below, and beside each present some evidence in exhibits which of course, given our aforementioned burden, are not given as proof but merely as indications of plausibility: . . .