Saturday, November 13, 2010

Christopher Booker is a Putz

Putz: n
1. Slang A fool; an idiot.
2. Vulgar Slang A penis.
Shorter version: since Climategate totally proved that climate change claims are totally false and climate science doesn't even exist and climate scientists are totally scamming the planet, totally everybody has totally forgotten about the issue, except British politicians. And, oh yeah, in case you didn't notice, it's cold again. What's up with that?

Followup: Dear me. I have been skimming Booker's idiocy at The Telegraph (UK) online for some time now, but I hadn't quite realized the sheer breadth of topics he has "debunked." Via Wikipedia, from his "Views on Science:"
Booker has repeatedly claimed that white asbestos is "chemically identical to talcum powder" and poses a "non-existent" risk to human health.
Also too, swords are chemically identical to spoons, and couldn't possibly be a concern on airliners.
On climate change Booker is a global warming skeptic...
No, he's a denier. Skeptics can be convinced by enough evidence. Booker will never be convinced, QED, he's not a skeptic.
Booker has also argued in support of intelligent design, claiming that supporters of the theory of evolution "rest their case on nothing more than blind faith and unexamined a priori assumptions"
That and a couple of hundred years of data gathering, hypothesis testing, restructuring theoretical frameworks as new information and insights became available, and debate- frequently fierce- to determine which ideas made the most sense. An awful lot of trouble, really, when you can just cut through the Gordian knot with a simple "God did it" and be done, right?
Wilson highlighted Booker's repeated endorsement of the alleged scientific expertise of John Bridle, who in 2005 was convicted under the UK's Trade Descriptions Act of making false claims about his qualifications.
So there you have it... cherry pick the data you want, choose the "experts" who make conclusions you want to come to, regardless of their actual "expertise." Cause really, in the end, credibility is all in the eye of the beholder.


No comments: