Log in

No account? Create an account

Previous Entry | Next Entry

And now, the usual suspects...

As a continuation from yesterday's essay, I did some further digging to see which websites actually believed Mockton's claims.

The Science & Public Policy Institute published Mockton's essay in full here. According to its mission statement, it is "a nonprofit institute of research and education dedicated to sound public policy based on sound science. Free from affiliation to any corporation or political party, we support the advancement of sensible public policies for energy and the environment rooted in rational science and economics. Only through science and factual information, separating reality from rhetoric, can legislators develop beneficial policies without unintended consequences that might threaten the life, liberty, and prosperity of the citizenry."

Laudable goals... if they would only actually adhere to those standards.

Junkscience.Com republishes it here. According to their definition:

"Junk science" is faulty scientific data and analysis used to advance special and, often, hidden agendas.

So did they publish this essay as an example of junk science?

Climate Change Fraud also features it. I wonder what they mean with their motto:

"There's nothing wrong with a fourth grade understanding of science.
If you're a fourth grader."

I wonder if any of these sites will eventually retract their stories.


( 4 comments — Leave a comment )
Apr. 18th, 2008 03:28 am (UTC)
Monckton is a member of the SSPI, and they pay him to write this rubbish, as I noted in a comment to your last post. So their publishing his paper is no great surprise.

Junkscience.com is run, sourcewatch tells us, but Milloy, who used to be a buddy of the tobacco companies. It's remarkable how many one-time shills for the tobacco companies zipped straight on through to oil and mining company-funded climate change denial.

I dunno who runs climatechangefraud.com, but they quote Michael Crichton a lot, so there you go.
Apr. 18th, 2008 09:43 am (UTC)
there was a global-warning debate on FARK recently due to an article about wikipedia being unfair to those who question global warming. I was wondering about your thoughts on the matter, since we are on the same page about global warming I believe but this article bothered me


Of course it could go without saying he could be 100% correct about a wikipedia bias and still be 100% wrong on global warming.

I can link the fark thread if you want but going there would be a waste of your time.
Apr. 18th, 2008 04:29 pm (UTC)
And the flat Earth article is unfair on flat Earthers, and the creationism article is unfair on creationism.

That's because they're WRONG. Being wrong is NOT FAIR, BOOHOO.
Apr. 18th, 2008 05:08 pm (UTC)
oh I dont think the writer was correct in his theories. I was mostly bringing it up because Jürgen may have it tossed in his face in one of the debates I wanted him to be aware of it.

I may, of course, be overestimating his competition.
( 4 comments — Leave a comment )


The Standard
Jürgen Hubert
Arcana Wiki

Latest Month

August 2011


Powered by LiveJournal.com
Designed by Jared MacPherson