Home

Mercurius’ Rules from Larvatus Prodeo

Leave a comment

[voice over of Narrator from the Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy Movie]  “Long ago and far away there existed a a fascinating blog originating in Australia named Larvatus Prodeo. And then it didn’t exist. And then it did. And now it doesn’t again.”don__t_panic_wallpaper_by_vantaj-d4fgo87

Actually it’s in archive state, which means it’s probably not staying active in trends etc. So I’ve resurrected a charming bit posted originally by Mercurius, called “The Rules”.

This bit of satire easily demonstrated the tactics in play at the time. The movie “An Inconvenient Truth” was still fresh in people’s minds, the Climategate affair was underway but not yet public. And a pivotal moment for global action to save civilization from itself was just a few months away. While we knew that some millions of dollars were flowing from the fossil fuel industry to professional disinformation campaigns, we still did not have evidence of the Exxon Mobil involvement, nor the amount of activity coming from the Koch brothers.

I’ve taken the liberty of adding some “pictorial” commentary. Thanks to Glen Welch and the Fallacy Ref page for the extra material. Can you Imagine a Fallacy Ref attempting to keep track and stop all the fallacies in this one little bit of prose? This of course was 2009, just as the Denial campaign was getting into full swing.

For your reading pleasure, here are:


 The rules


Hello world. It’s your friendly neighbourhood denialist here. Look, we need to talk. I think we got off on the wrong foot. You’ve got me all wrong. I’m really an open-minded guy. All I’m asking for is evidence of your AGW claims. Surely that’s not too much to ask?

And please note, that when I say evidence, I mean:

Ref - Continuum Fallacy1) Nothing that was recorded by instruments such as weather-stations, ocean buoys or satellite data. Since all instruments are subject to error, we cannot use them to measure climate.

Ref - Nirvana Fallacy2) Nothing that has been corrected to account for the error of recording instruments. Any corrected data is a fudge. You must use only the raw data, which is previously disqualified under rule #1. Got that? OK, moving along…

Ref - Goalpost move3) Nothing that was produced by a computer model. We all know that you can’t trust computer models, and they have a terrible track record in any industrial, architectural, engineering, astronomical or medical context.

Ref - Cherry PickingRef - Troll4) Nothing that was researched or published by a scientist. Such appeals to authority are invalid. We all know that scientists are just writing these papers to keep their grant money.

Ref - Proof ReversalSee? I’m a reasonable guy. I’m perfectly open to being convinced by real evidence — you know, the kind that doesn’t rely on scientific instruments, or corrected data, or computers, or results recorded by other scientists. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and I’m sure you’d agree that any evidence which meets my criteria would be extraordinary indeed.

Ref - False EquivalencyAnd before you accuse me of hypocrisy, I apply all these rules to myself. For example, I have perfectly good evidence that the ETS will destroy the economy. I haven’t relied on any measurements, or projections, or the advice of economists in making this prediction. Therefore my evidence for this prediction of economic doom is water-tight. (On a related note, how can you predict the climate next decade when you can’t predict the weather next week? And did you know I can predict economic doom from the ETS next year, even though I can’t predict the stock market tomorrow?)

Before I go, here are some corollaries that devolve from the above 4 rules:

Ref - Argument from FallacyA) Any previous errors in climate science are automatic proof that new data is also wrong. For example, if you produce results which show a reduction in ice coverage, or a warming of ocean temperatures, all I have to do is shout ‘Hockey Stick!’ and the new data is instantly dispelled.

Ref - Goalpost moveRef - Nirvana FallacyB) So, before I will accept your new data, it must retrospectively correct any errors in past data, and erase them from the space-time continuum as though they never occurred. Furthermore, if you do manage to perform this feat, your data will be invalid because corrected data is disqualified under rule #2.Ref - Spotlight Fallacy

Ref - Ad HomC) Al Gore is a big fat hypocrite and a liar and a fraud who jets around the world and has a big house and eats puppies for breakfast. And will you please stop the ad hominem attacks on Ian Plimer?

D) Will somebody, please, somewhere, anywhere, address the science in Ian Plimer’s book? I mean, surely that’s not too much to ask? Ref - YogiismRef - Argument from SilenceBy the way, anybody who addresses the science in Ian Plimer’s book is just a nit-picker who hasn’t addressed the main issue.

E) Please, spare me your conspiracy theories. It’s not my fault that AGW is a giant hoax perpetrated by Big Green to take over the world in a socialist plot.Ref - echo chamberI’m just trying to uncover the truRef - Bandwagonth here, with the assistance of a lot of commentators, media personalities, corporate executives and hired scientists who just happen to share similar political views to my own.

Ref - TrollF) Your position is based on religious faith, not on the science. I can tell because you pay attention to Ref - False AttributionRef - Non-Central Fallacythe scientific instruments, the corrected data, the computer models and the writings of published scientists, instead of what I know, deep in my heart to be the truth: that AGW is a giant hoax and a fraud.

Ref - Ergo DecedoConfusedG) If you ever refuse to debate with me, that is proof that your position is untenable, you’re frightened of the truth and you don’t have the evidence. Ref - Neutral Zone

Ref - ClickbaitRef - Red HerringAnd, by the way, when will Burt Newton respond publicly to the claims that he’s a trans-gender vampire who was regenerated in a vat from a single hair of Vlad the Impaler? His silence on this issue is telling…

—-

ConfusedRef - SpreadingRef - Slippery SlopeRef - Out of ContextRef - Occams RazorRef - False EquivalencyRef - False DichotomyI’m so glad we could have this chat. I’m sure if we can just conduct this discussion using the rules and corollaries above, it will be an enlightening and fruitful enterprise that is well worth the time and effort of everybody involved.

Ref - RepetitionI look forward to having this debate, at every opportunity, on every forum, on every website, from now until the end of time.Confused

I give upYours truly,

The Marquess of Queensbury

Who Founded Greenpeace? Not Patrick Moore.

Comments Off on Who Founded Greenpeace? Not Patrick Moore.

tweetingdonal:

Once again the crowd over in climate contrarian land has promoted someone who makes inflated claims about his past to bolster his public profile.

Lord “Crazy Pants” Monckton is a shining example for all future resume padders out there. Yes indeed, he was a minor hereditary “Lord”, with no real affiliation with UK governance or policy, but he still claims to be a member of the House of Lords, in spite of cease and desist orders published by that august body.

Now we have Patrick Moore trying to claim that he “co-founded” Greenpeace. The fact is that he’s been playing the long con to earn his bread and board for nearly 20 years. Have a look:

Originally posted on Climate Denial Crock of the Week:

Greg Laden’s Blog:

Patrick Moore is a Hippie for Hire. He makes the claim that he co-founded Greenpeace, and charges a fee to show up at conferences or other venues, or sit on boards, to provide a story that anti-environmentalists, global warming deniers, and others, like to hear. The part where he takes your money to lie, as far as I can tell, is true. The part about how he co-founded Greenpeace is apparently not true.

Here’s what Greenpeace has to say about Patrick Moore:

Patrick Moore, a paid spokesman for the nuclear industry, the logging industry, and genetic engineering industry, frequently cites a long-ago affiliation with Greenpeace to gain legitimacy in the media. Media outlets often either state or imply that Mr. Moore still represents Greenpeace, or fail to mention that he is a paid lobbyist and not an independent source…

For more than 20 years, Mr. Moore…

View original 576 more words

Yes, I know, another new theme

Comments Off on Yes, I know, another new theme

I’m constantly trying to figure out how to make this blog readable. The recent habit rolling around the blogosphere that puts text over the top of snowy white backgrounds is probably fine for some, but my old (soon to be ancient) eyes can’t tolerate the glare. It’s just too bright. However something is different, since the last theme I was using has become too dark. (Can we say “cataracts” anyone?)

So I’m trying this canary yellow theme, hoping it becomes a good compromise. If you see another change soon, it’s probably a sign of glare induced fatigue, or irritation with yellow birds. 

Just another natural variation, they said.

Comments Off on Just another natural variation, they said.

Just another natural variation, they said.

Yep, “natural”. Heat the oceans, heat the air, get more water into the air. It’s only natural that it’s gotta dump somewhere.

Quadrennial Homeland Security Review: Climate Change Poses Strategically Significant Risk

Comments Off on Quadrennial Homeland Security Review: Climate Change Poses Strategically Significant Risk

tweetingdonal:

So, DoD, the IC, Department of State, Department of Energy, and the vast majority of national scientific bodies have taken a position that Climate Change (Global Warming if you prefer) is a source of massive disruption around the world. And here is the Department of Homeland Security addressing it in their Quadrennial Review.

These are not frivolous organizations, they’re committing serious effort into preparing for all of the consequences that will be arriving in the next 10 years. No, it’s not the end of the century any more. Wake up!

Originally posted on The Center for Climate & Security:

Flag_of_the_United_States_Department_of_Homeland_Security.svgThe Quadrennial Homeland Security Review (QHSR) was released by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) on June 18, and it takes a hard look at the security risks of a changing climate.

Most significantly, climate change appears in the QHSR’s section on “Prevailing Challenges that Pose the Most Strategically Significant Risk” on page 28.  In that context, “natural hazards…with increasingly variable consequences due in part to drivers such as climate change and interdependent and aging infrastructure”

View original 686 more words

Briefing and Infographic: Climate Change Implications for Defence

Comments Off on Briefing and Infographic: Climate Change Implications for Defence

tweetingdonal:

The military from around the world is telling us that climate change is a threat multiplier, and they’re taking every action that the political establishment does not block to prepare. How about we put some pressure on the politicos to “encourage” them to help fund these preparations. Perhaps we could explain to the politicians that ignoring climate change is a threat multiplier aimed straight at their political ambitions.

Originally posted on The Center for Climate & Security:

Tarbela_Dam_Pakistan_during_the_2010_floodsA short and accessible briefing and infographic on climate change implications for global security has just been released by the Global Military Advisory Council on Climate Change, the University of Cambridge Institute for Sustainability Leadership, and the Institute for Environmental Security. Authored by Brigadier General (ret) Wendell Christopher King, Ph.D – Dean of US Army Command and General Staff College – it highlights five key ways in which the effects of climate change threaten global security:

View original 85 more words

Katharine Hayhoe: How to Talk to Evangelicals About Climate

Comments Off on Katharine Hayhoe: How to Talk to Evangelicals About Climate

tweetingdonal:

In the world I have lived in, this is called “taking away your excuses”.

Dr. Hayhoe is providing a clear minded, coherent way to think about the field of science, how it interacts with faith and religion, and how this bears on climate science.

If you perceive a conflict in these areas (I do not) then this is a great place to start your journey into a more coherent view of existence.

Seriously, if you have any question at all, read on!

Originally posted on Climate Denial Crock of the Week:

Dr. Katharine Hayhoe, newly minted member “Time’s 100 Most Influential People” club, in an interview with Chris Mooney –  on how to talk to your evangelical friends and relatives about climate.

Full audio of Interview at link.

Chris Mooney in Mother Jones:

From our interview, here are five of Hayhoe’s top arguments, for evangelical Christians, on climate change:

1. Conservation is Conservative. The evangelical community isn’t just a religious community, it’s also a politically conservative one on average. So Hayhoe speaks directly to that value system. “What’s more conservative than conserving our natural resources, making sure we have enough for the future, and not wasting them like we are today?” she asks. “That’s a very conservative value.”

Indeed, many conservatives don’t buy into climate science because they don’t like the “Big Government” solutions they suspect the problem entails. But Hayhoe has an answer ready for that one too: Conservative-friendly…

View original 969 more words

Older Entries

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 3,095 other followers

%d bloggers like this: