Duh! of the Day

Why I do not trust the AAAS (American Association for the Advancement of Science) in general and Psychologists in particular:

This is a surprising release and an unexpected claim, because the study itself shows that the genetic test did not predict alcoholism at all; the researchers demonstrated that the predictive ability of their test was not better than tossing a coin.

And we are to trust the opinion of these fools when it comes to important stuff?

Attack the Questioner

A recent post by Paul Farrell over at Market Watch is a prime example of a favorite tactic of those who cannot stand to be questioned because they are wiser than you.

Mr. Farrel wants to – no, he needs to – believe in GW so desperately, that he resorts to mocking and attacking those who dare disagree with his known truth.  Rather than discuss actual data (which he cannot), he attacks people who question AGW as tools of “Big Oil, the GOP, and God”.

Nevermind that he claims to have advanced degrees according to his LinkedIn Profile, he seems to have a longish gap in his “Experience”from 1957 to 1973.  It appears he must have fallen asleep in his classes on logic and rhetoric; he seems very adept of taking a torch to the strawman he has created.

First, he ignores one of the basic tenets of good science – that scientists need to be skeptical, when he states:

Recently Florida Sen. Marco Rubio joined the deniers: “I think all science deserves skepticism.” And in a recent debate all four candidates in the GOP primary for North Carolina governor denied climate change was manmade, agreeing with the current governor, a former long-term Duke Power executive.

Note that Mr. Farrell does not even bother to question the need for skepticism; he attacks using guilt by association.  It appears that, according to Farrell, a person who was an energy comapny executive cannot be trusted but some third-rate columnist who has no formal training in science knows more.  Superior much?

Next, I offer the following qote from the above linked bilge that passes as an article:

Yes, their party position is clear, mapped out by Oklahoma Sen. James Inhofe in “The Greatest Hoax: How the Global Warming Conspiracy Threatens Your Future.” But in an effort to question Inhofe’s motivation, his ClimateProgress.org reviewer noted that over the years Inhofe has received “$1,352,523 in campaign contributions from the oil and gas industry, including $90,950 from Koch Industries.”

Note that Mr. Farrell has not stated over what period of time all of those contributions were made.  For sure, if all of those contributions came over the past two years, that would sound like a lot.  But Sen. Inhofe was first elected tot he Senate in 1994 – 20 years ago, so the $1.3 million averages out to $65,000 per year.  And let’s not forget Oklahoma has many oil and gas companies, and that Inhofe plays an important role in helping to set the nation’s energy policies.

Then there’s the swipe at the left’s favorite boogyman – the Koch Brothers.  Again, no time frame is given for the donations, only that the magic words “Koch Brothers” and you know exactly what I am saying, nudge nudge, wink wink.  A hollow conspiracy theory with absolutely no facts – this is left for the readers to infer.

And we’re supposed to believe these hacks?