Just when you thought Bill Dembski's little band of denialist sycophants could't sink any lower, check out this little piece of other-worldly ignorance:
"Before spending trillions of dollars trying to control climate change, shouldn’t we get a second opinion on both the science and policy options?"
A second opinion? SECOND? So the thousands of articles in the peer-reviewed literature all count as ONE opinion? There's "fair and balanced" for you: millions of scientists on this side, one crank on the other.
Moron.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
"There's "fair and balanced" for you: millions of scientists on this side, one crank on the other."
Does the same thing apply to /policy/ writers?
(The above comment of mine is based on the fact that the article asked for a second opinion on the science AND policy side, but you only mentioned the science side.)
2nd comment:
Hey wait, these millions of scientists wouldn't all happen to be atmospheric, meteorological, climate (etc) scientists, would they? (As opposed to biologists, particle physicists, etc.)
Oh, maybe you're just speaking in hyperbole, for effect. But in that case, maybe the original article was merely speaking in hyperbole when they asked for a second opinion.
Post a Comment