(0810)… plus last day of my birthday fortnight. (0918)
4. Isilme’s birth fortnight card pour moi
3. A climate report
There are, imho, quite a few problems with this article in TDS:
… and the first is summed up in an old quote from the OUP:
”We believe a scientist because he can substantate his remarks, not because he is elegant and forcible in his enunciation. In fact we distrust him when he seems to be influencing us by his manner.”
-I.A.Richards, Science and Poetry, 1926, in the Oxford Quick Reference Quotations, Ed. Susan Ratcliffe, OUP, 1999.
The problems then continue in the linked article where the author, Chris Morrison, writes:
“Needless to say, there has been no mention of these finding(s) in narrative-driven mainstream media. In fact one Nature pre-publication peer-reviewer commented on the clear danger the paper presented to this important climate scares promoting the Net Zero fantasy. “I see this paper as potentially being used by deniers of climate change impacts,” the reviewer notes. “Consider if possible some rephrasing to put even more emphasis on impact rather than on burned area,” is the suggestion. In other words, concentrate on the emotional impact of individual fires, allowing legacy media, aided by junk computer modelled attribution studies, to concentrate on speculation and fearmongering rather than the facts. Another clear example of what might be termed Ultra Processed News, designed to make the individual consumer sick with worry and induce mass climate psychosis.”
The problem with that piece of prose, aside from being unclear on the goodies and baddies unless Chris defines which are which … is that he himself opened with similar:
“Sensational Findings Published in Nature Blow Politicised Wildfire Climate Scam Out of the Water”
He redeems himself to a point, quoting Anthony Watts, but the Milliband “fanatics” are simply going to trot out their own “scientists” …. hundreds of them … in less fanatical language, projecting “junk” stats as Chris writes and thus the classic adversarial camps scenario is set up, where only one side’s “stats” are used and no mention is made of false meteorological station readings, for example, which were widely reported in soc-med in the past two years.
On a different topic but the methodology by the “Demonrats” v ICE is similar … there’s always straight projection onto the whistleblowing side by the called-out side, as Vox Day mentioned long ago … to the extent that the key Deep State miscreants actually call themselves The Resistance … really? Resistance to what, pray tell? To “far-right, racist disinformation crims” (us), whilst the Deep State apparatchiks occupy the “middle ground” through the MSM, “defending our Democracy”?
An example of this use of the calling-out side’s, the whistleblowing side’s, own vocab store of expressions and projecting it back, was in a Gladstone quote in the OUP book quoted near the top:
”I absorb the vapour and return it as a flood.”
-W.A.Gladstone, on public speaking, in Lord Riddell, Some Things that Matter (1927 Ed.)
The methodology we prefer … but it takes huge wallops of ethics, a lack of fear of what we’ll find, plus a willingness to concede some points but then cite others counter to that … is to see the snippets of data and opinion all laid out on a large table after a brainstorming session by those of all persuasions … with varying theories of interpretation also laid out on said table …
… but I fear that that model is a product of wishful thinking … how long in that room before the headbutting starts between the orators of the two camps? Always two, note, on any given bone of contention, as if it must be, by definition, a zero sum argument, one side “demolishing” the other as Badenough and the Llama-Harmer imagine they do at PMQs, to the headshaking of Reform.
