Huff Po continues with fallacious characterizations and misleading statements.

Perusing the news this morning, I came across a fallacy laden piece in Huff-n-Puff  about the BEST project.  You can read it here.  It was wrote by an uninformed person by the name of Kelly Rigg.  I’d encourage you to read it, but I seem to be having trouble posting replies in the comment section, so…… well, we know the drill, just fair warning.  It was quite a drive by.  One of the many errors of the piece, to outlandish to ignore.

So the BEST study, funded by the climate denial industry, was undoubtedly meant to corroborate Watt’s fundamental tenant.

• The research was led by a prominent climate skeptic with funding by denial bankroller Charles Koch. It was given the seal of approval by Watts and other skeptics. Watts: “I’m prepared to accept whatever result they produce, even if it proves my premise wrong.” Fred Singer, another long-term denier said: “I applaud and support what is being done by the Project — a very difficult but important undertaking.”

So, now, the loony left is trying to portray Muller as a skeptic.  He’s not.  But, directly to the question of funding……. go here.  First, the source that gave the most to BEST was our DOE.  Secondly, another prominent donor, The Ann & Gordon Getty Foundation ($50,000), had been even a larger donor to the WWF and EDF, $695,000 and $111,500 respectively.  Notably, Mz. Rigg has been told in the comment section and she’s acknowledged it.  She even stated she’d ask the editors to fix it…….. several hours ago.  Most of us remember when this project was announced.  This was never considered a skeptical vehicle.

There are of course other glaring fallacies and misleading statements.  Not the least is that it took dear Mz. Rigg a full 5 paragraphs to bother mentioning that none of the assertions of BEST are peer-reviewed, but then goes on to blather about how it confirmed something.

She continues by stating that it “annihilates” the climate-gate accusations.  Her logic is that now, the accusations aren’t relevant.  She seems to think the e-mails were only about “scientists” hiding discrepancies.  I pointed out that it goes to their objectivity, but that comment seems to have gone missing…….. strange that.

Something else strange, she seems to support our employees working in secrecy with the IPCC.  I wonder why?  Hilariously, she states,

“Having draft versions in the public domain would simply create confusion.  It would be like conducting climate science as if it were a reality TV show, with every spat judged in the court of public opinion, although in this case the public is far less qualified to pass judgement than on whether Britney should be voted out of the house.”

She seems to be forgetting, that she’s doing exactly that when we know its entirely likely that one or all of the BEST papers will be re-wrote during the review process.

Where do we find these people and their gob-smacking hypocrisy?

P.S.  Some of you may note this piece also did a pretty good drive by on Anthony.  I didn’t address any of that because I assume Anthony will want to do so on his own in his own time.

Update!  Huff Po takes their maintenance serious.  For the last several hours, I’ve seen this …….”Comments are temporarily disabled as we perform routine system maintenance. We’re working through some system issues, comments will be enabled again shortly.”

This entry was posted in Climate. Bookmark the permalink.

1 Response to Huff Po continues with fallacious characterizations and misleading statements.

  1. Pingback: Huff Po Embracing Alarmist Blog M.O. | suyts space

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s