Mangled Thoughts

Posted by D
Australian Bolshevik Corpororation rarely misses an opportunity to push communard causes, as Uncle of ABC Watch recently mused over ABC’s `Earth Beat’ and Angela de Blas repetition of the calumnies heaped upon Lomborg. Lomborg’s real crime is, perhaps, he defected from communisto movements like the greenies, on the strenght of science.It is the other way around, `environmental science’ , as not only the oxymoron implies but also that vulgar meaningless drivel `environmental’ , is real charlatanism, and the only explanation for the proliferation of that tripe is Big Booby Governments.Some reasons are hinted well enough below, coercive governments picking up things which provide an excuse for increasing coercive power , via agencies bestowed police state like powers. In this case, EPA and related bodies which, in the U.S.A. includes such viscious outfits as ESA.Environmentalism and `environmental science’ is boon only for those pol potians the greenies, bureaucrats, and politicians bent on increasing the coercive powers of governments. It is destructive of science and more besides. Let’s chew the cud.

When ABC pushes a communards’ causes , the proverbial flies back and clings all over its silly mug. On Lomborg, they’ve manged to cover themselves in shit again. Missing from the Lomborg bashing effort are inconvenient facts. A few telling ones are summed up by Professor (em; molecular genetics) Arthur Rorsch in his review of of the Dutch version of the Spanish Inquisition or, fairer, just a good old fashioned witch sniffing trial of Lomborg, DCSD.

Rorsch relates, of the complaint lodged with the DCSD, 27 allegations can be inferred. Three quarters of them are unambiguously false. Only two allegations contain just a shred only of substance. Rorsch concludes, `it is difficult to imagine that DCSD had itself investigated the allegations on a scientific basis’, and, DCSD had made itself an instrument of Lomborg’s opponents in accepting the complaint.

The judgement rests on the DCSD’s conclusions: Lomborg had deviated from good scientific practice; Lomborg had failed to convince his opponents. In view of the comments on the allegations, the first charge is utter tripe. The second supposes a demand which is nonsense in science: Lomborg somehow,carried a special burden of proof and, from what one can infer, required some sort of special proofs other than science.Rorsch’s comments are courteous, but in view of what transpired, yes , DCSD verges on a witch hunter’s court.As Rorsch points out , bad science is sooner or later found out and these days, because of modern communications, rather sooner than even in the past.Why is there a need for a central government coercive body to dictate what is a good scientific paper or not ,one might well ask?

In other words, the complaint against Lomborg doesn’t devolve on the arguments from science on which Lomborg based his claims.It devolves on, the claims of greenies and environmentalists are false and no less, because science contradicts the claims, the evidence does not depart. Lomborg’s felony, he departed from a litany of firmly held dogmas to which `environemental scientists’ bend science in support. This, begs the question of, in view of the allegations from the complaint raised against Lomborg, is it `environmental scientists’ who bend science, misrepesent data, and so forth in favour of dogmas which do not sit happily at all with science.

Things degenerate furhter for ABC and others doing their best to blacken Lomborg’s name downunder in Oz.The complaint and the DCSD trial of Lomborg, it seems, devolves on an 11 page article, dedicated to the rebuttal of Lomborg’s claims in his, “The Skeptical Environmentalist : measuring the real state of the world”; published by , Science America, January 2002.The journal offered Lomborg one page to rebut the criticism.Instead,sensibly, Lomborg copied the article and published a point for point treatment on his internet site.He, promptly removed his rejoinder when the journal threatened copyright action.Lomborg, however, stood on terrae firma as another site shows out, carrying Lomborg’s reply in pdf format.

The substance of the journal’s column is indicated by the title: Science defends itself against The Skeptical Environmentalist. As Lomborg’s commentary states: `This staement is potentially the most surprising of all- that the following critique should be science defending itslef against my book.In a sense this encapsualtes the bias of the folowing critiques. My book clealry makes a claim to science and to be factually based.I openly state the facts and my sources, and thus anybody is free to point out where these are faulty or incorrect and of course , such errors will then be posted on my website.Thus, there is no need to defend science from my book… ( This) headline would make more sense : Alarmist environmentalism defends itself against the Skeptical Environmentalist.’

The baseless allegations inferred from the DCSD complaint are resonatingly consitstent with the baseless criticisms of Lomborg’s claims published by the journal.

It is not Lomborg who has set out to decieve the publy by misrepresenting science.Quite a sutained effort has been expended on misrepresenting Lomborg, an effort now enjoined by ABC and its `Earth Beat’. How sloppy can ABC be, its Planet Slayer website, crude in format , plumbs the miserable depths of green quackery and their pol potian communism.

In contrast, if any charlatanism is being promoted, its name is `environmental science’. Not only the oxymoron but the vulgar nonsencial `environmental’ points up, it is not science.To those objecting, please supply a definition for, otherwise, the accounts of the quackey are only descriptions. The following is a reliable summary of Univerisities information on their courses in `environmental science’:

Environmental science is a multi-disciplinary , non-anthropocentric science,unified in the non-human centred discipline of ecology. It invloves the study of issues of anthropogenic degradation of the environment requiring the formulation of public policy in order to :regulate the anthropogenic impact of humans upon the environment and the causes of such impacts; to direct effort into sustainable investment, while making persons aware what they can do to help protect the environment.These aims require: learning mangerial sciences in order to manage public issues and policies, with, as a requisite, politics to understand what guides mangement requirements and understand public dialogue and issues, and policies. It is expected graduates will contribute in formulating public policies in order to gain experience in the effort and need to regulate anthropogecens, and so how to implement them in order to protect the environment and achieve asustainable future for society.

Those descriptions can only please only those bent on increasing the coercive powers of central governments, along with economic planning control.They are descriptions which could be written for departments of government set up to just do that , matched with coercive powers bestowed upon it by parlaiments. And agencies which have immediate bearing are, EPA and, for the US,ESA.Slang jargon, `managerialise’, the rubbish of bureacrats charged with ruling and dictating over peoples lives. Science,just as the description relates,in so far as science is drawn upon which can be exploited to support the mumbo jumbo which is the core of `environmental science’. Moreover, the quackery thinly disguises some of the greenies aims,; to be inferred is the rubbish which is the `precautionary principle; and as for anthropogecens, the inference is clear enough, open free markets, capital, and a comlemenatary rule of(commonlaw);in favour of rule by dictat translated via the administrative apparatus of bureaucracy, and the subjugation of the individual.

Environmental science, on charges, is unified not by science, but dogmas which favour totalitarian goververnment.It is the stuff of the central planner who rules by decree.Environmental science is a manadrin’- indoctrination into a psuedo-rational religion which only, in the end buttresses Big Booby Governemnts, who succeed in mangling so many good things.