Drawing down more lies
Another day, another insult to journalism. Self-promoting troll summa cum laude of Alabama university economics from Texas, Drew Thornley has written an article at the Heartland Institute exhibiting a textbook case of he-said-she-said reporting.
The structure of the article goes as follows:
I can find no source anywhere on the internet for their figures, though it's easy to find loads to contradict everything mentioned, including many references to the extremely high levels in absolute terms released by US Americans themselves.
While there has been no decline in US carbon emissions until now, so the premise for which the free market dogmatists are attempting to take credit for is false, I will be happy to lay any future decline in US carbon emissions at their door for the coming year. This decline will be the consequence of a recession triggered by a mass criminal mismanagement of the financial system by their deregulated friends.
We can't actually pretend this square-jawed, coiffured, summa cum lauden Texan, Drew Thornley, is any kind of journalist. He probably doesn't know of the existance of documents like the Human Development Report 2007/2008, until Myron Ebell tells him about it after having scanned through every red inked chart and table to find and quote the one case out of thousands of screaming numbers that appear to go his way.
Facts. They're not good for extremists.
Earlier, this same guy wrote that Computer Models Fail to Predict Climate, an article which ignored ten years of climate change denialism on his side, citing an already discredited study (what's an error bound?) co-authored by tobacco cancer denialist S. Fred Singer.
Need we say more?
Included below is a good lecture entitled "The American Denial of Global Warming" (schedule here). Enjoy.
The structure of the article goes as follows:
Introduction: Lie. Lie. Lie. Falsehood. Lie. No references of any kind.The rumour the article was actually trying to spread was: "Carbon Dioxide Emissions Fall in U.S., Rise in Europe", and therefore there is no connection between having policies to reduce greenhouse emissions and letting it all hang out and stink.
"Blah, blah, blah," observed Chris Horner, senior fellow at the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI). "Trash. Garbage. Filth. Junk. Penguin poo."
"Unsourced data. False statistics. Lie. Rubbish. Hogwash," Horner added.
"Dipsy-doodle. Intestinal leakage. Oily vomit. Sour piss," Horner continued. "Bears eat toxic sludge."
Recap on bogus statistics. According to the European Environmental Agency, selected quote. Ignore all other information.
Smear. Lie. Bonejaw.
"Allegation. Religion. Slander," noted Myron Ebell, CEI's director of energy and global warming policy.
"Lie. False consequences," Ebell said. "Dumb-fool. Racoon droppings. Poisoned mind."
CEI Senior Fellow Marlo Lewis agreed. "Junk. Garbage. The usual jackass," said Lewis. "Hogwash."
Lewis continued, "One key lie that should be stressed. Die-off. Extinction of human life."
I can find no source anywhere on the internet for their figures, though it's easy to find loads to contradict everything mentioned, including many references to the extremely high levels in absolute terms released by US Americans themselves.
While there has been no decline in US carbon emissions until now, so the premise for which the free market dogmatists are attempting to take credit for is false, I will be happy to lay any future decline in US carbon emissions at their door for the coming year. This decline will be the consequence of a recession triggered by a mass criminal mismanagement of the financial system by their deregulated friends.
We can't actually pretend this square-jawed, coiffured, summa cum lauden Texan, Drew Thornley, is any kind of journalist. He probably doesn't know of the existance of documents like the Human Development Report 2007/2008, until Myron Ebell tells him about it after having scanned through every red inked chart and table to find and quote the one case out of thousands of screaming numbers that appear to go his way.
Facts. They're not good for extremists.
Earlier, this same guy wrote that Computer Models Fail to Predict Climate, an article which ignored ten years of climate change denialism on his side, citing an already discredited study (what's an error bound?) co-authored by tobacco cancer denialist S. Fred Singer.
Need we say more?
Included below is a good lecture entitled "The American Denial of Global Warming" (schedule here). Enjoy.
posted by goatchurch Perma-link
5 Comments:
You forgot to mention that Drew went to Harvard Law School...isn't that worth a mention?
http://www.texasinsider.org/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=2268
Looks like you should've done some more homework. This is apparently the original, or earlier, version of Mr. Thornley's piece (Check the publication date.). The article doesn't quote anyone. The second article is much different, with all of the quotes you dismiss. For all you know, they were added during editing. Also, the first piece shows sources for stats.
Yes I saw that article, but got fed up with it.
"Not surprisingly, the free market controls carbon dioxide emissions better than an international treaty."
Most people who knew anything about anything would be surprised, owing to the fact that no environmental pollutant in history, be it CFCs, DDT, acid rain, mercury, lead, or nuclear fall-out, has ever been reduced without international treaties and regulation.
And then there is the second paragraph with its unrepresentatively chosen years for comparison in order to capture accidental dips in an upwardly trending graph.
It's in paragraph 7 where he mentions the European Environment Agency, a body which releases shedloads of reports. I don't know which one he got the numbers from (if any), because they don't seem consistent with, say, the "Annual European Community greenhouse gas inventory 1990-2005 and inventory report 2007"
http://reports.eea.europa.eu/technical_report_2007_7/en
The remainder of that piece is pure drivel. His argument can never overcome the logical flaw that if the US economy is naturally going to reduce greenhouse emissions of its own accord, then there should be no objection to signing a treaty that enforces it.
I mean, can you argue against signing a contract agreeing not to set fire to your neighbour's house if you weren't going to do that anyway?
re Harvard Law School: yes it slipped my eye. However, unlike Alabama, we can't tell if they thought he was a C-grade jerk.
"His argument can never overcome the logical flaw that if the US economy is naturally going to reduce greenhouse emissions of its own accord, then there should be no objection to signing a treaty that enforces it."
You're joking, right? Do you have no knowledge of supply/demand? Of competition and free market activity vs. gov't fiat? Mandatory caps will hurt business and, thus, consumers more than innovation and efficiency every time.
Well, I'll put it another way. If it was impossible to drive your car faster than 500mph, you would have no complaint with a law that set the speed limit to 500mph. Similarly, if the US was naturally going to reduce its emissions, then it should have had no problem signing a treaty which limited them. To argue otherwise is clearly illogical, and there is some other factor involved. Such as Thornley's numbers being false.
Anyway, I thought I gave you a list of life-threatening environmental toxins that were only solved by "gov't fiat".
The facts are history. What more can I say if you choose to ignore them?
Though perhaps you could enlighten me as to what competitive free market mechanism and innovation efficiency you have in mind that could have eliminated the dumping of CFCs, given that the ozone hole wasn't going to make any difference to the profitability of business for a number of decades.
You know, at some point your particular economic faith has to be stood up against some actual reality instances, or it just becomes a complete joke, doesn't it?
Post a Comment
<< Home