Rex Murphy used his column in Friday's Globe & Mail to take a few swipes at those who criticize 'global warming deniers.'
Murphy claims 'denier' is a loaded word, as in Holocaust deniers, and then goes on to ask, "How did we get from climate modelling to the Holocaust?" Easy Rex, you fabricated that link. They're only linked in your mind pal.
He mocks two US senators for writing to Exxon requesting that it halt funding to the global warming denial industry. Murphy is obviously ignorant of the fact that the Royal Society, Britain's most prestigious scientific body, wrote to Exxon months ago demanding the very same thing. That's the Royal Society, Rex.
Murphy is at his very best, however, when he implies that "the science isn't in." This, "...is surely the moment for the most diligent and neutral assessment of all the science, and the policy projections flowing from that science."
Maybe Rex has some idea of how the national science academies of every Western nation have come to the unanimous acceptance of the fact of man-made global warming? Maybe he thinks they used a Ouija board.
Murphy's ignorance is astonishing. At least, however, he offers the 'climate police' the sop of "Slam Exxon all you want...". Why Rex? If you can stop your drooling long enough to go to Exxon's web site you'll find that even Exxon now accepts the fact of man-made global warming. Even Exxon gets it Rex.
'Rex', hmm, wasn't there another dinosaur by that name?
7 comments:
For a Rhodes Scholar to resort to such sophistry as Murphy has leaves me thoroughly unimpressed. There's certainly nothing scholarly about this ridiculous column and he has no business casting aspersions as he has. No, he dishes it out as only he can by getting his facts flat out wrong. If you're impressed with this example of journalism, good for you.
Listen twits. I just completed an extensive research paper on the "myth" of global warming. Stop going to the silly sights that make you feel better when you rev up your Ford Excursion, or watch the ice flow melt. It is serious and it is real and the majority of world scientific communities (including fiscally responsible Lloyd's of London no that that means anything). Read the IPCC report..Or not. You got yours I'm sure..why sully your minds with thinking about land in Bangladesh that is being washed away? And Rex is an idiot.
Thanks Iowa. Your point about the insurance industry is well taken. I did a post on that issue a few days back and another on Exxon's change of heart. As for the insanity jibe, unlike Rex Murphy, I can tell the difference between reality and fantasy on this one.
Do you have a source for the issue with insurance. I read recently that the Eastern Seaboard of the US was effectively uninsurable. However, I have been unable to find a reputable source. Any insight.
On topic, Rex hads been shockingly poor of late. I generally find him to be pretty fair, but over that last 3 months or so, he has been absurd. He refuses to accept that the established truths or not really truths. His diatribe about 9/11 'conspiracy' was absolutely contemptible.
Hi Ed: The Washington Post did a feature story on the insurance industry and global warming on Saturday, 2 December. I posted excerpts for it on this page at the time "The Indisputable Arbiters of Global Warming"
Thanks Mr. Mound ;)
I went back an re-read Murphy's essay. It is shockingly bad.
He says:
"Global warming deniers. Deniers is the loaded term. How did we get from climate modelling to the Holocaust?"
And later:
"Extreme rhetoric is the front line in the defence of frail logic."
He seems to be attacking himself.
Also he claims:
" I also know there is no science of the future"
I don't know where he learned his science. But I learned that science is all about predicting the future. Did Newton not predict that an apple, when dropped, will fall?
Rex, get your shit together, this was a low point for you.
Post a Comment