They claim to champion facts. But when you challenge their facts, they lose their shit.
It's not about facts, then. Because love of facts loves challenges to facts.
Science is not science without challenges to science.
It's like arguing with a religionist who doesn't even understand -- hasn't even read -- their own Bible.
A jihadist perhaps. It looks like a doctrine, discipline, and system of ethics, rooted in a historical tradition. But it's just a vehicle for his narcissism and nihilism.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Watch Myles Allen waffle on @thecoastguy's show about "loading the dice", to try to explain the flooding in Germany and link it to climate change. (Followed by a very decent studio discussion.)
The 'scientific' method is called 'Attribution'.
This method of 'attribution' is discussed here (which you've probably already seen).
It is not science. It adds nothing to our understanding of the climate. It is literally intended only to construct political messages, and for use in climate lawfare.
"Loading the dice" is a terrible analogy because it does nothing to explain the policy failure. Pseudo-scientists like Myles Allen in fact want to fix the dice, to urge even worse policies. The promise that climate change mitigation will produce fewer floods is a lie.
It is the Katrina fallacy, again, which lets idiot hacks like George Monbiot blame the deaths in Germany on journalists he dislikes -- to use them as moral blackmail against criticism. Ideology in motion.
It's easy to see why. @ClarkeMicah (and Spiked for that matter) are the far more able and consistent critics of Western foreign policy and warmongering.
When Hitchens and Spiked have pointed out the flaws and self-serving nature of the putative casus belli, Monbiot calls these critics 'apologists' for dictators' crimes. This has two causes.
1. Monbiot's moral universe is rendered in stark black and white, and nothing between.
2. The stark moral categories that divide Monbiot's moral universe into unimpeachable good and irredeemable evil cause him to be bound by and to trip over his own arguments.
Monbiot is forced to make statements like these because he cannot defend any of his claims in any form of debate.
He's a weak, vain, cowardly and nasty man, whose only talent is passing himself off as a thinker -- a talent he acquired by virtue of the institutions of the British class system.
It is testament to the British public school that it can gift such confidence to such nonentities.
Monbiot simply hates people who disagree.
He is thus forced to escalate his description of their crimes each time he writes about them.
He never develops his understanding of their arguments -- such as actually reading them. Neither does he encourage it in his readers.
It's a demand from a party that is ripping itself apart because its "leadership" cannot decide whether or not there are two sexes, and what the rational basis for the claim is.
Moreover, it's a party that previously decided it needed two leaders: one for boys, one for girls.
Maybe it needs 150 leaders: one for each scientifically, objectively-defined "gender".
That would make its leadership 150 times bigger than its representation in Parliament, which is 0.15% of MPs.