The Pinata Strikes Back

i-c1c9665d7dd68924c47beade3c7d1e09-pinata.jpg

On the essential Missing Link, Ken Parish links to my post of yesterday:

Tim Lambert ably defends himself on scientific grounds against a concerted attack by anti-science RWDB “heavyweights”.

And explains the scare quotes:

I wrote that extract. Blair and Bolt might be heavyweights in audience size terms, but in intellectual terms neither of them could power a flashlight globe. Or perhaps it’s more wilful stupidity than lack of capacity. Certainly that’s how Harry Clarke explains it on climate change:

The science on climate change is overwhelmingly accepted. Why are the right so vehemently opposed to this science? One reason seems to be simple anti-intellectualism and to desire to appear to be against ‘mainstream thinking’. Another reason is the implication that global action needs to be taken to deal with global warming – this hardly advances the cause of laissez faire.

But this latter reason is illogical. Belief in laissez faire needs to be based on the facts not on blind religious faith and public good/externality reasons for intervening in market economies have been accepted for over 200 years. The climate change issue is an extension of these arguments.

Moreover, accepting these arguments and moving to adopt carbon taxes or transferable carbon quotas does not make you ‘anti-market’ – accounting for climate change costs can be understood as attempting to get markets to work more effectively.

But this wilful RWDB stupidity applies equally to other scientific issues like DDT, passive smoking and the hole in the ozone layer. Any scientific issue whose consequences don’t suit their ideological orientation will inevitably be met with a mix of ridicule and scorn combined with a complete disinterest in engaging with the evidence or the actual scientific issues themselves. Whatever else it might be, it certainly isn’t the behaviour of intellectual heavyweights, hence the scare quotes.

As we know from past experience, whacking Blair with a clue stick produces tasty nuggets of stupid:


Ken’s recent low opinion of me is a direct result of Club Troppo not being linked at my new site. What a sad fellow.

You really have to have a ticket on yourself to think that anyone would care that much about being on your blogroll. In any case, Ken’s low opinion of Blair predates Blair’s deblogrolling of Club Troppo, so if there is a cause and effect relationship here, it goes the other way.

Comments

  1. #1 Marion Delgado
    June 10, 2008

    Holy c__k!

    That poor bastard has been inflicted with JC. I would rather have a hail of bloody frogs dropped by locusts.

    What did he do, show his nakedness to the Ark of the Covenant?

    1. And Pharoah would not listen and Yahweh sent net trolls to plague him. 2. Pharoah and his whole staff lept to their doom, smiling cheerfully. 3. And the people demanded another Flood, but Yahweh’s heart was hardened. 4. And lo, across the land ISPs went fallow.

  2. #2 zoot
    June 11, 2008

    ROFL!

  3. #3 tim blair
    June 11, 2008

    Lambert writes: “Ken’s low opinion of Blair predates Blair’s deblogrolling of Club Troppo, so if there is a cause and effect relationship here, it goes the other way.”

    In fact, the cited Parish outburst occured during a previous Troppo delisting, thereby strengthening my original cause/effect case. Ken is generally friendlier during listed periods.

  4. #4 Vagueofgodalming
    June 11, 2008

    deblogrolling

    The English language was officially pronounced dead this morning, killed by the internet. Nobody turned up, however, as they were too busy grolling debloes.

  5. #5 Tim Lambert
    June 11, 2008

    Tim Blair says:

    >In fact, the cited Parish outburst occured during a previous Troppo delisting, thereby strengthening my original cause/effect case. Ken is generally friendlier during listed periods.

    Ken Parish’s comment was posted 28 Dec 06. The wayback machine shows that on [25 Dec 2006](http://web.archive.org/web/20061225064327/http://www.timblair.net/) and [1 Jan 2007](http://web.archive.org/web/20070101043043/http://timblair.net/) , Club Troppo was on your blog roll. Mind you, *after* Ken posted his comment, you deblogrolled him — by [25 Feb 2007](http://web.archive.org/web/20070225143948/http://timblair.net/) Club Troppo was gone from your blog roll.

  6. #6 QrazyQat
    June 11, 2008

    The English language was officially pronounced dead this morning…

    English changes — it has always changed — that’s always been its strength. Get used to it before you become devolve into a Safire, yelling at kids to get off your lawn.

  7. #7 Left_Wing_Fox
    June 11, 2008

    English changes — it has always changed — that’s always been its strength. Get used to it before you become devolve into a Safire, yelling at kids to get off your lawn.

    I don’t know whether that should get an amen or a w00t!

  8. #8 tim
    June 11, 2008

    Can’t argue with Wayback. Well spotted.

    My apologies to Ken in this case.

  9. #9 Michael
    June 12, 2008

    Damn you and your insistence on objective reality Tim L.!

    How’s a raving RWDB like Tim B. meant to get by?

  10. #10 ffrancis
    June 12, 2008

    Well, I’m relieved you guys deconstructed “deblogrolling”: my first mental image was of debutantes participating in a lumberjack competition…

  11. #11 (((Billy)))
    June 13, 2008

    English changes — it has always changed and that’s what makes Scrabble so much fun! DEBLOGROLLING unfortunately has too many letters to be useful, and I doubt if a referee would accept the word. Oh, well. Back to using DOH!

  12. #12 saurabh
    June 15, 2008

    DEBLOGROLLING could easily be constructed in pieces on a Scrabble board: first BLOG, then add ROLL, then DE, and finally ING. At 13 letters it can probably be made to cross two triple-word scores, though not at once using this method.

The site is undergoing maintenance presently. Commenting has been disabled. Please check back later!