Joshua Rosenau spends his days defending the teaching of evolution at 
Doop-de-doo, killin' time between sessions by checking the RSS feeds, and what do I find but Billy Dembski, the Heisenberg of cats, mouthing off on global warming. "So much for the 'scientific consensus' regarding man-made global warming," the boy adventurer expounds. "As I recall, there’s another consensus in science…something in biology about how we got here…"
He then links to the study discussed here. The paper about which Dembski gets all worked up is prefaced by this warning:
The following article has not undergone any scientific peer review. Its conclusions are in disagreement with the overwhelming opinion of the world scientific community. The Council of the American Physical Society disagrees with this article’s conclusions.And as Gavin points out, the paper's author "is a British upper-class loony who, when not financing and publishing phony scientific papers, falsely claims to be a member of Parliament."
I worry though, that merely dismissing Dembski's blind acceptance of a credulous report on a site funded by polluting industries to disseminate misinformation about their dangerous product would miss something important. One might assume that, like Jonah Goldberg, the Isaac Newton of Information theory was simply taken in by a bogus news story. But what if Dembski actually thinks that the word of an upper-class twit with delusions of grandeur is all that's necessary to overrule established scientific consensus?
If so, all Dembski's work would make sense! What would an upper-class twit with no class do but add farting noises to a crude animation of a federal judge who ruled against the twit's preferred position (after the twit had run scared from the chance to testify in said judge's courtroom)? What would he do but brag (two weeks before running scared as described above) about the imminent prospect of squeezing his enemies for the truth just like the Darwin puppet he crushed with a vice?
Politics
Comments
What do you expect from a guy who thinks there's a huge body of peer-reviewed research supporting intelligent design? Crank magnetism at its finest; reading comprehension, not so much.
Posted by: James F | July 19, 2008 2:30 PM
Here's what is wrong with Monckton's paper.
Posted by: Tim Lambert | July 19, 2008 3:31 PM