4 Responses to “‘Tis the Season for Top Ten (Hypocrite) Lists …”

1. 1 scruss Dec 9th, 2007 at 5:37 pm

   You actually believe/reprint things from junkscience and Fox News … ?

2. 2 Kit Stolz Dec 9th, 2007 at 9:13 pm

   Do you trust Philip Morris and Exxon? Then you should trust Stephen Milloy, the Junk Science hack, to tell you who is a hypocrite. After all, he works for them — and FOX News.

   http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Steven_J._Milloy

   In the future, I hope you’ll consider the source before you deride those concerned about the health of the planet — unlike Milloy, who appears concerned only about the weight of his wallet.

3. 3 The Oversneer Dec 9th, 2007 at 9:40 pm

   Hey — I thought it was a cute list. Didn’t know about Milloy’s backers. But if his information is good (and it looks okay to me), does it really matter who keeps his electricity turned on?

   Regardless, I won’t be quoting from JunkScience.com any more. It sounds like it’s more trouble than it’s worth.

4. 4 bee Dec 15th, 2007 at 2:42 pm

   As a student of hypocrisy, you might also be interested in the contest being advertised on junkscience.com, which solicits entries to “prove, in a scientific manner, that humans are causing harmful global warming.” Any science student can tell you that scientists don’t “prove” hypotheses, they either support them or fail to support them (as in, dropping a plate on the floor doesn’t prove that gravity exists, it only supports the theory that gravity exists; no one piece of evidence or research can definitively proove anything). So, as described, the $150,000 prize is technically unwinnable, since no one piece of research can “prove” that global warming isn’t caused by humans (which, by the way, doesn’t mean it’s not).

   Is this just semantics? Well, yes and no…on the one hand, scientists often use the word “prove” in casual conversation because it’s a more conventional way to speak, even though they realize it’s not precise. On the other hand, this Milloy fellow claims to be fighting the good fight against bad science, and yet he himself can’t even be bothered to use the appropriately precise terminology in a formal solicitation for scientific evidence.

   Either that, or he deliberately chose the wording so that the contest would be unwinnable. Which in my mind goes beyond mere hypocrisy and into outright fraudulence, given the $15 entry fee for this so-called “contest.” Hmmm.

Opinions expressed in these comments are those of the commenters, and probably don't represent the views of your humble Deceiver bloggers. If your comment doesn't appear right away, please be patient. We "moderate" comments to sift out spam, obscenities, and harassment.

All (civil) opinions are welcome. And if you can't be civil, at least be entertaining!