An Inconvenient Ruling for An Inconvenient Truth

[Matt]

Nice post, Midgetwaiter.

This is a PR campaign, not a debate. In a debate, we'd recognize all the logical fallacies being brought to the table, and shred them for points. Wiki link just for fun. There are so many, it would be fun, and you'd score huge! Sadly, there are no points, and the techniques are so familiar from current public discourse in politics and sales that they feel comfortable and true. Stephen Colbert would be proud.

From the FUD (Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt) that IBM perfected, to the say-it-until-it's-true practice of the political propaganda machines, we're well conditioned. In this environment, it is no longer necessary to supress the truth (China should take note). You can simply create earnest talking points and buy the truthiness back.

All scientific theories are eventually disproved anyway, so I guess I'll have to agree that this global warming thing is probably a flash in the pan. Now, if you'll all excuse me, I'm going to ignore gravity for a while and have a nice float around.