cite as: F. Bi. 2009. I hereby propose the William Happer Award for Best Mixed Analogies. Intl. J. Inact., 2:53–54
The Cato Institute’s Orgone Petition, which claims to ‘correct’ US President Obama on the facts of global warming, continues to provide comic relief.
On Wednesday, Cato’s Jerry Taylor wrote a reply to New York Times, Climate Progress, RealClimate, etc. complaining about how “climate alarmists” aren’t judging the petition according to the “merit” of its argument, but are instead assigning “motives” to “the arguer” and counting votes among scientists. Well, for one thing, Taylor, there’s the salient question:
If the petition is only about its scientific arguments, then why does it need 100+ signatories — won’t one person be enough?
Then again, as any right-thinking right-winger will know, this question is merely a ‘distraction’ from more serious issues! Namely, the metaphors that Taylor uses (underlines mine):
My chosen hunting grounds were RealClimate […], Climate Progress (edited by physicist and policy bombardier Joe Romm) […], and the relevant blogs and comment boards […] over at the New York Times, […]
[…] I came away more convinced than ever that those shouting the loudest about the need to do something about climate change are not the people we should be listening to. […]
[…] Judging an argument’s merit by these criteria reveals one of three things about the person doing the judging, none of which inspires confidence in their ability to play role of plaintiff, judge, jury, and/or executioner in the climate debate: […]
So, proponents of climate regulation are
- a party in a kangaroo court
- which acts like a rude shouting mob
- whose shouting is like bombs dropped from a bomber plane
- which in turn are like game to be hunted down. Quail, maybe. Fascist quail.