[LINK] The GGWS
rick at praxis.com.au
Fri Jul 13 10:11:14 EST 2007
Richard Chirgwin wrote:
> After that, my old "twelve errors of logic" copied from a 1940s edition
> of the Cadillac encyclopedia kicked in...
Exactly. Many of Durkin's arguments were fallacious.
(*) "What evidence do we have ... " ... begs the question. The evidence
is often available, but Durkin simply ignores it. Instead, he diverts
the viewer's attention with daunting images of weather gone wrong
and catchy tunes.
(*) "This is just plain idiocy ..." i.e. heaps of ad hominem attacks
(*) "CO2 levels trail recorded temperature rises. Therefore CO2 cannot
cause temperature rise." Huh?
Beyond fallacy (error in argument), many other arguments were based on
falsehoods, as demonstrated during the debate that followed the show.
As previously expressed bu other Linkers, I think it behooves the ABC
to screen shows like this. I found it a bit extraordinary for Tony Jones
to loudly disclaim that the ABC does not support the views expressed in
GGWS. Why doesn't the ABC offer similar disclaimers for other opinionated
programs that it screens? Should the ABC be supporting particular
views in any instance? Isn't it there simply to broadcast?
Rick Welykochy || Praxis Services
The biggest cause of trouble in the world today is that the stupid people
are so sure about things and the intelligent folks are so full of doubts.
-- Bertrand Russell
More information about the Link