What’s Next?

I’m really not buying any talk that ‘The Great Global Warming Swindle’ was still a worth-while project (despite the fact that it lied and misrepresented about both graphics and people) because it was bravely challenging consensus. It’s not hard to challenge consensus, it’s hard to so with evidence and integrity and ‘teach the controversy’ is the argument usually used by people who have neither. It’s the exact same argument that intelligent design proponents use: Sure our evidence (when they actually bother to present any) is quickly debunked but those EVILutionists (replace with climate scientists when appropriate)  are so damn sure of themselves it can’t be right that people only hear what they have to say can it?

In fact, now I think about it, this is the same approach the creator of the Panorama about evil wifi took: ““There is an mainstream accepted view on this and I think it’s a role that Panorama can play to question that mainstream cultural norm.” Apparently there’s a class of people out there who really think there is nothing unjustifiable if they’re doing it whilst sticking it to THE MAN. If I claim that global warming is actually caused by a decline in the number of pirates worldwide, then the fact that no one agrees with me means I’m being repressed! If I make a documentary about it, I’m immune from requirements to check my facts or represent my interviewees honestly because I’m fighting the man! I don’t have time to do things the hard way, you know they’d only make up new ‘facts’ to prove me wrong anyway.

If Channel Four really wanted to produce a documentary on the minority view on climate change, the absolutely least they could have done is pick someone to do it who hadn’t previously got them into trouble for lying and misrepresenting in a documentary. This would, to me at least, seem a REALLY REALLY important thing to do. The fact that they didn’t tells us they didn’t give a damn about accurate science coming out, they just wanted to stir the shit a bit - they contribute to the debate in about the same way that pissing in the well raises the water level.

I’ve just read this article about how members of fringe Muslim groups tend to be over-represented in the media. I don’t doubt there’s truth in that and I can see there’s a good point in there somewhere, but the dressing just makes it hard to find. See, I’d have assumed mainstream Muslims would be angry that it’s the violent extremists that get so much press, turns out I’m wrong! It’s those nasty liberal, progressive Muslims that are spoiling it!

So, I am sick of Tarek Fatah’s tirades, the Communications Director of the fringe organization Muslim Canadian Congress. The fact is that most of his positions are outright unIslamic and unrepresenting of the vast majority of Muslims. For instance, his organization endorsed same-sex marriage, campaigned against Islamic family courts, and pretty much came out on the wrong side of every mainstream Muslim opinion. So, WHY, does any of the media give ANY credibility to this tiny group of fringe nut-cases?

Yes! Those nut-cases! They think that there’s nothing inherently evil about society recognising commitment in homosexual couples and that governments shouldn’t legitimise self-appointed courts passing down judgements that have no basis in actual law. Those guys are so wacky!

Damn you media! You’re portraying Muslims as far more reasonable than they really are! Wait…that doesn’t sound like the media I know and love….

It is 2021, tomorrow is the 20th anniversary of 9/11.
America is under oppression by ultra-liberal extremists which have yielded
governing authority to the United Nations. It is up to an underground
conservative group (known as F.O.I.L.) led by Sean Hannity, G. Gordon Liddy and
Oliver North to thwart Ambassador Usama Bin Laden’s plans to nuke New York
City.

If there’s a better use for WTF?!? I’ve yet to find it.

Linkage