The underlying attitude exhibited by Morano is that anything that bolsters his side is treated like gospel, like a revelation direct from God, not something that needs to be critically examined. At the same time, anything that bolsters the other side is inherently suspect, not just by the normal standards that require careful checking of any claim, but in terms of a pre-determined double standard which sees them as inherently dishonest and up to no good.This argument seems so familiar..... also:
Indeed, Morano goes on to quote a scientist working at the American Enterprise Institute who talks about overturning the "political pretext for the energy-restriction policies." The mechanism of projection at work here is easily spotted: those who politicize absolutely everything accuse anyone who stands in their way of polititicizing absolutely everything.Wow, if you didn't know what side of the argument was being presented here, you could easily mistake this for an anti-global warming polemic.
And further still:
Yea, i couldn't agree more, however, lets not forget to apply this equally to both sides. Those sceptical of global warming have been saying exactly this sort of thing for years. I guess it matters more if its used against you then in the abstract. In my opinion, the "science" of global warming is more like politics then real science.If there were a serious debate about global warming, anyone using such transparently dishonest arguments would be summarily dismissed. In a serious debate, people are penalized for making bad arguments—it reflects poorly on their overall judgement, not to mention their honesty and integrity. But there is no serious debate about global warming. There is simply an effort to obfuscate and confuse. Which means throwing anything that sounds bad or distracts into the mix.
Which is why long lists of items that don’t stand up to scrutiny are such an appealing ruse.
