Staff Contributors
Guest Contributors

Explain climate change to Little Stevie

A call for suckers

Posted by David Roberts at 11:19 AM on 13 Aug 2007

little stevie milloyLittle Stevie Milloy's outfit is offering $100,000 to the person who can "prove, in a scientific manner, that humans are causing harmful global warming." Fine print: This exciting opportunity will cost you $15. Think of it as a sweepstakes, only with Ed McMahon peer-reviewing articles on particle physics, and nobody winning.

Now, the phrase "prove in a scientific manner" should tip you off that a childhood of eating paste has left Little Stevie fighting this war with a pea shooter. Epistemological category mistakes aside, however, he's a clever scamp. For years he's bamboozled Exxon out of money with the promise that he'll cast his body on the rails of science. Now he wants our money too.

It takes a special kind grifter to make money on both ends, Stevie! You should have thought of this back in your cigarette days. You could have charged lung cancer patients $15 for the opportunity to prove that the product you shilled was killing them. Live and learn, right?

I'm going to start a contest of my own. Send me $15 and your refutation of AGW theory. If you succeed in "proving" the world's scientists wrong, I'll personally send you a unicorn that pees champagne and poops $100 bills.

I bet I'll make a lot more money than Little Stevie. After all, it's an intelligence test.

Please take my candy...

... if you can!

Pass



In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Poison Darts--Protecting the biodiversity of our world
Ban the word "Prove"

...unless you're a mathematician.

Here's the deal. No blogger, big media journalist, person in the street talking about environmental issues, author - anyone who doesn't want these demonic denial morons to get the upper hand for even a second - should abstain from using the words "prove", "proven", "proof" and any of their derivatives until the climate crisis is over.

For the layperson, there is no such thing as scientific proof - everything is a hypothesis and then possibly a theory, until it has been updated / ruled out.

But, along the lines David has written, you may ask someone to "disprove" something, but only if they've asked you to "prove" it first ;-)

Keith Farnish
www.theearthblog.org

Keith Farnish www.theearthblog.org

You are not logged in. Thus, you cannot post a comment. If you have an account, log in. If you don't have an account, well, by all means go make one! Meet you back here in five.
sign in
Search Gristmill
Subscribe
  • subscribe via RSSStay updated with the Gristmill RSS feed.
  • Add to My Yahoo!
  • Subscribe with Bloglines
  • Subscribe in NewsGator Online
  • Subscribe in Netvibes
  • Subscribe in Google
Using Gristmill
  • What is Gristmill?
  • Posting rules
The comments of Gristmill users reflect the opinions of those individuals only, and do not necessarily reflect the viewpoints of Grist, its staff, its board members, their psychotherapists, or their aestheticians. Got it?

Gristmill is powered by Scoop.

ADVERTISING POLICY


About Grist | Support Grist | Job Board | Archives | Grist by Email | RSS | Podcast
Gristmill Blog | In the News | Ask Umbra | Muckraker | Victual Reality | 'Tis the Season | The Grist List | The Bottom Line



Grist: Environmental News and Commentary
a beacon in the smog (tm) ©2008. Grist Magazine, Inc. All rights reserved. Gloom and doom with a sense of humor®.
Webmaster | Sitemap | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Trademarks