Comments on: The Bias and Logical Fallacies of Christopher Booker’s ‘Freezing Heat’

By: Galen Staum

Galen Staum — Tue, 10 Aug 2010 23:07:32 +0000

I can see now it’s flaming adequate for me to comments many with the amazing photographs

By: Paul McGlade

Paul McGlade — Mon, 07 Dec 2009 19:18:33 +0000

A lot of the articles and books by journalists and politicians opposing the theory of MMGW make great play of the “selfishness factor”, whereby you should assume that scientists are sufficiently motivated by pride, career and money that their prognostications are not trustworthy.

That may well be true. However, as the case is equally true of the journalists and policitians laying out the counter-arguments, we have an impasse.

This is doubly so if you assume that the people to whom it has occurred that their enemies may be corrupt do so on the basis that it’s what they would do if the situations were reversed.

By: Paul

Paul — Wed, 15 Apr 2009 21:47:45 +0000

Dr Phillip Bratby is quite active across the internet and seems to neglect telling people (this site is an exception) that he worked in the nuclear energy industry when he rants against the building of wind turbines.

For instance when ranting to the House of Lords Economic Affairs Committee, he neglects to state that he worked in the nuclear energy industry, or that he still does consultancy ‘energy’ work:

http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/ld200708/ldselect/ldeconaf/195/195we07.htm

The memo to the House of Lords contains classic drivel churned out by all climate change deniers. Snippets of cherry picked information that allegedly proves climate change isn’t real.
In fact Dr Bratby seems to forget his own apparent scientific background and scientific procedures when he writes about wind turbines or climate change.
Instead of putting forward a consistent and logical theory of why climate change is not happening.
In his memo to the Economic Affairs Committee, he instead uses magazine articles and quotes from various non-scientific sources.

By: Emily

Emily — Thu, 09 Apr 2009 00:03:08 +0000

This advice is really going to help, thanks.

By: SAMIZDAT

SAMIZDAT — Sun, 08 Feb 2009 12:03:58 +0000

That’s not what a straw man argument is… A straw man argument is where the arguer constructs a weaker (‘straw’) version of the opposition’s argument, then knocks it down like a straw man, which presents little resistance. I.e, arguing against something that isn’t what the other party actually said. You’ve essentially used the ad hominem twice (or the ad populum?).

By: Evan Wiggs

Evan Wiggs — Tue, 27 Jan 2009 06:33:12 +0000

You pointed out Mr. Brooks logical fallacies very well, but failed to point out if Mr. Brooks was wrong in his facts. You used the same fallacies in your analysis when you failed to check this out. Just pointing out that he was illogical doesn’t mean he was wrong on his issues and facts. I for one do believe that many of his facts and issues Mr. Brooks points out are right, he just didn’t do it very well.

By: Rupert Wyndham

Rupert Wyndham — Sun, 18 Jan 2009 10:23:00 +0000

Gavin Hudson’s polemic serves rather nicely to illustrate a Machiavellian precept, namely that if you want to unsettle an opponent (unlikely in the case of Booker), then a weapon of choice is to charge him with the very vices of which you are yourself most guilty.

By: RobMcn

RobMcn — Wed, 31 Dec 2008 14:32:45 +0000

I’m a little surprised at this article considering the title of it. You may not like Booker’s style, or his argument logic, but you haven’t used science to contest the main thrust of his article. Do you simply disagree with his written style, or are you preparing another article to contest his actual stance on “warming”?

By: Mark Winn

Mark Winn — Sun, 28 Dec 2008 15:53:02 +0000

If you are trying to discount Mr Booker you had better make a better job of it than this article. Your response makes me even more sceptical on Global warming becaue you don’t use any arguements to discount Mr Booker just personal attacks against him.

By: Daniel

Daniel — Tue, 23 Dec 2008 11:28:20 +0000

I fully agree with Christopher Booker. Why is it that whenever someone, be it a bona fide scientist or journalist, disputes your Junk Science they are discredited and vilified? Accept the fact that the argument that CO2 causes global warming is lost. I do hope that you have spotted the 32 factual distortions in the dvd titled An Inconvenient Truth.