DEVTOME.COM HOSTING COSTS HAVE BEGUN TO EXCEED 115$ MONTHLY. THE ADMINISTRATION IS NO LONGER ABLE TO HANDLE THE COST WITHOUT ASSISTANCE DUE TO THE RISING COST. THIS HAS BEEN OCCURRING FOR ALMOST A YEAR, BUT WE HAVE BEEN HANDLING IT FROM OUR OWN POCKETS. HOWEVER, WITH LITERALLY NO DONATIONS FOR THE PAST 2+ YEARS IT HAS DEPLETED THE BUDGET IN SHORT ORDER WITH THE INCREASE IN ACTIVITY ON THE SITE IN THE PAST 6 MONTHS. OUR CPU USAGE HAS BECOME TOO HIGH TO REMAIN ON A REASONABLE COSTING PLAN THAT WE COULD MAINTAIN. IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO SUPPORT THE DEVTOME PROJECT AND KEEP THE SITE UP/ALIVE PLEASE DONATE (EVEN IF ITS A SATOSHI) TO OUR DEVCOIN 1M4PCuMXvpWX6LHPkBEf3LJ2z1boZv4EQa OR OUR BTC WALLET 16eqEcqfw4zHUh2znvMcmRzGVwCn7CJLxR TO ALLOW US TO AFFORD THE HOSTING.

THE DEVCOIN AND DEVTOME PROJECTS ARE BOTH VERY IMPORTANT TO THE COMMUNITY. PLEASE CONTRIBUTE TO ITS FURTHER SUCCESS FOR ANOTHER 5 OR MORE YEARS!

When considering the articles it is difficult to distinguish a difference between the two. Both present what could be considered a hostile stance towards Climate Change. However, neither presents any supportive evidence and each piece contains a number of argumentative fallacies that fail to lend strength to the points they are trying to make. And perhaps what is most interesting is that both argue from a faith based perspective – trusting in the authority of what both consider a “higher power.”

Jack Kelley’s article attempts to argue that because Michael Crichton is a successful author and because Michael Crichton wrote a book in which the composition of the Earth’s atmosphere is explained in such a plebian way that Michael Crichton is therefore the authority on Climate Change. To support his claim he presents the box office hit “Jurassic Park” as evidence. Perhaps Mr. Kelley’s opinion of Mr. Crichton would change if he was to fall ill and we were to apply the same logic towards doctoring.

Success in one field does not imply success in another. Similarly, he seems to propose that Climate Change would apply uniformly to the entire planet. Perhaps Mr. Kelley should also review 6th grade mathematics to refresh his memory of mediums, means and averages. He continues to make a further flaw by somehow expecting the reader to believe that New York is the same as West Point, and continues this with other places around the world attempting to put forward that because changes are not uniform they must not be related; this is akin to expecting snow in Florida because it is snowing in Alaska.

Kelley’s biggest error occurs when he poses that because the Earth has experienced extreme changes in climate and atmosphere long before man existed that man is somehow exempt from being able to have an effect on the planet. Apparently Mr. Kelley failed to recall deforestation, irrigation, mining and deep water drilling – or perhaps even the nuclear bomb - while writing his article.

Ruth Dailey makes many of the same flaws; however she is much more subtle in her illogical, unsubstantiated claims.

Ms. Dailey says that because she doesn’t like Al Gore, because Al Gore has found a way to make a profit off Climate Change and because Mr. Gore is heralded by the media as the figure head of Climate Change that Climate Change is therefore not man’s fault.

Furthermore, Dailey supposes that the theocrats in society should have re-examined their religious texts to redefine the interpretations so as to better fit God with science. While the faithful would say that it is man’s flaw for misinterpreting scripture they ignore that the misinterpretation of holy texts is something their respective religions claim to be impossible as the word of God is timeless and cannot be changed by man – this being the reason for the countless number of denominational faiths within the same umbrella of religion.

The unfortunate conclusion is that ultimately Ms. Dailey cannot stop progress and as progress continues it will become increasingly more difficult to acknowledge literal translations of religious texts as truths. And simply reinterpreting the meaning of the passages can be done with nearly any text, such as Harry Potter or The Chronicles of Narnia, and used as a metaphor in just the same way. So in her attempt to increase the longevity of her religions existence in the global consciousness Ms. Dailey would devalue what believers hold to be sacred.

While bother articles demonstrate their author’s intelligence in how well written they are they fail to bring the same diligence to their ability to form an argument. Both authors are taking faith based stances – Ms. Dailey’s in religion and man and Mr. Kelley in Michael Crichton and Hollywood special effects – and both fail from the start to scientifically demonstrate how man is not responsible for Climate Change. If they wished to be respected and taken seriously they would have to present evidence that discredits the work that is currently accepted within the scientific community.


QR Code
QR Code bullshit_climate_change_papers_hayek.0 (generated for current page)
 

Advertise with Anonymous Ads