It's a sad time when you realise one of your comedy heroes is actually nothing more than a clueless cretin, but alas!
An insane rant about how people who are skeptical about man-made global warming are dumb-dumbs, is what led to my realisation. Peep Show hero David Mitchell always came across as a reasonable sort of fellow traveler, as a guest on many a panel show. However, my spider-senses started to tingle when he actually signed some sort of petition denying the BBC was bias. That's a position only someone incredibly stupid or ignorant would take. Too much time surrounded by entertainment sorts and the BBC, and other worthless individuals, will take its toll on thee, I suppose. Another big clue that Mitchell was actually dumb, or at least has recently become dumb, was the simple fact that he writes for the UK's Guardian newspaper: the newspaper of choice, along with the Independent, for the most profoundly stupid people in Britain. I came across this post the other day where poor, poor Mitchell is "ranting" about how silly it is to deny man-made climate change, on the Guardian website. Upon viewing it I was horrified to see Mitchell invoke various text-book logical fallacies which are barely worth repeating. It's a sad time to see someone you liked for so long reveal themselves to be an absolute tool, devoid of much ability to engage in rational thinking, but there we go. It wasn't just the standard liberal BS about how evil man is making the climate change, and that you're a crazzzzzzzzy if you dare to oppose this "fact": it was the snarling petulance of it all. At one point, as a cheeky commentator on that post pointed out, Mitchell actually makes a Pascal's Wager type argument: which is an argument saying it is better and rational to believe in God 'just in case' it turns out it's all true, and you're sent to hellfire for not worshiping him. Ignoring the various logical fallacies he makes, as horrific as they are, and ignoring the fact that he's more than likely conflating a belief in climate change, with a belief in anthropomorphic climate change, and ignoring the implication of "getting a grip" would be to slow the advance of third-world countries, what just grinds my gears is the typical liberal arrogance and smugness: you're stupid if you don't believe humans cause climate change, but if you're stupid, let me try to attempt to reason with you, because you can't be that stupid, or are you? He then proceeds to use illogical arguments to convince the "stupid" that they should pay attention to global warming, oops sorry, I meant climate change.
Anyway there are a lot of credible scientists who reject man-made global warming. But it was the following that has made headlines recently, or should I say, has been kept from headlines recently, that really just reduces Mitchell to 'just another liberal turd who can't see past his religious beliefs which he keeps saying are political': a Nobel-prize winning, at one time Obama supporting scientist resigning over claims that man-made climate change are "irrefutable" who said recently:
"In the (American Physical Society) it is ok to discuss whether the mass of the proton changes over time and how a multi-universe behaves, but the evidence of global warming is incontrovertible? The claim (how can you measure the average temperature of the whole earth for a whole year?) is that the temperature has changed from ~288.0 to ~288.8 degree Kelvin in about 150 years, which (if true) means to me is that the temperature has been amazingly stable, and both human health and happiness have definitely improved in this 'warming' period."
Which seems to be a pretty strong remark. But what does he know eh? Quite a drastic step away from the underlying claim from the liberal sermon Mitchell gave on his Guardian-approved soap-box. I expected, from past experience, Mitchell to be far better educated, less liberal, and more informed on the complexity of issues, to ever agree to utter the words he did in that soap-box video. Sadly I was mistaken. I came across an article (in the Guardian of course) which just cemented the fact that he is not of a sound mind, in an article warning of the dangers of private-sector styled education:
The private sector caused the credit crunch, the financial crisis, the global recession. The public sector bailed out the banks and brought the world back from the brink of ruin.
His basic warning is that a drive for profit does not equal expertise or refinement that one needs when one runs Universities. Of course the drive for profit can, provided there is good competition, do exactly that. Monopolies, by their nature, and once cemented, are anti-capitalistic and have a negative affect on their consumers. That's why Windows Operating Systems are consistently shoddy and Facebook can screw you every other month, and why eBay can punch you in the face with three different types of user fees. And that's also why government monopoly of education is always problematic. That's beside the point though, as his point is a point worth at least talking about, to a point. My main anger is directed at the stupidity of the quote above. The idea that the banks caused the crisis is "single-minded" and a typical falsehood liberals like to spread because it works to their political advantage and it's easy for people to buy into without being critical (we all hate bankers...). The reality is mind-numbingly complex. Government, the public sector, had a MASSIVE hand in the crisis, in an interlinked, insane web of stupidity. Labour themselves, the very people who constantly blame the banks, are soaked in guilt. Everyone's to blame. Even Private Sector borrowing. The circumstances that allowed certain banks in the first place to decide to risk so much was entirely created by government. Government spending - the deficit - plays a massive hand in worsening a recession, and making sure we cannot cope with any hypothetical crisis that might come in the future. We should not forget, that our national debt is so high because we borrow money to pay the PUBLIC SECTOR, which would include Universities, as taxation of the private sector is not enough to pay for the public. Government policy can have a direct affect on the behavior of banks, in fact the close relationship between banks and (democrat) politicians is exactly one of the reasons the global recession happened. Then there is the insane comment that the 'public sector' bailed out the banks and saved the galaxy. No. Politicians decided that a bail out was going to happen and used tax-payer money to pay for it. The people did not have a say. And it's not clear at all that these bail-outs were a smart move in the long run anyhow. I'll be damned if I even begin to get to grips with the complexity of global economics, but at least I am aware that there is complexity.
I suppose none of this is relevant, 'cause, you know, he's in Peep Show and on TV, and he's funny, so he MUST be right.
No comments:
Post a Comment