Monday, November 06, 2006

Green Articles That Can't Rebut Lawson #1

This article by Madeleine Bunting for Comment is Free made me want to break something. It's so infuriatingly self-righteous, spends no time discussing the reality of the situation, whether a precautionary principle is justified in the case of global warming etc. and all its time using an assumed existential threat to argue for an answer the author had clearly started from, "the market economy sucks", and worked backwards.

In fact, the subtitle "intoxicated with an idea of individual freedom that was little more than greedy egotism" is such a thoughtless assault on the West and the ideal of human liberty that I really should have stopped reading there.

Fortunately, this article provided a fine test for my new rule for green articles 'they're only important if they are a reasoned response to Lawson's speech to the CPS'. This article did not provide a reasoned response to Lawson and it is clearly not important. As such, I don't need to spend an hour fisking this below par article in detail; the rule works!

1 comment:

Gracchi said...

Quite a lot of what Lawson said about the Medieval Warm period for example and about the hockey stick is refuted here

I agree though about the Guardian article it was idiotic.