Over at Progressive Bloggers, Scott Tribe is proposing yet another way to invent a top-10 list of Canadian bloggers or something like that, to which Blogging Tory and fetus fetishist SUZANNE immediately chimes in, "Is this only for progressive bloggers? I’m just asking."
And so, in the spirit of the new year and bi-partisan co-operation, I'm going to give Scott some free advice. While it might be reasonable to allow Blogging Tories to be on the final list, it would be a bad idea to allow them to have any input on such a list because those people are, quite simply, idiots and have little to say worth listening to.
Overly harsh? Too fucking bad. Make your bed, lie in it, as the saying goes.
As Exhibit A, I give you a recent piece of scientifically illiterate stupidity that I blogged on just yesterday, courtesy of Canada's Crazy-Assed Racist Redneck. If you take the time to peruse the comments there, you will eventually come to this submission, in which commenter "A" writes, very thoughtfully and carefully:
And the real skinny on the Friends of Science Society is this: FoS receives funding from, among other sources, oil and petroleum companies, funnelled through the Science Education Fund. At least one of its founding members, Albert Jacobs, is a former oil explorations manager. At least one of their registered lobbyists, Morten Paulsen, is also a registered lobbyist for ConocoPhillips and Kinder Morgan Canada. This alone doesn't prove that the FoS is merely a puppet mouthpiece for the oil industry, but it does raise some serious questions about their impartiality and credibility.
Incidentally, their most well-known spokesperson is Dr. Tim Ball, whom Kate notes is giving a lecture sponsored by the FCPP in Winnipeg next month, and who bills himself as "Canada's first PhD in climatology." In fact, according to Queen Mary College at the University of London, his doctorate was in geography. He has claimed to be a Professor of Climatology at the University of Winnipeg." In fact, his professorship was with the Department of Geography.
In any case, his academic research agenda was indeed focused on "historical climatology." His FoS biography describes Dr. Ball as having "an extensive background in climatology, especially the reconstruction of past climates and the impact of climate change on human history and the human condition." In fact, literature searches on Scopus and Scholars Portal find a total of only four peer-reviewed articles attributable to Dr. Ball in his entire academic career (spanning anywhere from 8 to 14 to 28 to 32 years, depending on who you ask), all focused on climate change in the Hudson Bay area during the 18th and 19th centuries, all published prior to 1994 (and three of the four published in the 1980s). Again, this alone does not necessary indicate that Dr. Ball is a poor scientist, though it does suggest that he may not be as qualified a technical expert on the science of long-term global climate change as his backers would like you to believe.
It seems to be a point of pride among SDA readers that they are especially critical with respect to self-styled punditry, adept at examining the backgrounds of (usually "left-wing") "experts" in order to expose cracks in their legitimacy. I encourage you to apply those same high standards to FoS and its membership.
Note well that "A" is not howling with outrage or foaming at the mouth. Rather, he(?) is making a number of specific and well-documented points, all of which are a matter of public record and easily verifiable. And the reaction to this comment? As if you had to ask.
Okay Mr. "A", you talk a lot but you do not give us your credentials, personally I don't think you have any or you would give us your true identity. Are you afraid of litigation?
The majority of reactions to "A" are equally worthless and evasive, but you were expecting something different? Keep in mind that a depressing number of people who seem incapable of spending five minutes verifying information that's in the public record are the same ones who will, on a moment's notice, howl frantically about Jews and badges.
Which brings us to the bottom line, Scott. If you have an idea for some sort of year-end Canadian bloggers top-10 list, by all means, give it shot, with the one qualifier that you shouldn't be taking the opinion of any Blogging Tory into account, in any way, shape or form. These people have been so hopelessly, gloriously, spectacularly wrong for so long that they, collectively, have nothing to say worth listening to.
If they want to have their own awards contest, more power to them. One can safely predict that Kate McMillan will be the runaway winner, after which there will be much back-slapping and high-fiving. Cake will be served.
But if you want to make this list meaningful, Scott, please, try to keep the list of judges to those people who are not clinically deranged or dishonest. Then the results might actually mean something.