Stupid Quote(s) of the Day, numbers 2 and 3

I know I just made a “Stupid Quote of the Day” with Arlington mayor Russel (not-so-)Wiseman’s incoherent screed against Obama and Muslims and whatever, but coming across Vox Day’s blog during my daily perusal, I come across dumbassery so vivid that I really can’t *facepalm* hard enough to denote my indignation without shattering my nose or something. We’re talking really, really stupid, even by Vox Day standards.

First, Vox tries his hand at … something that, in another, alternate universe – the Loonisphere, most likely – would constitute logic:

Consider the following chain of logic:

1) Environmentalists and progressives believe there are too many people on the planet, having frequently declared this to be the case.

2) The U.S. government is reportedly going to declare carbon dioxide to be a dangerous pollutant.

3) Carbon dioxide is emitted by people who happen to breathe oxygen.

o_0

>_<

@_@

An accurate depiction of the amount of stupidity-induced pain I’m in, now.

Did Vox just claim that “progressivist logic” would lead to the government regulating how much people can exhale?

This, of course, disregards the notion that the government would most likely be made aware, if they weren’t already, that the breathing of humans accounts for very little of the amount of CO₂ in the atmosphere and that, in fact, breathing-emitted CO₂ is “part of a natural closed-loop cycle and does not contribute to the greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere”^[1]. The Earth’s ecosystem is already perfectly calibrated to deal with the breathing of humans, regardless of how numerous we may be.

Of course, Vox then adds a little “disclaimer” of sorts:

Of course, most will deem this to be paranoia or a logical extreme. The problem is that history is very clear on the fact that the logical extreme is not infrequently an accurate predictor.

The problem isn’t that Vox used a hypothetical example that is overly paranoid or indicative of a logical extreme. It’s the fact that it’s a really, really dumbass thing to say. So dumbass, that it is completely voided as any example of any sort and should never be used. Seriously.

You can sleep easy, Vox. I don’t think even the most rabid of progressivists would start to regulate how much people can breathe anytime soon. (Even though, technically speaking, it’s conservatives who are most likely to sink into the pits of fascism and authoritarianism, but let’s just skip ahead.)

For part deux of this little post, Vox brings up a quote from the Wall Street Journal that perfectly illustrates why I hold it in contempt just a little less than Faux Newz as far as objectivity and accuracy goes:

UPDATE - The Wall Street Journal on peer-review:

The Guardian even solicits "reader leaders" (to go with the extraterritorial editorial--ha ha, what wits), although if you scroll down on the page, you will see that a good many of the submissions have been "removed by a moderator." That is what scientists call peer review.

Peer review is nothing more or less than editing. It's not objective. It's not even science. In fact, it's almost the complete opposite of science, because it is entirely subjective.

Oh … the … stupidity …

I think it’s safe to say that anyone who derides the process and practice of peer review as being “nothing more or less than editing” is fundamentally clueless about the basics of the scientific method. It’s therefore equally safe to say that Vox doesn’t care about science. He doesn’t know science. He is as scientifically illiterate as it is possible to get. He is a true abject imbecile who parades around deriding actual scientists whilst himself holding no more understanding of the practice and process of science as your average 13-year-old delinquent.

It should be considered blasphemy for him even to utter the very word, “science”.

My poor head. S’cuse me, got a throbbing stupidity-induced migraine to deal with, now.

[1] source: EPA