“Dangerous Fungi Are Spreading Across U.S. as Temperatures Rise” is the attention-grabbing title of a February 1starticle that appeared in the WSJ. Being attuned to the falsities of the left regarding climate I decided to abstract a few sentences from Dominique Mosbergen’s 745-word article and ask that you pay particular attention to how freely the author uses non-definitive words and phrases such as, “suggests, might, a real possibility, potential, may prompt, appears, could, potentially, significant, most, and has been linked.”
Word usage is important in any discussion, but it is absolutely critical in a scientific discussion, and therein lies much of the problem with the climate debate, far too many climate activists buy into the patently non-scientific treatment this, and other authors apply to the matter. And what I find most troubling about this article is that the author happens to be the medical science writer for the WSJ.
The article begins, “Dangerous fungal infections are on the rise, and a growing body of research suggests warmer temperatures might be a culprit. As soon as I read the words ‘suggests’ and ‘may’, it became apparent this wasn’t a serious article, it was just another opinion hit piece.
The author continued… “as temperatures have risen globally, some fungi might be adapting to endure more heat stress, including conditions within the human body research suggests. Climate change might also be creating conditions for some disease-causing fungi to expand their geographical range, research shows.
Question, what type of science writer riddles their commentary with words such as “suggests, might, and may?” Answer, science writers who are long on opinion and short on facts.
Interestingly, to support her position, the Ms. Mosbergen refers to a video game & an HBO series “The Last of Us” – the story of a fungus that infects people en masse and turns them into monstrous creatures. Yes, you read that correctly the medical science writer for the Wall Street Journal referred to a video game and a fictionalized TV show to make her point about a changing climate.
So, allow me to ask, would a reasonable individual accept an oncologist’s prognosis that ‘he or she requires immediate and radical surgery’ if the doctor used such non-definitive terms and then anchored the prognosis with references to a video game and an HBO mini-series? Of course not, yet the true believers will read this folderol and accept it as scientific fact and expect you to believe it too.
Which leads to another question, why are people so gullible when it comes to climate? I’m not a psychologist but I suspect it occurs because too many people think about political matters—and let’s face it, climate change isn’t about science, it’s about politics—in an automatic, unthinking, and uncritical manner rather than reading, researching examining, and evaluating the matter in a slow and deliberate manner as we would any vexing issue.
Said another way, it takes conscious effort to learn enough about climate so as to have an opinion based on more than what some talking head on CNN tells you. So, the next time you’re in a climate debate, ask the apocalyptist how much empirical research he or she has done on the matter beyond seeing the movie, “An Inconvenient Truth,” which by the way predicted worldwide climate catastrophe by 2030 with lots of terrible things happening along the way, almost all of which did not happen. As an aside, we should note that the current arctic ice cap is higher than on the same date in 2006, when the movie was released. In any event, one would be wise to ascertain if Dominique Mosbergen is on the list of the 97% of all scientists who believe in “global warming.”
Quote of the day: “The trouble with our Liberal friends is not that they’re ignorant; it’s just that they know so much that isn’t so.” – Ronald Reagan