Greg asserts that there are more trees in the US today than there were 100 years ago, citing an article at the Mother Nature Network. In the linked article, the supporting information is taken from the Food and Agricultural Organization and the United Nations Forum on Forests**. The FOA is of course also a body of the United Nations.
Earlier in this same thread, Greg aims his moral telescope at the scientists behind a study on extinction events -- scientists from Stanford University, Princeton University and the University of California, Berkeley (Peter forgot to add a link, but the full story is here at Yahoo, and the actual scientific article can be found here).
Greg says the scientists responsible for the study are Government Funding Whores. Fair enough. That's what he thinks.
But, isn't it ironic that Greg gives credence to the findings of two United Nations bodies? Are his preferred sources not Government Funding Whores as well? Maybe it just depends on whose ox is being gored.
Whores at Stanford. Whores at Berkeley. Whores at Princeton. Non-Whores at the UN.
Me, that makes no jesusfreaking sense. Perhaps my expectations of consistency are misplaced.
** The UN Forum on Forests is, er, tied up with several environmental constraints. From their website, as cited by Yahoo's AFP article:”based on the Rio Declaration, the Forest Principles, Chapter 11 of Agenda 21 and the outcome of the IPF/IFF Processes and otherkey milestones of international forest policy.The Forum has universal membership, and is composed of allMember States of the United Nationsandspecialized agencies.
William's deficiencies in argumentation are illustrated when he does this particular dance.
This is known as "negative evidence."
Source: APS and the Global Warming Scam