Monday, December 14, 2009

Blowing Smoke

I received the following reply from Greg Craven, the author of the video that was the subject of yesterday's post, Traffic-Light Propagandist.

Yeah, that's why I posted a series of follow-up videos to address that argument. See the "Patching Holes" series of 3 vids, or the "How It All Ends" series of 70+ vids. Dig a little further.

Greg Craven

This appears to be nothing more than a form response that Mr. Craven saves for all of his critics. Is it a blanket comment "to address that argument;" a smoke screen behind which to evade the specific issues I raised about his presentation?

1. Which of my arguments did Mr. Craven address exactly?

The best one can infer is that Mr. Craven is implying "all of your arguments Pascal." But that's no different from his not permitting comments. Mr. Craven is so smart he knows all the contradictory arguments himself. So what do I, or you dear reader, have to argue that the all-knowing Mr Craven hasn't already thought of himself? Hence, no comments can be left at the site of his crime -- his propaganda video -- because he needs no comments.

Funny how that works, isn't it?

Update to Mr Craven's video can be found here. He states "there were over 6000 comments, mostly negative," and that he honed his new video accordingly. Is it possible that nobody else posed to him anything like my arguments? Whatever,  they were not addressed this time out. (Didn't he say he addressed my argument?)

2. Mr. Craven's reply above didn't bother to provide even one substantive excerpt like he actually understood anything I argued. (This again supports my contention that he posted to me a single blanket reply that he saves for his critics.)

Unlike others with whom I've had informative discussions, he is the first who was too lame to include even a single link to one part of his argument he thinks is the most suitable. Throwing his whole "book" at me is as brainless as the primary argument of his video -- the Precautionary Principle wrapped up in a package reminiscent of Pascal's Wager.

3. In exactly which of his over 70 videos did he address the depopulation costs? I'm sure PF readers would be very interested in Mr. Craven's solution(s) to my argument that command-economic governments -- the type for which he  provides succor with his enthusiasm -- were responsible for 100 million murders last century.

Despite his having blown smoke to my previous post, I have viewed 5½ of Mr. Craven's additional videos, including his 3 "Patching Holes" videos.

Number 3 is heavily "arguing from authority;" by him -- for authority.

I wonder how confident he is of the integrity of either of the NAS and AAAS given their stance over the emails admitting to hiding the data?

Well, we know it did not stop him from responding to me yesterday in the manner he did. I understand his reluctance to waver given how much he has invested his time and person in his faith of the top science organizations.

Mr. Craven, have you ever read Eric Hoffer?


  1. Mr Craven doesn't care. He "believes", and that is enough. He has created a perfect (as Mr Hoffer puts it) "Fact Proof Screen" and will not allow anything contrary to penetrate. What is truly horrible, is that he is teaching. I hope his students eventually figure out that he is a moron.

  2. Actually, that response wasn't canned. It was just for you. And don't be so offended that I won't re-create my entire exposition and background on the subject when I spent hundreds of hours away from my family to do just that. If you'd viewed a little further than 5.5 videos, you might have come across "How It All Ends: Index" and "How It All Ends: Menu" which lists some of the specific objections I heard and where in the videos I felt I made points that addressed them (not always explicity--forgive me, but I did the project while working during the day and my family was sleeping at night--so I didn't bother with individually addressing every permutation of every "how about" and "what if").

    If you watch all of the videos and read the book, and have objections that I don't cover, then I would very much like to hear them. Until then, please don't expect me to feed you the answers to the homework you could do yourself if you care to.

  3. Your "entire exposition" is based- entirely- on fabrication. And I can prove it; yes, me, an ordinary layman. And prove it beyond the ability of the most learned to dispute. Your manifesto of fertilizer is of no interest to me, as I know it for what it is. I want to know, do you have the courage of your convictions to have a debate about this? I suspect not. God forbid a mere layman debunk your pet theory.

    I have done my homework. Which is why I know you're as full of it as a Christmas Goose. And of course, as I said, I am willing, ready, and able to prove it.

  4. Mr. Craven, I had already read your 3 patching holes videos when I initiated this thread, and was impressed mostly with your consistent polemic.

    (It may please you to know that I have now viewed nearly 10 of your videos, including Risk Management 1-4. I'm taking a break because of your comment.)

    Why do you insist on throwing your whole book at me instead of quoting yourself explicitly in answer to me? Is it because your answers are that of a polemicist? A polemicist needs to couch his words in a big spiel. It's much easier to be evasive that way. Is that why you haven't answered me twice?

    And you still have failed to answer the most pressing question I have raised. It will be the subject of my next post.

    I'm not ready to say that you're engaging in sophistry as I don't see yet where your efforts are for your personal gain.

    But your behavior fits the casuist, which is oft an apt descriptor for one who believes he owns the moral high ground. That is a character trait familiar to any student of Blaise Pascal.

    Are you a casuist Mr. Craven? Do you believe that after weighing all facts as they appear to you, that the only moral course of action is clear? It is your moral duty to convince us inferior selfish people to press our political leaders to limit human activity so as to not endanger the greatest number of people?

    If you really wish to protect the greatest number of people, I recommend highly the man who wrote to you at length in the previous thread, Mark Vande Pol, at Are you really green, or just another watermelon?


View My Stats