Proof the Reg is staked out by eco-trolls on the jungle telegraph
A lot of regular readers of the Reg have probably noticed how rapidly hordes of trolls appear whenever an environment article is posted which doesn't agree with the "settled science".
Especially if its by Andrew Orlowski (which also brings in the wikifiddlers en masse, but thats another story)
The above post by DanHarper is the perfect example of one which follows the familiar formula.
He starts off proclaiming an incorrect fact -
(in truth, the professor is not retired and still on staff at UC-SB, google is your friend Dan)
and then follows up with a series of the usual logical fallacies we've all come to expect.
Logical Fallacy No.3 "Ad hominem" (i.e The man is an old senile fool )
Logical Fallacy No.9 "False Dichotomy" (i.e If you don't believe in global warming you must be a religious whackjob preaching intelligent design)
I would like to ask the trolls to please be original and use a variety of all 20 logical fallacies, otherwise your comments are very droll reading.
Explosive icon: ... well "no pressure"