Information Always Carries Intent (Whether Intended or Not)

As regards several critical matters, there is no such thing as a state of innocent misinformation. Those matters pertain to the exploit stakes to be captured in terms of money, power, and the control of what is known. The notion that misinformation is defined as a state of being ‘mistaken, absent of intent’, ironically itself constitutes intentional misinforming. All information carries intent. The disposition of the messenger is therefore irrelevant.

Mistakes not intended. Thus, I can never pass ‘disinformation’ (God claim). Only those who dissent can do that.

In a previous article, we cited that the erroneous pop-notion that misinformation involves the informing party’s being ‘mistaken, absent of intent to deceive’ (Reader’s Digest: Misinformation vs. Disinformation: How to Tell the Difference: “Misinformation contains content that is false, misleading, or taken out of context but without any intent to deceive.”)1 suffers from philosophical (Wittgenstein) Descriptive Error. Especially as it pertains to a party seeking gain through power, profit, or conformance, such misdefinition itself ironically constitutes intentional misinformation.

We recently learned a hard lesson about such poor philosophy through the malicious activities of the White House and FBI, enacting unconstitutional ‘joint action’ with media entities YouTube, Google, LinkedIn, and Twitter.2 Such entities have lost critical human rights court decisions concerning their malicious activities during the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic.3

This philosophical weakness centers around the following principle, a variant of a principle called the exoentropy of normatives (The effort to enforce order inside a controlled subsystem, inevitably and ironically serves to increase the level of disorder or entropy surrounding it.).

Exoentropy of Medium (Intent Laundering)

All a gain-seeking entity need do in order to officially deceive, is to pass errant information, stripped of any basis of soundness, to an objective (‘intent free’) third party (the official media), staffed by clueless redistributors or recent journalism school graduates, who could not possibly be any the wiser. This methodology allows for such information to be laundered of its intent, and therefore at worst, if detected as false, be regarded as merely ‘mistaken’.

The gain-seeking party therefore can never disinform (lie with facts), because they bear no intent. Q.E.D. their facts are true and comprehensive.

The most entropy-introducing ‘informing’ which the gain-seeking party enacts, is their mandate to have their innocent media parties remain silent or ignorant regarding a specific critical issue. When a dissenting party is silent, that this their prerogative under skepticism. When a gain-seeking party mandates silence, this is not an act of skepticism.

All dissenting opinion or information therefore, regardless of its validity, probative potential, or soundness, inherits the resulting exoentropy. By default, such dissent can only originate from an ‘intent to oppose objectivity’, and therefore can never constitute misinformation (because it carries intent), but rather can only exist as disinformation (hearsay, anti-virtue, or conspiracy theory), whether correct or not.

As a default disposition, this Wittgenstein Descriptive Error renders the official media as an entity which is perpetually innocent and perpetually at worst, misinforming. This ‘Oh, I was simply mistaken’ ad hoc apologetic is a ruse and exit strategy for their appeal to authority. Ethics in reality, does not allow for authority to escape accountability by means of such casuistry.

By means of such philosophical sleight-of-hand, the media can never be therefore held to account for its agency or biases. You however, are always a conspiracy theorist for the audacity to consider even the slightest dissenting notion.

Therefore, when a celebrated or media entity appeals to the authority of science or official narrative, especially inside the context of human rights, dishonesty and incompetence are indistinguishable.

One can easily spot the narrative numpties and ninnies who fall for this. They reside in a chronic state of ‘knowledge-laden ignorance’ – full of facts, filled with lies. In order to demonstrate why comprehension of this Jedi Mind Trick is important, let’s conduct a thought experiment.

A gain or power-seeking stakeholder should never be afforded the a priori permissive argument nor posteriori ad hoc rescue of ‘Oh, I was simply mistaken’. If a gain-seeker suggests inference or fact which has not been fully validated as true, they are still lying – regardless of their messenger’s ‘intent’.

In 24 hours I will be sitting on a beach, earning twenty percent.

You own a successful small business. I am your newly hired Controller. As new accountant for your business, I just obtained signature-access to its operating cash account yesterday. Today I transferred all $700,000 in operating cash funds into my own personal account in the Cayman Islands. There is now a $0 cash position in the business account, as of close of bank hours today.

I plan on secretly flying out of the country tonight. You, as business owner, are aware of my access to the business account, but not the transfer of funds. Not being web savvy yourself, that evening you inquire of me as to the business’ cash position.

My deceptive response options (all of which involve ‘intent’):

   MisinformationLying with Falsehoods (deception by means of straw man or false information)

“The cash position is sound and fluid, at 45 days reserve.”
“You have $700,000 in the cash account.”

   DisinformationLying with Facts (ingens vanitatum/ignoratio elenchi/red herring – deception by means of true, partly true, or irrelevantly true information)

“Your average closing daily cash balance over the last week was $600,000.”
“Overhead costs have risen 18% and we took a heavy overhead hit this month. But our cash position was $700,000 today.”

   Nelsonian Information Scientific Lying (deception through appeal to ignorance)

“I have found no evidence that your cash position is unsound.”
“The account balances have yet to be audited (peer-reviewed).”
“Accountants, until the bank completes their current system upgrade, please remain silent on account balance issues. As well, please fact-check all account balance contentions with this morning’s accurate balance only.”

   Malinformation Malicious Lying (deception through appeal to malice)

“You had a $2,100 charge at ‘Tiffany’s’ last month, is that a strip joint, or do you have a special friend?”
“Your spouse was logging into and out of the bank account today.”

   All Four Combined Exoentropy of Medium (deception through laundered appeal to authority/neutrality)

I inform the accounting department to remain quiet (silence) on the cash account issue, until the “bank can complete its systems upgrade”. At the same time, I forward the day’s opening statement of funds to the business owner’s trusted personal assistant who has regularly monitored his accounts in the past, suggesting ‘FYI, just in case this is needed’ – and calculating that the ambitious personal assistant will not relate the provenance of their up-to-date information (which is ‘better’ than the information that accounting holds). The admin assistant thus has become my innocent narrative numpty/ninny, representing me as the gain-seeking entity. In this elaborate deception, I will have gained enough time for the SWIFT transfer of funds to clear, before anyone is the wiser.

A gain-seeking party will exploit plentiful-entropic sets of information.

Note that in this final example set of actions, through introducing innocent third parties into the value chain of information, I have enacted the most clever of misinformation schemes. I have exploited all four modes of errant information (misinformation, disinformation, Nelsonian, and malinformation). I have created a ‘knowledge-laden ignorance’. I have exploited the exoentropy of medium. I have stripped the information of my intent to deceive – and passed it to a ‘neutral’ third party which bears no intent.

For a critical period of time (all lies bear a necessary shelf life), anyone who dissents with any form of reason, will appear as a babbling and irrational conspiracy theorist. By the time they collectively figure it all out, the matter will be moot. I will be on a beach, earning twenty percent.

Intent, or lack thereof, is a deliberation regarding the person, not the information they are passing. Information always carries intent.

This is why exonerating a gain or power-seeker’s information which is passed through an objective third party as ‘absent of intent’ – is a grave philosophical mistake. At best, it is Pollyanna. At worst, itself a deception.

The critical absence of a capture in exploit stakes, is why I do not charge for, nor seek personal celebrity or gain through this website. Sure, I get an ego boost every now and then, and appreciate kind words just as would anyone. But my intent is transparent – oppose oppression from those who fake representation as science and skepticism, by arming their victims with critical (and unfortunately, often novel) philosophy.

I desire neither to launder my intent nor allow my intent to be biased by exploit stakes. Skeptics or media entities who imply that they are basically operating from neutrality, and possess no intent, should not be trusted. The only way they can possess no intent, is to remain utterly disinterested in the topic – which is rarely the case. This is why the deceptive arguer often feigns disinterest in critical subjects they wish to misrepresent.

We’ve all heard the familiar expressions ‘bad money is always bad’ and ‘there are no mistakes when it comes to money’. Even so, all information carries intent, whether it has been laundered of that intent or not.

The Ethical Skeptic, “Information Always Carries Intent (Whether Intended or Not)”; The Ethical Skeptic, WordPress, 13 Feb 2023; Web,

How You Say It Makes All the Difference

It’s not just what you say, but how you say it. I find it hard to believe, but just maybe those irritating sentence diagrams from 8th grade have paid off after all.  I believe that merit resides in splitting our categories of misrepresentation, in the Tree of Knowledge Obfuscation, into a structure producing an additional category member. That new member being – Misrepresentation through Locution or Semantics.

When I write, I tend to develop slightly longer and concatenated sentence structures than that of typical prose. This stems from decades of experience in technical writing. Technical writing tends to be composition inside of which the author attempts to anticipate and counter, in text, any imprecision which might lead later to a misunderstanding or manipulation of the material. Short, simply phrased sentences are prone to a whole host of potential problems with respect to interpretation. Everyone thinks that they fully understand a short simple sentence. But the reality is that such an approach to locution might not deliver the unequivocal or unambiguous integrity of material intended by the author.

Ill meaning forces delight in short idiomatic delivery. For in such a domain of uncertainty they can exploit meaning like a dancer, cavorting among the tombstones in the graveyard of ideas.

slept for 10 days too long - CopyAs one of my favorite comedians, Mitch O’Hedberg, quips in his monologue “I haven’t slept for ten days.  Because that would be too long.”  When one utters the phrase – ‘I haven’t slept for ten days’ – both deliverer and recipient believe that we have accurately conveyed the meaning of our original point. And in an idiomatic sense we have. People generally grasp the message one is attempting to convey through such a sentence. Mitch’s comedy lever often hinges on the humorous framing of equivocation, ambiguity and amphibology in our common language and life. But technical writing cannot rely upon the short cut of idiom and colloquial phrase. Ill intended forces, seeking control and not humor, will employ the holes in our delivery to effect outcomes and conclusions according to their preference. The most common (and perhaps least damaging) form of locution abuse occurs in attempts by Social Skeptics to place the deliverer of a message into a prescribed bucket of wink-and-nudge categorization. Oh, she’s an ‘intelligent design proponent,’ or a ‘believer.’ Uh, huh. Through this familiar, but very imprecise set of language vulnerabilities, they socially disarm a message and its proponent – before we can even consider what the proponent has to say.

As well, patent prosecutions, are submitted with just such a set of pitfalls in mind. In a patent application, one is seeking to protect the intellectual property entailed from forces which will seek a loophole. A loophole which would afford exploitation of the new intellectual property without the burden of having to honor the patent. A patent might be declined in an office action by a United States Patent and Trademark Office examiner for instance, in order to provide the applicant opportunity to clarify where semantic overlap has occurred with an existing intellectual property registry. The patent might be in need of small changes in the verbiage in order to eliminate the conflict. Technical writing, fortunately and unfortunately, is a bit like legalese; to wit, I have written many of the contracts my company has issued, with only a final review by our attorneys in many instances.  Attorneys are sticklers for ensuring that, in addition to compliance with the structure and stricture of the law, a specific set of locution introduced uncertainties are avoided at all costs.

Contracts cannot tolerate uncertainty in the terms of agreement, and neither can technical writing. Uncertainty, in the forms of the locution errors below, introduces the opportunity for cheating, skirting, misinterpretation, and misunderstanding. Things which can render a clause or an entire contract null in the inception. Things which offer a person wishing to politically manipulate the message of science in their preferred direction, if left any kind of loophole. This is done in both blatant and subtle fashion.

If the ambiguity is obvious it is called “patent,” and if there is a hidden ambiguity it is called “latent.” If there is an ambiguity, and the original writer cannot effectively explain it, then the ambiguity will be decided in the light most favorable to the other party.¹

But Social Skepticism, does not develop technical studies nor contracts. It celebrates the imprecise nature of language and locution. They are the dancers between the tombstones in the graveyard of ideas. Social Skepticism’s specialty is the promulgation of correct thought and the interpretation of science on behalf of us all, through the media. It is in this public forum where a whole series of misrepresentations occurs, both patent and latent. Below we outline our new category of misrepresentation in The Tree of Knowledge Obfuscation, Misrepresentation through Locution and Semantics.

Take for instance, a clip which might be found in a typical journalism piece on science and philosophy. The phrase at first glance might appear to the layman to make a lot of sense – when in reality it is a load of crap and non-sense.

locution errors - Copy cbg - Copy - Copy

Equivocation (Irish Pennant)

the misleading use of a term, principle or construct with more than one meaning, sense, or use in professional context by glossing over which meaning is intended in the instance of usage, in order to mis-define, change context of and inappropriately include or exclude domain inside  an argument.

Wittgenstein Error (Context) – one shifts the meaning of words to their favor or disfavor by the exploiting the context in which they are employed.

Data, sample, cohort, retrospective, evidence, study, meta-analysis

Wittgenstein Error (Footprint) – one employs words which have large grammatical footprint, in order to exploit a portion of that potential footprint of meaning in order to drive home an argument or craft a denial.

Woo, ridiculous, contrarian, outsider

Secundum Quid – when one exploits a failure to appreciate the distinction between using words absolutely and using them with qualification.

Pseudoscience, apophenia, pareidolia

Anodyne Phrasing – phrasing deliberately posed in suitable apothegms or buzzwords which are not likely to provoke dissent, offense or disagreement – so that more extreme agendas backed by such locution can be subtly approved by all. Terms such as ‘justice’, ‘hate’, ‘Nazi’, ‘equality’, ‘immigration’ – where the hearer hears one thing, but the agenda poser means another.

Slack Exploitation – an arguer employs a constraining term, which at face value appears to bound the discussion, model or position contended to a specific definition or domain. However, a purposely chosen word or domain has been employed which allows for several different forms of interpretation of the contention on the part of the arguer.

Unlikely, tail condition, law of large numbers

Object or Subject Ambiguity – the construction or delivery of a message in such words or fashion as to allow for several reasonable interpretations of person, place or thing to which the message applies.

They, it, them, all, entire, those who, you, these

Hyperbolic Error – one employs words which overlap with more suitable terms, however which range into a realm of overemphasis or exaggeration which the arguer finds convenient.

Inconceivable, ridiculous, irrational, tirade

Praedicate Evidentia – one employs conclusive terms which suggest the end to a logical process, or the plenary state of its soundness or evidence, to imply something of greater inferential strength than what is indeed reality.

Consensus, conclusive, settled, indicative, points to, scientists consider, researchers have found

Accent Drift – one employs a specific type of ambiguity that arises when the meaning of a sentence is changed by placing an unusual prosodic stress (emphasis on a word), or when, in a written passage, it’s left unclear which word the emphasis was supposed to fall on.

Could, maybe, if, really, absolutely, certainly, probably, suppose, I guess

Compactifuscation – when one merges several disparate but associated concepts or definitions into one single descriptive term, so that epistemological weakness or strengths characteristic of a subset of the definitions held equivocally inside the term, can be ported over to the remaining set of definitions, without overt support or challenge in doing so.

Pseudoscience, numpty, neologism, sheeple

Portmanteau – originally a large trunk made of stiff leather, which opened into two differing but equal sized parts – which has transmuted into meaning a word blending the sounds and combining the meanings of two others.

Fauxtography (from ‘faux’ and ‘photography’) or brunch (from ‘breakfast’ and ‘lunch’)

Circular Reference – one employs definitions, data or expertise which obtain their authority through reference to other definitions, data or expertise which are of a single club in their origin – usually a club which suffers from anomie.

Irrational, credulous, magical thinking, contrarian

Weapon Word – a series of fashion terms among those who consider themselves elite and intelligent in comparison to a targeted disliked group in their mind. The manufacture, instruction and deployment of key expressions into the educational, push channel media, public and social skeptic discourse, targeting a goal of social intimidation and indoctrination.

Bubba, quack, creationist, truther

Anachronistic Proxy or Reference – one employs a concept, axiom or term which only has applicability or meaning in a current time frame of reference, however which suitably lenses past principles or events to now stand as examples for their argument or denial.

Myth, sadistic, stoic, archaic, pedantic, polemic, muckraker

Hedging – the a priori employment of ambiguous words or phrases, for the purposeful instance wherein they can be reinterpreted in such a way as to appear to be in consensus, if one is later found to be wrong on a position of denial and opposition.

Concerns, gaps, inconsistency, shortfall, non-compliance, irregularity

Advantageously Obtuse (Bridgman Reduction) – a principle which has been translated, summarized or dumbed-down for consumption so as to appear to be a ‘simple’ version of its source principle; however, which has been compromised through such a process.

“Occam’s” Razor versus Ockham’s Razor, Misrepresentations of: simple, Fat Tony, Anti-fragile, Popper Demarcation

Flummery – meaningless ceremonial or sycophant journalism – often characterized by worn out catch phrases, article structures, quotes, recitations, common bad guys, phrase cloning, celebrity deference and social peer flattery, often inexpertly applied and misunderstood by the writer.

Anti-science, tin-foil hatter, Moon landing hoax, Trumper, bed-wetter

Non Rectum Agitur – one executes a purposeful abrogation of the scientific or other logical method through corrupted method sequence or the framing and asking of the wrong, ill prepared, unit biased or invalid question, conducted as a pretense of executing such method on the part of a biased participant. Applying a step of such method, advantageously out of order.

Peer review, scientific method, publication, mathematical proof, proof, “Occam’s” Razor, evidence, Baloney detection kit, p-value, amaurosis

Aphronêsis – one employs twisted, extreme, ill timed, misconstrued, obtuse or misapplied wisdom, sometimes even considered correct under different contexts of usage – which allow an agenda holder to put on a display of pretend science, rationality and skepticism.

Critical thinking, rationality, science, investigation, research, skepticism

Tangenda – one forces the critical path of an argument to be constrained to term which sounds applicable, but entails or enforces a completely different logical calculus.

Virtue, democracy, aid, slavery, nationalism, unemployment


the construction or delivery of a message in such words or fashion as to allow for several reasonable interpretations of the context, object, subject, relationship, material or backing of the intended message.

Organic Untruth (verum mendacium) – a constructive form of argument which exploits concealed ambiguity or altered premise as the core of its foundational structure. A statement which is true at face value, but was not true or was of unknown verity under the time frame or original basis, soundness, domain or context under discussion.

Not a Logical Truth – It is not that this type of statement is false. The basis of this type of assertion may even reside in scientific validity, or may be only categorically true – i.e. only true if given a specific set of circumstances. However the statement is not a logical truth – a truth of syllogism which is comprehensive, unqualified and unequivocal. Logical truth is the state of syllogism which a deceitful person is wishing for you to infer when they state a categorical truth, yet do not specify its conditions. It is a means of lying through stating something which is only conditionally accurate – hoping that their victim will accept the statement as one which addresses all circumstance.

Slack Exploitation – a form of equivocation or rhetoric wherein an arguer employs a term which at face value appears to constrain the discussion or position contended to a specific definition or domain. However, a purposely chosen word or domain has been employed which allows for several different forms/domains of interpretation of the contention on the part of the arguer. Often this allows the arguer to petition the listener to infer a more acceptable version of his contention, when in fact he is asserting what he knows to be a less acceptable form of it.

Uti Dolo (trick question) – a question which is formed for the primary purpose of misleading a person into selecting (through their inference and/or questioner’s implication) the incorrect answer or answer not preferred inside a slack exploited play of ambiguity, interpretation, sequence, context or meaning. The strong version being where the wrong context is inferred by means of deceptive question delivery; the weak version being where the question is posed inside a slack domain where it can be interpreted legitimately in each of two different ways – each producing a differing answer.


is a situation where a sentence may be interpreted in more than one way due to ambiguous sentence structure. An amphibology is permissible, but not preferable, only if all of its various interpretations are simultaneously and organically true.

Context Dancing

the twisting of the context inside which a quotation or idea has been expressed such that it appears to support a separate argument and inappropriately promote a desired specific outcome.

Wittgenstein Error

Descriptive – the inability to discuss, observe or measure a proposition or contention, because of a language limitation, which has limited discourse and not in reality science’s domain of observability.

Contextual – employment of words in such as fashion as to craft rhetoric, in the form of persuasive or semantic abuse, by means of shift in word or concept definition by emphasis, modifier, employment or context.

Epistemological – the contention that a proposition must be supported by empirical data or else it is meaningless, nonsense or useless, or that a contention which is supported by empirical data is therefore sensible, when in fact the proposition can be framed into meaninglessness, nonsense or uselessness based upon its underlying state or lacking of definition, structure, logical calculus or usefulness in addressing a logical critical path.

bedeutungslos – meaningless. A proposition or question which resides upon a lack of definition, or which contains no meaning in and of its self.

unsinnig – nonsense. A proposition of compromised coherency. Feynman ‘not even wrong.’

sinnlos – useless. A contention which does not follow from the evidence, is correct at face value but disinformative or is otherwise useless.

Accent Drift

is a specific type of ambiguity that arises when the meaning or level of hyperbole of a sentence is changed by placing an unusual prosodic stress (emphasis on a word), or when, in a written passage, it’s left unclear which word the emphasis was supposed to fall on.²

Subject Ambiguity

the construction or delivery of a message in such words or fashion as to allow for several reasonable interpretations of person, place or thing to which the message applies.

There are of course more errors of locution and semantics which are included in The Tree of Knowledge Obfuscation, but they all in reality stem from a more complex employment of these eight base errors in locution and semantics.

Enjoy truth. Epoché Vanguards Gnosis.

¹  Encyclopedia of American Law: Ambiguity. (n.d.) West’s Encyclopedia of American Law, edition 2. (2008). Retrieved August 29 2015.

²  Accent (fallacy), Wikipedia; Retrieved August 29, 2015.

Anatomy of a Media Hack Job

Official Promulgators of Pre-concluded Propaganda are Partners with Pretend Skeptics

Astrobiologist Richard B. Hoover spent more than forty six years working at NASA as a scientist who authored 33 volumes and 250 papers on astrobiology, extremophiles, diatoms, solar physics, X-ray/EUV optics and meteorites. He holds 11 U.S. patents and was 1992 NASA Inventor of the Year.  Now he is an absolutely crack-pot and credential-less liar, completely unfamiliar with science and the scientific method.  That is what the Associated Press and their SSkeptic Cabal partners would have the easy prey gullible market believe.  Real scientists do not believe this, but a second purpose of this type of article (cited below) is to threaten real scientists with a similar punishment to what has been dealt Richard Hoover.  Richard Hoover no longer cares, the Cabal cannot hurt him in the normal way, he is free to act in a line of integrity consistent with his professional conscience.  This article is exemplary of an active and common method of pseudoscience in action.  SSkeptics do not act on integrity or conscience, they take action based on agendas and party doctrine.  A choice example of a very competent work of propaganda, cited below, was published March 7, 2011 by the Associated Press (

Richard Hoover analyzed two meteorites of recent introduction to Earth (one in the 1960’s and one in the 1860’s) and found that they had fossilized microbial life contained in them.  The null hypothesis being that these acknowledged fossilized life forms simply came from earth after the 1860 and 1960 impacts.  More importantly, he cited the evidence for this ancient, off Earth origin of the fossilized life, as being

richard b hoover1.  An absence of expressive nitrogen, which all life ‘out-gasses’ (actually a form of sputtering to be more accurate) consistently for millions of years post mortem (the meteors only hit Earth very recently) up and to the point of fossilization start, and

2.  An absence of 2 of the 5 DNA/RNA nucleic acids, for all life on Earth, in the electron microscopy assays, contrasting with all fossilizing/deceased life on earth expressing all 5 nucleic acids consistently because of the incumbent 1:1 chemical bond relationship bolstered by the histone re-enforced 5′ – 3′ spline.  One either indicates either all 5, or none typically, not simply 3 of the nucleic series, and

3.  The scientifically baseless and unprecedented idea that a fossilization process could fully execute the observed calcified substitution in just 40 or 140 years, post impact.

Why would the article below, or for that matter, commenting scientists and NASA, not address these claims at face value?  This is standard Organic Chemistry and Microbiology 3033 undergraduate level science. Yawn.

Now these are evidence based claims, but ethically I cannot yet accept them because the scientific method has not yet been completed.  The next step in the scientific method is to Replicate the Results/Study.  The problem is, that the scientific method in this case, never will be completed.  Instead, the press has taken on this threatening subject via a key partnership with the SSkeptic Cabal, both in pretense of representing the prevailing opinion of scientists and in execution of the scientific method.  They have published push-propaganda hack job articles through standardized media channels to ensure that the next step in the scientific method is never undertaken.  The purpose of this article below is to tender the correct answer and intimidate any scientist who dares suggest or initiate the next step in the scientific method – Warning:  No one should take it upon himself, at risk of reputation, to attempt to comment or Reproduce the Study/Results.

The purpose of articles such as these is not to relate an air of scientific competency.  Any reasonably well trained technician can see that this is simpleton dilettante propaganda.  More importantly they understand that the real purpose involved in such articles is to demonstrate the damaging and unethical lengths to which the Cabal will and can stoop, in order to punish members who step out of line.

Notice as well that the article employs the fake version of Ockham’s Razor, Occam’s Razor and the ‘simplest explanation’ here.  They even wheel out some hapless scientist tendering one-liners who has fallen for this ‘simplest explanation’ fallacy, who never encountered William of Ockham and his Theory of Knowledge in his doctrinal studies apparently (not sure how one does that, but I guess some schools will give anyone a PhD for anything).

This is typical SSkeptic pseudo-science in its partnership with mainstream media.  It is dishonesty and tyranny in action.  It is one of the most insidious evils which exists on this planet today, much worse than organized religions, who at least possess the integrity to admit to constituting a set of religious beliefs, and no longer promulgate mandatory beliefs, as now does the SSkeptic Cabal.

Anatomy of a Media Hack Job – The Push Propaganda Partnership in Action

Associated Press Hack Job