Tim Lambert (deltoidblog AT gmail.com) is a computer scientist at the University of New South Wales.
Leading climate scientist has a new theory
Environmentalism is just the latest attempt to find a substitute for the theory of evolution and it is paradoxical that it can be so widespread when next year (2009) is the 200th birthday of Charles Darwin and the 150th anniversary of the publication of his major work "The Origin of Species as the Result of Natural Selection".
Except that it's the Global Warming Skeptics who tend to be Creationists. And he got the title of Darwin's book wrong.
Gareth Renowden has more.
Politics
Comments
Best conspiracy theory ever.
Will the NZCSC and the ICSC, with their "information sharing" method, be able to push this stuff into the mainstream media? The world awaits with bated breath...
Posted by: bi -- IJI | October 29, 2008 2:27 PM
Also, I thought that environmentalists are a bunch of pinko commie Marxists redistributists who totally hate the idea of Jehovah?
What next? Will environmentalism suddenly become a Confucianist plot when nobody's looking?
Posted by: bi -- IJI | October 29, 2008 2:38 PM
It seems to me that the cranks are getting ever so much more bizarre and paranoid...
Posted by: TomG | October 29, 2008 3:36 PM
So either I have to believe that evolution is a great nazi-communist scam, or I have to believe that global warming is a great nazi-communist scam. Makes perfect sense...
Posted by: Lars Karlsson | October 29, 2008 3:56 PM
Lars, there's no earthly reason why a RWDB can't hold both views at the same time. After all, they aren't very good at consistency ...
Posted by: David Irving (no relation) | October 29, 2008 8:10 PM
"It seems to me that the cranks are getting ever so much more bizarre and paranoid..."
Have you ever meet Ken Ring? He is the most bizarre of them all! One ring to rule them all!
Posted by: Jonno | October 29, 2008 8:41 PM
If I was an inactivist, I'd be doing what I could to keep Vincent Gray's material far from the public eye. This material of his is downright embarrassing.
Posted by: Charles | October 29, 2008 11:50 PM
Environmentalism is just the latest attempt to find a substitute for the theory of evolution
I have just read, parsed, diced, sliced, quartered, reconstituted, and re-read that statement about 20 times, and I still cannot make any sense of it at all.
Every time you think the denialists' ultra-mega-supernova of stupid couldn't possibly burn any brighter, they disprove you.
Every. Single. Time.
Posted by: WotWot | October 30, 2008 1:09 AM
WotWot.
Like you I had a few re-reads to try to figure out Gray's (lack of a coherent) point.
I was reminded of the joke: why is a duck?
Posted by: Bernard J. | October 30, 2008 6:03 AM
Foe the curious, the answer is, apparently: because one leg is both the same.
Posted by: Bernard J. | October 30, 2008 6:06 AM
It's funny that GWSceptics are fond of using words like "shrill" and "shriek" to describe the work of mainstream climate science while they become more and more paranoid and absurd. We've recently had wacko CT claims from Lindzen and Munchkin, and now this.
This stuff always comes from a right-wing perspective, as if these people want to revive Cold War paranoia. For the older ones, senility might be a factor too. Seitz 1911 (d 2008) Bryson 1920 (d 2008) V Gray 1922 Singer 1924 W Gray 1929
Posted by: TrueSceptic | October 30, 2008 8:00 AM
Hmm Planck was right.
Posted by: Eli Rabett | October 30, 2008 8:47 AM
!3 jc,
Where did that come from? Eli was referring I assume) to Planck saying
"Eine neue wissenschaftliche Wahrheit pflegt sich nicht in der Weise durchzusetzen, daß ihre Gegner überzeugt werden und sich als belehrt erklären, sondern vielmehr dadurch, daß ihre Gegner allmählich aussterben und daß die heranwachsende Generation von vornherein mit der Wahrheit vertraut geworden ist. Translation: A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it."
and you respond with this?
Posted by: TrueSceptic | October 30, 2008 10:12 AM
The Illuminati, the Emeriti, it's all sausage.
Posted by: Eli Rabett | October 30, 2008 10:56 AM
Well, there's nothing on Gray's theory at Anthony Watts's
blogbog. Nothing at Jennifer Marohasy's bog either. I wonder what the NZCSC and the ICSC were thinking when they spread Gray's piece. Ponies?Posted by: bi -- IJI | October 30, 2008 11:27 AM
Now added to my climate conspiracy theory genealogy.
Posted by: bi -- IJI | October 30, 2008 2:37 PM
So, Eli, we must await Gray's elegy.
Posted by: John Armour | October 30, 2008 7:43 PM
a "theory"? are you sure it isn't a "cunning plan"?
Posted by: James Haughton | October 30, 2008 9:29 PM
Applause!
Posted by: Eli Rabett | October 30, 2008 10:22 PM
Oi! I like sausages.
Posted by: Richard C | October 31, 2008 7:05 AM
Es geht um die Wurst?
Posted by: bi -- IJI | October 31, 2008 7:40 AM
Someone should show to PZ Myers.
Posted by: Ian Gould | October 31, 2008 9:20 AM
Creationism and climate warming skepticism share the need for a lot of cognitive dissonance in order to dismiss relevant and definitive data refuting their heartfelt (rather than thoughtfully considered) positions.
Posted by: Oakden Wolf | October 31, 2008 9:23 AM
Creationists presumably believe that the world was created about 6000 years ago, and the climate hasn't changed significantly since. You AGWers believe, contrary to overwhelming evidence, that the climate didn't change significantly in the last 3000 years until the last century, thanks to manmade global warming. We skeptics, on the other hand, realize that the world is roughly 4.6 billion years old, and that there have been significant climate fluctuations in both prehistoric and historic times. The last century is nothing special in terms of climtate.
You mention Al Gore in a positive light despite the fact that he uses overwhelmingly more energy than the average person, you praise the efforts of cities acting "green", despite the fact that this is a case of all talk and no action.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2007/apr/03/20070403-112751-1668r/
Like the Apostle Paul, you AGWers believe in FAITH rather than good works, and, like other religious groups, you attack those who don't belong to your faith. Only a religious nut would attack others as heretics when their beliefs are different. Why should rational, not religious AGWers care one way or the other what people "believe" as opposed to what they "do" to conserve energy and reduce the production of CO2 gases? Yet you religious nuts attack the likes of ME, who conserve energy for the purely selfish reason of saving money while believing the AGW religion is a crock, while prasing the likes of Al Gore, who prosetylizes for your religion- A. McIntire
Posted by: Alan D. McIntire | October 31, 2008 4:43 PM
Unlike you.
Posted by: pough | October 31, 2008 5:58 PM
Alan D Macintire, projecting like crazy, claims:
"You AGWers believe, contrary to overwhelming evidence, that the climate didn't change significantly in the last 3000 years until the last century, thanks to manmade global warming."
thus ignoring the piles of data showing how the climate has changed in the past 3,000 years, and all the interesting questions about regional variation in climate, what causes these changes, etc etc. Thus, I conclude he is not a sceptic in any meaningul sense of the word.
Posted by: guthrie | October 31, 2008 8:57 PM
What happened to my formatting?!?
Macintire trots out the following trite, tired phrases - heard a million times - but daaaang it sounds like genius now:
o AGWers believe
o the world is 4.6 BYA, and climate has, liked, changed hella lots in 4.6 B years, don'tcha know.
o Al Gore
o Algore is fat and uses like, hella lots of energy
o (Washington Times as a source)
o you AGWers believe in FAITH
o you religious nuts
o the AGW religion
and...uh...zzzzzzzzzzzz.
snork HUH? Whazzat? Honey, is that parody character Mac done yet? Who do you think created that one? Motl?
Best,
Posted by: Dano | October 31, 2008 10:52 PM
Anne Elk has a theory, re the Brontosaurus http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cAYDiPizDIs
Posted by: z | October 31, 2008 11:15 PM
I've got a theory that it's a demon ... a dancing demon .... no, something isn't right there
I've got a theory some kid is dreaming, and we're all stuck inside his wacky Broadway nightmare!
I've got a theory, it doesn't matter ... there's nothing we can't face ...
Except for bunnies!
Posted by: Marion Delgado | October 31, 2008 11:55 PM
But, my friends, there's no doubt that AGW is a gigantic nefariuos worldwide conspiracy to replace evolution theory with the worship of mother Nature.
The evidence lies in two words: fossil fuels.
Evolution theory tells us that fossil fuels come from, well, fossils, and they're a part of nature, and by the law of Survival of the Fittest this means we should be allowed to Drill Drill Drill Burn Burn Burn as much of fossil fuels as possible.
What better way to dispute evolution theory than to promote the idea that fossil fuels are evil?
This logic is impeccable, my friends.
As the Editors may say, Fossil fuels are the "Sarah Palin is filled with the holy spirit" of Liberal Fascism.
Posted by: bi -- IJI | November 1, 2008 4:48 AM
Alan D. McIntyre, who has obviously been reading Dale Carnegie, posts:
That's correct. We're on the down side of a long interglacial.
Sorry, but the evidence says you're wrong. We're warmer now than we've been in at least 1,300 years, and probably considerably longer.
He's a former Vice President of the United States. His home includes an office and rooms for secret service personnel. And he has insulated it and installed solar power panels. What more do you want?
Paul didn't diss good works, all he said was that they weren't what saved you.
Wow! What a bigoted thing to say! All religious groups, huh?
A heresy is a disagreement with a religion's core values. Are religions not allowed to define what they believe? Are astronomers not allowed to say Velikovsky was wrong?
Maybe it's the way you talk to people.
Posted by: Barton Paul Levenson | November 1, 2008 8:03 AM
BPL:
Don't sweat it. The main problem with Alan's rant is that completely off-topic.
Also, Vincent Gray is the J. R. R. Tolkien of Liberal Fascism.
Posted by: bi -- IJI | November 1, 2008 1:23 PM
Former vice presidents don't get Secret Service protection, although he probably has some kind of security detail.
The main point about Gore's electricity is this: It's wind power, with a small amount of solar. It has no carbon footprint, other than what was required to build and maintain it. The carbon emissions from the house come primarily from his use of natural gas, which was reduced some 80% when he installed a ground source heat pump.
Posted by: cce | November 1, 2008 1:50 PM
Vincent Gray must have read the "wedge" paper, and thought that we hadn't.
Posted by: Harald Korneliussen | November 7, 2008 9:52 AM