…and this is a 
Hello, Stan Palmer!
Category: Administrative • Kooks • Personal
Posted on: November 8, 2007 4:31 PM, by PZ Myers
Hi, Stan. You're new here, like a whole lot of people. You've just shown up, and here's your very first comment.
I noticed that this blog is in the running for a Best Science Blog award.
I've looked over the site. Cna someone point out where the science is on it. I have looked but I can't find any.
Let me introduce myself. My name is PZ Myers. I'm an associate professor of biology at a small liberal arts university in the upper midwest. I make no grand claims for myself, but I have been exceptionally busy lately, with lots of travel and lectures, and it's all on top of teaching two courses, one of which is both new to me and a new course in our discipline, so I'm writing lectures at a frantic pace and trying to keep up with 80 students. I'm also working on a book and have a magazine column to write, in addition to other irregular writing jobs. I'm stretched very, very thin right now, I'm a bit frustrated myself that I haven't had much spare time for the blog, and I'm feeling extremely cranky.
Welcome, Stan Palmer, I'm going to unload on you as a proxy for all your fellow denialist idiots!
First, though, I'll help you out. Look on the left sidebard, for A Taste of Pharyngula. If that's not enough, there's an archive of my Seed columns. You didn't seem to look very hard before leaping to your rather clueless indictment; I suspect you were directed here by one of those right-wing sites and came here with preconceptions. I daresay you probably didn't look at all, but instead simply scampered over here to toss off your petty, ignorant comment.
And then, of course, what's bringing you and your fellow naive whiners here is the need to defend the climate change denialist, McIntyre — so many of you, after carping that I'm not meeting your demands, are protesting that he's not a denialist, and you aren't denialists, and you're all here in the cause of good science.
Bullshit.
My expertise is not in climate, but in biology, and I'm familiar with his type — it's a common strategy among creationists, who do dearly love to collect complaints. There are people who put together a coherent picture of a scientific issue, who review lots of evidence and assemble a rational synthesis. They're called scientists. Then there are the myopic little nitpickers, people who scurry about seeking little bits of garbage in the fabric of science (and of course, there are such flaws everywhere), and when they find some scrap of rot, they squeak triumphantly and hold it high and declare that the science everywhere is similarly corrupt. They lack perspective. They ignore everything that doesn't fit their search criterion, and of course, they're focused only on putrescence. They aren't scientists, they're more like rats.
And the worst of the rats are the sanctimonious ones that declare that they're just 'policing' science. They aren't. They're just providing fodder for their fellow denialists, and like them all, have nothing of value to contribute to advance the conversation. You can quit whining that you and McIntyre are finding valid errors; it doesn't matter, since you're simultaneously spreading a plague of lies and ignorance as you go.
So bugger off, denialists. I am not impressed.
Everyone else, please do vote for Bad Astronomy. Real scientists can see the big picture and understand that the real power of science lies in the explanations, not the pettifoggery with statistics — not that I expect the right-wing gomers at the Weblog Awards who nominated the purveyors of junk science for their award to to know that, or for the swarms of freepers and limbots to care.
Oh, and the next clueless ass to whine at me that they can't find any science here will be disemvoweled. I'm feeling peevish, so it's not a good time to prod.
Comments
PZ calm down, have a beer.
Posted by: ike | November 8, 2007 4:38 PM
Hy, PZ
Whrs th scnc? Why n scnc. W wnt t s th scnc. Shw s th scnc!
nd nywy, cphlpds sck!
Posted by: Donalbain | November 8, 2007 4:42 PM
I'm planning to. I'm going to use this trip to DC to sleep in late (7am, maybe, if I'm feeling hedonistic), take some walks on the mall, get some seafood, and drink a Bubble Me Blue martini.
Posted by: PZ Myers | November 8, 2007 4:43 PM
Awards can be useful things, but this latest interwebby awards contest is pretty lame, IMO. The selection of nominees seems rather ad hoc to me, and the voting less about the science than about the politics of it all. Bah, humbug!
Posted by: David Wilford | November 8, 2007 4:45 PM
an interesting perspective, and of course, really rather light on any data that suggests that McIntyre is a "denialist". But then, why let facts get in the way of a good unload ?
It is probably worth mentioning that the National Academy of Science empanelled an NRC group to pronounce on the statistical analysis that McIntyre did. The NRC group - of leading climate scientists- pretty much agreed with McIntyre's conclusions. Wegman, a leading statistician, also did a report that agreed with the NRC report, and criticised the statistics in the "hockey-stick" analysis.
Maybe PZ is suggesting all these people are liars, or somehow right wing, or denialist, because of their science ?
You make the analogy with creationists. Well who here is insisting that we ignore well-founded science ?
Posted by: per | November 8, 2007 4:47 PM
This post just gave me a warm, fuzzy feeling inside. It exactly expressed my own feelings after having read all these comments on yours and the BA's blog for the last few days. Thank you! And thank you for a great science blog.
/unrepentant fanboy mode off
Posted by: Ted D | November 8, 2007 4:48 PM
...My expertise is not in climate, but in biology, and I'm familiar with his type -- it's a common strategy among creationists, who do dearly love to collect complaints....
You don't understand the maths, but your hatred will guide you nonetheless. You silly fellow.
Posted by: Freddy | November 8, 2007 5:00 PM
Denialists of all stripes use the same tactics. Doesn't take a science degree of any kind to spot them.
Posted by: Bronze Dog | November 8, 2007 5:03 PM
As I told you folks yesterday: fuck the hockey stick, fuck Mann, and look. Make sure to read all the fine print.
Acting as if science had, like, somehow just stopped in 1998 is diagnostic of 1) ignorance and 2) the stupidity of believing everyone is as ignorant as oneself.
Posted by: David Marjanović, OM | November 8, 2007 5:04 PM
"You didn't seem to look very hard before leaping to your rather clueless indictment;"
From your comments about Steve, it is also obvious that you are guilty of the same behavior.
Posted by: cbone | November 8, 2007 5:06 PM
PZ Myrs sn't gdd by htrd. H s mstrbtng frsly. Tht s blgy t y.
PS Whr s th scnc n ths blg?
Posted by: BS Naysayer | November 8, 2007 5:06 PM
Poor PZ, losing so badly to "denialists," he has to huff into his lukewarm tea. Better luck next year.
Posted by: j1 | November 8, 2007 5:09 PM
First time I've see a grown man unhinged by a stupid question.
Posted by: Tristram shandy | November 8, 2007 5:09 PM
I'm with Stan. This blog would have been better suited to the Religion category.
Posted by: Kate | November 8, 2007 5:11 PM
Man, they sure show up fast, don't they?
Um, let's see, this would be the report that is summarized at the NAS website thusly?
You use that word "agreed". I do not think it means what you think it means.
Posted by: Johnny Vector | November 8, 2007 5:12 PM
P.Z. has spoken
Amen.
And it is undeniable that there are some very
nasty and foolish posts in the Webblog thread.
Posted by: harold | November 8, 2007 5:15 PM
Re : David Marjanović
... fuck the hockey stick, fuck Mann, and look. ...
Well, I looked, and I saw another hockey stick and a weak argument that contained the words "...and if paleoclimatology is right about anything, we're likely heading towards disaster...."
In science, first you have to prove that paleoclimatology is right. Which they have entirely failed to do.
Posted by: Freddy | November 8, 2007 5:16 PM
Either there's a denialist invasion in full swing, or some people are posting under multiple different names.
Posted by: JD | November 8, 2007 5:16 PM
PZ sure is one sore loser. And what kind of real scientist ever tells people who disagree with him to 'fuck off'?
Posted by: idlex | November 8, 2007 5:16 PM
Can we just call them Freepers? They whine and pout just like em.
Posted by: Stevie_C | November 8, 2007 5:17 PM
Wish I was able to write a 'bugger off' post half as well as this one!
Posted by: Disgusted in St. Louis | November 8, 2007 5:18 PM
It's an invasion of assholes. They come over here and cry about being called denialists and PZ is the baby? Grow thicker skins.
PZ made it clear last week he didn't want the top science blog award, that's the only reason CA may win it. He may regret it, because now we have you assholes shouting victory when PZ was trying to throw it to a blog he respects and likes.
Posted by: Stevie_C | November 8, 2007 5:22 PM
Since I haven't followed the whole Molly award thingy that extensively, did David Marjanović, OM ever got one?
If no, he really should receive one for his comments in this and other blogs. :)
As for the topic, nice analysis of the type of people they're over at Climate Audit.
Posted by: student_b | November 8, 2007 5:23 PM
Geez, you'd think someone had disparaged Ron Paul, as quickly as the Astroturf Response Squad has mobilized.
Posted by: dzd | November 8, 2007 5:23 PM
In science, first you have to prove that paleoclimatology is right. Which they have entirely failed to do.
Yeah...wow...that's just not really how science works at all.
Posted by: Josh | November 8, 2007 5:23 PM
"And what kind of real scientist ever tells people who disagree with him to 'fuck off'?"
One who has had to deal with far too many idiots.
Posted by: remy | November 8, 2007 5:25 PM
Dear Johnny Vector
as far as I am aware, McIntyre has never disagreed with
The NRC does agree with McIntyre's specific criticisms of the statistics used by MBH'98, and it explicitly disavows use of several of the proxies that MBH'98 used.
Posted by: per | November 8, 2007 5:27 PM
Oh my God, Kate's a laugh riot, ha ha ha. Because, you know, that's the first time PZ has been accused of being a religionist by a right-wing moron. It's so original, you know?
Posted by: Onias | November 8, 2007 5:27 PM
Right on, PZ!
per-
An admittedly brief search through McIntyre's site finds no reference to the phrase "I am not a denialist" by McIntyre.
A similar look at his site shows perfunctory analysis and lukewarm criticism (if any at all) of The Great Global Warming Swindle, while the recent readjustment in GISS's data is trumpeted from here to high heaven.
Please cite the post where McIntyre states, in no uncertain terms, that he is not a denialist and does consider global warming to be happening.
Please also explain how a man who claims to be impartial and anti-anti-science can find no rage for a clearly and self-admittedly one-sided "documentary" which is on par with "Expelled".
Posted by: AtheistAcolyte | November 8, 2007 5:30 PM
Can I just point out again that right wing does not equal creationist denialist nutjob? Some of us are very pro-science atheists. Thanks, and I feel your pain PZ.
Posted by: Jolly Bloger | November 8, 2007 5:31 PM
More rats. Rats with their moldy flecks of rotting garbage. You guys don't get it, do you?
Posted by: PZ Myers | November 8, 2007 5:31 PM
Are you sure he's one of the denialists? I agree with you about almost everything you post, but I also wish that there was "more science" on this blog, since I enjoy your analysis of development papers. There are way more posts on religion and atheism that there are on any other topic. Your regular readers are fine with that, but the guy who comes here once from the award website expecting this "science blog" to have science in every post is going to be confused.
Posted by: synapse | November 8, 2007 5:32 PM
Your challenge is not to find some peer-reviewed work that was a little sloppy... your challenge is to fund peer-reviewed work that actually supports your fucking proposition.
You can't do that because you're wrong.
You wouldn't know science if it bit you.
Posted by: B. Dewhirst | November 8, 2007 5:33 PM
Either there's a denialist invasion in full swing, or some people are posting under multiple different names.
I agree... sock-puppet city.
Posted by: B. Dewhirst | November 8, 2007 5:35 PM
All this fuss over a silly Webblog competition.
Have a nice flight P.Z. and go easy on the martini's.
Posted by: harold | November 8, 2007 5:36 PM
PZed,
Why do you hate rats so? Rats can be lovely and cuddly. I'm offended on behalf of rat-kind.
student_b,
Dottore Marjanović has indeed been awarded the Order of Molly - hence the to postnominal "OM".
Unless of course I'm mistaken, and he is in fact a British subject. Perhaps in due time he will be and then he might end up "OM2".
Posted by: Sili | November 8, 2007 5:37 PM
Typical. He tries to do something nice and denialists take advantage of it.
Posted by: Stevie_C | November 8, 2007 5:40 PM
"Typical. He tries to do something nice and denialists take advantage of it."
Huh? He tells denialists to bugger off. Lol
Posted by: harold | November 8, 2007 5:44 PM
Looks like a surpriZe attack by some broom-up-the-ass humans from some likely truly constipated blog.
Fellow humans, swarming in with the same rubber/glue posts! Shame on you (and BTW you should learn the proper use of shame)
I'd rather vote Republican than be a part of such horseshit dishonesty as the faux-thinkers pouring in on this thread.
Posted by: darwinfinch | November 8, 2007 5:47 PM
AtheistAcolyte. This is McIntyres position towards GW:
Does your work disprove global warming?
We have not made such a claim. There is considerable evidence that in many locations the late 20th century was generally warmer than the mid-19th century. However, there is also considerable evidence that in parts of the Northern Hemisphere, the mid-19th century was exceptionally cold. We think that a more interesting issue is whether the late 20th century was warmer than periods of similar length in the 11th century. We ourselves do not opine on this matter, other than to say that the MBH results relied upon so heavily by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change in its 2001 report are invalid. (From: http://www.climateaudit.org/?page_id=1002 )
Posted by: Theo Richel | November 8, 2007 5:47 PM
That isn't a position. That's obfuscatory bafflegab calculated to encourage deniability.
Posted by: PZ Myers | November 8, 2007 5:51 PM
Geez, I come back after a few days off and the place is full of wingnuts.
Posted by: tomh | November 8, 2007 5:52 PM
I didn't want to say anything in the previous thread about CA, but I have to agree that there seems to be a lot of sockpuppetry going on here. Then again, it could just be a ton of rabid CA fans coming over here to defend their champion nitpicker, McIntyre. I dunno. I'm leaning toward sockpuppets. I know you probably don't care PZ, but have you looked into this?
I checked out CA...ugh. It's an entire blog seemingly devoted to the hockey stick. That's all. That's it. And although McIntyre never explicity states that he doubts AGW in general, he's definately doing it a disservice by focusing so narrow-mindedly on some errors in a study that don't even significantly effect the outcome of said study! Furthermore, he seems to have a lot of paranoia and anger about climatologists in general. Lots of snark, whine, and victim-playing over there. Yeesh.
Posted by: Shnakepup | November 8, 2007 5:56 PM
Well, there's egg, sausage, Spam and bacon. That hasn't got much Spam.
Posted by: Ford | November 8, 2007 5:57 PM
remy wrote: ""And what kind of real scientist ever tells people who disagree with him to 'fuck off'?"
One who has had to deal with far too many idiots. "
It's not just that they're idiots -- I can deal with simple idiots. It's that they're self-righteous, ignorant, idiots. Kind of like trying to have a discussion with Ted Stevens about the internets.
Posted by: gg | November 8, 2007 5:58 PM
"What's happening in science is the most interesting thing in the world, and if you don't agree with me just fuck off, because I'm not interested in talking to you" - Alun Anderson, Editor-in-Chief of New Scientist
Ahem from a real scientist ;)~
Posted by: obscured by clouds | November 8, 2007 6:02 PM
Damn, and I left my wingnut fumigant at home today...
Posted by: G | November 8, 2007 6:03 PM
Theo Richel -
Thanks for the reply. However, not all replies are answers. The quote you present makes no reference to evidence for global warming. That is to say, the mean annual temperature has risen by statistically significant amounts over the last 100 years.
To repeat:
Please cite the post where McIntyre states, in no uncertain terms, that he is not a denialist and does consider global warming to be happening.
Posted by: AtheistAcolyte | November 8, 2007 6:04 PM
Please help me, conservative atheists. I can't seem to find anything in the right-wing platform that could be called rational or evidence-based.
School vouchers? nothing more than religious payola.
Trickle down economics? Doesn't work. Nothing trickles down.
Deregulation? Corruption and the raping of consumers have run rampant.
Lower taxes for the rich? Consolidates power and wealth in the hands of the few without creating economic opportunities for others.
In fact, it seems that when conservatives aren't forcing a fascist, dominionist theocracy on Americans, they're consolidating wealth and power for the rich, white males who already have it.
Posted by: Stogoe | November 8, 2007 6:05 PM
Shnakepup wrote: "And although McIntyre never explicity states that he doubts AGW in general, he's definitely doing it a disservice by focusing so narrow-mindedly on some errors in a study that don't even significantly effect the outcome of said study!"
The 17th century version of such an attitude: "Ohmygod, Isaac Newton believed in alchemy! The whole theory of gravitation must be wrong!
Posted by: gg | November 8, 2007 6:06 PM
Wow, invasion. Pretty deft, PZ, making a nest for them to foul and leading them to it. Lemme get some popcorn.
Posted by: Adam | November 8, 2007 6:08 PM
you know, this is a funny argument you produce, like somehow getting the proper answer from a science experiment is bad. Have a look at:
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=2327
I think the point is well made. You want to have a well-founded scientific view on climate; not one that relies on information that is wrong.
well this isn't true. If you take the bristlecones out of MBH'98, you lose the statistical significance. If you take out the erroneous PCA method, the hockey-stick is no longer the dominant component of variance. The NAS panel said that you shouldn't rely on bristlecones, and they concluded that temperature reconstructions have unknown reliability.These are significant issues, and they do make a difference.
And by the way, one of the ways science works is by holding out your work, your hypotheses, to critical examination. It is when you work survives that critical examination that it is good science.
Posted by: per | November 8, 2007 6:11 PM
"And what kind of real scientist ever tells people who disagree with him to 'fuck off'?"
I dunno. I'm a real scientist and I tell people to fuck off on a nearly daily basis...
...Don't you?
Posted by: factician | November 8, 2007 6:12 PM
My current theory is that McIntyre's perceived non-denialist stance is an artifact of cognitive dissonance and groupthink. You'll note that everyone will leap up with "He's not a denialist, he's said so many times," but no one can come up with a quote from him where he clarifies such a position unambiguously. We shall see if my theory holds against what I'm sure will be the flood of data.
Posted by: AtheistAcolyte | November 8, 2007 6:14 PM
AtheistAcolyte: Well no. He makes no statements about it and rightly so, because he only makes a statement about something that he checked thoroughly. So he doesnt deny it nor confirm it. If that makes him a denialist then you have an easy day, otherwise I suggest you prove him to be a denialist. Or go to his site if you dare and ask him personally.
Posted by: Theo Richel | November 8, 2007 6:17 PM
One of the things I've always liked about PZ is his correct usage of non-americanisms. I could be wrong but bugger is a typically Kiwi-aussie word. Everything is buggered down this way (read into that what you will). Sweet.
Posted by: Brian English | November 8, 2007 6:19 PM
Theo Richel wrote:
Or go to his site if you dare
Is it scary there?
Posted by: tomh | November 8, 2007 6:20 PM
Doesn't matter if a scientist tells someone to fuck off or not. It's immaterial to the science.
Why is it denialists of all stripes would rather argue about manners than science? Is it because they know their science is shit?
Excuse me. Poo-poo?
Posted by: Siamang | November 8, 2007 6:20 PM
Sorry, but the sanctimonious assholes who have charged over here to make accusations, and the fact that he's got the support of the junk science king, Milloy, gives me no cause to doubt my impressions of McIntyre, and I'm not at all interested in visiting his site.
Posted by: PZ Myers | November 8, 2007 6:23 PM
So then Theo, you agree that he has NOT said so? So all those people who say "He's not a denialist, he said so many times" are all wrong?
Thanks.
Posted by: AtheistAcolyte | November 8, 2007 6:23 PM
PZed ~ I'm sorry I can't make it tonight for the delicious geekiness. But I am having a gas watching all of this greenhouse carnage unfold. Have one/two/ten of those fizzy lifting drinks for all of us who would be there if we could!
And, bugger off all of you denialist muppets!
Posted by: ennui | November 8, 2007 6:24 PM
"Oh, and the next clueless ass to whine at me that they can't find any science here will be disemvoweled. I'm feeling peevish, so it's not a good time to prod.
At risk of being characterized as a "clueless ass", I will post a thought that aspires to rise above the insipidness and banality that offends and presents a perspective that may be worth considering:
"Science and religion are two windows that people look through, trying to understand the big universe outside, trying to understand why we are here. The two windows give different views, but they look out at the same universe. Both views are one-sided, neither is complete. Both leave out essential features of the real world. And both are worthy of respect.
Trouble arises when either science or religion claims universal jurisdiction, when either religious dogma or scientific dogma claims to be infallible. Religious creationists and scientific materialists are equally dogmatic and insensitive. By their arrogance they bring both science and religion into disrepute. The media exaggerate their numbers and importance. The media rarely mention the fact that the great majority of religious people belong to moderate denominations that treat science with respect, or the fact that the great majority of scientists treat religion with respect so long as religion does not claim jurisdiction over scientific questions.:- Freeman Dyson
Posted by: Kamehameha the Great | November 8, 2007 6:25 PM
So PZ, you're not bitter are you? Tell how you REALLY feel.
Posted by: John A | November 8, 2007 6:27 PM
@ Atheist
I suppose you are referring to research by Dr Norbert Schwartz
http://sitemaker.umich.edu/norbert.schwarz/files/07_aep_schwarz_et_al_setting-people-straight.pdf
Climateaudit is interested in Data and not Theories,
but you are a step ahead of them I see.
Posted by: harold | November 8, 2007 6:31 PM
Oh, no, I am bitter, John A. I'm greatly irritated that the average intelligence of the commenters here has plummeted since you and your lying ilk have been diluting the threads here.
You can go away now.
Posted by: PZ Myers | November 8, 2007 6:34 PM
and it's all on top of teaching two courses, one of which is both new to me and a new course in our discipline, so I'm writing lectures at a frantic pace and trying to keep up with 80 students
Sorry, I had to chuckle at this PZ, 80 students? Two classes? WOW ... not. ;o)
I am currently teaching four different classes plus overseeing a student project. One I've never taught before, another that I hadn't taught for two years. I have slightly less than 200 students.
Just snarking. ;o)
By the way, shame to see, Bad Astronomy didn't win. :o(
Posted by: dogmeatib | November 8, 2007 6:35 PM
PZ Myers:
Victim: "I'm a bit frustrated myself that I haven't had much spare time for the blog, and I'm feeling extremely cranky"
Rude guy: "Welcome, Stan Palmer, I'm going to unload on you as a proxy for all your fellow denialist idiots!"
With all that going for him, he also manages to squeeze in time to be a hypocritical fool! He chews out Stan for coming to his site, checking it out and opining that there's not much science to be seen. PZ grants this (he's been really busy though!), then slams Stan for not scanning for science in the fine print in the left column.
Meanwhile, our intrepid ass. professor has the gall to berate McIntyre's site and his politics even though he's never been there!!
Posted by: Chris Christner | November 8, 2007 6:36 PM
@John A
Your last name wouldn't happen to be Davison, would it?
Posted by: G | November 8, 2007 6:36 PM
Actually, I had no idea of Dr. Schwartz's research. As psychology is my wife's department, I'll read it some other time.
I do not plan on presenting my theory to ClimateAudit, nor any reputable (or disreputable, for that matter) scientific journal. It's merely an observation that would seem to fall in line with what little I know of cognitive psychology. I'm more than open to evidence to disprove this.
Posted by: AtheistAcolyte | November 8, 2007 6:36 PM
Science is like a window, or maybe more aptly, a lens to properly perceive the world. Religion is more like a wooden door or a carnival fun house mirror.
You'll find counter-arguments to all of Dyson's points littered across this site. Posting a quote from a seemingly wise authority without backing any of it up is a poor way to argue.
Posted by: Jon Strong | November 8, 2007 6:37 PM
My belief is that the average I.Q. here has gone up,
but maybe this is because your posters got so
emotional
Posted by: harold | November 8, 2007 6:38 PM
@tomh (post #42):
Great or what? [/sarcasm]
@Theo Richel (post (#41):
He dismisses research in the piece you posted because his opinion, without any research to back it up, is that it is wrong. He is not even trying to reinterpret the data or get another hypothesis that encompasses both the data and a reason why the current theory might be wrong, no he just states from opinion that the theory is wrong.
And then people like you wonder why he gets laughed at by people who do research.
Posted by: Who Cares | November 8, 2007 6:39 PM
PZM wrote
hmm, that looks like a pretty direct charge that McIntyre is a denialist; though a charge that PZM does not substantiate.
AtheistAcolyte:
so now McIntyre has to deny that he is a denialist, or he is one ? And you know, the funny thing is that McIntyre has n't denied that he is an axe-murderer, a mad arsonist, or a genocidal maniac; and I guess with that logic, he must be all three !
Again, the amusing thing is that you can go over to his website, and actually look at the analysis he does, which is actual analysis, rather than denial. This link (http://www.climateaudit.org/index.php?p=27) gives some indication as to why he thinks it is important to check out data sets.
Needless to say, it is rather amusing that PZM has made amazingly vitriolic comments, and that he won't visit climateaudit to see what it says. What more could you ask for by way of scientific method ?
Posted by: per | November 8, 2007 6:40 PM
PZ, allow me.
Fuck off.
I really do enjoy the feel of that. Let's make that the rationalist rallying cry. Could we get that whole quote printed on the backs of our OUT campaign shirts?
Posted by: AtheistAcolyte | November 8, 2007 6:40 PM
Well PZ at least you're not bitter. There's nothing worse than a bitter academic.
Posted by: John A | November 8, 2007 6:41 PM
PZ isn't going to waste his time reading CA because he fundamentally disagrees with their approach towards science. The content McIntyre posts is irrelevant. DUH.
Posted by: Jon Strong | November 8, 2007 6:44 PM
#69 Atheist
Thank you for your reply.
It is an interesting read, and shows how hard it is
to change opinions, whatever side you are on. :-)
Posted by: harold | November 8, 2007 6:46 PM
Sanctimonious, ignorant, and illiterate, John A? I see you're incapable of even reading a single comment by me.
Now, like I said, you can go away.
Posted by: PZ Myers | November 8, 2007 6:47 PM
As much as I like this blog, but I think Stan has a point. Most of the posts are not about science or are at most tangentially about science. Most of them are about belief systems. Maybe this is why I like this blog. But you have definitely over-reacted to Stan and some of the other commenters. I think you should apologize.
FYI, I'm atheist and consider evolution a true scientific theory.
Posted by: Verde S | November 8, 2007 6:49 PM
Hang tough PZ.
Denialist appears to be a naughty, naughty word. So much so that a legion of drones is dispatched to deny the denialist label.
The theory of GW is based on such fundamental chemistry that even a ninth grader can derive a conclusion as to the result of an ongoing open experiment where unregulated combustion and exhaust is vented continuously into the atmosphere. Denying the inevitable outcome is dishonest, regressive and self-destructive. It must be hard to live in denial with oneself and it certainly isn't healthy.
Posted by: James Taylor | November 8, 2007 6:50 PM
Should he not be a denialist, it should be relatively easy for him to refute. We're just talking a few words here. Why is everyone battling so hard on this?
Posted by: AtheistAcolyte | November 8, 2007 6:50 PM
PZ, both you and horse you rode in on you are absolutely pathetic.
You and a select crowd of posters here have come up short in repeated attempts to falsely label and impugn the honest efforts and genuinely scientific pursuits of a great many individuals from CA; you haven't been able to defend nor support any lame accusation, false assertion, or innuendo.
In short, you have failed and you ahve been beaten, baffled, bested, circumvented, conquered, cowed, crushed, disappointed, discomfited, disheartened, frustrated, humbled, licked, mastered, overcome, overpowered, overthrown, overwhelmed, routed, ruined, subjugated, surmounted, thwarted, trounced, undone, vanquished, worsted, formed, hammered, milled, pounded, rolled, shaped, stamped, tamped, tramped, tramped down, trodden,
worked, aerated, blended, bubbly, churned, creamy, foamy, frothy, meringued, stirred, whipped, whisked and broken, conquered, dashed, destroyed, doomed, finished, foiled, ruined, through, undone, vanquished, washed-up, wrecked.
That is all.
'Waco'/ATF _Jim (formerly of FR)
Posted by: _Jim | November 8, 2007 6:51 PM
I also feel somewhat inclined to defend both rats and nitpickers. There's a place for both of them in the grand ecology of science.
Even people who are wrong can be useful in helping us form coherent explanations as to why we think we're right. Even honest creationists have helped science progress, as they have given the impetus for scientists to come up with better and better arguments.
(Yes- I know that's controversial! I don't think it's possible to be an honest creationist in this day and age- the evidence is so overwhelmingly against. I suspect that there was a healthy debate in the years following Darwin's publications, in which scientists who genuinely believed in creationism gave it their best shot and failed.)
The question is whether climate change 'denialists' are honestly trying to help science along by questioning the received wisdom- or are they all dishonest liars who manipulate the science in order to promote a false position?
I'm inclined to be somewhat more generous than PZ here. I don't know who SP is, but I'm sure there are a lot of 'deniers' who are genuinely confused, mistaken, or in some cases have valid criticisms to make. By the same token, I'm quite sure that all Holocaust deniers are dishonest and that creationists are either willfully ignorant, liars or stupid. I'm uncertain about the race-IQ advocates. I just don't know enough about the science to tell how much of their position is due to a racist agenda.
I'm a physicist- and I don't really understand global warming and I'd be at a complete loss to explain the mathematics of any of the computer models. I form my opinions from reading blogs like Bad Astronomy and RealClimate, written by people who know much more than me about this subject. It's also pretty convincing evidence when you see that the Arctic ice-cap has pretty much vaporized this year. However, I'm happy for a small number of scientists working on the fringes to constantly criticize the data (as long as they get past peer review).
(BTW- don't bite me for this post! I'm more than willing to be wrong, but I don't need to get into another heated argument right now. If I'm wrong, then point out my mistakes, but there's no need to slaughter me.)
Posted by: Christianjb | November 8, 2007 6:52 PM
@Per (post #73):
@Jon Strong (Post #76):
Does McIntyre have any other outlet then his blog for his research? If not then there is no reason to assume anything on the blog is correct. It is a harsh stance but if you want scientific credibility you better have your research scrutinized by scientists who do the same type of research (you know, the thing called peer review) for flaws. If you can't make that cut you are not doing valid science.
Posted by: Who Cares | November 8, 2007 6:53 PM
Ooh dear the propietor is getting even more vexed.
Goodbye fellow atheists, I will also bugger off.
Posted by: harold | November 8, 2007 6:53 PM
Would people please stop feeding the trolls? I mean, sure, you stop the insults and they can then get the last word, but at least then they'll be gone.
Though I myself can't resist at least one shot:
There was a chance, however slim, that I'd go to this other blog, read it, and actually become impressed, or at least get to do some thinking about the issues.
However, seeing how readers of that blog are acting here, I have suddenly lost all interest to read the blog they come from. I mean, if they're like this, the site must be nothing but lies and ad-hominems.
No-doubt they won't care, but they might want to consider the fact that they have proclaimed themselves diplomats, and have then proceeded to hurl insults. It certainly doesn't reflect well on the one they represent.
Posted by: GDwarf | November 8, 2007 6:54 PM
FYI, I'm atheist and consider evolution a true scientific theory
Oh dear, what does this mean? That the theory, has some truth logically? Or that the theory is supported by evidence and hasn't been falsified yet?
Posted by: Brian English | November 8, 2007 6:54 PM
Sometimes I regret the fact that thesauruses were ever invented.
Posted by: Tyler DiPietro | November 8, 2007 6:54 PM
Posted by: AtheistAcolyte | November 8, 2007 6:56 PM
In the for what its worth category Dr. Judith Curry had some kind words for Steve.
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=2323#comment-157795
(For those of you too afraid to go over there here is what she said: "WOW. I've been following the weblog