Pharyngula

Posted by: ike | November 8, 2007 4:38 PM

PZ calm down, have a beer.

Posted by: per | November 8, 2007 4:47 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: Freddy | November 8, 2007 5:00 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: David Marjanović, OM | November 8, 2007 5:04 PM

and criticised the statistics in the "hockey-stick" analysis.

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: BS Naysayer | 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: Tristram shandy | November 8, 2007 5:09 PM

First time I've see a grown man unhinged by a stupid question.

Posted by: Johnny Vector | November 8, 2007 5:12 PM

Man, they sure show up fast, don't they?

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.

Um, let's see, this would be the report that is summarized at the NAS website thusly?

There is sufficient evidence from tree rings, retreating glaciers, and other "proxies" to say with confidence that the last few decades of the 20th century were warmer than any comparable period in the last 400 years, according to a new National Research Council report.

You use that word "agreed". I do not think it means what you think it means.

Posted by: Freddy | November 8, 2007 5:16 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: idlex | 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: Disgusted in St. Louis | November 8, 2007 5:18 PM

Wish I was able to write a 'bugger off' post half as well as this one!

Posted by: student_b | November 8, 2007 5:23 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: Josh | 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: per | November 8, 2007 5:27 PM

Dear Johnny Vector
as far as I am aware, McIntyre has never disagreed with

There is sufficient evidence from tree rings, retreating glaciers, and other "proxies" to say with confidence that the last few decades of the 20th century were warmer than any comparable period in the last 400 years, according to a new National Research Council report.

Posted by: AtheistAcolyte | November 8, 2007 5:30 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: B. Dewhirst | November 8, 2007 5:33 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: harold | November 8, 2007 5:36 PM

All this fuss over a silly Webblog competition.

Have a nice flight P.Z. and go easy on the martini's.

Posted by: Stevie_C | November 8, 2007 5:40 PM

Typical. He tries to do something nice and denialists take advantage of it.

Posted by: darwinfinch | November 8, 2007 5:47 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: Shnakepup | November 8, 2007 5:56 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: gg | November 8, 2007 5:58 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: G | November 8, 2007 6:03 PM

Damn, and I left my wingnut fumigant at home today...

Posted by: Stogoe | November 8, 2007 6:05 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: Adam | November 8, 2007 6:08 PM

Wow, invasion. Pretty deft, PZ, making a nest for them to foul and leading them to it. Lemme get some popcorn.

Posted by: factician | November 8, 2007 6:12 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: Theo Richel | November 8, 2007 6:17 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: tomh | November 8, 2007 6:20 PM

Theo Richel wrote:
Or go to his site if you dare

Is it scary there?

Posted by: ennui | November 8, 2007 6:24 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: John A | November 8, 2007 6:27 PM

So PZ, you're not bitter are you? Tell how you REALLY feel.

Posted by: Chris Christner | November 8, 2007 6:36 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: AtheistAcolyte | 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: harold | November 8, 2007 6:38 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: per | November 8, 2007 6:40 PM

PZM wrote

the climate change denialist, McIntyre

AtheistAcolyte:

Please cite the post where McIntyre states, in no uncertain terms, that he is not a denialist...

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: John A | November 8, 2007 6:41 PM

Well PZ at least you're not bitter. There's nothing worse than a bitter academic.

Posted by: harold | November 8, 2007 6:46 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: Verde S | November 8, 2007 6:49 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: AtheistAcolyte | 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: Christianjb | November 8, 2007 6:52 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: harold | 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: Brian English | 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: AtheistAcolyte | November 8, 2007 6:56 PM

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 !Wow, strawman, red herring AND false analogy! A triple play! Thanks for playing!

Seriously, though, of course it doesn't make him a denialist. However, others have made the accusation based on what's in his blog. It would take only a few keystrokes to do a fair amount of dispelling here.

Posted by: Francois O | November 8, 2007 6:58 PM

Dear PZ

Somehow I feel insulted by your post. First because I admire Climate Audit and Steve McIntyre, second because I don't consider myself a "denialist" (whatever that means), and third because I am myself a scientist (Ph. D. in physics and quite a few publications and so on and so on). And I'm all for good science. Like you, I'm not a climatologist, although I would argue that a physics background is more useful than a biology background to understand the climate change issue.

But I know your type. You're a young ambitious scientist on his way to making a career writing about science and fighting the endless war against creationists, something that always pays well, as Dawkins, Gould and a host of others have figured out, and which this blog's popularity exemplifies. If you want to make it in the media, you have to be good at myth-making. Good versus evil, environmentalists versus denialists, evolutionists versus creationists. Thus the myth of the infallible scientific method that will save the world, thanks to peer review. Who would disagree?

But in my relatively brief scientific carreer, I've learned something different. Or maybe I was always like that. What I know is that to make good science, it doesn't pay to accept as gospel what you read in the "peer-reviewed" papers. In fact, the best strategy is to always disbelieve what you read. Always ask yourself what could be wrong with those results, and how could you do better. I've had colleagues whom I admired a lot while I was doing my Ph.D. I thought their thesis work was way better than mine. Yet I've had a relatively more (albeit modestly) successful carreer than many of them, because I had something they didn't have, apparently. That something is called originality. I'm no genius, but it's amazing how far you can go if you have the slightest amount of it. But you only get it if you always, always question everything you read. A lot of scientists just copy each other and do boring stuff. Of course they're always right. But boring. 95% of the "peer reviewed" papers are like that (maybe 99% is a better figure).

After a few years doing science, I was myself bored, and tired of the childish bickering about who has cited your papers, who rejected your manuscript and all that crap. That's all scientists think and talk about all day. You'll realize yourself how little time there is to do good science. So I started a company and did all sorts of other stuff to get a taste of the "real world".

And now I have time for myself and to study one of my other interests, that is sociology of science. That's why I'm interested in the climate change issue, but also in the evolution debate. But you know what? I find the evolutionist-creationist debate boring. In fact, despite a lot of criticisms I have towards science studies, I find myself siding with Steve Fuller on that one. All this hysteria about creationism may just be a diversion, preventing the public from looking at the flaws of the scientific institution. When things are bad at home, create an enemy. Thus the creationists, the climate denialists, and so on. Peer review will save us, despite all its flaws. And, errhh... we also need more budget for science, don't we?

Good luck with you blog and your career. Sorry that you lost this contest, but hey, it's because of the right wing nuts! Personnally, I prefer John Hawks, if you don't mind. More science, less politics. Ah, and funnier too.

Posted by: G | November 8, 2007 6:59 PM

@_Jim,

Wow, did you get that from here?

good work! you can cut and paste! Sadly, Jimmy, it's time for your nap with the rest of the kindergarteners.

Posted by: Master Mahan | November 8, 2007 7:00 PM

If one denies being a denialist, what does that make them, I wonder?

Posted by: AtheistAcolyte | November 8, 2007 7:02 PM

Damn my poor editing skills. That'll teach,advise, brief, catechize, coach, communicate, cram, demonstrate, develop, direct, discipline, drill, edify, enlighten, exercise, explain, expound, fit, form, give instruction, give lessons, ground, guide, illustrate, imbue, impart, implant, improve mind, inculcate, indoctrinate, inform, initiate, instruct, interpret, lecture, nurture, open eyes, polish up, pound into, prepare, profess, rear, school, sharpen, show, supply-teach, train, tutor me to preview before posting.

Posted by: CJO | November 8, 2007 7:09 PM

In short...
followed by half the thesaurus. Idiot.

Don't you dumbfucks have a football team to get all sweaty and bothered about? It was a stupid Webby award, or what the-f ever.

...subjugated, surmounted...
Oh, and your true colors were showing, there. Cover up, man.

Posted by: tomh | November 8, 2007 7:12 PM

Lurchgs wrote:
All I see is Stan coming to the site and not using his eyes ... for this he gets labeled "denialist" and accused of being a troll for the enemy?

Did you happen to notice all the trolls that followed him here? What a coincidence!

Posted by: Ryan Egesdahl | November 8, 2007 7:14 PM

O.O
Geez, PZ...I mean...
Go have a drink, buddy, and relax a bit, ok? Seems like this rant was a long time coming, though.

Posted by: John A | November 8, 2007 7:19 PM

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.

I wonder if Dr Hwang woo Suk had the same views about those pesky bloggers who brought his scientific career crashing down?

Posted by: James McGrath | November 8, 2007 7:22 PM

Hi PZ (and everyone). Perhaps this will lighten the mood. Someone just pointed out to me that a post I wrote complaining about censorship was posted on the Expelled movie web page.

The irony? I was complaining about my being banned from commenting on the Uncommon Descent blog! :)

http://exploringourmatrix.blogspot.com/2007/11/ironically-not-expelled-from-expelled.html

Posted by: Moses | November 8, 2007 7:28 PM

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

Because you stupid fuck, the NAS also said the errors, in the big picture, didn't mean a damn thing in the big context that AGW is a fact and that Mann was right, only off slightly in magnitude. Yet you think we're stupid and don't know this.

And, you come back with the same trivial fuck-wit arguments, just like the creationists and over-play minor errors while ignoring you're just effing wrong.

Posted by: per | November 8, 2007 7:32 PM

Seriously, though, of course it doesn't make him a denialist. However, others have made the accusation based on what's in his blog. It would take only a few keystrokes to do a fair amount of dispelling here.

yet your stance is that McIntyre has an obligation to deny being a denialist. He doesn't deny science; he does analysis. He has a whole web site full of analysis, and commentary on scientific issues. He even has peer-reviewed papers, and his work was scrutinised by an NRC panel. You can go look at the NRC report, the Wegman report, or the web-site if you want.

but if you are determined to believe unsubstantiated allegations, it is your choice.
For the meantime, here is a fairly readable link to the NRC and Wegman review of the science that McIntyre did
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=2322

Posted by: Rich | November 8, 2007 7:33 PM

Wingnuts, come here:

http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin/ikonboard/ikonboard.cgi?act=SF;f=14

I wish to laugh at you and poke you with my reason stick*

*they might take this as homoerotic, which they *secretly* love...

Posted by: tomh | November 8, 2007 7:36 PM

cbone wrote [#112}: A lot of nonsense.

Wow, PZ must be at the top of a list somewhere, they just keep coming.

Posted by: andy | November 8, 2007 7:38 PM

No, actually it is a very sad reflection of the community here.

Posted by: kristen in montreal | November 8, 2007 7:39 PM

I haven't been commenting here much, but I've been visiting frequently... I enjoy this blog very much, but is it just me, or is all the seething and venom getting to be a real drag? I wish PZ would do a few more science-related posts and maybe downplay the drama and the ranting and raving at the "creationists" and "denialists."

What's so scary is that the way PZ is acting I half-expect him to come yelling at me for making this small suggestion.

Posted by: cbone | November 8, 2007 7:41 PM

PZ:"I've been reading RealClimate since it first appeared on the web"

You do realize that RealClimate is a shill for the environmentalist PR firm Fenton Media, don't you? It is hardly a balanced view of the science.

Posted by: Johan i Kanada | November 8, 2007 7:41 PM

Ths s my frst tm hr nd, ndlss t sy, m nt trrbly mprssd.
rn't scntsts sppsd t s ctl rgmnts?
n ny cs, hv fn wth yr nrrw mndd nm cllng, PZ, wll nt bthr cmng bck.

Posted by: Dustin | November 8, 2007 7:43 PM

Wow. Invasion. It's like locusts. What happened?

My bad. I shaved my head and made fun of Heston's man boobs.

Posted by: cbone | November 8, 2007 7:45 PM

"Yes, because this community was the one that launched the troll spamfest onto someone else's blog."

Actually, yes. The scurrilous unfounded attacks against Steve McIntyre by the host of this blog are the reason that people have come here to defend him (Steve). For a site that claims to be 'scientific' the arguments against Steve are extremely childish and definitely unscientific.

Posted by: trevor | November 8, 2007 7:53 PM

ntrstng.... n f th grt bnfts f th cmpttn s tht w lrn bt blgs tht w nvr hrd f.

My vst hr tlls m lt?: "By thr frts y shll knw thm"

Posted by: eewolf | November 8, 2007 7:55 PM

Thanks Dustin. LMAO Not a cure for this infection here, but did ease the smell a little.

Now how am I going to get this shit off my shoes? This thread needs a warning sign.

Posted by: Azkyroth | November 8, 2007 7:57 PM

Just out of curiosity, PZ, how many IP addresses are all these puerile little whines coming from?

Posted by: Joseph Addams | November 8, 2007 8:00 PM

None of the stuff dude does is about climate itself, it's the maths behind it.

How about this; the IPCC says it's warming and it's CO2 and land use changes, right? You want a quote from dude?

I've said on many occasions that, if I had a big policy job, I would be guided by the views expressed by large institutions.

Clear enough for you? Or you wanna nit pick it some more with spin? Go sit on a melting iceberg and hug a polar bear for Jesus and don't forget the nuns and penguins.

And this is from a pro-choice, pro-war, Libertarian agnostic who's for legalizing drugs, don't care who or what you screw, thinks Rush is a funny little clown, is for the death penalty and don't even bother to vote. When I go into the national parks, I camp out my garbage. My carbon footprint is more like a little toeprint.

So F yeah the temp is goin up and people cause it. So F'in what.

Posted by: Steve Reynolds | November 8, 2007 8:01 PM

I'm gld I knw nd rspct qt fw scntsts. Othrws, jdgng by th cmmnts f mst f th rglrs hr, I wld cncld tht scntsts n gnrl r nt wrthy f rspct. I hp ths s vry smll slf slctd mnrty.

Posted by: David Marjanović, OM | November 8, 2007 8:04 PM

and look [link]. Make sure to read all the fine print.

Sorry. That one is way outdated -- I should have noticed. Instead, follow the three links from here. (If I posted the 3 links again, my comment would be held for moderation again...)

--------

Since I haven't followed the whole Molly award thingy that extensively, did David Marjanović, OM ever got one?

What do you think ", OM" means? :-) On the top of the page, click on "Commenters".

Unless of course I'm mistaken, and he is in fact a British subject.

No, and I'm only starting my PhD thesis, too.

-----------

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,

Comment 41 in other words.

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.

Then forget the 2001 report. Two more have been issued since. :-|

------------

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.

To be fair, few of these would be called "conservative" outside the USA. By European standards, for example, the conservative candidate in the presidential election of 2004 was Kerry.

----------

Comment 62 sounds great, except that for one of the windows, we can test if what we see through it actually exists. With the other window we can't do that. That doesn't prove the window is a wallpaper, but it fails to disprove it, too...

----------

I have slightly less than 200 students.

Just snarking. ;o)

Introductory lectures into biology have several hundred students in Vienna...

---------

Dear PZ

[...]

But I know your type. You're a young ambitious scientist on his way to making a career writing about science

Ehem. Near the top left corner of this page, there's a headline saying "Profile". Explore.

---------

or, possibly expecting all the actuall posts and conversations to be strictly about science.

To be fair, such ScienceBlogs exist. Tetrapod Zoology is one. Great posts, strictly about science... and only one post every few days. :-(

----------

There must be someone over there who could put a reasoned case together

Yes, against the hockey stick -- and nothing else.

Posted by: Moses | November 8, 2007 8:04 PM

Wow. You comport yourself rather poorly in this post. Bitter? You need to read some of McIntyre's work before you try to label him. "My expertise is not in climate, but in biology." Stick to biology then. Leave statistics and climate science to those with expertise in those fields. And leave pointless catfights to the political blogs.

Posted by: sky frog | November 8, 2007 7:32 PM

But McIntyre's not even a scientist. In fact, he's an oil-man. Therefore, by your piss-poor logic, he has nothing to say about Mann's work. So much for that...

:::::

As far as the 'denialist' charges, McIntyre spends his time debunking AGW. That makes him a denialist. Just like people who rail against the Theory of Evolution are creationists, even if they don't claim so.

Doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure that one out...

:::::

BTW, we treat you like the fuck-tards you are because we're tired of fuck-tards like you. Thousands upon thousands died from smoking because of liars like you. Thousands upon thousands die of preventable diseases because of liars like you. Thousands upon thousand have died unneccesarily for all kinds of evils because you want to make money, don't want to change or don't have the sense God gave a goose.

Now you want to kill our planet so you can make a buck and you think we're going to "respect" you? How fucking stupid and insane are you?

Posted by: Judith Curry | November 8, 2007 8:07 PM

Well I came over here to to see what this site was all about. Didn't get past this first thread, but this thread would certainly seem to vindicate climateaudit's win. Steve McIntyre goes out of his way to to welcome everyone to his site (including climate scientists of the "warmer" persuasion such as myself). Climateaudit is somewhat short on physical processes and insights, but strong on statistics and has been a force for auditing the quality of data and the transparency of metadata. SteveM has two feathers in his cap, in terms of identifying problems with the statistical analysis of the paleoclimate data (hockeystick) and in identifying a few problems with the historical climate record of surface temperature. These are bonafide contributions.

Scientific theories need to pass three tests:
1. Survive scrutiny and debate, including attacks by skeptics
2. Be the best existing explanation (both physically and statistically)
3. Demonstrate predictive capability

The difference between denialists and skeptics is that skeptics actually do work (analyses). SteveM is a bonafide skeptic not a denialist. He tends to neglect the physics and focus on the statistics, but then most of us scientists focus on the physics and do a poor job on the statistics. The Climateauditors tend to be too quick to throw away the whole puzzle if they identify a problem with one of the pieces (they tend to have trouble grasping the big picture).

But as a blog, climateaudit is truly a phenomenon in my opinion. It is a dynamic exchange of educated but mostly "freelance" scientists that has developed quite a following.

Posted by: Alex | November 8, 2007 8:10 PM

Pharyngula is getting trolled. :P

Posted by: Joseph Addams | November 8, 2007 8:11 PM

Lycosid, man, you need to get out more to the wiki, CO2 is the least of the worries of Venus. Place ain't even got a magnetic field or any water or any oxygen and the clouds are sulfer.

Yo, Moses, bro, he's a retired mineral mining guy with a math degree. The guys at nasa are the people that run the stuff that have climate backgrounds. Whatever.

Posted by: Janine | November 8, 2007 8:19 PM

Thank you sweet visitors. Thanks to your efforts, I am no longer on of the main instigators of the silliest long thread.

Posted by: AtheistAcolyte | November 8, 2007 8:21 PM

you have been shown a quote that says he doesn't take a position. You have seen completely unsubstantiated ad hominem attack that he is a denialist.

yet your stance is that McIntyre has an obligation to deny being a denialist. He doesn't deny science; he does analysis. He has a whole web site full of analysis, and commentary on scientific issues. He even has peer-reviewed papers, and his work was scrutinised by an NRC panel. You can go look at the NRC report, the Wegman report, or the web-site if you want

No, I was shown a quote that was offered as him taking a position, yet he never made any specific statement. The closest he got was "We never made that claim." Classic obfuscation.

Why the need for intentionally ambiguous language from someone who's so interested in clarity and transparency?

At any rate, the old canard of "He's not a denialist, he said so himself" is laid to rest quite nicely. He may still not be a denialist, but I have not seen any evidence that he is not.

I have read climate audit for several weeks now (I've been engaged in online debates on global warming), and will most likely continue reading it to keep my arguments honed.

Skepticism is science. Naysaying and nitpicking to inculcate FUD is not. It's astroturf.

Posted by: Robert | November 8, 2007 8:30 PM

Wow, this place turned into a haven for morons...

PZ: Illegitimi Non Carborundum, err or however it goes!

Just so you know, your blog has been a primary motivator for me in learning biology, and also for becoming less afraid to admit to people that I'm an atheist. Please Keep up the good work.

Posted by: Chris Christner | November 8, 2007 8:35 PM

PZ, caught by his wild statements, issued this clarification:

"As for the bozos that are now claiming I never looked at McIntyre...nonsense. I've been reading RealClimate since it first appeared on the web, I've seen McIntyre's blather several times before (and been bored by it), and read through chunks of it several days ago when this noise came up. When I said I see no point in reading his site now, it does not mean I'm completely ignorant of the contents."

You might expect more from a man of science than word-splitting exuses, but having seen the professor's childish behavior, his current statements remain in character. I guess he forgot writing this:

"Tim Lambert agrees, and also informs us that Steve Milloy has endorsed the Climate Audit blog--any doubt that it was an undeserving mouthpiece for right-wing hackery has now ended."

and this:

"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."

We're left with two conclusions: PZ has seen McIntyre's writings several times, but has reading comprehension of a ferret because only someone who's never visited the site could equal PZ's full-on nit-wit appraisal of it.

Or, PZ's lying to us (hey, he's a Leftie) and really formed his opinions of CA by reading what Lambert wrote about it and from the endorsement of Steven Milloy.

Either way, PZ Myers has behaved like a petulant two-year-old: all tantrums and tirades.

Talk about feet of clay! Professor, teach thyself!

Posted by: cbone | November 8, 2007 8:37 PM

Re: David Marjanović, OM

As you wish:
1) Evidence, please.

Environmental Media Services (EMS) is a Washington, D.C. based nonprofit organization that is "dedicated to expanding media coverage of critical environmental and public health issues". Their primary activities include holding forums that bring scientists knowledgeable in current environmental issues together with journalists, providing web hosting and support for environmental issues sites like RealClimate. EMS is closely allied with Fenton Communications.

Fenton Communications is a public relations firm that was founded by David Fenton in 1982. Their client list includes organizations associated with a diverse array of social issues, but they are most known for their work with liberal causes such as MoveOn.org and Greenpeace.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fenton_Communications
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_Media_Services

2) Evidence that whatever ties they might have influence what they write.

Guilt by association, the same evidential standard used by alarmists to dismiss anyone who has any association, however tenuous or nonexistent (see the attempt to tie Steve McIntyre to big oil above, a flat out lie), to industry.

Posted by: CalGeorge | November 8, 2007 8:39 PM

Three cheers for Michael Mann! He should be given a medal for his work on climate change. A true hero of the field. Thank goodness he is fighting back against the climate change Luddites.

From Scientific American:
More recently, Mann battled back in a 2004 corrigendum in the journal Nature, in which he clarified the presentation of his data. He has also shown how errors on the part of his attackers led to their specific results. For instance, skeptics often cite the Little Ice Age and Medieval Warming Period as pieces of evidence not reflected in the hockey stick, yet these extremes are examples of regional, not global, phenomena. "From an intellectual point of view, these contrarians are pathetic, because there's no scientific validity to their arguments whatsoever," Mann says. "But they're very skilled at deducing what sorts of disingenuous arguments and untruths are likely to be believable to the public that doesn't know better."

Posted by: Craig | November 8, 2007 8:44 PM

Let's face it, PZ and his site is anti-religon. What really is the foundation of yur trauma, PZ? Did the preacher lick your ear while penetrating your anus? Is that the source of your pain and anguish? Perhaps the same with your readers? When you lose a competition or do not get your way is that what you sense? The preachers breath? Did it hurt, PZ? Did he make you bleed? Or does it cause you to be attracted to other men when down inside you know that is not you?

Posted by: CalGeorge | November 8, 2007 8:49 PM

I've added a link to Bad Astronomy in my very short blogroll.

Hah!

He currently has one blog on his blogroll: Bad Astronomy.

Obviously holds all blogs other than his own in complete contempt.

What a dickhead.

Posted by: luctoretemergo | November 8, 2007 8:51 PM

PZ,
Just like Judith Curry, I thought I would have a look at the runner-up site. Are we ever not on the same planet as CA...!
For what it's worth, most folks who blog on CA are more or less skeptical as far as AGW is concerned. They are mainly interested in the very substantial holes in the science we are told supports that story, and the increasingly evident cherry picking and overt data tampering that is tarnishing the "Climate Sciences".

All the IPCC/Gore handwaving notwithstanding, the A in AGW and ACC remains unproven. If anyone can provide us with irrifutable proof [not circumstantial evidence] to the contrary, I'll stand corrected. Fact is, best available data increasingly contradicts the basic hypothesis. In line with Judith argument above, as a scientist that is all you should be concerned about. If the data does not support the hypothesis, change your hypothesis, not the data. Science 101, isn't it?

.

Posted by: Stogoe | November 8, 2007 8:52 PM

Craig's homophobic crazy

Posted by: bPer | November 8, 2007 8:53 PM

Stogue @ #170 wrote:

These denialist fucktards are more annoying than the Scott Adams acolytes.

Man, you got that right!

Prof. Myers, you have my sympathy for having to put up with shit like this.

Posted by: CalGeorge | November 8, 2007 8:58 PM

If anyone can provide us with irrifutable proof..

I'm not a scientist, but even I know that statistics can't prove anything.

Gaaaaa!

Posted by: Onycophora | November 8, 2007 9:00 PM

I never usually comment - as someone else said, the discussions always seem to be over by the time I get there. However, this thread is absolutely hilarious; closet (and not so closet) climate change denialists have found their very own Francis Urquhart - "some might say that there are tiny nitpicky things wrong with this science, I couldn't possibly comment!"

Someone said earlier that McIntyre never confirms his position because he is unsure of the evidence, but I wonder how long it will be until he's backed into a corner.

1:He could turn round and say that all of mainstream climate science is incorrect and that the blogosphere has saved logic and capitalism by proving it wrong!

2:He could come out and say - "yes, climate change is clearly happening, I'm just offering constructive criticism" at which point all the closet deniers will abandon ship.

3:He carries on picking away at the subject, as more and more evidence is accumulated proving his lukewarm position ill-advised at best, until all the sane people stop reading due to the obsessiveness of the stuff he focuses on. Or maybe scenario 3 has already happened? It would explain the crazies coming here.

Posted by: Cuttlefish | November 8, 2007 9:04 PM

I have looked six ways from Sunday, and I hope that maybe one day
I'll discover just the evidence to put him in his place;
'Til that marvelous occasion, I'm contented with invasion--
I can comment in the blogosphere and rub it in his face.
I will taunt that bastard PZ, and I think it should be easy;
I've a strategy, dependent on the form of his reply--
He ignores me, he is yellow; he attacks, why then, the fellow
Who invites me to "fuck off" is not a scientific guy.
I will hold him to my standard, and complain that he has pandered
To his suck-ups who, predictably, will praise his every word.
Though my own world-view is vile, if he disagrees? "Denial!"
(Let's conveniently ignore that my position is absurd.)
I don't mean to be so rude, sir, but no matter what, you're screwed, sir--
Our opinions are in concrete, there's no way that they will change;
Once a world-view is cemented, doesn't matter what's presented,
If you disagree with what I think the truth is, you are strange.
If you stick it out, you're bitter; if you leave, then you're a quitter,
If you claim that you are busy, I will simply roll my eyes.
We all have our weak and strong points, good and bad and right and wrong points--
We all play to our advantage: you know science. I know lies.

Posted by: Lars | November 8, 2007 9:05 PM

Well, if nothing else, this whole thread has shown that for the CA types, truth is determined by how thoroughly you can stuff a ballot box.

God, they stink the joint out.

Posted by: Physicalist | November 8, 2007 9:17 PM

Well, I don't have time to read through all the comments to see where things stand, but I just wanted to quickly thank PZ for the main post (thanks PZ): You hit the nail on the head. You've said far better than I could have what I've been thinking ever since I went to check out McIntyre's site.

When is an "auditor" a scientist? When the audit is part of a program to find the best explanation of some phenomenon. When is an "auditor" a denialist? When his goal is to find weaknesses in research merely to crow that he has found weaknesses in research. (And of course, he's all the more a denialist when he's allying himself with a movement that will grab onto any flaw in research -- real or perceived -- to completely reject well-supported scientific results.)

I imagine that McIntyre's badgering can do some good in leading the real scientists to shore up their arguments. I also imagine that Behe's arguments about the flagellum inspired the real scientists to give more thought to how it likely evolved. But from what I've seen on his Climate Audit blog, McIntyre is so fixated on finding any possible missteps by the scientists that the big picture -- i.e., the scientific picture -- is simply absent. To his credit, I take it that this is all he takes himself to be doing (unlike Behe, who has a completely false big picture in mind). But it's also painfully clear that his adoring fan club largely consists of people who believe that the constant focus on research weaknesses (whether real or not) demonstrates that the scientific consensus on this topic is flawed. This is the same sort of denialist crap we see from the creationists.

Posted by: Dustin | November 8, 2007 9:22 PM

I'll tell you when an auditor and his fanboys aren't scientists OR auditors...

...it's when they think Nir Shaviv's statistics are good.

Posted by: michelle | November 8, 2007 9:26 PM

Just wanted to compliment you PZ Meyers. One of the finest examples of sour grapes I've ever observed (although my 4 year old in a full blown tantrum could give you a run for your money).
I also wanted to compliment you on your regular contributors. What wit! What maturity! What phenomenal debating skills! (e.g Fuck off asshole).
Is this what atheism does to you? Makes you bitter, angry and hate-filled whilst simultaneously stripping you of the ability for intelligent, rational debate? Maybe I generalise. If so, my apologies to all rational, civil atheists out there.
Finally, I'd like to thank you for making me eternally grateful that I am not now, nor ever will be, one of you.

Bye Bye now!

Posted by: Joel | November 8, 2007 9:29 PM

Well, to be fair P.Z did lube the rough end of the pineapple before he inserted it.

Posted by: truth machine | November 8, 2007 9:30 PM

Well I came over here to to see what this site was all about. Didn't get past this first thread, but this thread would certainly seem to vindicate climateaudit's win.

This thread is the result of an invasion of trolls and is not typical of the content of this blog. What sort of fucking moron comes to a far reaching conclusion based on a single data point, Ms. Curry?

Posted by: Alan Kellogg | November 8, 2007 9:35 PM

#163 cbone,

In other words, Samuel Wilberforce's opposition to evolution renders invalid his father's work to abolish slavery in the British empire?

Posted by: CalGeorge | November 8, 2007 9:41 PM

Finally, I'd like to thank you for making me eternally grateful that I am not now, nor ever will be, one of you.

Thank goodness for that.

It's very satisfying to think that you will remain deluded about religion for the remainder of your ignorant life.

Posted by: David Wilford | November 8, 2007 9:43 PM

All I know is that if P.Z. had swung his own votes for best science blog to Bad Astronomy, we wouldn't even be having this lovely conversation. Well, some of us wouldn't anyway. Eventually the trolls will crawl back under the rocks they slithered from, I'm sure.

I still think the weblog awards this year are so much sound signifying nothing. No offense to P.Z., but a day without checking out Carl Zimmer and Deltoid is like a day without sunshine. I even have a book by Dan Dennett to actually read the old fashioned way waiting for me. So there!

Posted by: truth machine | November 8, 2007 9:49 PM

If anyone can provide us with irrifutable proof [not circumstantial evidence] to the contrary, I'll stand corrected.

There's no such thing as irrefutable proof in science, moron. Science is based on inference to the best explanation, and the best explanation by far for GW is human industrial activity. You idiot "skeptics" and deniers have no grasp of the nature of science and the role of Occam's Razor in theory formation.

Posted by: Who Cares | November 8, 2007 9:51 PM

@Stogoe (#170):
Pure socialism doesn't work well. Just like pure capitalism doesn't work well. What works is a middle road and that is being taken in Europe. Part socialism, part capitalism and so far seems we are doing quite well with doing that.

@Sammy K (#200):
To funny. Been posts here for at least a week now telling people not to vote for PZ since he already won it and doesn't want it again

Posted by: student_b | November 8, 2007 9:51 PM

What do you think ", OM" means? :-)

Uh... Overpowered Mollusk? Some abreviation for a country? Order of Molly?

Ok, no I really feel stupid... oh well, at least that's in the spirit of this thread. ;)

Posted by: SueinNM | November 8, 2007 9:56 PM

"Let's face it, PZ and his site is anti-religon. What really is the foundation of yur trauma, PZ? Did the preacher lick your ear while penetrating your anus? Is that the source of your pain and anguish? Perhaps the same with your readers? When you lose a competition or do not get your way is that what you sense? The preachers breath? Did it hurt, PZ? Did he make you bleed? Or does it cause you to be attracted to other men when down inside you know that is not you?"

Wow. A true Christian speaks. Thanks for proving our point.

Posted by: truth machine | November 8, 2007 9:56 PM

probably did more harm than good

More harm to what?

...is no wonder your didnt finish where you thought you should have

Is being stupid a requirement for being a CA reader? What makes you think PZ didn't finish where he thought he should have?

Posted by: Michelle | November 8, 2007 10:03 PM

"is no wonder your didnt finish where you thought you should have"

...Since you seem to know PZ much better than PZ himself, where did he think he should've finished exactly?

Posted by: Physicalist | November 8, 2007 10:06 PM

Reading through the comments, I'm pleased to find that the non-insane readers of Climate Audit agree with me:

Judith Curry #147:

SteveM is a bonafide skeptic not a denialist. He tends to neglect the physics and focus on the statistics, but then most of us scientists focus on the physics and do a poor job on the statistics. The Climateauditors tend to be too quick to throw away the whole puzzle if they identify a problem with one of the pieces (they tend to have trouble grasping the big picture).

But I'd question whether McIntyre's skepticism even has anything to do with the science, or whether it's just skepticism about particular statistical studies, etc. It's not clear to me that he particularly cares about the science as such -- which is one of the reasons he's not far from the denialist camp.

Certainly I agree with Judith Curry's picture of his fan base: denialists to the core.

Posted by: firemancarl | November 8, 2007 10:07 PM

Well, these are PZ "fleas" no? After ERV got a full broadside from the wacky YEC and jebus lovers, why not launch a full scale attack against PZ? It makes perfect sense. I think their line of thinking ( YEC etc) goes like this.. deny deny deny, make counter accusations.

Posted by: truth machine | November 8, 2007 10:09 PM

Didn't get past this first thread, but this thread would certainly seem to vindicate climateaudit's win.

Actually, I'm starting to wonder if this is some troll just pretending to be Judith Curry. I mean, how could a PhD write something that stupid? There are no contributions by Steve McIntyre here, so how could this thread "vindicate" his win? Apparently the Curry-troll's logic is that, if Pharyngula came in behind CA, and Pharyngula sucks, then CA deserved its win. But that kind of leaves out all those other blogs, doesn't it? Not to mention other factors like, um, that PZ wasn't trying to win. It looks like a rather radically fallacious false dichotomy.

Posted by: CalGeorge | November 8, 2007 10:11 PM

Obviously, when referring to rational, intelligent, civil athiests I was not referring to you.

Ouch!

Posted by: Michelle | November 8, 2007 10:13 PM

What the bloody fuck? DUDE! SueinNM, where did that come from? I read PZ's blog since a few months, been reading the BA's since forever, and for sake, I'm atheist too! Pure good ol' "I'm going to hell" material here.

But wow, talk about being totally uncalled for. What justified that attack?

Posted by: michelle | November 8, 2007 10:16 PM

SueinNM Who says I'm a Christian? You know what they say about people who make assumptions.

Posted by: Michelle Rochon | November 8, 2007 10:18 PM

...Oh I get it - I got an evil twin. Sorry Suein. Here, I'll just add my last name from now on.

Posted by: Science Should Be Based On Reality | November 8, 2007 10:23 PM

His intro says PZ Myers is a biologist and associate professor at the University of Minnesota, Morris.

Could have fooled me. He appears to be just a big dink!!

Posted by: truth machine | November 8, 2007 10:25 PM

Could have fooled me.

It doesn't take much to fool idiots.

Posted by: Michelle Rochon | November 8, 2007 10:26 PM

@Rey Fox: Yes, I'm breathing easier now. :P I was pretty confused out of the blue there... I hadn't noticed the presence of that double of mine. Aah, the bad sides of a lack of registration. (which is also convenient.)

Posted by: Robert_W | November 8, 2007 10:27 PM

This is really sad, I used to lurk here and read the (mostly) intelligent comments, but now the whole thread has been infiltrated. I definitely like the idea of making "Fuck off" a rallying cry, I certainly use it enough.

Posted by: truth machine | November 8, 2007 10:31 PM

...Oh I get it - I got an evil twin.

Yeah, you have to read in context -- SueinNM was clearly responding to #191 and #214. Then again, I should have realized from #215 that there were two [Mm]ichelles -- oops.

Posted by: Sivi Volk | November 8, 2007 10:32 PM

Wow. I wonder if they've all swung around here after getting bored at Aetiology. I'm always amazed how patient she is with them.

I haven't seen this much trolling here since... erm, can't remember. A while.

Posted by: truth machine | November 8, 2007 10:36 PM

I'm a life long atheist, I never voted for any Bush

So effing what?

What bothers me is how certain both sides are in knowing just what is going on with an open system.

You seem pretty certain about something you clearly know almost nothing about -- the state of climate science.

Posted by: papertiger | November 8, 2007 10:46 PM

You don't need a lot of data points to figure out your dealing with an asshole. Like I was out walking my dog and he took a crap on the sidewalk. I carry a paper bag with me for when this happens so I bend down to scoop it up. The lady of the house gets up from her lawn chair and opens her screen door, and from the house emerges her pitbull dog, growling and snapping at me from behind their cyclone fence.
I don't need to know one thing more to tell you that lady is wrong in the head.
Likewise, I don't have need of more information about the proprietor of this blog to tell he is one miserable excuse for a human being.

Is the criteria of his venom the good of mankind or the Earth as he would have you and I believe?
The late Karl Popper wrote;
The more we learn about the world, and the deeper our learning, the more conscious, specific, and articulate will be our knowledge of what we do not know, our knowledge of our ignorance - the fact that our knowledge can be only finite, while our ignorance must be infinite.
Popper held falsifiability as his criterion of demarcation between what is and is not genuinely scientific: a theory should be considered scientific if and only if it is falsifiable.
This truism is denied by people like Mr. Pharyngula.
He calls the people who check the science rats.
The truth is there is no scientific knowledge with out the "rats" and Myers is the worst sort of denialist.
If the world were populated with his sort there would be no hope for scientific progress, because the "rats" perform the same function for science that natural selection performs for biological evolution. They cull the unfit theories and puncture overinflated egos.

Mr. McIntyre has falsified the hockeystick. People like Pharyngula here want to keep walking it around, like the dead guy in Weekend at Bernies just so they won't have to admit they are wrong.

Beware scientists who claim the argument is settled. That's only their ego talking.

Posted by: Kyle Huff | November 8, 2007 10:48 PM

Srsly? WTF?
The non-trolls are worse than the trolls.
Almost makes me ashamed to be an atheist.

Back to BA for me.

Posted by: Graculus | November 8, 2007 10:53 PM

Steve McIntyre, who with Ross McKitrick

Ross "I con't tell the difference between a degree and a radian" McKitrick?

Priceless.

Posted by: Ron | November 8, 2007 10:54 PM

This thread isn't about science folks, it's about manners. We (I say we because I am a member of the group in question, though somewhat ashamed to admit it at he moment) entered Mr. Myer's space and mucked about complaining to his face how we didn't like the smell or the decor or the brand of beer in the refrigerator. Lirttle wonder he wants us out on our ear. If I could apologise for the whole sorry lot I would. Inexcusable.

Posted by: Who Cares | November 8, 2007 10:58 PM

@245:
People who check? There as skeptics and there are denialists. And from what I've seen PZ dislikes the latter. What are the denialists? the ones who go like this one piece is not completely correct so everything ever used to support the theory that also used this one piece is incorrect and the theory should be discarded as useless. That is the kind of person you are defending.
I've yet to find a denialist (the people and their zombie followers who PZ describes as rats) who successfully punctured a theory with the kind of bloviating they do. Skeptics sometimes manage but they do it by incorporating the existing evidence and data into a framework.

Oh and on the stick, read: http://www8.nationalacademies.org/onpinews/newsitem.aspx?RecordID=11676

Posted by: Zarquon | November 8, 2007 11:01 PM

hey, Kyle Huff went off in a huff, or maybe a minute and a huff.

Posted by: bybelknap, FCD | November 8, 2007 11:07 PM

How do I vote for Cuttlefish to get another OM? I am weeping tears of joy, envy and gratitude for that poem. I had to wade through nearly 200 posts to get to it - and what an awful journey - my waders are caked with all sorts of filth but there, shining in all it's glory was Cuttlefish's post. Thank you, thank you, thank you.

Posted by: CalGeorge | November 8, 2007 11:10 PM

Yes, it's Steve McIntyre, ex-businessman

vs.

NATIONAL RESEARCH COUNCIL
Division on Earth and Life Studies
Board on Atmospheric Sciences and Climate
The Committee on Surface Temperature Reconstructions for the Last 2,000 Years

Gerald R. North (chair)
Distinguished Professor of Meteorology and Oceanography and
Harold J. Haynes Endowed Chair in Geosciences
Texas A&M University
College Station

Franco Biondi
Associate Professor of Physical Geography
University of Nevada
Reno

Peter Bloomfield
Professor of Statistics and of Financial Mathematics
North Carolina State University
Raleigh

John R. Christy
Professor of Atmospheric Science, and
Director
Earth System Science Center
University of Alabama
Huntsville

Kurt M. Cuffey
Professor of Geography
University of California
Berkeley

Robert E. Dickinson1,2
Professor
School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences
Georgia Institute of Technology
Atlanta

Ellen R.M. Druffel
Professor of Earth System Science
University of California
Irvine

Douglas Nychka
Senior Scientist
National Center for Atmospheric Research
Boulder, Colo.

Bette Otto-Bliesner
Scientist
Climate and Global Dynamics Division;
Head
Paleoclimate Group; and
Deputy Head
Climate Change Research Section
National Center for Atmospheric Research
Boulder, Colo.

Neil Roberts
Head
School of Geography
University of Plymouth
Plymouth, United Kingdom

Karl K. Turekian1
Sterling Professor of Geology and Geophysics
Yale University
New Haven, Conn.

John M. Wallace1
Professor of Atmospheric Sciences, and
Director
Joint Institute for the Study of the Atmosphere and Ocean
University of Washington
Seattle

I think I'll go with the conclusions reached by the distinguished scientists from the National Academies.

Posted by: Garth | November 8, 2007 11:23 PM

259 - "I think I'll go with the conclusions reached by the distinguished scientists from the National Academies."

Even if you are clearly unfamiliar with the actual results.

Certainly the NAS report on climate reconstructions, minus the spin, was another vindication of McIntyre.

Posted by: Janine | November 8, 2007 11:32 PM

Just followed the link that Dustin provided. Did not see one comment by any names I recognize from here. Quite a lot of posts claiming that PZ is unhinged and, oh my, any professor teaching at a small liberal arts college must be bad. To save you the effort of going on over (Not that too many people did.) here is one prime example.

steven mosher says: November 8th, 2007 at 7:31 pm

A while back I talked about
emotional rewards for professions that were disconnected from reality.

Essentially. PZ believes he is better than his students and better than his readers and so
experiences cognitive dissonace.

The secondary reward of winning a contest offered him some hope of reconciling his
view of himself with their view of him.

When that failed, he tried for the terteriary compensation, by throwing his "weight"
behind Bad astronomy. OPPS.

He will take it out on his next class of students.

I wish I could be as wise as Steven Mosher.

Posted by: truth machine | November 8, 2007 11:40 PM

Certainly the NAS report on climate reconstructions, minus the spin, was another vindication of McIntyre.

You're a liar.

Yes, we can see from the "quality" of this post, especially its small-minded and petty spite

And an asshole. Go take your "good manners" back under the rock you crawled put from.

Posted by: Crudely Wrott | November 8, 2007 11:42 PM

Pettifoggery! Gomers! Freepers and Limbots too! And in just one sentence! Hooo-hAWW!

PZ, you irascible, abrasive, caustic curmudgeon! You heartless, multi-tentacled beast, you! The reach of your evil literacy leaves no place to hide even for the most mindless and inattentive among us. Your perverse dedication to lucidity coupled with your most horrid insight into human nature is a force that is breaking noggins at the four corners of the world and everywhere between.

I love you, you improbable threat; you wondrous spell breaker; you anti saint, you! This scares the shit out of me because it has dawned on me that I've been trying to be just like that for most of my life. Damn! The only thing that bugs me is you've got me by a light year. (damn. I shoulda stayed in school instead of falling in love and going to Florida. But then, where would my children be?)

Enough, now. My sides hurt and I have to stop chortling in order to finish my beer.

Multiple expressions of gratitude delivered in a style that suggests we had already tipped one or two together while engaged in meaningful debate most odious and suspicious to anyone not there at the time.

Posted by: MartinDH | November 8, 2007 11:48 PM

YAY. Phil (and Bad Astronomy) won. There was much rejoicing...

Posted by: truth machine | November 8, 2007 11:59 PM

It's nice to see that the host of this blog maintains neutrality and civility.

Ah, I've figured out what "maintains" means ... Tom C posted at CA that he surmised that PZ was short of stature and picked last for athletic teams, and the post was quickly removed. So any appearance of civility among the commenters at CA is illusory.

Posted by: CalGeorge | November 9, 2007 12:02 AM

And as quickly as they had appeared, the denialists were gone....

[chirp, chirp, chirp]

Here's hoping so.

Posted by: truth machine | November 9, 2007 12:05 AM

Sounds like railing against natural selection to me.

Who cares what something sounds like to an idiot?

Posted by: sunsettommy | November 9, 2007 12:09 AM

I have never been at this website before.I was directed here from Climate Audit. http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=2327

I have never posted in any form at Climate Audit and have been an infrequent lurker there.

I have read ALL the comments here and at Climate Audit website that pertains to the web awards.

I find quite a contrast in the choice of words between the 2 websites in the comments column.

Here it is smearing,calling people Trolls and namecalling.
There it is absent.

The use of the word DENIALIST against someone who is not a believer in the Hypothized man made warming trend is offensive and disgusting.I see this attitude in many forums I have visited.Where there are no reasonable discussion going on because of the poisoned climate brought on by people who use such discussion killing perjorative words as Denialist,Trolls,A paid writer for Oil companies,Milloy is a shill and so on.

What happened to the idea of constructive criticism?

What happened to the understanding that skepticism is a normal state of mind for people?

What ever happened to the idea of mature discussion of the issue?

I for one do not like the attitude of this commentary thread.It is hostile,Irrational and Divisive.

There is a reason why most Skeptics forums are better.They often expect Civil maturity from anyone who wants to participate.

Posted by: 386sx :P | November 9, 2007 12:12 AM

OMG I hate Firefox. I'm not kidding why would anybody like that stupid program...

Posted by: truth machine | November 9, 2007 12:14 AM

There is a reason why most Skeptics forums are better.They often expect Civil maturity from anyone who wants to participate.

Feel free to go back to the "skeptic forums" where you will get "civil maturity" as a result of aggressive moderation, but you won't get honesty or accuracy or science.

Posted by: truth machine | November 9, 2007 12:21 AM

How silly of me.

Yes, you are silly and stupid.

Posted by: CalGeorge | November 9, 2007 12:30 AM

The reconstruction produced by Dr. Mann and his colleagues was just one step in a long process of research, and it is not (as sometimes presented) a clinching argument for anthropogenic global warming, but rather one of many independent lines of research on global climate change.

Blah. Blah. Blah.

From the horse's mouth:

Our Nature article established that the warmth of the 1990s was outside the range of variability as indicated in our reconstruction of past Northern Hemisphere temperature variations, taking the uncertainties in the reconstruction into account. The paper also showed, from a statistical point of view, that the recent warming could not be explained in terms of "natural" influences (such as changes in solar output or explosive volcanic activity), but could only be explained in terms of anthropogenic factors (specifically, the increase of greenhouse gas concentrations due to modern industrial activity).

Get your head out of the sand.

Posted by: 386sx | November 9, 2007 12:36 AM

Is there any way to turn off the "truth machine" spambot? ;)

Sure, just remain logical at all times. No worries!

Posted by: truth machine | November 9, 2007 12:40 AM

Sure, just remain logical at all times. No worries!

That certainly helps. For instance, Paul S wouldn't look like such a moron if he were to learn what spam is.

Posted by: sunsettommy | November 9, 2007 12:43 AM

Sunsettommy:

"There is a reason why most Skeptics forums are better.They often expect Civil maturity from anyone who wants to participate."

truth machine:

"Feel free to go back to the "skeptic forums" where you will get "civil maturity" as a result of aggressive moderation, but you won't get honesty or accuracy or science.

Posted by: truth machine | November 9, 2007 12:14 AM"

LOL,

Some climate forums are not skeptic forums and yet the administrator there expects civil behavior.This is one of them:http://talkclimatechange.com/phpBB3/index.php

The forum I administrate has no current AGW believers in the membership base.The two who were got banned long ago for their..... drumroll..... name calling,smearing and plain get nasty.I was then a simple member who complained about it to the forum owner in a thread.

It is instructive that you ignored my reasonable questions in order to imply that skeptics are unfair in their moderating in forums.

I have been in political forums that had some debate on Global Warming and often it is the AGW people who are the ones doing the name calling,smearing and similar.

Maybe you want to answer them instead.Those questions I have posed you have been silent on.

Posted by: truth machine | November 9, 2007 12:51 AM

Some climate forums are not skeptic forums and yet the administrator there expects civil behavior.

Who the fuck cares?

It is instructive that you ignored my reasonable questions

You mean your rhetorical questions, like "What happened to the idea of constructive criticism?" ? What sort of dishonest asshole would say that failure to respond to such is "instructive"?

in order to imply that skeptics are unfair in their moderating in forums

I implied no such thing, moron. The moderation I referred to is that which preserves your notion of pseudo-mature pseudo-civility. If you think those are better forums, then why are you trolling here, being just another asshole?

Posted by: Paul S | November 9, 2007 12:56 AM

== the truth machine spambot said: ==

="No one suggested that McIntyre should disclose his finances, asshole.="

Why the fuss over his consulting work for an energy company then?

Posted by: Paul S | November 9, 2007 1:03 AM

If you used less expletives and employed intelligence in your comments Mr. Spambot, you might make some sense to posters here. (Breathlessly awaiting your profanity-filled canned response.)

Posted by: Dustin | November 9, 2007 1:07 AM

Hey, these denialists sound just like the religious nuts who blather on about "fairness" and insist that schools "teach the controversy."

I'm getting pretty god damned sick of these nauseating and disingenuous appeals to even handedness. Whenever something in science becomes a public argument, the fact finding and argument and reasonable discussion has already been done to such an extent that the scientists are in agreement -- a feat that's rather like herding cats, so there has to be a mountain of evidence.

The denialist then has two options: 1) run against that overwhelming evidence and look like an ass, 2) disingenuously pretend to be "open minded" and fair about interpreting that data by appealing to the public's intellectual vanity while really advancing the opinion that the conclusion which is clearly painted by the data is wrong.

It's hardly any shock that they run with #2.

Posted by: Paul S | November 9, 2007 1:09 AM

I think I'll hang around for awhile Dustin, just to annoy you and that other inbred, truth machine. ;)

Posted by: truth machine | November 9, 2007 1:12 AM

If you used less expletives and employed intelligence in your comments Mr. Spambot, you might make some sense to posters here. (Breathlessly awaiting your profanity-filled canned response.)

I make plenty of sense to the regular posters here who are not idiot trolls from GW-denier land who have invaded this blog; to people who aren't so stupid as to think that there's any dichotomy between intelligence and calling stupid fucking assholes what they are.

Posted by: truth machine | November 9, 2007 1:15 AM

I think I'll hang around for awhile Dustin, just to annoy you and that other inbred, truth machine. ;)

Tattooing "troll" on your forehead doesn't annoy me, asshole, it's simply confirmation.

Posted by: CalGeorge | November 9, 2007 1:17 AM

This guy's a real piece of work.

Here he is trying to draw a parallel between what happened at Enron and what goes on in academia. Or something. The guy loves to make vague insinuations. It's his bread and butter.

A big story today is the guilty verdict on Enron executives Kenneth Lay and Jeffrey Skilling. There are many interesting issues involved in this, but the one that I wish to draw to attention of readers here is that Lay and Skilling were not found guilty of stealing money or looting the treasury, but of dishonesty and withholding the truth.
[...]
I often talk here about the need for full, true and plain disclosure. I don't say this out of any belief that businessmen are more honest than academics. I don't think that at all. All I'm saying is that breaches of the obligation of full, true and plain disclosure are serious and people are being sent to jail for breaching these obligations. Maybe not enough. Withholding the truth, as noted above, is a form of criminal dishonesty just as much as overt lying and was clearly involved in the charges against these two Enron executives. Codes of academic conduct have fairly similar obligations and the omission of adverse results can amount to misconduct, in much the same way that withholding truth from investors can amount to fraud.

Give me a fucking break!

Posted by: Paul S | November 9, 2007 1:25 AM

= the truth machine said: =

="Tattooing "troll" on your forehead doesn't annoy me, asshole, it's simply confirmation."=

LOL. Ever read what's tattooed on your forehead??

Posted by: truth machine | November 9, 2007 1:26 AM

Ever read what's tattooed on your forehead??

Yes, it says "Tu quoque is a fallacy, asshole".

Posted by: Dustin | November 9, 2007 1:30 AM

snow pulls branches off trees and strips their bark

Yeah, it does, but not uniformly across all the trees in the forests. That's why scientists use large samples and statistics.

That was an argument worthy of Ken Ham.

Posted by: truth machine | November 9, 2007 1:34 AM

Well, one get's bored easily and quickly on this site (and no wonder).

It's a bit mindboggling how stupid these trolls are.

Posted by: Janine | November 9, 2007 1:37 AM

Paul S, truth machine is a regular here. Have seen much of you. I think you would be a closer to being a spambot. And, no, I will not get in a pissing match with you. This is all I have to say to you. Good night.

Posted by: Dustin | November 9, 2007 1:47 AM

it seems clear to me that my opinion won't mean much - and needless to say, I have no desire to become a regular.

Well, it's a good thing you didn't waste your time by commenting here!

Posted by: truth machine | November 9, 2007 1:58 AM

I will just leave.

What the fuck do you think the point of the hostility was, moron?

Sheesh but these people are stupid.

Posted by: truth machine | November 9, 2007 2:02 AM

So it seems a little disingenuous for the regulars here, and the host, to start a fire and then cry "smoke!".

Listen, you stupid fuckhead, the fire was started by you moron trolls attacking PZ in his own blog -- that's what this post is about.

In my opinion, PZ Myers has done himself a disservice over the past several days with his unabashedly personal attacks on another blog.

Pot, kettle, black.

But since I'm not a regular here, it seems clear to me that my opinion won't mean much

Indeed, so BUGGER OFF as requested.

Posted by: Crudely Wrott | November 9, 2007 2:25 AM

truth (ahem) machine said in comment #302:

"I make plenty of sense to the regular posters here who are not idiot trolls from GW-denier land who have invaded this blog; to people who aren't so stupid as to think that there's any dichotomy between intelligence and calling stupid fucking assholes what they are."

Maybe so. Passion is frequently confused with certainty. Experience shows that the two are normally incompatible.

As to the causes of GW, the jury is out and should remain out until such time as all causes are identified and all but one is eliminated. At least within the error bars.

It is instructive to reflect on previous times of major cooling and warming. Life went on even so.

What is so terrible about imagining that life "as we know it (and have come to be very comfortable with)" may be quite different someday? Or soon? With respect to previous cases, we are quite happy to accept the profound changes, the near complete extinctions. What's one more? Or many more? Why should this not be? Is it not evident that some of these events were at least hastened by the metabolisms of previous life forms? Like green algae, for instance? How about the advent of plants that employed sexual reproduction? How about volcanic outflows that covered thousands of square miles of biota with lava?

And what is this idea, shouted endlessly, that a ten-meter rise in sea level means the end of everything? It has happened before, to much greater degree. Humans went through it the last couple of times and survived quite admirably (ignoring superstition) and quite profitably (allowing new survival skills).

If it were not for the natural processes of this planet neither you nor I would have the luxury of addressing the issue yet some consider this the most desirable of outcomes; that our existence is predicated on the total destruction of perfectly good populations on a perfectly good planet. This is small minded and circular thinking. It hinges silently on the unexamined idea that this, our current state of climate and the benefits it engenders, is the very, very best. You put yourself at the center of the cosmos, an idea that has long passed.

Mankind, and the traces of his passing, are not unnatural.

Posted by: truth machine | November 9, 2007 2:35 AM

Passion is frequently confused with certainty. Experience shows that the two are normally incompatible.

This is a nonsensical non sequitur; the subject was intelligence -- which isn't certainty -- vs. the use of expletives -- which aren't passion. My use of expletives here was calculated to make the trolls feel unwelcome; any assumption of "passion" is unwarranted.

As to the causes of GW, the jury is out and should remain out until such time as all causes are identified and all but one is eliminated.

This is ignorant blather. The only jury that counts has made its verdict clear.

Posted by: truth machine | November 9, 2007 2:42 AM

Funny how the civility of the comment thread is inversely proportional to the number of concern trolls whining about how uncivil the comments are

Yes; I intentionally upped the number of expletives in response to any mention of "civility". I do the same when regulars like azkyroth offer their condescending criticisms of my tone.

Posted by: Richard Wolford | November 9, 2007 2:48 AM

As to the causes of GW, the jury is out and should remain out until such time as all causes are identified and all but one is eliminated. At least within the error bars.

Wow, you really are stupid. Are you seriously so short-sighted as to believe there will only be one contributor to GW? Seriously, are you actually that dense? There are multiple contributors to be sure, as reality is actually a bit more complicated than good/evil, black/white, 1/0 (er, no, forget that last one, I'm a comp sci guy). The problem is that the largest contributor is human activity. The jury is not out, they've rendered the verdict and danced off to DC to have a few martinis.

Please, try a bit harder, 'eh?

BTW, PZ, I love your blog.

Posted by: uncle frogy | November 9, 2007 3:04 AM

Mr. Palmer if I might make a suggestion if there is not enough science on this blog for you and that is what you are looking for I would suggest you find a different blog that is what I do. If I go some where that I do not like I do not go there again. Unless it is not science you are looking for? If it is just to argue and start a fight well then go right ahead. Those people who go out of their way to look for trouble usually find it but it might not be the kind they are looking for. Me I am looking for understanding and insight into things I do not have the time to per sue in depth. listening to pointless ignorant arguments that I know make no sense being taken apart be some people who are more articulate then I is very helpful besides being hilarious.

Posted by: truth machine | November 9, 2007 3:09 AM

That and the endless use of "fuck, fucktard, shill, denialist" in place of actual argument.

The arguments go on among scientists; you denialist fucktards are irrelevant and aren't worth the effort to argue with.

Posted by: truth machine | November 9, 2007 3:14 AM

As I cannot find a single coherent argument in this post, I'll take my science interest elsewhere in th future.

See #157, moron.

Posted by: JR | November 9, 2007 3:26 AM

#336:
Nice. I'm interested in science and scientific arguments, not denialist bashing competitions.

You can like or dislike what McIntyre is writing, but this post and comments is overgrown with passionate rant on how stupid he and his readers are. I'm not impressed.

Posted by: Armchair Dissident | November 9, 2007 3:37 AM

That and the endless use of "fuck, fucktard, shill, denialist" in place of actual argument.

Let's review "argumentum ad hominum" for ignoramuses, shall we? The use of "fuck", "fucktard", "shill" or "denialist" is an ad hominum if and only if that is the sole argument. "X is a fucktard, ergo X's position on Y is invalid" is an argumentum ad hominum.

"X's position on Y is wrong because Z, A, B...W you fucktard" is not only not an argumentum ad hominum, it can also be pretty damn funny. You fucktard.

Posted by: phat | November 9, 2007 4:02 AM

OK, so this is entertaining. I can't quite explain just how entertaining this thread is.

But I'll say this, I thought the Freeman Dyson quote masquerading as an argument was the funniest thing on this thread until I read this:

"They are the kind that hate the prosperity that capitalism has created."

I couldn't go much further.

Wow.

phat

Posted by: JohnS | November 9, 2007 4:23 AM

I hear theres a ruck on. I here for this.
No you fuck off, no you fuck off, no you fuck off, no you fuck off......... Hey come over here truff machine, have I got a lubed pineapple for you.
Biology majors from a white trash university lead by a dummy spitting loser. Can't even spell fangia or whatever the name of the blog is. But I must use the ph so, no you phuck off, no you phuck of, no you phuck off... yeh yeh I I hear you truff machine, you wanker
JohnS

Posted by: truth machine | November 9, 2007 4:30 AM

#336:
Nice. I'm interested in science and scientific arguments,

Did you read #157 like I told you, moron? You said you were taking your interest elsewhere ... so why the fuck are you still here? What part "I don't want you here" don't you understand?

Posted by: truth machine | November 9, 2007 4:38 AM

And such unmitigated arrogance!

Yes, the unmitigated arrogance of the stream of jackasses like JR who think that anyone cares if they're going to "take their interest elsewhere" when they were never invited here in the first place.

Posted by: Carpworld | November 9, 2007 6:05 AM

*waits for dust to settle then pokes head out from behind tree*

Is it safe to come out yet?

Posted by: Just-Tex | November 9, 2007 6:14 AM

Yo, PZ, considering your rambling insane rant above, I'm not going to take any more of my time to look over this so called "science blog". But hey, you lost in the web awards fair & square dude. Big time. Now I can easily see why! Oh & PZ, sometimes reality (something you clearly have difficulty recognizing & adjusting too) just sux, huh? At least your childish rant (above) gave me a faily good laugh. So thanks! But since I'm rather easily amused by most idiots & madmen in general, it's for nothing, really... ;-]

Posted by: MonoApe | November 9, 2007 6:51 AM

Bravo!

Well done, PZ (said in British-style - 'Pee Zed') - one of your best 'gloves off' posts. More of the same please.

As much as we all admire Sam Harris, his 'let's be nice to them' style ain't gonna work. Give 'em a good shoeing will.

Bravo.

Posted by: JohnS | November 9, 2007 7:18 AM

Hey Shawn. I'm here for the ruck like the rest of you,not the science, so phuck off. Unlike others who say this blog has become disgusting and moronic, I revel in this white trash, biology- majoring, university dead mind talk you types throw about. And excuse me, but I've been called incompetent by much better people than you, and for far better reasons. Anyone who spells frigia... frigina...fraggle rock, ah phuck, whatever it is, with a ph or can use behoove in a sentence- hey you deserve to come third in a wroggle.. blottal... or whatever it it, beauty contest. Ha ha ha- did I mention you came third- habhaha- now phuck off. Come on truffy, talk dirty to me-phuckwit!
JohnS

Posted by: melatonin | November 9, 2007 7:34 AM

So,I hear the auditors are in for the results...

Posted by: wildlifer | November 9, 2007 7:37 AM

What part of (paraphrased) "I don't want to win, vote for someone else," do you fucking morons not understand. (eg JohnS)

Posted by: Allienne Goddard | November 9, 2007 8:00 AM

Well, that was a terribly entertaining thread. Well done, everyone. I know that each and every one of you put your all into this, and I want you to know that I appreciate it. It is truly inspiring to see what we can accomplish when we all work together. I would just like to add my own minor contribution, so that I, too, may bask in the glory this thread endows. Fuck all y'all. And fuck Slate. I fucking hate Slate.

Yours -- Ally

Posted by: p-dawg | November 9, 2007 8:08 AM

It seems that it's only ok to insult or attack those who don't agree with PZ. If you DO agree, your behaviour is applauded, no matter what it is. If you don't agree, you are lambasted no matter your behaviour. I have seen this before. I am embarrassed to share the prevailing AGW viewpoint of this blog. I hope that you are not representative of AGW affirmers in general. Although I disagree with Mr. McIntyre, I do not see what makes it okay to insult him or his followers. Tactics like those imply that you are more concerned with scoring points than clarifying or driving a debate. Insults do not contradict or trump reasoned arguments. They have no place in a rational discussion. But then, I've found that the internet is a bad place to look for those.

Posted by: James | November 9, 2007 8:23 AM

359

No if people taking potshots at the CA trolls despise anything it is the attitude of: 'I don't want to accept the evidence so I believe that because one piece is not 100% correct all the evidence is wrong'."

That isn't the position at all. The position is more, "why is the peer review process in Climate Science so bad at validating methods?". See the Wegman report for several reasons why this may be the case. Reflect on the fact that the other 99% has yet to be audited.

Posted by: minimalist | November 9, 2007 8:31 AM

#351, John A:

Why the nasty references to rats and "scrap[s] of rot... focused only on putrescence", a startlingly similar attack I remember seeing in one of the early films of the Nazis used to attack Jews.

Why denialism? Because its easier than actually using the scientific method to investigate what is real and what is delusion. So if PZ isn't interested in the answers, its easier to reach for the Nazi metaphors and references to Holocaust Deniers, creationists and everyone else PZ has contempt for.

Bahahahaha, the irony, it burns!

The only people I have ever seen using Nazi comparisons have been you bozos, here and at CA. Yet here, and on another thread you nitwits infested, you were the ones accusing US of using comparisons to Nazis.

I didn't think I'd see someone so unhinged and devoid of self-awareness that he'd do both things in the very same post though. Thanks for the laugh.

JohnA's disconnected rambles are great chuckle-fodder too.

(PS: In describing Suk's downfall, you pathetically try to downplay the lack of replicability -- i.e. the role of people who were actually doing research themselves. [Not to mention that the nitpickers actually worked in the area and themselves had a stake in being able to replicate the work.] Leave it to you armchair-"scientists" to overvalue the nitpicking though; it excuses you and your heroes from actually going out and doing your own research to disprove AGW.)

Posted by: demallien | November 9, 2007 8:43 AM

CalGeorge,

That was an shameful appeal to authority at #259! I know you know better! :-) We'll put it down to a moment of over-excitement due to the troll attack, shall we?

Posted by: Michael Jankowski | November 9, 2007 8:51 AM

Wow, how infantile. How appropos your interest in embryos.

It's always interesting when someone proclaims themself to be a "liberal" and yet acts like a closed-minded and self-righteous bigot.

Posted by: Andrew | November 9, 2007 9:06 AM

I grew tired of the idiots* who flocked here to put P.Z in his place - I could not read every post without my brain turning to mush. Please give it up blog rushers. Mostly you have nothing sensible to add.

* No doubt some are intelligent though.

Posted by: Stephen Richards | November 9, 2007 9:11 AM

OOOH!!! The baby's thrown his rattle out of the pram !!

It's trully bizarre this liberal, right wing thing. Is it only in US ? I have never thought of having a right wing climate political party or for that matter a left wing one. I thought the whole point of right and left wing was political not scientifique. What does climate have to do with politics? Oh sorry I forgot Big Bad Al.

Posted by: Monkey's Uncle | November 9, 2007 9:15 AM

Well...I got to the end of the thread.Entertaining, if a little disturbing in places.
Quite apart from the awards thing (a subject that's not really important), why all the anger? I am a regular reader and sometime poster on P-Zed's blog, I come here for enlightenment and entertainment in equal quantities. Speaking for myself, a non-scientific layman but curious as hell about how the world works, I had been aware of this difference of opinion about GW. Yes, it makes sense that Mankind is accelerating the warming process...even a berk like me can see the evidence of my own eyes, but to counter that, I have also read that GW goes in cycles, that we are overdue a cooling period, that before a cooling period it gets warmer, etc etc.
I am not a denialist, I am not really up to date with current thinking on the whole issue, and have no scientific knowledge other than what I read and hear to help me make an opinion.
I can see that there is a 'needle' issue between the two blogs (trans: bad blood or wildly differing opinion) I just want to get to the bottom of the matter. It doesn't stop me from trying to recycle, using energy more efficiently etc, but there seems to be a lack of consensus on GW as a whole. At the risk of getting a textual smack on the back of the head (maybe from a flying tentacle...cool!) Could I remain Skeptical of both sides of the argument until the jury comes back with a verdict? Or does that make me a moron too?!
Other than that, I love this blog, and it's interesting to read viewpoints from the other side of the big watery expanse to our west!

Posted by: dogmeatib | November 9, 2007 9:16 AM

Somebody gets it. So does McIntyre have a few hundred comments from my readers giving him grief on his blog? Right now, I can't say that I'd feel much sympathy for him.

I went over there yesterday (before this thread truly exploded) to check it out. I was curious about the site itself since it was doing so well in the poll, etc. I wasn't impressed, struck me as a fairly standard denialist website with a heavier emphasis on statistical "support" for their arguments. After this thread went crazy I briefly considered going back and comment about how wonderful his readers have been over here. I decided that it was; first, childish; second, a waste of time; and third, childish.

I have to say, I find it amusing that you're accused of "sour grapes," etc., when, I believe, you actually won this award last year, didn't you? I also believe, but this is going by memory which can fail one quite often, that you did (as you said) suggest they vote for another deserving website, obvious signs of someone obsessed with a "popularity prize" award. [/end sarcasm]

Perhaps if we just ignore this thread and, if you have time and aren't already on your trip, we could start a few science threads? ;o)

Posted by: notanexpert | November 9, 2007 9:17 AM

Wow. PZ, did you intentionally set out to make yourself sound like the epitomy of a right-wing cliche, the arrogant, self-important, liberal professor who puts personal pique before fact-finding and logic? Thank you for this. As of today, I have my proof. When my lefty friends "deny" that you exist, I can just link here.

Posted by: Mike from Ottawa | November 9, 2007 9:22 AM

That's pretty lame Mike. Does Al Gore publicly report how many millions he is pocketing in speaking fees every year?

It's not lame for two reasons: 1) you denialists griped about PZ's output of science posts, so McIntyre's not being a scientist at all becomes relevant by the standards you denialists have set (don't like it? - gripe to your fellow denialists or point to where you've chided Stan for his post) and 2) Gore's made no secret of giving speeches nor of accepting fees while McIntyre kept quiet about an obviously relevant fact, his consulting for an energy firm, until he got outed.

But thanks for playing. Well, actually, no thanks. Go back to your denialist site where you can pretend to be the rebel you like to think of yourself as, rebelling against 'Big Environment' and taking the side of the poor powerless oppressed oil, coal and gas industries. Hey, I hear Exxon is having a bake sale to raise money to keep going. Dig in.

Posted by: CalGeorge | November 9, 2007 9:30 AM

This Michael Mann guy sounds pretty darned reasonable:

As a scientist you never want to say that anything is completely off the table. But I would say it's become extremely difficult to make a plausible argument that the changes in the climate are not in large part due to human influence. Where the legitimate debate now lies is on the sensitivity of the climate--how it responds to an increase in, for example, greenhouse gas concentration. We know that there has been a certain amount of warming, we know that carbon dioxide levels have increased from pre-industrial levels of about 280 parts per million to about 370 parts per million today, and that those levels are unprecedented in the last several hundred thousand years. We know this increase is due to human activity--there is no legitimate scientific argument to indicate otherwise.

Where things get a little less clear is that there is still some uncertainty in how the climate responds to a variety of natural factors such as changes in the sun's intensity and volcanic eruptions. As well, some human influences, such as certain industrial aerosol emissions, can actually have a cooling effect. It can be very difficult to detangle all those factors and to figure out exactly how much warming is due to human influence.

I wish Steve McIntyre expressed himself that well.