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.

Posted by: Moses | November 9, 2007 9:41 AM

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

The whole rebuttal was wonderful. The paragraph sublime. The punch line, one of the best ever.

Definitely worth a Molly.

Posted by: Moses | November 9, 2007 9:53 AM

The bit that says, wildlifer, with picture of Mr PZ with thought buble above his scone, Phuck, I can't win. And I so wanted to this year. So I'll make empty gesture of telling my phuckwit dead brain followers, who can't spell...ah figral.. figer... ah whatever the name of this blog is, to vote for somebody else. You see, wildlifer, I don't believe him. And I know it pains phuckwits like you. Grow up little boy. JohnS

Posted by: JohnS | November 9, 2007 8:04 AM

Are you stupid? Pharyngula, being one of the Top 5 (ranked by Nature, not some idiot freepers) Science Blogs in the world doesn't need the award. Pharyngula's won in the past and was winning until Dr. Myers managed to get a lot of people to vote for Bad Astronomy. If he hadn't of done that, he'd be winning now.

Posted by: Moses | November 9, 2007 9:57 AM

Well, well, well, I applaud this blog for debunking creationism and defending evolution, but I have to conclude that considering AGW, PZ Myers and his acolytes behave like creationists. This time the religion is called "man-made global warming" and expressing doubt about it is obviously 'not done' considering all the name-calling.

It's a shame.

Posted by: JePe | November 9, 2007 9:46 AM

Oh, look Mom! A concern troll on his high horse beating us about the head with a logical fallacy! Woopee! I've seen the error of treating luddites like the contempable, trolling fools they are! Now to get baptized in the Holy Church of AGW!

Moron.

Posted by: CalGeorge | November 9, 2007 10:00 AM

I'm beginning to think that a denialist is nothing more than a creationist with a calculator.

Not much difference at all.

Orson Scott is a big fan of Steve's.

Birds of a feather...

Posted by: Stevie_C | November 9, 2007 10:19 AM

Holy shit. I love how PZ criticizes CA and all fucking hell breaks loose... if the CA "science" spoke for itself, they wouldn't have to be over here denying their denials.

I really hope BA won.

Sour grapes? I think Phil is sipping wine tonight.

Posted by: cbone | November 9, 2007 10:34 AM

Wow the elitist bullshit just keeps on piling up. It is quite amusing to see supposedly educated and intelligent folks left with nothing but juvenile insult and profanity to defend themselves. Bravo...

Posted by: Ryan F Stello | November 9, 2007 10:52 AM

cbone done wrote:

the elitist bullshit

nothing but juvenile insult and profanity to defend themselves.

Man, these whiny folks are self-refuting, eh?

Posted by: RickD | November 9, 2007 10:59 AM

chone:
"Elitist" doesn't mean what you think it means. You cannot wander into a conversation, utter the word "elitist", and expect your opinion to carry as much weight as everybody else's.

Unless, of course, you are a Communist.

ARE YOU A COMMUNIST?

(Dun-dun-DUN?????)

Oh, and for all the concern trolls? It's OK to be pissed off at some things.

I do give you credit for a high ad hominem/word ratio, though.

Posted by: JimC | November 9, 2007 11:14 AM

That doesn't mean they are right, but it does mean it's the way to bet.

I don't know about this. In religion they have all kinds of 'experts' also, I know the difference is the evidence and reality but it's still an argument from authority at the end of the day.

Posted by: Effeminem | November 9, 2007 11:15 AM

So much anger. Maybe some of yall should take a week off from the blogosphere.

Posted by: Dustin | November 9, 2007 11:28 AM

Crichton ... knows how to write fiction.

That's news to me.

Posted by: Rey Fox | November 9, 2007 11:48 AM

Is it just me, or can one easily sniff out the bullshitters in any debate by simply looking for who uses the term "open-minded"?

Posted by: JePe | November 9, 2007 11:49 AM

Remember the "Memory Wars"?

Some quack psychologists 'discovered' that people (mostly women) totally repressed memories of horrific child abuse and satanic ritual abuse. Those who opposed this 'scientific theory' were immediatly branded as child molesters and pedophyles. Ask Elisabeth Loftus.
The repressed memory 'theory' turned out to be total bullshit but it caused hysteria in the USA, Great Britain, the Netherlands and Australia/ New Zealand.

History repeats itself: this time the hysterical focus is AGW. Don't dare to question the AGW hypothesis or be called a denialist or a pawn of industry (or a moron or rat).

The AGW hypothesis is based on sloppy science, as was the 'repressed memory' theory.

Climate Science and Psychology have one thing in common: scientifically there is a hell of a lot unknown. That should have made them humble and cautious. But in both fields alarmists took over. The "repressed memory" theory has already been debunked, the AGW 'theory' will follow.

Posted by: Ariock | November 9, 2007 12:06 PM

Then we'll get repetitions of why the Mann Hockey Stick doesn't matter, a snide trick that fools no-one but the gullible and the naive. If that's so, then why the bile? Why the trolling? 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.
Posted by: John A | November 9, 2007 6:06 AM "

Godwinned. You Lose.

Posted by: Steverino | November 9, 2007 12:22 PM

WOW!...Who left the lid up???!!!

Posted by: Robert S. | November 9, 2007 12:24 PM

I just realized that PZ is the Gregory House of all Science blogs. (In a good way, of course.)

Posted by: Sven DiMilo | November 9, 2007 12:27 PM

Empirical: increase in atmospheric CO2
Empirical: CO2 absorbs IR radiation, i.e. it's a "greenhouse gas"
Empirical: primary source of increased CO2 the burning of fossil fuels
Empirical: humans are the only species burning fossil fuels

So, sorry, what's the controversial thing about "anthropogenic global warming"...that maybe we haven't really detected the predicted temperature increase yet?
I don't find that very reassuring...
Or that maybe there are poorly understood compensatory processes that might mitigate the predicted warming somewhat?
ditto.

Posted by: moondancer | November 9, 2007 12:35 PM

Until this award thing, I didn't realize their was a bush apologist pseudo-science blog. The audit is exactly like the religious creationists, exactly like the bankrupt neo-con ideology sites, exactly like the GOP uber alles sites, long on sophistry, short on facts.
Its laughable to look at the bullshit in their threads that passes as science.

Posted by: Theo Richel | November 9, 2007 12:37 PM

Science according to Calgeorge:

Professor says: I did a very good job

Calgeorge thinks: Wow, he must be doing a very good job!

That's it, science settled, no further evidence needed.

Is that your general approach to the problems of this worl Cal? Find a professor who thinks he's right and who has ideas like you?

Posted by: Stevie_C | November 9, 2007 12:46 PM

Yeah,

If you completely ignore what Cal posted.

Posted by: Dustin | November 9, 2007 12:47 PM

Here, Theo, I'll fix that comment for you:

Science according to Calgeorge:
Professor says: I did a very good job.
Other scientists say: We've independently reproduced his results, he did in fact do a very good job.
CalGeorge says: Wow, he must be doing a very good job!

Or did you miss the part of the post that said:

More significant than this, however, is the fact that numerous studies using different proxy data and methods, or using climate model simulations, have given essentially the same result as our original 1990s work.

Posted by: JePe | November 9, 2007 1:00 PM

Re 428 (Dustin)

If the Hockey stick graph is still relevant, why is there not even one reference to it in the latest IPCC report?

Posted by: David | November 9, 2007 1:04 PM

The truth about consensus science:

1. Handed out death sentences to many, many women by recommending hormone therapy, giving them breast cancer.

2. Recommended margarine over butter for years. Now they are banning trans fats in NYC due to health concerns.

3. Told us all for decades not to be overweight, then here recently we get a study about how slightly overweight people live longer.

Now they are telling us that releasing water vapor through our tail pipe is better than releasing CO2, ignoring the fact that water vapor is a bigger player when it comes to trapping heat. CO2 is a trace element (

Here are the questions that I ask:

1. Why does the communist party call itself the "Green Party"?
2. Why are WWF, Sierra Club, and Greenpeace all left wing organizations?
3. Who established "Earth Day?"
4. Who was behind the movie "An Inconvenient Truth"?
5. Who makes up the majority of the main stream media?
6. Is it fine for scientists to be activists about their own work? How about a reporter/journalist?

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

If the Hockey stick graph is still relevant, why is there not even one reference to it in the latest IPCC report?

You aren't good at paying attention, are you?

Posted by: shiftlessbum | November 9, 2007 1:16 PM

Jepe #430

I am not sure what you mean by "latest" report, but on the IPCC webpage, the latest report they have available that discusses paleoclimate reconstructions (The Physical Science Basis report from Feb of this year- several other reports were follow-ons that discussed, among other things, impacts and mitigation) does indeed discuss the "hockey stick", including McIntyre contributions.
See page 34 from
http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/Report/AR4WG1_Print_Ch06.pdf

Was there some other report you are referring to? Can you please post a link to it? thnx.

Posted by: Rey Fox | November 9, 2007 1:17 PM

"You're suggesting that no review is a better system?"

I believe he's suggesting that review by businessmen is necessary. Also, wild quacks.

Posted by: molecanthro | November 9, 2007 1:22 PM

Oh, no, I am bitter, John A. I'm greatly irritated that the average intelligence of the commenters here has plummeted since you and your lying ilk have been diluting the threads here.

You can go away now.

I agree...I'm very surprised by the amount of crap on this and a few other recent threads!! I've been reading your blog for a few years now and have always found wonderfully written articles...many of which have very interesting takes on recent scientific research. People like you, PZ, give me hope. Knowing that there are intelligent, motivated people out there fighting to defend science against the barbarians at the gate makes me feel that, contrary to my normally pessimistic nature, we are going to effectively stop them from their goal of destroying science...or, rather, redefining science so that it meets their preconceived conservative/fundamentalist world views. You make people like me motivated to start PhD programmes (like I just have). So to hell with them. Be happy that you're reaching people like me!!

mark.

Posted by: guthrie | November 9, 2007 1:37 PM

Francois O, post 431- assuming you in fact sincere in wanting to actually discuss climate science, your best bet is to go to www.realclimate.org and talk to people there.

But be warned- although there are many helpful people there, it is not enough to wait and be spoon fed. Read and learn.

Posted by: Theo Richel | November 9, 2007 1:47 PM

Thanks Dustin, you are right, I wasnt complete

Professor says: And all my friends have used the same material and came to the same conclusions: I did a good lob!

Calgeorge and Dustin think: Wow, his friends agree with him! We want to be friends too, so lets agree with him!

Your ball

Posted by: JePe | November 9, 2007 1:55 PM

@ shiftlessbum (#436)

My bad, I should have been more careful in choosing words. The hockeystick graph was the (God given?) posterboy for the IPCC, but lost that function in the latest report. I wonder why.

Posted by: melatonin | November 9, 2007 2:01 PM

Because there are newer climate reconstructions that show almost the exact same results as Mann's early work...

Posted by: Rey Fox | November 9, 2007 2:05 PM

That's right, folks, it's the Underpants Gnome Envirofascist Plot!

1. Spread dire warnings about impending climate/ecological upheaval unless we reduce our emissions/consumption.

2. ???

3. Profit!

Posted by: melatonin | November 9, 2007 2:07 PM

The problem, shiftless, is that the IPCC is no longer using the early Mann data as the 'poster boy'. There are now several large scale multi-proxy reconstructions.

They are pissed because the IPCC report doesn't rely on Mann's data alone anymore. If it did, then they feel their inane ramblings might actually be meaningful.

Posted by: mpaul | November 9, 2007 2:09 PM

#415 CalGeorge, Mann is not a statistician. Wegman is one of the world's most eminent and decorated statisticians. This debate is about statistically techniques. Mann's response indicates that his grasp of statistics is so poor as to not even comprehend the issue at hand. Wegman was very clear -- Mann's math is defective and his conclusion is defective. Mann doesn't like that. Its embarrassing to be called wrong on such a fundamental point. But that doesn't change the fact that Mann's work is defective.

Posted by: Dustin | November 9, 2007 2:15 PM

They are soooo like the cool kids in high school.

So now Theo is deploying the "Mean Girls" defense too. Behe has created a monster!

Posted by: Theo Richel | November 9, 2007 2:19 PM

Stevie_C
I disagree, not all scientists are friends with each other. In science all sorts of points of view can be found, climatewise. Those who think CO2 raises temperature dangerously and those who think otherwise and all sorts of variations. But within IPCC only one point of view is allowed. It is called the consensus view and a scientist that doesnt adhere to the consensus simply isnt considered a scientist anymore, and not listened to. That is a church. That is not strange: when the IPCC was established it was already 'known' that the climate was in danger, because of CO2, which is emitted because we are all egoistic fossil fuel burners. The IPCC was established to show THAT (not find out IF) there was a climate problem and THAT CO2 (not find out IF) was the culprit.
And now a guy named Steve McIntyre is doing dull statistical work to find out whether this so called proof deserves the name proof. And you are exteremely affraid of him!

Posted by: GallileoWasADenier | November 9, 2007 2:22 PM

Problem: I've just gone and insulted another blog ("I'm in the running with a couple of conservative junk science blogs") and now all their fans have come round to complain. I don't like it. What can we do to make them go away?

Hypothesis: If we insult them enough and use the word "fuck" lots of times, they'll not want to comment here any more.

Alternative hypothesis: if we insult them they'll be even more determined to complain.

Prediction: When we try it, the number of AGW sceptics should go down.

Experimental setup: a post with plenty of ad hominems and no science, telling them to bugger off.

Experimental result: 429 comments and counting.

Perhaps the problem is you didn't insult them enough? Tell you what, insult them even more and see if that works.

As a result of this thread, I'd like you to know that I plan to stay for a while. If you're this easy to wind up, and this incapable of defending your position with science rather than invective, you should be enormous fun!

How does that work for your hypothesis?

Posted by: CalGeorge | November 9, 2007 2:24 PM

Union of Concerned Scientists:

Is there legitimate scientific debate about the accuracy of the hockey stick graph?

Yes, but mainly about the details, not the essential point. Temperature fluctuations that predate written records are preserved in natural archives (e.g., tree rings, ice cores, boreholes) with various time periods (e.g., seasonal, annual, decadal). The scientific discussion has focused on the best statistical method for combining these various records to accurately capture temperature fluctuations for the Northern Hemisphere. As is typical of the scientific process, independent teams of researchers have worked to reproduce the results of the "hockey stick" by using their own approaches and even by using slightly different data. These studies sometimes produce slightly higher temperature fluctuations in the past compared with the initial study. But despite their differences, they still yield the same essential conclusion: the past 10- to 20-year period was likely the warmest of the past millennium.

How much does our understanding of global warming depend on the hockey stick graph?

The short answer is "very little." The hockey stick graph constitutes only one among literally thousands of pieces of evidence that have contributed to the present scientific consensus on the human influence on global warming. In 2001, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) concluded in its authoritative third assessment report that "there is new and stronger evidence that most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities." As one climate expert observed: The IPCC report Climate Change 2001: The Scientific Basis is 881 pages in length. It weighs 5.5 pounds and contains over 200 figures and 80 tables. It would be absurd to think that the weight of its conclusions rests on any one figure or table; rather it paints a convincing picture in the totality of its science, as noted succinctly in its title."

Works for me. A little sanity in a denialist world that refuses to see the forest for the trees.

Posted by: Apparently an "elitist" | November 9, 2007 2:28 PM

Theo Richel (458), the only thing I'm "exteremely affraid" of right now are people invading the comments thread with conspiracy theories about the IPCC, lionizing McIntyre as some sort of cult underdog hero, repeating the tired of comparison between scientific consensus view and a "church," and all the while spelling like LOLcats.

OH NOES!!1! THEIR IN YUR BLOG, HIJAKING YUR THREDZ!!

Posted by: melatonin | November 9, 2007 2:30 PM

Theo, people like you bore me, that's why it was not addressed to you.

Cheers

Posted by: JePe | November 9, 2007 2:33 PM

@ Apparently an "elitist" (#457)

Neither are you. The only point I was making is that holding an politically incorrect opinion can cost you dearly, even in the scientific world.

AGW is the UFO of climate science, as was repressed memory (Dissociative Identity Disorder) for Psychology and Psychiatry.

Posted by: Ray C. | November 9, 2007 2:41 PM

#461 cbone: What is a freeper?

Strictly, a denizen of the Free Republic blog. More broadly, right-wing loons wherever they may be found.

Posted by: Francois O | November 9, 2007 2:47 PM

Cal, Cal, Cal,

You've done it again: throw me the IPCC report!

If your opinion on the temperature reconstructions is based on what the Union of concerned scientists says, good for you! If you want to dig deeper, and really understand the finer points of it, not whether AGW is true or not, just understand the finer points about how those reconstructions were made, then I recommend that you read Climate Audit, and of course the published papers themselves. Add to this the NAS report and the Wegman report. When you have read all of this, then maybe you can claim to have a more educated opinion on the subject. Of course, it's not as good as a quick Google search...

As for Andy Grove, he's entitled to his opinion. I only quoted what he said on peer review. And I think his achievements make his opinion worthy of consideration. It's all right if you disagree. On the subject of peer review, I agree with him. Do you? And if not, why?

Posted by: truth machine | November 9, 2007 2:52 PM

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.

You people are completely utterly fucking stupid. This one thread isn't for debate or reasoned arguments or rational discussion, its to tell a bunch of trolls from another blog who came here to insult PZ to FUCK OFF.

Posted by: truth machine | November 9, 2007 2:58 PM

Then we'll get repetitions of why the Mann Hockey Stick doesn't matter, a snide trick that fools no-one but the gullible and the naive. If that's so, then why the bile? Why the trolling?

That's the question -- why are you trolling? This isn't a climate change blog, fuckhead; you climate changeheads weren't invited here; go the fuck away.

Posted by: truth machine | November 9, 2007 3:02 PM

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.

That's right, we're all infantile, phony liberals, close-minded and self-righteous bigots. We're terrible people and this is a terrible blog.

SO WHY THE FUCK ARE YOU HERE???

Fucking trolls.

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

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.

If you read the whole thread, then why are you so clueless as to what went on here? You can't put it "apart from the awards thing", that's what it's all about -- a bunch of trolls showing up from another blog that thought it was in competition with PZ for some stupid award that he couldn't care less about. All the anger, real and feigned (hint hint), is directed at these trolls. It's not about a difference of opinion about GW -- this isn't a climatology blog.

Posted by: Stevie_C | November 9, 2007 3:12 PM

These troll don't even understand how science works.

One fucking scientist does not matter. Unless findings are supported by independant data, and other studies, one scientists findings are unimportant.

I wonder how many of these guys (CA trolls) drive SUVs.

Posted by: Doug Rozell | November 9, 2007 3:18 PM

Forgot to mention: people who post exclusively in IM text should go doodle themselves. Whatever you have to say, you are not communicating it, as it is simply too much bother to wade through your laziness with the Queen's English.

Doug Rozell, Beachville, Canada

Posted by: JePe | November 9, 2007 3:22 PM

@ Apparently an "elitist" (#475)

You wrote:
"Yet the UFO conspiracy theorists and the beads-and-crystals advocates of "repressed memory" were the ones who lived almost exclusively in the popular literature and media while the peer-reviewed science piled up on the other side.

I think you've got your analogy backwards."

If that would be true, please explain to me why "DID" is still a legitimate disorder according to the DSM.

You wrote:
"Besides, whether or not this fair, anyone who uses the term "politically incorrect" in an argument nowadays becomes instantly suspect in my eyes. It smacks of mythical thinking that creationists and right-winger like to indulge in."

I really don't care if I am suspect in your eyes. There is a lot of politically correct bullshit in science (Oops I said it again), especially in psychology and climate science.

Posted by: truth machine | November 9, 2007 3:28 PM

So much anger. Maybe some of yall should take a week off from the blogosphere.

All we ask is that all you trolls take forever off from this blog, the one you've never been to before and only came to because of some stupid web contest.

Posted by: Stevie_C | November 9, 2007 3:30 PM

What about FUCK OFF, do you guys not understand?

If we wanted to "debate" your denialism, we would go trolling over at CA.

Your rightwing bullshit and tactics is well known here, except it's usually coming from social conservatives and jesus freaks.

Next you'll be telling us about the rapture and how Iraq is a success.

Posted by: CalGeorge | November 9, 2007 3:30 PM

McKitrick basically throws the entire peer-review process into question in his paper, Science and Environmental Policy-Making: Bias-Proofing the Assessment Process.

Scientific assessment panels are playing increasingly influential roles in national and international policy formation. Although they typically appeal to the standard of journal peer review as their quality control criterion, there seems to be confusion about what peer review actually does. It is, at best, a necessary condition of reliability, but not a sufficient condition. There is also the problem that assessment panels may be biased in favor of one side or another when evaluating areas in which the science is
unclear. In this paper I argue that additional checks and balances are needed on the information going into scientific assessment reports when it will be used to justify major policy investments. I propose two new mechanisms to bias-proof the outcome: an Audit Panel and a Counterweight Panel. The need for such mechanisms is discussed with reference to the "hockey stick" debate in climate change.

A Counterweight panel!

Sounds like he has a pretty big chip on his shoulders.

FYI, this article, published in December 2005, has been cited O (zero) times.

Posted by: Brian Macker | November 9, 2007 3:34 PM

Dustin, #299

"I'm getting pretty god damned sick of these nauseating and disingenuous appeals to even handedness."

It's not about even handedness. It's about getting one's facts straight, and not being a bunch of alarmists.

As far as I can tell the temperature data was fudged.

If the evolutionary community was screaming that the world would come to an end unless we quickly institute eugenics then you can be sure I'd be poking holes in their claims also. Especially if there were bogus studies showing the collective IQ had dropped.

As I've said before when you move from climate to policy you have jumped into the realm of economics. I don't hear any good science from the AGW crowd in that realm. It's pretty much quackery.

"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."

Yeah, right. So the whole public Gould/Dawkins fight never happened. Or are you going to respond that one or the other doesn't do science? I'll laugh if you do that.

Posted by: truth machine | November 9, 2007 3:35 PM

Is it just me, or can one easily sniff out the bullshitters in any debate by simply looking for who uses the term "open-minded"?

It rarely fails, especially when they couple it with absolutes like "Its a simple objective fact".

Posted by: James | November 9, 2007 3:37 PM

487 this post is about "kooks" and "denialists" even if the blog generally isn't, so I think it's very fair of PZ to let us respond ;).

To answer the question as to why we are here at this page imparticular, it's because we are attempting to refute a personal attack on us as a group. I get the impression that perhaps a few have soiled this blog who might rightly be called "kooks" and that the resulting bile was deserved for them imparticular, but to generalise it to all those who are skeptical is not a particularly intelligent response.

Posted by: David | November 9, 2007 3:39 PM

"A broad minded person is someone who is too lazy to form an opinion". -- Will Rogers

Posted by: JePe | November 9, 2007 3:45 PM

@ Pablo (# 493)

As even the IPCC abandoned the hockeystick graph (their former poster-boy), one should wonder why they did so if there is nothing wrong with it.

Posted by: irony_bob | November 9, 2007 3:45 PM

Indeed, you have strengthened my resolve Steve_C. Thank you,

Peace be with you brother!

IB

Posted by: truth machine | November 9, 2007 3:47 PM

Find a professor who thinks he's right and who has ideas like you?

That seems to be the thing with these wankers; they did poorly in college and blame the "professors". We see the same attitude over at UD.

Posted by: CalGeorge | November 9, 2007 3:50 PM

McKitrick again (Science and Environmental Policy-Making: Bias-Proofing the Assessment Process, Dec. 2005)

He's a nut:

Counterweight Panel
As for the Counterweight Panel, in the climate context I envision an IPCC Working Group 4 assembled from among the expert community to publish, under the imprimatur of the IPCC, the case against the conclusions presented by the other IPCC Working Groups, primarily Working Group I. Such a panel would have to deal with both economic and scientific aspects of the IPCC's work since the emission scenarios are intrinsic to the Working Group I conclusions. It would be ideal to have the other IPCC Working Groups prepare a response, to which Working Group 4 would then prepare a reply.

So, IPCC is supposed to form a group to reach conclusions that contradict IPCC findings! Coming soon: a Counter-Counterweight Panel. This group will critique the work of groups 1 and 4 and recall all copies of whichever group offends them most.

This guy is living in la-la land.

Posted by: Rey Fox | November 9, 2007 3:51 PM

Now you've done it, Stevie. Bob (who doesn't have Clue One as to what irony really is) is gonna drown us all in treacle.

Posted by: truth machine | November 9, 2007 3:54 PM

Well lets see.. elitism: The belief that certain persons or members of certain classes or groups deserve favored treatment by virtue of their perceived superiority, as in intellect, social status, or financial resources.

I would say the moniker is appropriate, thank you for providing a concise illustration of a perceived superiority (totally without basis I might add) to prove my point for me. Thanks for playing.

Ya gotta love it when established morons say "I think" or "I would say" and then follow it with something utterly retarded.

Ok, cbone, fine, we all groundlessly think we we're smarter, more successful, and richer, than you -- we must, because you say so. And so we've lost the game. Hey, you're a winner! So, WHY THE FUCK ARE YOU STILL HERE?

Posted by: melior | November 9, 2007 3:56 PM

The right wingers that I know:

1. Care about the environment, but want to see free market solutions.

I find it uproariously hilarious that denialists such as this think all their years of prior claims have simply disappeared from the public records, and that their new amnesia about their absolute certainty and faith in those beliefs means they never happened at all!

But really, who can forget what wonderful denialist hits they were spouting as gospel waaay back oh a couple years ago: Global warming is just not happening, sure global warming is happening but has nothing to with humans, trees cause pollution (Saint Raygun!), the evil "tree huggers" don't care about the naturally superior place of humans in the world...

This new found fake skepticism mixed with woo, tree hugging, and ignorance of statistics is also teh funny, so I hope they don't stop keeping us amused.

Posted by: Josh | November 9, 2007 3:57 PM

Okay, well, Francois, your comment #453 doesn't really seem to answer my question:

Which of the major holdouts during the "tectonic revolution" have been revisionist when looking back at their part in the history of that time?

which is what I interpreted your comment: ...and (2) how scientists can be good at rewriting history when it makes them look stupid.

to be saying.

But regardless, your characterization of how tectonic theory came about doesn't seem to jive with what I recall being taught in structural geology. The guy who taught me structure was a late player in the "revolution" but a player nonetheless, having gotten his PhD under Harry Hess and his MS under Ernst Cloos. He was pretty seriously into the history of it all and we spent a fair amount of time wallowing through the early literature. As I understand it, Wegner wasn't really supported initially because he lacked a compelling mechanism for causing it and much of what he said about how the continents moved around made little sense. The basic ideas were already out there based on continental margin shapes and paleontological data. It already had some supporters. Wegner brought it all together under an umbrella term, but none of them had much evidence to back the theory up at that time. Despite that, work was done...a lot of attention was paid to the theory before 1930 even and there doesn't seem to be any 30 year black hole in publications. Symposia were held specifically to discuss the theory. The geologists of the 1920s absolutely did know how to do science, you're correct...and they did what they were supposed to do. They pissed all over the theory...probing it for weaknesses...and there were many. It is like the snowball earth hypothesis, which is turning into a theory right before our eyes (magnificent to watch it happen). What do people do? Piss on snowball earth, trying to disprove it...or...doing science. Was tectonics contested? Yes, hotly...but before Hess did his stuff it was weak. Sorry, but it was. Still, I don't know where the conspiracy theory about suppressing drift is coming from. If there were suppression going on, it doesn't appear to have been very effective since I haven't seen any break in publications on the subject. Hess's work during World War II formed the basis of the mechanism and once that finally got published, people started to come around immediately. Were there holdouts? Yes, for a long time. Cloos almost went to his grave as a holdout. I would have been surprised if people accepted it quickly. As scientists, we're supposed to be skeptical as you well know. And this was a big deal...tectonic theory. Bigger than AGW I would wager. The globe warms, the globe cools...it's what it seems to do. That's not really in dispute. Whether anthropogenic greenhouse emissions are affecting the process at one tiny little sliver of geologic time to me seems like a far smaller thing than if the earth's crust is divided up tectonic plates that move around, recycling rocks and driving much of the climate system. So I'm not at all surprised that a bunch of people got their panties in a wad over tectonic theory. People are basically dickheads after all. Would I support the notion that there was an active campaign of suppression? No. Does that mean there wasn't? No. Structure/tectonics...not the stuff I publish on...I certainly could be wrong, but it didn't look that way when we were ready the early papers on the subject.

Posted by: Stevie_C | November 9, 2007 4:04 PM

Your. Damn it.

Posted by: Pablo | November 9, 2007 4:08 PM

"As even the IPCC abandoned the hockeystick graph (their former poster-boy), one should wonder why they did so if there is nothing wrong with it. "

Assuming the claim that they abandoned it is true (although others have disputed you), perhaps the reason is because they don't need it to make a clearcut case for AGW? That additional evidence that has come out since it was originally released is even more compelling?

It's like a creationist complaining that a report on evolution doesn't contain anything about Lucy.

Posted by: truth machine | November 9, 2007 4:13 PM

Thanks for the good belly laugh. RC is an AGW spin zone run by the same PR firm that represents moveon.org and greenpeace. It is hardly an unbiased source of climate information.

Ah, so instead you come here ... yeah, that makes sense.

What a fucking turd.

Posted by: truth machine | November 9, 2007 4:15 PM

Wow, the old playground tactic of regurgitating back a criticism on the commenter. I can't say I expected any better, but it is typical of those on the left. Strip away the hate and vitriol and all you have left is a little playground whiner with no orignal thoughts of their own.

That's right, we have no original thoughts of out own. SO WHY ARE YOU STILL HERE, FUCKWAD?

Posted by: Nick Sullivan | November 9, 2007 4:22 PM

If I were to disagree with Grove, it's that peer review does not so much prevent innovative ideas from being published as it allows a humongous amount of poor quality (boring) science to be published. How do you find the innovative idea in all the noise? You can get anything published these days. Do you know that there are over 1 million papers published every year?

Posted by: Lee | November 9, 2007 4:25 PM

I have lurked here for awhile because I thought that it might be entertaining to read the views of a few warmists "at home".

Bad mistake. Instead of being entertained by PZ and his defenders, I've been disgusted to the point of regurgitation. I've heard more rational discourse on the subject of AGW in Vancouver bars at 2:00 AM.

If you ignorant barberians are representative of the state of science in the U.S.A., America is doomed and so, by extension, are we all.

Maybe you're just a bunch of undergraduates, and therefore harmless, but I doubt that, and it makes me afraid, very afraid.

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

Wow, you folks are pretty amazing...childish comes to mind, ad hoc also, definitely rude.

Yes, we are. We're childish rude nasty meanies,not worth your time ... so why are you spending it here?

Posted by: Brian Macker | November 9, 2007 4:36 PM

I'll start worrying about comparisons to Venus when our atmosphere becomes 90 times denser, and is composed mostly of carbon dioxide, 96.5%. Earth's is only 0.037%. So Venus has around 234729 times the C02.

Venus also has an incredibly slow rotation rate. There are just under two days per year. Hardly a "sister planet" for the purposes of an experiment in runaway greenhouse effects.

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

Bad mistake. Instead of being entertained by PZ and his defenders, I've been disgusted to the point of regurgitation. I've heard more rational discourse on the subject of AGW in Vancouver bars at 2:00 AM.

Great, so go hang out that the bar. Why would you be here if it makes you barf? Try reading #157.

Posted by: Rey Fox | November 9, 2007 4:40 PM

Yes, this is the perfect encapsulation of The Debate, right here on this bit of HTML. And if you can't handle it, then it's off to the monastery with you where the sturm und drang won't reach for peaceful meditation.
[/sarcasm]

Look fellows, this is a blog, not a bloody symposium. A blog that has had a rather cranky host as of late. It's been rude and uncivil from the post that started it (and it's rarely this bad), but realize that anyone who has read this far and is still actively posting really doesn't care about any admonitions from the peanut gallery. Wading into the morass gets mud on YOU too, no matter how noble your intentions.

Posted by: CalGeorge | November 9, 2007 4:42 PM

PZ maybe you should stop this thread.

There was a thread on demented fuckwits that got close to 1,000 comments.

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2006/07/rapture_rubbish_and_apocalypti.php

We have a lot of stamina.

Posted by: truth machine | November 9, 2007 4:44 PM

I have lurked here for awhile because I thought that it might be entertaining to read the views of a few warmists "at home".

This isn't a climatology blog, moron, so you're in the wrong place for that.

Posted by: Jay Hovah | November 9, 2007 4:48 PM

"Yes, we are. We're childish rude nasty meanies,not worth your time ... so why are you spending it here?"

They get off on being concern trolls, etc?

It certainly seems to keep them occupied, maybe we can thank Zod that this might keep them from fucking up something important.

Posted by: curious_bob | November 9, 2007 4:49 PM

Mr. Machine..

Is there anyone on who presents an opposing view point to your own you feel is more intelligent than yourself; or at the very least feel any modicum respect for?

Just curious...

Posted by: GallileoWasADenier | November 9, 2007 4:53 PM

Hi truth machine!

"It validates my position that you and all your buddies are troll assholes. It also established that you personally are a moron, because you don't have a clue what's going on here."

False generalisation!

But you already knew that. I want you to know, that insult just earned you another few comments from me. Want to try for more? It was an interesting hypothesis, this idea that telling people to "just fuck off" would work, but at what point do you conclude the hypothesis falsified? When it gets to a thousand comments? Ten thousand? Ever?

Because, you see, every time you ad hom, it adds more evidence to my case. Why would I ever want to stop, when you keep helping me out like this? I suspect PZ will eventually have to shut comments down to get it to stop (and by so doing lose the argument), because you'll never be able to collectively admit to yourselves that it's your insults that are triggering the "trolling", and that another approach is called for. That is, if you aren't secretly enjoying the fight and wanting it to continue, that is. If so, happy to oblige.

Posted by: truth machine | November 9, 2007 4:56 PM

you'll never be able to collectively admit to yourselves that it's your insults that are triggering the "trolling"

I have no trouble admitting that. It makes some trolls go away, and it causes others, like you, to firmly assert that they are assholes. As I said, you haven't a clue what is going on here. (Hint: a lot of it is about social status.)

Posted by: truth machine | November 9, 2007 4:59 PM

and by so doing lose the argument

OMG, PZ will lose an argument!

What you and your fellow troll assholes can't seem to grasp is that there is no argument for PZ to lose, and even if there were, he doesn't care.

Posted by: Rey Fox | November 9, 2007 5:01 PM

"and by so doing lose the argument"

This is an argument?

Posted by: Peter | November 9, 2007 5:04 PM

Dammit. I finally have something to contribute and three other people make the same point.

Posted by: Theo Richel | November 9, 2007 5:04 PM

Stevie_C: It must be a burden to be clairvoyant but I do not think that the war in Iraq is a success, its a disaster. And a right winger I am not, they expect far more from government than I do. As do leftists

Apparently an "elitist": You've corrected me rightly. Spelling error! Well as I am from the Netherlands ( see www.richel.org/resume ) maybe you will excuse me.

And in general, as to why we are all here, I guess it has to do with your LEADER (I mean, that is the way you look at these things don't you, he leads and you follow and he is always right). He started this thread with some remarks that most of us couldnt resist.
And I think it is really a pity, because both he and Steve McIntyre adhere to the scientific method, and I think he (as your LEADER!) is probably the only one who will realise that one of these days. And what that means for the future of this 'science-blog' only God - who I do not believe in - knows.

Some here have whined about us asking for an 'open mind' on your site. I will not, an open mind is often an open sink in which you can throw anything. I go for the ultimate skepticism, for the realisation that once a science (stem cells, climate) is in the news, on the government agenda, there is all the more reason to check it a bit extra. But all that is wasted on people (sheeple? ) like you with your follow the leaders mentality.

Btw. it now appears that the original tpoll - which got us all 'together' - was as leaky as a basket, so there may never be a real winner that everybody agrees on.
Goodbye to you all, it was fun and answered all expectations!

Posted by: Brownian, OM | November 9, 2007 5:06 PM

I have a single observation: truth machine wakes up and starts posting and Francois O gives up.

Sad.

No, that's an observation and an emotional response.

Posted by: truth machine | November 9, 2007 5:08 PM

They get off on being concern trolls, etc?

It really goes to their base psychology; it's the same thing that drives them to be denialists in the first place. Witness GallileoWasADenier's (25 points on the crackpot scale right there) talk about "lose the argument" -- it's all about their precious egos, which is why they came here in droves to "defend" CA from the evil PZ who called it "conservative junk science". The nature of their response certainly tends to support his characterization.

Posted by: phat | November 9, 2007 5:12 PM

Francois O:

What kind of funding did you lose out on? Did that grant application for the perpetual motion machine get denied? Is that why you're so angry about the system?

phat

Posted by: truth machine | November 9, 2007 5:15 PM

The "Truth Machine" kid was the best though. He is the chubby 12 year old that finally gets a chance to bully someone else for a change and is riding it for all its worth.

You obviously aren't a regular here. Which is what this is all about.

Posted by: truth machine | November 9, 2007 5:18 PM

Who knew there were so many latter day Diogenes, wandering the intertoobs in search of civility? More to the point, why do they think anyone cares that they failed again, and won't be coming back? It's almost as entertaining as the Auditors; they must get a lot of rejection, to think that "get the fuck out, you're boring" is an attempt to argue the "merits" of their position.

Entertaining ... yes, there's some delectable schadenfreude to be had.

Posted by: Pierce R. Butler | November 9, 2007 5:21 PM

Janine @ 235 - That "steven mosher" is almost as sad a case as this one.

For those tempted to follow that link - it's offered in the spirit of the-stupid-it-burns, the raison d'etre of this sanity-forsaken thread.

Now I'll be able to tell my grandchildren I'm a veteran of the legendary Pharyngula Stan Palmer Flame War! (unlike, apparently, Stan Palmer himself...)

Posted by: David | November 9, 2007 5:26 PM

This thread is full of vulgar juveniles.

Steve_C: If one believes in the many worlds theory (what can exist, does exist), then one should not rule out the existence of God. If there is the possibility of a creator God, then there should also be the possibility that the creator God could have created things to be older than they are. It is also possible that people read the Bible too literally, of course. Either way, you sound like a classic bigot.

Dahan: The questions that I asked were meant for others to ask themselves. Be careful not to miss an opportunity to put other people down though.

Now excuse me for a while, I've gotta go drive my extra large gas guzzling SUV over some polar bears. I'm waiting for these tires in my backyard bonfire to burn down though. They sure do take a while.

Posted by: Heterocronie | November 9, 2007 5:29 PM

I wish there was a Pharyngula B that just contained science postings so I wouldn't get sucked into pissing away hours of my life reading, and occasionally contributing, to this kind of junk. All I really want is to check out PZ's normally-excellent summaries of recent bio papers - which sadly are becoming rare.

Posted by: truth machine | November 9, 2007 5:31 PM

This thread is full of vulgar juveniles.

Yes! Yes! We are vulgar juveniles! This is an awful place and you really don't want to be here!

Now excuse me for a while, I've gotta go drive my extra large gas guzzling SUV over some polar bears.

We're all so sad to see you go -- just ask JR.

Posted by: GallileoWasADenier | November 9, 2007 5:37 PM

Peter,
"Dammit. I finally have something to contribute and three other people make the same point."

Of course. It's a very predictable point.

What argument? Why, that filling a post and a subsequent comment thread with ever more vitriolic insult is a good way to persuade people that you really are a scientific blog committed to fighting fallacy and pseudoscience, and that you're opinion on AGW is correct.

If you don't want to discuss climate science, do not even mention climate science blogs or AGW sceptics or any associated topic. Especially do not devote entire posts to insulting particular climate science blogs and their readers. If you don't want an argument with someone, don't insult them. If you don't want an argument, don't keep on arguing with everything they say. It clearly doesn't work. Pass over the topic in silence. Refuse to debate or answer any further. Resist the temptation to get the last word.

I'm confident you won't be able to.

Posted by: Tog | November 9, 2007 5:39 PM

"Lee. There was no interest in debate. We were acting like assholes because we wanted them to go away.

But feel free to take your concern elsewhere."

You were acting like assholes because you are. Believe me, that's no act! As for "interest in debate", it is to laugh! None of you are capable of debate. You maligned a whole group of people, and then became disconcerted when they came here to set you straight. Many tried to help you understand, but did anyone listen? Umm....no?
I'll be back!

Posted by: truth machine | November 9, 2007 5:42 PM

You were acting like assholes because you are.

That's right! We are! We're assholes! You've won the argument! Congratulations!

So, why are you still here?

Posted by: truth machine | November 9, 2007 5:44 PM

..just thought I'd give you the opportunity to demonstrate that, indeed, you possess at least a measure of humility.

I don't need you to give me opportunities, asshole.

Although your response curiously begs the question of what actually would make you a coward?

Uh, no, it doesn't, either by the correct use of that expression or by your misuse of it.

Posted by: Rey Fox | November 9, 2007 5:46 PM

Hey, Saul, you forgot "Can you really and truly be that stupid?"

Posted by: curious_bob | November 9, 2007 5:50 PM

Touché Peter.

"On an entirely unrelated matter, the increasingly common misuse of the exprssion "begs the question" drives me batty. Thanks for listening."

Indeed, I felt quite low in the misuse of an actual logical fallacy (oh the irony) as soon as clicked the "Post" button. But hey, look around...When in Rome...

Personal apologies to you Sir.

Posted by: Hank Roberts | November 9, 2007 5:51 PM

> dendro thread

Thanks for the excerpt and pointer, CalGeorge.

Posted by: JR | November 9, 2007 5:53 PM

CalGeorge:

Like I said earlier, I liked the discussion you had with Francois O.

I think your dendroclimatologists on CA has many good points. I too think he is a brave soul to take on the whole lot at CA. That is a one-against-may situation. However, I would say that the same can easily be found in this thread or over on RealClimate.

As for the dendroclimatology---there is one passage that stands out

"Those in the know, who really know the science, know not to use that chronology and know who still use that chronology. The work that uses that chronology for a temperature reconstruction is less-respected than others. Please, do not cast the whole field as deceitful or ignorant of this. "

Isn't this the core of the problem in dendroclimatology: what chronologies can we trust?

Posted by: Lar R | November 9, 2007 5:56 PM

Truth Machine: "You obviously aren't a regular here. Which is what this is all about."

Come on, don't get all rational on me here. Where is my little red-faced bully yelling "Fuck you Go away!"?

Posted by: truth machine | November 9, 2007 5:58 PM

a good way to persuade people that you really are a scientific blog committed to fighting fallacy and pseudoscience

What these moron trolls with their stupid contests aren't able to grasp is that PZ Myers never set out to persuade anyone about what his blog is or isn't, he simply posts what he posts and, as a result, has a very successful science/atheist/liberal/cephalopod/etc. blog with a large following. Some people appreciate what he writes and some don't; c'est la vie. What's really kind of funny is all these trolls who are addressing PZ here, who most likely is no longer reading this thread, having moved on to other things as he does constantly.

Posted by: truth machine | November 9, 2007 6:04 PM

Come on, don't get all rational on me here. Where is my little red-faced bully yelling "Fuck you Go away!"?

See #595 for why that too is rational.

Posted by: CJO | November 9, 2007 6:07 PM

I believe tm already said this, but it bears repeating; morons often benefit from hearing simple concepts explained multiple times.

An ad hominem is a fallacious argument taking the form of "X is an asshole, therefore what X says is wrong."

Calling X an asshole when X (and Y and Z and several Cyrillic characters as well, since we long ago ran out of asshole tokens) is behaving like an asshole is just calling X an asshole. Like it or not, agree or disagree.

But don't use Latin to feebly try to obscure the fact that logic is not, well, your strong suit, let's say.

Posted by: truth machine | November 9, 2007 6:15 PM

Feeling a tad quixotic yet?

Feeling a tad like a concern troll, asshole?

Posted by: truth machine | November 9, 2007 6:21 PM

Indeed, I felt quite low in the misuse of an actual logical fallacy (oh the irony) as soon as clicked the "Post" button. But hey, look around...When in Rome...

Ah, but apparently you live in Rome, and are just visiting here.

Posted by: JohnS | November 9, 2007 6:29 PM

Hey great the ruck continued. Truffer is right, this is a phuck fight on this franger...fraght.. or whatever this phucken blog site is called. Did I mention you lost..hahaha. Cal George, truffer, dustin, stevie c great stuff go on phuck off, phuck off, phuck off. Science discussed on this site- hahaha- and did I say you lost- hahaha, phuck off, phuck off, phuck off
JohnS

Posted by: truth machine | November 9, 2007 6:33 PM

Science discussed on this site

Indeed, science has been discussed in a half dozen threads posted since this troll-bait was put up.

Posted by: curious_bob | November 9, 2007 6:37 PM

"Feeling a tad like a concern troll, asshole?"

LOL...not in the least.

Here's a prediction with an incredible grasp of the obvious: It's just gonna keep comin' and there ain't anything you can do about it. Unless, of course, you create a password protected message board to tickle each other on all day. I am not sure what makes you believe your attitude is productive in a forum that is ultimately public. You are simply past the point no return. It will give me guilty pleasure the day some script kiddy decides to mess with this blog you just for the sheer fun maniacal of it.

Best wishes and warmest regards! Peace out.

Posted by: curious_bob | November 9, 2007 6:43 PM

Oops...bad form...especially for a farewell post...hence I offer the following correction

It will give me guilty pleasure the day some script kiddie decides to mess with this blog just for the sheer maniacal fun of it.

Have fun with your unproductive GOAT Flames.

Very Truly Yours,

Bob

Posted by: GallileoWasADenier | November 9, 2007 6:51 PM

"You fuckwits just don't get it. The majority of us aren't interested in discussing your "science" with you."

Except that you have been discussing it, by saying it's rubbish.

"This thread isn't about science, it's about an arrogant dickwad who waltzed in here and spouted off."

In response to another one who spouted off about a blog that he later admitted not to understand.

"As it has been repeatedly stated, if we gave a shit about your opinions, we would come to CA. Now FUCK OFF."

Ah! How sweet! Still doesn't work. Try a different approach.

"And unless it's not been addressed. Gallileo wasn't a denier, he, as are the climate scientists, was trying to break the back of the established, dominant view. IOWs, Mann et al = Gallileo.""

The established, dominant view changes all the time. At one time Mann was indeed challenging the scientific consensus at the time - for which I commend him. Now that he has succeeded, somebody else is. The entire point of science's history of never-ending revolutions is that consensus is never an infallible guide to truth. I will grant you, that according to Von Storch's survey of professional climate scientists, it was something like 55% in favour of AGW to 30% against a few years ago, and that does indeed mean there is a majority and a consensus in favour at present, but it is far too soon to declare the matter settled. Science doesn't work like that.

Posted by: JohnS | November 9, 2007 6:56 PM

Hey Rey Fox, I know you're a tad upset that I didn't include you as one of troll lancers, but you know what you can do so phuck off, phuck off phuck off. Hey truffer no science on ongoing threads, just less of a presence of phuckwits like you, but phuck off, phuck off phuck off. Did I say you lost- hahaha, phuck off, phuck off, phuck off
JohnS

Posted by: truth machine | November 9, 2007 7:01 PM

no science on ongoing threads

Factually incorrect.

Posted by: truth machine | November 9, 2007 7:06 PM

The entire point of science's history of never-ending revolutions is that consensus is never an infallible guide to truth.

Silly strawmen like these is a source of much of the contempt.

it is far too soon to declare the matter settled. Science doesn't work like that.

You have no idea of how science works. As Myers said above, "There are people who put together a coherent picture of a scientific issue, who review lots of evidence and assemble a rational synthesis. They're called scientists."

Posted by: David Marjanović, OM | November 9, 2007 7:11 PM

In comment 285, I don't see how the two quotes contradict each other. So Mann et al. were the first to establish the connection... that doesn't mean they have been the only ones ever since, and in fact they weren't, as the first quote says.

yo dude sulfer clouds don't let heat out man

Huh?

Sulfuric acid clouds reflect light, which has the effect of not letting heat in. Very little energy from the sun reaches Venus; Venus stays hot because, due to the carbon dioxide that absorbs the IR radiation from the ground, just as little energy leaves Venus as reaches it.

I have lurked here for awhile because I thought that it might be entertaining to read the views of a few warmists "at home".

Wow. Has apparently never heard of realclimate.org. :-o

In particular, the guy up near the top who took the time to assemble a list of words ("beaten, baffled, bested, circumvented, conquered, cowed, crushed...") that read like the Merenptah Stela?

ROTFL!!! :-D :-D :-D

GallileoWasADenier (bonus crackpot points for incorporating a crackpot list item in his handle)

And extra points for misspelling the good man. In Italian, double-spelled consonants are pronounced as at least twice as long as simple ones; Galileo (who, incidentally, had a surname, too: Galilei) wouldn't recognize himself.

Posted by: truth machine | November 9, 2007 7:19 PM

"This thread isn't about science, it's about an arrogant dickwad who waltzed in here and spouted off."

In response to another one who spouted off about a blog that he later admitted not to understand.

Even if, for the sake of argument, that were true, how does it justify some moron coming here and saying he can't find any science? He simply proclaimed himself to be stupid to those who spend time here and have seen great amounts of science, science you can readily click on from this page. Regardless of whether PZ was wrongly dismissive of CA, those who have come here from CA have, over and over again, provided justification for the dismissal, whether it's Palmer who can't see any science or David who blathers about the Sierra Club being a left wing organization or you with your "Gallileo was right when he disagreed with the church so I must be right when I disagree with the scientific community" crackpot idiocy. It is you who are trying to win an argument about CA not being "junk science", but you have failed to convince anyone reading here.

Posted by: truth machine | November 9, 2007 7:26 PM

I'll pray for your soul brother.

You really are an idiot.

Posted by: Sam Urbinto | November 9, 2007 7:30 PM

If you're over here from CA, or any of the other environment hating, right wing, non-scientific and creationist moron sites where they speak of nothing of substance, I would suggest not wasting your worthless time posting here any more. It's quite clear nothing you'll say is going to be discussed at any sort of adult level in a rational manner, so just go back to your fucktard ass hat fearless leader.

Posted by: Jay Hovah | November 9, 2007 7:37 PM

Wow, now even I am not goodly with da Engrish glammer...but I'm sure you get the message.

Posted by: GallileoWasADenier | November 9, 2007 7:40 PM

"Silly strawmen like these is a source of much of the contempt."

The natural philosophic consensus in Gallileo's time was that the Sun revolved about the Earth. Gallileo denied it. That does not, of course, mean that all who denied a consensus of their peers is a Gallileo, but it does demonstrate the lesson that had to be drummed in over and over, that a consensus of experts is not infallible. If you're prepared to accept that the current AGW consensus might be wrong, and that they might be overstating their confidence grossly, then we would be in full agreement. Since we're not, I can only conclude it isn't a strawman.

"You have no idea of how science works."

A brave assertion without evidence.

"As Myers said above, "There are people who put together a coherent picture of a scientific issue, who review lots of evidence and assemble a rational synthesis. They're called scientists.""

Agreed, that's part of what they do, although it does reminds me of the decadent collapse in Asimov's Foundation series.

We're not saying they haven't put together a rational synthesis, we're saying we think they've done it wrong. And that's normal and perfectly OK as part of the scientific process, up until the point where they refuse to either acknowledge or correct their errors, and try to label those who disagree with them as kooks and deniers. Scientists assemble their synthesis, and then other scientists try to knock it down, and if all attempts to do so fail, the hypothesis gains in credibility. After surviving the onslaught for fifty or a hundred years without substantial change, it approaches being an established theory. Natural selection in action. Even if you don't accept the validity of a particular attempts to knock it down, you can't argue against honest attempts without denying the scientific method.

Posted by: truth machine | November 9, 2007 7:54 PM

The natural philosophic consensus in Gallileo's time was that the Sun revolved about the Earth. Gallileo denied it.

If you're prepared to accept that the current AGW consensus might be wrong, and that they might be overstating their confidence grossly, then we would be in full agreement. Since we're not

Who says I'm not prepared to accept that? I actually understand scientific epistemology. But we are in disagreement about much else.

I can only conclude it isn't a strawman.

It's a contemptible strawman regardless of what I accept or don't accept, moron.

A brave assertion without evidence.

You also don't understand what evidence is.

you can't argue against honest attempts

No, I argue with dishonesty, which we've seen plenty of here.

Posted by: David Marjanović, OM | November 9, 2007 7:58 PM

the hypothesis gains in credibility. After surviving the onslaught for fifty or a hundred years without substantial change, it approaches being an established theory.

If it ever was large enough to be a theory.

you can't argue against honest attempts without denying the scientific method.

Indeed not. We're just saying those who have tried so far have exhibited a lack of knowledge of important data -- and acted as if everyone were just as ignorant as them.

Posted by: phat | November 9, 2007 8:06 PM

The references to Robert Altemeyer's research on right-wing authoritarians was spot on by the way. These denialists are perfect examples.

phat

Posted by: truth machine | November 9, 2007 8:10 PM

After surviving the onslaught for fifty or a hundred years without substantial change, it approaches being an established theory.

If it ever was large enough to be a theory.

Aside from the fact that this is a completely incorrect characterization of scientific theory formation. The theory of evolution, for instance, has undergone substantial change throughout its history, and numerous scientific theories have become well established in far less than 50 years. It isn't time or failure to change that matters, it's supporting evidence and predictive capability.

Posted by: Ozymandias | November 9, 2007 8:18 PM

You should really get off the whole Galileo thing by now. Obviously, the screen name was meant to be an ironic metaphor, albeit a poor one, clearly a point that's been made well enough. Move on.

Posted by: truth machine | November 9, 2007 8:20 PM

You should really get off the whole Galileo thing by now. Obviously, the screen name was meant to be an ironic metaphor, albeit a poor one, clearly a point that's been made well enough. Move on.

Fuck off.

Posted by: GallileoWasADenier | November 9, 2007 8:24 PM

"Even if, for the sake of argument, that were true, how does it justify some moron coming here and saying he can't find any science?"

I think he probably looked at what was up on the front page, and noted that virtually all of it was political commentary or trivia. At the moment, I see a comment on a paper about synesthesia which probably wasn't actually synesthesia, and a picture of an octopus with teeth. Yes, if you look through the archives you can find much better, and the comment was over hasty and probably a bit bad tempered, but compared to CA, where roughly every other post is doing some sort of analysis or discussion of technical papers, there isn't really a lot of science going on here. It was a bit of a tu quoque back against the claims made against CA, and not something I really approve of, but I understand why it was made.

"He simply proclaimed himself to be stupid to those who spend time here and have seen great amounts of science, science you can readily click on from this page."

Good! Well done! So why not just point him to the science, and get on with it? Why make such an extended point of calling him stupid?

"Regardless of whether PZ was wrongly dismissive of CA,..."

Thanks. That's the nearest I've seen to any graciousness on this. For that, I'll drop a few comments I was planning to hang around and make.

"... those who have come here from CA have, over and over again, provided justification for the dismissal, whether it's Palmer who can't see any science or David who blathers about the Sierra Club being a left wing organization..."

Some people, who are probably not actually from CA so much as fans of it, haven't made the best of points. To be fair to them, this was often in response to provocation, but I won't excuse it. But by the same token, an extended series of comments telling people to "fuck off" in capital letters doesn't speak too well for Pharyngula, does it?

In my experience, you either maintain the moral high ground and discuss the science with them, or you ignore them. Insult never work.

"... or you with your "Gallileo was right when he disagreed with the church so I must be right when I disagree with the scientific community" crackpot idiocy."

I neither said nor implied that. I said that no consensus of learned experts is infallible. That doesn't mean that anyone who argues against such a consensus is a new Gallileo, most are not, but it does mean that arguing against the consensus is not necessarily crackpottery, and it does mean that arguing from peer reviewed authority is still a fallacy.

I do not claim to be Gallileo, but I do claim that Gallileo's lesson is still of value. Gallileo was a denier, and was right to be so whether he was ultimately right about the sun/Earth thing or not. What matters is not consensus, but evidence.

"It is you who are trying to win an argument about CA not being "junk science", but you have failed to convince anyone reading here."

Some people tried that early on, but it soon became clear that no amount of reasonable arguments would be able to budge people. Failure to convince is not evidence of being junk science. (You would have to show a failure to follow scientific method.)

But my intention wasn't to convince you about CA, but to suggest that your tactics were counterproductive. The more you insulted CA and its readers, the more complaints you got. It was obvious to me that the insults were driving the "trolls" as you called them. Classic runaway positive feedback. In a way, I hoped to help you out by breaking the loop, but I also wanted to make the point that you had brought it on yourselves with your attitude. Nobody is asking you to necessarily agree with CA, it would be a sad world indeed if everyone had to agree to everything, but we'd be ever so grateful if you could manage to disagree with us without using all the insults. At least, not until you had tried to interact with us on a civilised level for long enough for us to have deserved them.

Posted by: truth machine | November 9, 2007 8:31 PM

Insult never work.

They work to show contempt, moron.

in capital letters doesn't speak too well for Pharyngula, does it?

We don't care, you stupid fucking moron. PZ speaks for himself in what he writes; if you don't like it, you welcome to go away, fuck off, and die.

Posted by: phat | November 9, 2007 8:32 PM

You've completely missed the point of Galileo haven't you?

He didn't deny anything insofar as he observed things that forced him to deny the consensus. That consensus was not a scientific consensus. It was an ideological and theological consensus. There is nothing remotely comparable between the AGW denialists and Galileo and it's pure ego that makes anybody who thinks otherwise.

phat

Posted by: truth machine | November 9, 2007 8:44 PM

you might not remember me

I wouldn't know, since I don't know who you are.

Posted by: truth machine | November 9, 2007 8:47 PM

At least, not until you had tried to interact with us on a civilised level for long enough for us to have deserved them.

But we don't care about you; you're trolls, invaders from another space.

Posted by: GallileoWasADenier | November 9, 2007 8:49 PM

"In this case, Galileo had the data. He performed experiments. He used old tools (ramps, balls, pendulums) in a new way. He used new tools (telescopes) to bolster his findings. He did the math. He published his work."

Yep. And CA has the data (where it's been published), performs experiments (from experiments in data processing, to Stevenson screen paint IR absorption, to collecting tree cores), uses old tools (standard statistical techniques) in new ways (applying it to climate data properly). They certainly do the maths. They publish the results on the web, where peers and all comers can review it to their hearts content. And do.

"He didn't deny on a friggen whim."

Quite right too. Wouldn't think of it. And in fact, the word denier is inaccurate. Many of us don't deny AGW - if there are indeed a bunch of unknown positive feedbacks in the climate system that triple the CO2 sensitivity, it might even be true - but we do consider it unsupported by the evidence. The proper term is "sceptic".

"Bullshit. Galieleo was the expert, because he did the damn work."

Yes, but many people at the time thought Aristotle was the expert. Or the Church.

"Those he was refuting were not experts. They were ideological morons who did no work, performed no experiments, used no tools, published no data, and had no evidence."

No they did lots of work, reams of textual analysis and interpretation, a coherent synthesis of the classics. But it was all wrong, because they relied on authority and consensus over going out and looking at the evidence. They were considered to be the experts at the time.

It wasn't the climatologists who went out to look at the monitoring stations to check they were OK, it was the sceptics over at surfacestations. McIntyre and Watt publish all their data and working. The professional climatologists often do not.

Your analysis is most apt, just not the way you think it is.

"Just like the ideological morons who "deny" the scientific consensus on global climate change."

Will you please stop talking about consensus - 55% is nothing to get that excited about anyway - and talk about the scientific evidence instead. Do you even know what the evidence actually is? And yes, I'm well aware of the absorption properties of CO2, and just as well aware that they're not the issue.

Posted by: truth machine | November 9, 2007 8:58 PM

But my intention wasn't to convince you about CA, but to suggest that your tactics were counterproductive.

Counterproductive at what? Why do you repeat the same nonsense when we've already been over it? See above about getting this thread over 1000 posts; it would be an achievement. Of course, it would also be an achievement if all you trolls really did fuck off and go away, but it doesn't matter one way or the other, really.

The more you insulted CA and its readers, the more complaints you got.

So what? Why should anyone care about getting complaints? What do you suppose your complaints achieve? You're idiot troll assholes, you complain, it's in your nature. Big deal.

Posted by: phat | November 9, 2007 9:01 PM

Can you find me a specific instance that shows that the AGW consensus is inspired by ideology? Can you find me some evidence of this?

You may be able to find some evidence that it's junk science, although I don't expect you to find that either. But do us a favor and find the evidence of ideological bias.

phat

Posted by: qubit | November 9, 2007 9:04 PM

Wow, 650 comments, mostly from dumbass cranks and trolls. I'm feeling a bit ornery at the moment (helping my geologist friend on his research on spectroscopic dating of fluorite crystals is driving me up the walls), so I figure why not take my frustration out on some deserving targets?

Francois O (if you're still reading -- if not, well, tough, I'll talk much deserved shit about you anyway):

it's that peer review does not so much prevent innovative ideas from being published as it allows a humongous amount of poor quality (boring) science to be published.

Are you sure you're a scientist? Because if you are, you're a piss-poor one, and I'm glad to read that you left... what? Particle physics? Geochemistry? Botany? Molecular biology? (I'm always suspicious of someone who proclaims to be a "scientist" without specifying what they work on, since in my experience that's always the coolest. thing. EVAR!!! to a real scientist.) Whatever it was, if anything, good riddance. I'm sure my whole field (spectroscopy of cataclysmic variable stars -- yes, I'm a little disturbed myself at how specialized I'm already becoming) is "poor quality (boring) science" by your standards. I'm sure most people here would consider the stuff I do boring, and you know what? I'm okay with that. I'm *not* okay with someone equating that, or the boring gathering of reams of detailed data that allows for breakthroughs, with "poor quality".

To consummate moron Brian Macker:

I'll start worrying about comparisons to Venus when our atmosphere becomes 90 times denser, and is composed mostly of carbon dioxide, 96.5%. Earth's is only 0.037%. So Venus has around 234729 times the C02.

Venus also has an incredibly slow rotation rate. There are just under two days per year. Hardly a "sister planet" for the purposes of an experiment in runaway greenhouse effects.

Fine, you don't want to look at an extreme case as an example. Fair enough. Care to argue against basic radiative transfer equations instead? Oh, wait... you don't understand those? Just know how to pull factoids off Wikipedia? Awww, too bad. (For non-physicists out there who are actually interested in learning, the radiative transfer equations describe how light interacts with matter it passes through. CO2 is basically opaque in large chunks of the infrared, where the peak emission is for Earth and Venus radiating heat from the surface, so it absorbs that light, heating the atmosphere.) Also, your meaningless arithmetic is wrong -- you forgot to take account of the different scale heights and volumes of Earth's and Venus' atmospheres, and the fact that you're using mass abundance not number abundance.

Also, re: #495, academic fraud like that is a very serious accusation. Care to give one piece of evidence for it? Which data specifically? I really don't feel like plowing through the whole AR4 again to count the number of independent datasets on this, but its certainly in the dozens. Oh, wait, that's right, the whole international leftist conspiracy is in on it. Guess what: we're also working with the Illuminati and Freemasons. Yeah, you're totally screwed.

BTW, care to point me to any economics or policy prescriptions in the AR4? What's that? There aren't any? That's what I thought. Now STFU and RTFM.

JePe (and really all the cranks):

As even the IPCC abandoned the hockeystick graph (their former poster-boy), one should wonder why they did so if there is nothing wrong with it.

Page 135. I see what looks a hell of a lot like not one, but three hockey sticks: CO2, CH4, and N2O abundances. Page 448. Another three hockey sticks (actually, that's being generous -- more like cliffs), this time of radiative forcings. Page 242. A sharp rise in late 20th century global temperature that, if you scaled it to include paleoclimate data from the past 1000 years, would look a hell of a lot like a hockey stick. Yeah, so none of these are "The" hockey stick, but that's how science works -- you get better data and revise your conclusions. You don't pick a conclusion and stick to it regardless. Deal with it. Now, all of you idiots: read the fucking AR4 before you make claims about what is and isn't in it, and what it does and doesn't rely upon. What, 940 pages (plus appendices and errata) too much for you? Boo fucking hoo. If you want to make claims about what's in it, that's the price of admission. But none of you could even be bothered to read the SPM apparently.

David (#498),

Fuck you. I say this not because I disagree with you, but because you're a simplistic, lying sack of shit. (Cf. all the cranks here denying anthropogenic global warming -- or even any global warming -- instead of arguing over the right solutions.)

G-WAD (#645),

Yup, evidence is what matters. So show me some. Any. Just to pick an example, what is your explanation for the global temperature increase, what is your evidence for that explanation, and why is this a better explanation that what's in the AR4? As for reasonable arguments, I inflicted reading this thread on myself, and I have yet to see actual arguments from you or any of your ilk, just lots of broad accusations, high-school debate rhetoric, and self-righteous posturing over civility. Oh, and the rejection of whole fields of scientific inquiry.

Really, if you actually want to debate AGW, and you have given me no reason to believe you actually do, first state exactly what your position is (be specific), how this differs from the AR4 or what specific criticisms you have of the AR4 (and there are legitimate criticisms, but I've yet to see one from the trolls here or at CA), and what evidence and/or theoretical basis you have for this (again, be specific). I want numbers, equations, and models. The AR4 and its referenced papers give this. You don't. The CA people sometimes do, but often with hilariously bad reasoning, obvious selection bias in the data, or clear evidence of fabrication of results left in their code (McKitrick's cosablat code is so obviously leftover from fudging the equations until they give the desired result that I'm willing to accuse him of bad faith on that).

Peter (#550),

What argument?

Gah. Why couldn't once, just once, there be an actual discussion of solutions to a problem with overwhelming evidence or of the actual science (I'd really like to see / participate in a debate - an actual debate - over the relative merits of fines vs. cap-and-trade, or which projections are most accurate, or why radiative forcings appear to be linearly additive... anything) instead of dealing with anti-scientific cranks. Times like this, I feel like John Rogers: I miss Republicans.

Added on preview:
Can you cranks get off the whole "theory of anthropogenic global warming" schtick for once? AGW is a conclusion derived from a combination of empirical data and well-established scientific theories.

There's 20 minutes of writing down the drain.

</rant>

Posted by: truth machine | November 9, 2007 9:15 PM

If you really don't care, why do you keep replying?

To show contempt, as I have said more than once.

Why do you keep using language that befouls Pharyngula's reputation as a place of science?

Why are you too fucking stupid to grasp what I just wrote about the irrelevance of "reputation"?

Why do you do exactly the things that I've told you will ensure I hang around even longer, if you really want to be rid of me?

Why are you too fucking stupid to understand "it would be an achievement" to reach 1000 posts?

Like I said, if you don't want an argument, don't argue.

"You're a stupid fucking asshole troll" isn't an argument, cretin.

Posted by: truth machine | November 9, 2007 9:27 PM

GallileoWasADenier says, in essence, that he keeps coming back here to demonstrate to me that, as long as I keep insulting him, he'll keep coming back here. Could anything be more stupid than that? He can't get it through his head that I don't really care; if he keeps trolling, I'll keep insulting him (except that even my available time isn't infinite and I'm about to run out), if he doesn't, I won't. And the reputation of Pharyngula as a place of science is irrelevant to me; it's not my blog, one would have to be an idiot to judge it by my posts, especially in this thread, and its reputation as a place of science is a function of the science that PZ posts here -- biological science, not climatology, which isn't his field -- which is plentiful. It's somewhat bizarre that someone so concerned about the science of climatology and AGW would keep coming back to a blog that simply isn't a player in that arena.

Posted by: David | November 9, 2007 9:30 PM

Steve_C: You share a lot in common with Creationists from what I can tell. You believe in the Universe being created out of nothingness, and you worship a god. It might be the god of secularism, science and technology, environmentalism, and/or money, but a god nonetheless. Everyone worships something. You should not judge others so harshly.

I'll say it again: Consensus science sent THOUSANDS of women to their DEATHS by recommending hormone therapy and giving these women breast cancer. So while you were all out there wearing your pink ribbons, marching in parades, looking down on others, and worshiping at the alter of science and technology, it was your god who was killing these people.

Posted by: truth machine | November 9, 2007 9:38 PM

Exactly the sort of approach you ought to take.

Ought, if the aim is what, moron?

Quoted in Discover

WHO is quoted? And this doesn't show what was asked for, moron -- that the AGW consensus is inspired by ideology. What it shows is someone who already accepts the consensus is seeking ways to communicate that consensus to the public, given the urgency of doing so.

Not just a troll asshole, but a stupid one.

Posted by: JohnS | November 9, 2007 9:40 PM

And what truffy, you are the peak of decorum. Hahaha. You got 666 items above yours to read what phuckwits you and your mates were.

JohnS

Posted by: truth machine | November 9, 2007 9:47 PM

Meds, JohnS, meds.

Posted by: phat | November 9, 2007 9:49 PM

You say they have doubts but won't portray these doubts for political reasons.

I have two questions.

1) Show me the evidence of this.

2) Show me the political reasons.

phat

Posted by: phat | November 9, 2007 9:59 PM

Yep, I'm not surprised.

Altemeyer strikes again.

phat

Posted by: truth machine | November 9, 2007 10:02 PM

It wasn't inspired by ideology

Hey, asshole, you were asked ""Can you find me a specific instance that shows that the AGW consensus is inspired by ideology? Can you find me some evidence of this?" and that's what you offered up. So you're just another run-of-the-mill liar.

They have their doubts, but they portray it as a more solid consensus than it is for political reasons.

There are always doubts -- that's the nature of scientific epistemology -- but the significance of the doubts get twisted, as ExxonMobil does day in and day out, so yes of course there are political reasons for toning down doubts as part of the communication process, but that doesn't make the consensus any less solid. You're mixing up different things, stupidly and dishonestly.

the save-the-world ideology

Ah, I suppose from a certain thuggish conservative ideological standpoint, wanting to address threats to society is an ideology. But it's the same ideology that inspires a great deal of science, and there's only good to be said of such inspiration.

Posted by: truth machine | November 9, 2007 10:12 PM

What sort of evidence would you accept

Evidence that actually supports the claim, moron.

if you won't take a leading pro-AGW scientist saying it was appropriate to put forward scary scenarios and play down scientific doubts for the sake of getting the public to take action?

No, I won't take that as AGW being ideologically inspired, because it obviously isn't. Why would anyone want the public to take action on something that they didn't genuinely believe, for independent reasons? Your taking this as "ideologically inspired" is circular.

The sort of ideological inspiration that we do see is people who believe in free markets and unfettered corporations denying global warming because dealing with it would involve applying restraints -- facts are denied because they don't like the consequences of them being true (we see the same thing with evolution); and a number of those people, like Milloy, are heavily funded by economic players who have a lot to lose if such restraints are applied. On the other side, you would have to show that AGW is being upheld because, say, people dislike corporations and want to see their power limited. There are such folks who are ideologically driven, but you have failed to show that any of the science is a result of such ideology.

Posted by: truth machine | November 9, 2007 10:19 PM

kept it going in the face of weakening evidence

From "skeptic" to denier in one easy step. The evidence for AGW, as a whole, has only strengthened over time.

Posted by: Brian Macker | November 9, 2007 10:41 PM

Like I said, if you don't want an argument, don't argue.

"You're a stupid fucking asshole troll" isn't an argument, cretin.

This sounds like a Monti Python skit.

Meanwhile he's arguing global warming.

Posted by: truth machine | November 9, 2007 10:47 PM

Meanwhile he's arguing global warming.

Yeah, I'm a bad bad person, sometimes arguing and sometimes not.

Posted by: tomh | November 9, 2007 10:55 PM

Zog wrote: I've lingered here too long, so I'm off ...

This is the 79th troll to announce a departure yet they just keep coming.

Posted by: JohnS | November 9, 2007 11:10 PM

Nothing required truffy, keep them all for yourself, but I'mutraged that you are starting to sound even a teeney bit sound of mind- a phuckwit joke yes, you must be tied, yes. I thought you were shooting blanks tonight or tomorrow, or whenever. Come on- we got the 1000 to make. Wildflower- running- petal has returned, dropping phuckwit paradigms everywhere. You kids are wonderful, big bro PZ goes away and because you all failed miserably in the beauty contest vote rig, you puff chests out and stamp feet.
JohnS

Posted by: octopod | November 9, 2007 11:48 PM

*wish was true. Sorry, typing drunk.

Posted by: tihson | November 10, 2007 12:53 AM

truth machine, I applaud your tenacity. How about changing your moniker to PZ's pitbull? Good work...

Posted by: Zarquon | November 10, 2007 1:37 AM

Global warming does exist, it just isn't human induced. 0.038% of the atmosphere is CO2, which does reflect some heat back to the surface, but:

1. It also reflects heat away from the earth in equal amounts. This cancels much of the trapping effect out.

CO2 is transparent to visible light that's why it's a greenhouse gas, and why the effect doesn't cancel out. If you don't understand this basic bit of the argument you're just a moron.

Posted by: Michael Ralston | November 10, 2007 2:04 AM

1. It also reflects heat away from the earth in equal amounts. This cancels much of the trapping effect out.

2. Heat flows from hot to cold. Ocean currents carry much of the heat to colder parts of the earth (say the side not facing the sun, or depths where the sun does not reach, or to the poles, etc.)

3. Water vapor makes up a larger part of the atmosphere (around 1%), and it is a much greater greenhouse gas. The hotter the earth gets, the more water vapor, the more clouds, the more reflected heat, the more cooling evaporation, etc.

Greenland used to be green and England used to be known for its wine. This hasn't happened again. Even if it does, why should we worry about it? It is not in our control.

Posted by: Zarquon | November 10, 2007 2:15 AM

Oh, piss off.

Posted by: Rey Fox | November 10, 2007 3:18 AM

"It might be the god of secularism, science and technology, environmentalism, and/or money, but a god nonetheless. Everyone worships something. "

You might want to drop the projection there, Dave. I worship nothing. Worship debases both the worshiper and the worshipee. I will have no part of such behavior.

"So while you were all out there wearing your pink ribbons, marching in parades, looking down on others, and worshiping at the alter of science and technology, it was your god who was killing these people."

So if we project and anthropomorphize everything we don't happen to like into gods or godlike beings that are "worshipped" by those who support them, then we can make all of life into some sort of warped morality play. I'm glad I don't live in your head, it sounds like a scary place.

Posted by: MB | November 10, 2007 3:35 AM

must be some West Coast trolls - or maybe the midwestern crank trolls - usually no one's on after overtime in the west coast hockey games...

Posted by: MB | November 10, 2007 3:39 AM

Ducks 3 Sharks 2 in a shootout - I know, I know, nobody gives a shit. But please do continue, science weenies, to fight the good fight against the freepers, wingnuts, theocrats and trolls... and provide late night entertainment.

Posted by: Michael X | November 10, 2007 4:15 AM

And thus ends my reasonable approach.
JohnS you seem to have no drive but an idiots one. I already explained as to why your looking for a ruck will only exhaust you, and not us. My handle was suggested to me by other commenters by the way, because Michael is such a popular name. Much like john. Though thankfully I don't share that name with you.

As for the contest you people don't really seem to be playing along with reality. PZ has already won this popularity contest once. I don't remember, was CA was even listed that time around?

And no, I'm thankfully not Truth Machine, if only for the reason that I don't often choose deal with your type.

Posted by: Michael X | November 10, 2007 4:50 AM

Yes, Truth Machine, while we've had our run-ins and I don't envy your position or reputation, we do have our agreements: Mainly, the blockheadedness of the few assholes still hanging around and obviously the existance of particular deities.

I may begrudgingly come to accept the fact that we have anything else in common. Though I'm sure JohnS will give us reason enough to chuckle in unison without having to delve into that morass right now.

As for Azkyroth, lets not be silly.

Posted by: Michael X | November 10, 2007 5:53 AM

Funny, I do remember that comment and still somewhat agree with it. Though lately you've spent more time actually talking to people other than yourself, which I'm only pleased to see.

My comment was of course in reply to your off base misinterpritation of my post. But that is neither here nor there in regards to this thread.

You'll forgive me of course for not jumping into the ruck earlier, I thought this would burn out like most troll infestations do. Though as it hasn't I thought I'd help bat a few around as I tend to be up late. Otherwise, like I mentioned, I don't tend to get mixed up in such forum bar fights.

Posted by: GallileoWasADenier | November 10, 2007 6:18 AM

Only 714? How disappointing!

Posted by: Michael X | November 10, 2007 6:19 AM

Stick around my boy, I'm sure someone will stay up to play.

Posted by: ChemBob | November 10, 2007 7:39 AM

OK, JohnS, where are those environmental publications of yours that I asked about? I don't care what area of environmental science, just some evidence that you have the slightest credibility in science that doesn't flow from only between your own ears, but is considered actual science by others as well. Do you have even one, just one, peer-reviewed journal article?

FYI, I'm 57 and have been a practicing scientist for 30+ years; I'm not saying that as an argument from authority, only to tell you that no, we're not all undergraduates and that many of us are quite experienced at the scientific endeavor and have plenty of experience in recognizing bullshit. I call bullshit on you.

Crap, I thought I "said my piece" before I went to bed. Oh well.

Posted by: CalGeorge | November 10, 2007 9:25 AM

Global warming does exist, it just isn't human induced. 0.038% of the atmosphere is CO2, which does reflect some heat back to the surface, but:

1. It also reflects heat away from the earth in equal amounts. This cancels much of the trapping effect out.
2. Heat flows from hot to cold. Ocean currents carry much of the heat to colder parts of the earth (say the side not facing the sun, or depths where the sun does not reach, or to the poles, etc.)
3. Water vapor makes up a larger part of the atmosphere (around 1%), and it is a much greater greenhouse gas. The hotter the earth gets, the more water vapor, the more clouds, the more reflected heat, the more cooling evaporation, etc.

Greenland used to be green and England used to be known for its wine. This hasn't happened again. Even if it does, why should we worry about it? It is not in our control.

Does this mean that we should continue to dump stuff into our environment? No. Does it mean that we should adopt socialistic policies and cry that the sky is falling and blame Capitalism and "Neocons" for it? No.

You've pretty much summed up the moronic mainstream what-me-worry approach to this whole issue. Thank you for putting it so well.

Posted by: ChemBob | November 10, 2007 10:48 AM

Harold, even the questions that you ask betray your ignorance of the science of this issue and of science in general. In your head, any problem that requires people to organize towards a common goal is evidently a "religion." This is probably because you are so effectively brainwashed by religion that you can't understand people coming together for any other reason than to worship bronze-age mythology. Science, properly done, has nothing to do with mythology, bronze-age or otherwise.

Scientists who, based on the preponderance of evidence, have a pretty good level of confidence that global climate change is being caused by human activities, do not have a common "position" that they hold except that the evidence seems to support this contention. Again, we aren't reading a global warming "Holy Book" written by dead shepherds thousands of years ago to get our concepts and solutions to everything.

Your number 6 is the nail that really shows where you are coming from on this issue. Taxes, naturally. Hah, what a wanker.

Posted by: harold | November 10, 2007 11:19 AM

Thank you for replying Chembob,

Do you have a suggestion to lower CO2?
Nuclear power perhaps(or even better a return to the B.A.)?
Or does this also "show where I am coming from" ?
The doubling of CO2 leading to a rise of 2-4% is
an interesting conjecture.I would favour more
real world solutions to upcoming problems
(oops..now i have really blown my cover).

Posted by: Brian Macker | November 10, 2007 11:38 AM

Qubit,

"Fine, you don't want to look at an extreme case as an example. Fair enough."

Exactly right and I proved my point.

To disprove nonsense doesn't take an exact calculation. It's enough to know they are not analogous.

You didn't mention cloud cover does that make you a "consummate idiot"? You didn't mention distance from the sun, etc. Your goal was far higher than mine and you didn't even do any calculations.

For your information I do have the math background that you assume I don't.

I know all about black body radiation, absorption spectra, and all the other crap that goes with it. I'm also aware of the behavior of light, even the quantum behavior. I understand for instance how holograms work, and that light doesn't really go in a straight line but takes all potential paths, etc.

You are yet another instance of the rude thought police that infest P Z Myers blog.

Posted by: David Marjanović, OM | November 10, 2007 11:45 AM

Steve_C: You share a lot in common with Creationists from what I can tell. You believe in the Universe being created out of nothingness, and you worship a god. It might be the god of secularism, science and technology, environmentalism, and/or money, but a god nonetheless. Everyone worships something.

Except you, I trust.

It wasn't inspired by ideology, it was inspired primarily by the low resolution analysis of the Vostok ice core and a few other bits and pieces, before they knew which way round the peaks were.

Are you alluding to the fact that the temperature changes always lead the greenhouse gas concentration changes in that core?

This is not at all surprising. We are living in the first time in the last few million years when a change in greenhouse gas concentrations happens for a reason other than a temperature change.

This doesn't mean changes in GHG concentrations can't lead to temperature changes. As I mentioned near the beginning of this thread, we've had a few cases in the last few hundred million years where GHG concentrations changed for other reasons than temperature (flood basalt eruptions, large-scale weathering of newly exposed silicates, methane burps), and in all those cases the temperature followed suit.

The effect of GHGs probably explains why glacials and interglacials are as binary as they are, as opposed to being a continuum. The GHGs dampen the influence of small changes in insolation and increase that of large changes.

What sort of evidence would you accept, if you won't take a leading pro-AGW scientist saying it was appropriate to put forward scary scenarios and play down scientific doubts for the sake of getting the public to take action?

Show me that, say, the IPCC agrees with this statement made by one person in 1989.

Where do knuckle draggers like "truth machine" breed and multiply?

Before trolling, take note of the fact that truth machine is unique.

Global warming does exist, it just isn't human induced. 0.038% of the atmosphere is CO2, which does reflect some heat back to the surface, but:

1. It also reflects heat away from the earth in equal amounts. This cancels much of the trapping effect out.

Argument from ignorance. Heat doesn't come in as the kind of long-wave IR that CO₂ absorbs. It comes in as light and as short-wave IR, to which it's transparent.

Did you really believe the climatologists don't know that?

2. Heat flows from hot to cold. Ocean currents carry much of the heat to colder parts of the earth (say the side not facing the sun, or depths where the sun does not reach, or to the poles, etc.)

Yes, and? Where's your point?

3. Water vapor makes up a larger part of the atmosphere (around 1%), and it is a much greater greenhouse gas. The hotter the earth gets, the more water vapor, the more clouds, the more reflected heat, the more cooling evaporation, etc.

By that logic, the average global temperature would have had to be completely stable for the last few billion years.

Come on, dude. The hotter the earth gets, the more evaporation happens, the water vapor is transported to cooler latitudes, condenses, which releases the heat the evaporation has taken up, and rains out.

The hotter it gets, the lower are the differences between the tropics and the poles. The tropics have always had more or less the same temperature in at least the last 90 million years; the poles have been much hotter and much colder than today.

Greenland used to be green

The name is a marketing gag. It hasn't been ice-free for over 400,000 years.

and England used to be known for its wine.

That's a plain lie.

You have distorted out of the fact that wine was grown in England in the Medieval Warm Period. The quality was horrible -- nobody would have bothered if drinking water wouldn't have meant getting cholera.

Nowadays, however, growing wine in England starts getting a serious business. Here, read, if you can.

It is not in our control.

Wishful thinking.

Does this mean that we should continue to dump stuff into our environment? No. Does it mean that we should adopt socialistic policies and cry that the sky is falling and blame Capitalism and "Neocons" for it? No.

What socialistic policies?