…and this is a 
Hi, Stan. You're new here, like a whole lot of people. You've just shown up, and here's your very first comment.
I noticed that this blog is in the running for a Best Science Blog award.
I've looked over the site. Cna someone point out where the science is on it. I have looked but I can't find any.
Let me introduce myself. My name is PZ Myers. I'm an associate professor of biology at a small liberal arts university in the upper midwest. I make no grand claims for myself, but I have been exceptionally busy lately, with lots of travel and lectures, and it's all on top of teaching two courses, one of which is both new to me and a new course in our discipline, so I'm writing lectures at a frantic pace and trying to keep up with 80 students. I'm also working on a book and have a magazine column to write, in addition to other irregular writing jobs. I'm stretched very, very thin right now, I'm a bit frustrated myself that I haven't had much spare time for the blog, and I'm feeling extremely cranky.
Welcome, Stan Palmer, I'm going to unload on you as a proxy for all your fellow denialist idiots!
First, though, I'll help you out. Look on the left sidebard, for A Taste of Pharyngula. If that's not enough, there's an archive of my Seed columns. You didn't seem to look very hard before leaping to your rather clueless indictment; I suspect you were directed here by one of those right-wing sites and came here with preconceptions. I daresay you probably didn't look at all, but instead simply scampered over here to toss off your petty, ignorant comment.
And then, of course, what's bringing you and your fellow naive whiners here is the need to defend the climate change denialist, McIntyre — so many of you, after carping that I'm not meeting your demands, are protesting that he's not a denialist, and you aren't denialists, and you're all here in the cause of good science.
Bullshit.
My expertise is not in climate, but in biology, and I'm familiar with his type — it's a common strategy among creationists, who do dearly love to collect complaints. There are people who put together a coherent picture of a scientific issue, who review lots of evidence and assemble a rational synthesis. They're called scientists. Then there are the myopic little nitpickers, people who scurry about seeking little bits of garbage in the fabric of science (and of course, there are such flaws everywhere), and when they find some scrap of rot, they squeak triumphantly and hold it high and declare that the science everywhere is similarly corrupt. They lack perspective. They ignore everything that doesn't fit their search criterion, and of course, they're focused only on putrescence. They aren't scientists, they're more like rats.
And the worst of the rats are the sanctimonious ones that declare that they're just 'policing' science. They aren't. They're just providing fodder for their fellow denialists, and like them all, have nothing of value to contribute to advance the conversation. You can quit whining that you and McIntyre are finding valid errors; it doesn't matter, since you're simultaneously spreading a plague of lies and ignorance as you go.
So bugger off, denialists. I am not impressed.
Everyone else, please do vote for Bad Astronomy. Real scientists can see the big picture and understand that the real power of science lies in the explanations, not the pettifoggery with statistics — not that I expect the right-wing gomers at the Weblog Awards who nominated the purveyors of junk science for their award to to know that, or for the swarms of freepers and limbots to care.
Oh, and the next clueless ass to whine at me that they can't find any science here will be disemvoweled. I'm feeling peevish, so it's not a good time to prod.
Comments
Posted by: ike | November 8, 2007 4:38 PM
PZ calm down, have a beer.
Posted by: Donalbain | November 8, 2007 4:42 PM
Hy, PZ
Whrs th scnc? Why n scnc. W wnt t s th scnc. Shw s th scnc!
nd nywy, cphlpds sck!
Posted by: PZ Myers | November 8, 2007 4:43 PM
I'm planning to. I'm going to use this trip to DC to sleep in late (7am, maybe, if I'm feeling hedonistic), take some walks on the mall, get some seafood, and drink a Bubble Me Blue martini.
Posted by: David Wilford | November 8, 2007 4:45 PM
Awards can be useful things, but this latest interwebby awards contest is pretty lame, IMO. The selection of nominees seems rather ad hoc to me, and the voting less about the science than about the politics of it all. Bah, humbug!
Posted by: 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: Ted D | November 8, 2007 4:48 PM
This post just gave me a warm, fuzzy feeling inside. It exactly expressed my own feelings after having read all these comments on yours and the BA's blog for the last few days. Thank you! And thank you for a great science blog.
/unrepentant fanboy mode off
Posted by: 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: Bronze Dog | November 8, 2007 5:03 PM
Denialists of all stripes use the same tactics. Doesn't take a science degree of any kind to spot them.
Posted by: David Marjanović, OM | November 8, 2007 5:04 PM
As I told you folks yesterday: fuck the hockey stick, fuck Mann, and look. Make sure to read all the fine print.
Acting as if science had, like, somehow just stopped in 1998 is diagnostic of 1) ignorance and 2) the stupidity of believing everyone is as ignorant as oneself.
Posted by: cbone | November 8, 2007 5:06 PM
"You didn't seem to look very hard before leaping to your rather clueless indictment;"
From your comments about Steve, it is also obvious that you are guilty of the same behavior.
Posted by: 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: j1 | November 8, 2007 5:09 PM
Poor PZ, losing so badly to "denialists," he has to huff into his lukewarm tea. Better luck next year.
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: Kate | November 8, 2007 5:11 PM
I'm with Stan. This blog would have been better suited to the Religion category.
Posted by: Johnny Vector | November 8, 2007 5:12 PM
Man, they sure show up fast, don't they?
Um, let's see, this would be the report that is summarized at the NAS website thusly?
You use that word "agreed". I do not think it means what you think it means.
Posted by: harold | November 8, 2007 5:15 PM
P.Z. has spoken
Amen.
And it is undeniable that there are some very
nasty and foolish posts in the Webblog thread.
Posted by: 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: JD | November 8, 2007 5:16 PM
Either there's a denialist invasion in full swing, or some people are posting under multiple different names.
Posted by: 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: Stevie_C | November 8, 2007 5:17 PM
Can we just call them Freepers? They whine and pout just like em.
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: Stevie_C | November 8, 2007 5:22 PM
It's an invasion of assholes. They come over here and cry about being called denialists and PZ is the baby? Grow thicker skins.
PZ made it clear last week he didn't want the top science blog award, that's the only reason CA may win it. He may regret it, because now we have you assholes shouting victory when PZ was trying to throw it to a blog he respects and likes.
Posted by: 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: dzd | November 8, 2007 5:23 PM
Geez, you'd think someone had disparaged Ron Paul, as quickly as the Astroturf Response Squad has mobilized.
Posted by: 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: remy | November 8, 2007 5:25 PM
"And what kind of real scientist ever tells people who disagree with him to 'fuck off'?"
One who has had to deal with far too many idiots.
Posted by: per | November 8, 2007 5:27 PM
Dear Johnny Vector
as far as I am aware, McIntyre has never disagreed with
The NRC does agree with McIntyre's specific criticisms of the statistics used by MBH'98, and it explicitly disavows use of several of the proxies that MBH'98 used.
Posted by: Onias | November 8, 2007 5:27 PM
Oh my God, Kate's a laugh riot, ha ha ha. Because, you know, that's the first time PZ has been accused of being a religionist by a right-wing moron. It's so original, you know?
Posted by: 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: Jolly Bloger | November 8, 2007 5:31 PM
Can I just point out again that right wing does not equal creationist denialist nutjob? Some of us are very pro-science atheists. Thanks, and I feel your pain PZ.
Posted by: PZ Myers | November 8, 2007 5:31 PM
More rats. Rats with their moldy flecks of rotting garbage. You guys don't get it, do you?
Posted by: synapse | November 8, 2007 5:32 PM
Are you sure he's one of the denialists? I agree with you about almost everything you post, but I also wish that there was "more science" on this blog, since I enjoy your analysis of development papers. There are way more posts on religion and atheism that there are on any other topic. Your regular readers are fine with that, but the guy who comes here once from the award website expecting this "science blog" to have science in every post is going to be confused.
Posted by: 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: B. Dewhirst | November 8, 2007 5:35 PM
Either there's a denialist invasion in full swing, or some people are posting under multiple different names.
I agree... sock-puppet city.
Posted by: 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: Sili | November 8, 2007 5:37 PM
PZed,
Why do you hate rats so? Rats can be lovely and cuddly. I'm offended on behalf of rat-kind.
student_b,
Dottore Marjanović has indeed been awarded the Order of Molly - hence the to postnominal "OM".
Unless of course I'm mistaken, and he is in fact a British subject. Perhaps in due time he will be and then he might end up "OM2".
Posted by: Stevie_C | November 8, 2007 5:40 PM
Typical. He tries to do something nice and denialists take advantage of it.
Posted by: harold | November 8, 2007 5:44 PM
"Typical. He tries to do something nice and denialists take advantage of it."
Huh? He tells denialists to bugger off. Lol
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: Theo Richel | November 8, 2007 5:47 PM
AtheistAcolyte. This is McIntyres position towards GW:
Does your work disprove global warming?
We have not made such a claim. There is considerable evidence that in many locations the late 20th century was generally warmer than the mid-19th century. However, there is also considerable evidence that in parts of the Northern Hemisphere, the mid-19th century was exceptionally cold. We think that a more interesting issue is whether the late 20th century was warmer than periods of similar length in the 11th century. We ourselves do not opine on this matter, other than to say that the MBH results relied upon so heavily by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change in its 2001 report are invalid. (From: http://www.climateaudit.org/?page_id=1002 )
Posted by: PZ Myers | November 8, 2007 5:51 PM
That isn't a position. That's obfuscatory bafflegab calculated to encourage deniability.
Posted by: tomh | November 8, 2007 5:52 PM
Geez, I come back after a few days off and the place is full of wingnuts.
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: Ford | November 8, 2007 5:57 PM
Well, there's egg, sausage, Spam and bacon. That hasn't got much Spam.
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: obscured by clouds | November 8, 2007 6:02 PM
"What's happening in science is the most interesting thing in the world, and if you don't agree with me just fuck off, because I'm not interested in talking to you" - Alun Anderson, Editor-in-Chief of New Scientist
Ahem from a real scientist ;)~
Posted by: G | November 8, 2007 6:03 PM
Damn, and I left my wingnut fumigant at home today...
Posted by: AtheistAcolyte | November 8, 2007 6:04 PM
Theo Richel -
Thanks for the reply. However, not all replies are answers. The quote you present makes no reference to evidence for global warming. That is to say, the mean annual temperature has risen by statistically significant amounts over the last 100 years.
To repeat:
Please cite the post where McIntyre states, in no uncertain terms, that he is not a denialist and does consider global warming to be happening.
Posted by: 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: gg | November 8, 2007 6:06 PM
Shnakepup wrote: "And although McIntyre never explicity states that he doubts AGW in general, he's definitely doing it a disservice by focusing so narrow-mindedly on some errors in a study that don't even significantly effect the outcome of said study!"
The 17th century version of such an attitude: "Ohmygod, Isaac Newton believed in alchemy! The whole theory of gravitation must be wrong!
Posted by: 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: per | November 8, 2007 6:11 PM
you know, this is a funny argument you produce, like somehow getting the proper answer from a science experiment is bad. Have a look at:
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=2327
I think the point is well made. You want to have a well-founded scientific view on climate; not one that relies on information that is wrong.
well this isn't true. If you take the bristlecones out of MBH'98, you lose the statistical significance. If you take out the erroneous PCA method, the hockey-stick is no longer the dominant component of variance. The NAS panel said that you shouldn't rely on bristlecones, and they concluded that temperature reconstructions have unknown reliability.These are significant issues, and they do make a difference.
And by the way, one of the ways science works is by holding out your work, your hypotheses, to critical examination. It is when you work survives that critical examination that it is good science.
Posted by: 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: AtheistAcolyte | November 8, 2007 6:14 PM
My current theory is that McIntyre's perceived non-denialist stance is an artifact of cognitive dissonance and groupthink. You'll note that everyone will leap up with "He's not a denialist, he's said so many times," but no one can come up with a quote from him where he clarifies such a position unambiguously. We shall see if my theory holds against what I'm sure will be the flood of data.
Posted by: 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: Brian English | November 8, 2007 6:19 PM
One of the things I've always liked about PZ is his correct usage of non-americanisms. I could be wrong but bugger is a typically Kiwi-aussie word. Everything is buggered down this way (read into that what you will). Sweet.
Posted by: tomh | November 8, 2007 6:20 PM
Theo Richel wrote:
Or go to his site if you dare
Is it scary there?
Posted by: Siamang | November 8, 2007 6:20 PM
Doesn't matter if a scientist tells someone to fuck off or not. It's immaterial to the science.
Why is it denialists of all stripes would rather argue about manners than science? Is it because they know their science is shit?
Excuse me. Poo-poo?
Posted by: PZ Myers | November 8, 2007 6:23 PM
Sorry, but the sanctimonious assholes who have charged over here to make accusations, and the fact that he's got the support of the junk science king, Milloy, gives me no cause to doubt my impressions of McIntyre, and I'm not at all interested in visiting his site.
Posted by: AtheistAcolyte | November 8, 2007 6:23 PM
So then Theo, you agree that he has NOT said so? So all those people who say "He's not a denialist, he said so many times" are all wrong?
Thanks.
Posted by: 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: Kamehameha the Great | November 8, 2007 6:25 PM
"Oh, and the next clueless ass to whine at me that they can't find any science here will be disemvoweled. I'm feeling peevish, so it's not a good time to prod.
At risk of being characterized as a "clueless ass", I will post a thought that aspires to rise above the insipidness and banality that offends and presents a perspective that may be worth considering:
"Science and religion are two windows that people look through, trying to understand the big universe outside, trying to understand why we are here. The two windows give different views, but they look out at the same universe. Both views are one-sided, neither is complete. Both leave out essential features of the real world. And both are worthy of respect.
Trouble arises when either science or religion claims universal jurisdiction, when either religious dogma or scientific dogma claims to be infallible. Religious creationists and scientific materialists are equally dogmatic and insensitive. By their arrogance they bring both science and religion into disrepute. The media exaggerate their numbers and importance. The media rarely mention the fact that the great majority of religious people belong to moderate denominations that treat science with respect, or the fact that the great majority of scientists treat religion with respect so long as religion does not claim jurisdiction over scientific questions.:- Freeman Dyson
Posted by: John A | November 8, 2007 6:27 PM
So PZ, you're not bitter are you? Tell how you REALLY feel.
Posted by: harold | November 8, 2007 6:31 PM
@ Atheist
I suppose you are referring to research by Dr Norbert Schwartz
http://sitemaker.umich.edu/norbert.schwarz/files/07_aep_schwarz_et_al_setting-people-straight.pdf
Climateaudit is interested in Data and not Theories,
but you are a step ahead of them I see.
Posted by: PZ Myers | November 8, 2007 6:34 PM
Oh, no, I am bitter, John A. I'm greatly irritated that the average intelligence of the commenters here has plummeted since you and your lying ilk have been diluting the threads here.
You can go away now.
Posted by: dogmeatib | November 8, 2007 6:35 PM
and it's all on top of teaching two courses, one of which is both new to me and a new course in our discipline, so I'm writing lectures at a frantic pace and trying to keep up with 80 students
Sorry, I had to chuckle at this PZ, 80 students? Two classes? WOW ... not. ;o)
I am currently teaching four different classes plus overseeing a student project. One I've never taught before, another that I hadn't taught for two years. I have slightly less than 200 students.
Just snarking. ;o)
By the way, shame to see, Bad Astronomy didn't win. :o(
Posted by: 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: G | November 8, 2007 6:36 PM
@John A
Your last name wouldn't happen to be Davison, would it?
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: Jon Strong | November 8, 2007 6:37 PM
Science is like a window, or maybe more aptly, a lens to properly perceive the world. Religion is more like a wooden door or a carnival fun house mirror.
You'll find counter-arguments to all of Dyson's points littered across this site. Posting a quote from a seemingly wise authority without backing any of it up is a poor way to argue.
Posted by: 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: Who Cares | November 8, 2007 6:39 PM
@tomh (post #42):
Great or what? [/sarcasm]
@Theo Richel (post (#41):
He dismisses research in the piece you posted because his opinion, without any research to back it up, is that it is wrong. He is not even trying to reinterpret the data or get another hypothesis that encompasses both the data and a reason why the current theory might be wrong, no he just states from opinion that the theory is wrong.
And then people like you wonder why he gets laughed at by people who do research.
Posted by: per | November 8, 2007 6:40 PM
PZM wrote
hmm, that looks like a pretty direct charge that McIntyre is a denialist; though a charge that PZM does not substantiate.
AtheistAcolyte:
so now McIntyre has to deny that he is a denialist, or he is one ? And you know, the funny thing is that McIntyre has n't denied that he is an axe-murderer, a mad arsonist, or a genocidal maniac; and I guess with that logic, he must be all three !
Again, the amusing thing is that you can go over to his website, and actually look at the analysis he does, which is actual analysis, rather than denial. This link (http://www.climateaudit.org/index.php?p=27) gives some indication as to why he thinks it is important to check out data sets.
Needless to say, it is rather amusing that PZM has made amazingly vitriolic comments, and that he won't visit climateaudit to see what it says. What more could you ask for by way of scientific method ?
Posted by: AtheistAcolyte | November 8, 2007 6:40 PM
PZ, allow me.
Fuck off.
I really do enjoy the feel of that. Let's make that the rationalist rallying cry. Could we get that whole quote printed on the backs of our OUT campaign shirts?
Posted by: 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: Jon Strong | November 8, 2007 6:44 PM
PZ isn't going to waste his time reading CA because he fundamentally disagrees with their approach towards science. The content McIntyre posts is irrelevant. DUH.
Posted by: 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: PZ Myers | November 8, 2007 6:47 PM
Sanctimonious, ignorant, and illiterate, John A? I see you're incapable of even reading a single comment by me.
Now, like I said, you can go away.
Posted by: 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: James Taylor | November 8, 2007 6:50 PM
Hang tough PZ.
Denialist appears to be a naughty, naughty word. So much so that a legion of drones is dispatched to deny the denialist label.
The theory of GW is based on such fundamental chemistry that even a ninth grader can derive a conclusion as to the result of an ongoing open experiment where unregulated combustion and exhaust is vented continuously into the atmosphere. Denying the inevitable outcome is dishonest, regressive and self-destructive. It must be hard to live in denial with oneself and it certainly isn't healthy.
Posted by: 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: _Jim | November 8, 2007 6:51 PM
PZ, both you and horse you rode in on you are absolutely pathetic.
You and a select crowd of posters here have come up short in repeated attempts to falsely label and impugn the honest efforts and genuinely scientific pursuits of a great many individuals from CA; you haven't been able to defend nor support any lame accusation, false assertion, or innuendo.
In short, you have failed and you ahve been beaten, baffled, bested, circumvented, conquered, cowed, crushed, disappointed, discomfited, disheartened, frustrated, humbled, licked, mastered, overcome, overpowered, overthrown, overwhelmed, routed, ruined, subjugated, surmounted, thwarted, trounced, undone, vanquished, worsted, formed, hammered, milled, pounded, rolled, shaped, stamped, tamped, tramped, tramped down, trodden,
worked, aerated, blended, bubbly, churned, creamy, foamy, frothy, meringued, stirred, whipped, whisked and broken, conquered, dashed, destroyed, doomed, finished, foiled, ruined, through, undone, vanquished, washed-up, wrecked.
That is all.
'Waco'/ATF _Jim (formerly of FR)
Posted by: 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: Who Cares | November 8, 2007 6:53 PM
@Per (post #73):
@Jon Strong (Post #76):
Does McIntyre have any other outlet then his blog for his research? If not then there is no reason to assume anything on the blog is correct. It is a harsh stance but if you want scientific credibility you better have your research scrutinized by scientists who do the same type of research (you know, the thing called peer review) for flaws. If you can't make that cut you are not doing valid science.
Posted by: 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: GDwarf | November 8, 2007 6:54 PM
Would people please stop feeding the trolls? I mean, sure, you stop the insults and they can then get the last word, but at least then they'll be gone.
Though I myself can't resist at least one shot:
There was a chance, however slim, that I'd go to this other blog, read it, and actually become impressed, or at least get to do some thinking about the issues.
However, seeing how readers of that blog are acting here, I have suddenly lost all interest to read the blog they come from. I mean, if they're like this, the site must be nothing but lies and ad-hominems.
No-doubt they won't care, but they might want to consider the fact that they have proclaimed themselves diplomats, and have then proceeded to hurl insults. It certainly doesn't reflect well on the one they represent.
Posted by: 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: Tyler DiPietro | November 8, 2007 6:54 PM
Sometimes I regret the fact that thesauruses were ever invented.
Posted by: AtheistAcolyte | November 8, 2007 6:56 PM
Posted by: cbone | November 8, 2007 6:57 PM
In the for what its worth category Dr. Judith Curry had some kind words for Steve.
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=2323#comment-157795
(For those of you too afraid to go over there here is what she said: "WOW. I've been following the weblog contest, and even voted. Congrats to Steve and the Climateauditors! CA definitely deserved to win, this is by far the most dynamic science blog on the web."
Steve: Thanks, Judith.)
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: Jason Crammer | November 8, 2007 6:58 PM
Go kick the shit out of a jesus freak. You'll feel better.
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: efrique | November 8, 2007 7:00 PM
PZ,
I tried and tried to vote for BadAstronomy (I like Phils blog!). For a couple of days it just kept timing out (load issues maybe?). Then a few hours back I finally got it to load. I click BadAstronomy, and the site says "you last voted less than 24 hours ago". Is that referring to the vote I just did then, or is it claiming I voted earlier?
I think Phil is going to come second, narrowly. It galls me that it's to such a lame denialist. I worry about America (how did you guys ever get people on the moon?), and as a result I worry for us all.
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: Lurchgs | November 8, 2007 7:01 PM
I think I must have missed something..
All I see is Stan coming to the site and not using his eyes - or, possibly expecting all the actuall posts and conversations to be strictly about science. In one post.
And for this he gets labeled "denialist" and accused of being a troll for the enemy?
I *MUST* have missed something. Yes, he comes across as a little rude - but the little bit of this story I see suggests that a simple "Look in the left=hand column" might have been a more suitable answer than a rather vituperative tirade (and a then horde of apologists for the enemy frothign at the mouth)
As for "the Enemy" - I'm not a climatologist, and I've not gone over his site or papers in any great detail. But it looks to me as though he's not picking a side (there is or is not a human component to global warming). It seems to ME that he's just being persnickety and demaning that the models and numbers be apropriate and accurate.
But I'll try to read more when I get home from work
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: Christianjb | November 8, 2007 7:03 PM
Oh- and commiserations to the Bad Astronomer. He's really an excellent blogger, who deserved to win. At the very least I hope these awards get more people reading his fine blog.
Posted by: PZ Myers | November 8, 2007 7:05 PM
"Sorry that I lost the contest"? Are you kidding? I wasn't even trying, and from teh beginning was telling everyone to vote for other blogs. The issue is the freakish hypocrites and denialist kooks now infesting this blog.
Like people who side with Steve Fuller. Good grief.
Posted by: efrique | November 8, 2007 7:08 PM
#95:
The Messiah!
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: Bride of Shrek | November 8, 2007 7:10 PM
Excuse me if I'm wrong but isn't it PZ's site? Can't he write about whatever the hell he wants to and if you aren't happy about that piss off and clog up someone elses blog.
Oh, and I'm a scientist -"fuck off". No truly, just fuck,fuck,fuck right off.
Mr Shrek, who isn't a scientist, also says fuck off for good measure.
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: Lee Morrison | November 8, 2007 7:13 PM
PZ : Ths s my frst vst t yr rvltng st, nd hv n qstn. Hw dd nyn s nrrw mndd, nrsnbl nd jst pln bnxs vr bcm n ssct prfssr t pst scndry nstttn, lbt, s y sy, " smll lbrl rts nvrsty"?
Y my hv scntfc crdntls bt y cm crss lk Cttn Mthr. Prhps y rnd yr dctrt t " smll lbrl rts nvrsty" r bght t vr th ntrnt. Hvn hlp yr cptv stdnts.
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: Spook | November 8, 2007 7:17 PM
Wow. There isn't enough asbestos in the world for this mess.
What bothers me is that if PZ simply shut off comments (since they aren't forming any actual discussion) the cranks would start screaming that he's "censoring everyone with a different viewpoint" or whatever.
Oh well. I'm just going to pop some corn and watch the knuckledraggers for a bit.
Posted by: John A | November 8, 2007 7:19 PM
I wonder if Dr Hwang woo Suk had the same views about those pesky bloggers who brought his scientific career crashing down?
Posted by: Tim Lambert | November 8, 2007 7:19 PM
per says: "The NRC group - of leading climate scientists- pretty much agreed with McIntyre's conclusions."
Oddly enough, that's not what the NRC group said. (Though according to McIntyre fans they didn't mean want they said and really agreed with McIntyre.)
My roundup of comments and link to NRC report.
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: andy | November 8, 2007 7:23 PM
Wow, this is a really good reflection on the community over at whatever blog it was that these people came from. Surely the entire commenting community can't be a bunch of trolls, illiterates and whiners, can it? Because that's all we've seen here.
There must be someone over there who could put a reasoned case together, without resorting to insults and stuff like that.
I mean, it would really be a pity to see the award go to a blog whose community's interaction with other websites is as negative as what we've seen here.
Posted by: Moses | November 8, 2007 7:28 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: cbone | November 8, 2007 7:30 PM
"Wow, this is a really good reflection on the community over at whatever blog it was that these people came from."
No, actually it is a very sad reflection of the community here. Lets see, ya'll have told people to fuck off, called them assholes, wingnuts, knuckledraggers, dumbfucks, and many others. One other commenter thought it would be a good idea to go "kick the shit out of a Jesus freak." If that is the standard of commentary that this site maintains, then perhaps it should have been nominated in the 'hate site' category. Honestly, in the last few days thats all I have seen here.
Posted by: per | November 8, 2007 7:32 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.
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: sky frog | November 8, 2007 7:32 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: 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: Science Should be Based On Reality | November 8, 2007 7:34 PM
Wow! PZ is one sore loser and hardly appears to have any notion of what science is about given his behaviour. Typical of the alarmists who are the real deniers (of the facts!!!):
- Unadjusted temperature records (HADCRUT3) show that temperatures peaked 10 years ago and are on a downward trend (note particularly those of the southern hemisphere!)
- Adjusting for cooling caused by the eruption of El Chichon in 1982 and Pinatubo in 1991, shows little or no warming trend for 25 years!
- Solar activity over the last few cycles has been at levels not seen in 8,000 years!
- Solar activity is now declining and is predicted to drop to levels not seen in centuries over the next 2 cycles (25 years)
- Ocean current changes (AMDO, PDO/Pacific Climate Shift) play a key role in some of the temperature swings that have been observed through the 20th century. Alarmists seem to completely ignore this!!
This nonsense should get settled over the next 5 years as temperatures continue to decline!!
Posted by: PZ Myers | November 8, 2007 7:35 PM
I have to second Tim Lambert's recommendation to read that roundup -- it contains the typical behavior I've been seeing for some time. The climate scientists produce an assessment that supports the global warming argument, McIntyre babbles and pretends the report casts doubt on global warming, and the denialists chime in to declare up is down. In particular, though, read this comment which validates exactly what I've been saying about these denialists.
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.
But of course that kind of idiotic inference is par for the course with the denialists.
Posted by: Moses | November 8, 2007 7:35 PM
Lots dip-shit, lots. That you have some idiotic preconceived notions is laughable.
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: harold | November 8, 2007 7:37 PM
#99
"Sorry that I lost the contest"? Are you kidding? I wasn't even trying, and from teh beginning was telling everyone to vote for other blogs. The issue is the freakish hypocrites and denialist kooks now infesting this blog....
Ahem...
your hatred of certain blogs led to the plea:
Vote that one ... X has to be eliminated.
Then your advise was (when you where in 3rd position)
vote BA
Finally you whined:
the real power of science lies in the explanations, not the pettifoggery with statistics -- not that I expect the right-wing gomers at the Weblog Awards who nominated the purveyors of junk science for their award to to know that
vote
Jeez what a bad loser.
Posted by: andy | November 8, 2007 7:38 PM
Yes, because this community was the one that launched the troll spamfest onto someone else's blog. My mistake.Posted by: kevin | November 8, 2007 7:38 PM
Wow. Invasion. It's like locusts. What happened?
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: Declan Odea | November 8, 2007 7:40 PM
What an unbelievable tirade, from someone who purports to be a scientist! The author of it clearly has spent no time at all actually reading Steve McIntyre's work or views on climate matters. Quite a disgraceful personal attack, really. Totally unjustified.
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: per | November 8, 2007 7:41 PM
hmm. McIntyre doesn't have a position on AGW, and the NRC report wasn't empanelled to look at AGW, but to look at surface temperature reconstructions. So we are not disagreeing on that.
If you can justify your claim that the NAS report says Mann was right, only off slightly in magnitude, I would be interested to see that quote. I think you won't be able to. I seem to recall that the NAS report described MBH's reconstruction as "plausible"; which seems to be very different from "right". I also recall clearly that the report also said that reconstructions from before 400 years ago had unquantifiable uncertainty. That is a long way from the clearly defined 95% error bars in MBH'98.
hey, these are just little details (some people call it science), and they certainly shouldn't distract you from calling names.
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: tomh | November 8, 2007 7:42 PM
kristen in montreal wrote:
What's so scary is that the way PZ is acting I half-expect him to come yelling at me
Don't be scared, dear, he can't really hurt you.
Posted by: Dustin | November 8, 2007 7:43 PM
My bad. I shaved my head and made fun of Heston's man boobs.
Posted by: Dan | November 8, 2007 7:43 PM
This is the first thread since Conservapedia invaded that I've actually stopped following because it was too trite.
Way to go!
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: Lycosid | November 8, 2007 7:47 PM
Climate change is simple. Look at Venus. The temperature on the surface can melt lead because high CO2 concentrations trap heat. Based on this, what do you think increasing the CO2 concentration in Earth's atmosphere does?
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: Kate | November 8, 2007 7:55 PM
Kate's a laugh riot, ha ha ha. Because, you know, that's the first time PZ has been accused of being a religionist by a right-wing moron. It's so original, you know?
As "Kate" is a first time visitor, I have no knowledge of prior accusations. So, perhaps the word "observant" would be more appropriate. What I see written here is short on science, long on belief system.
Scream, rant and insult all you wish - but it doesn't change the evidence before me.
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: Moses | November 8, 2007 7:55 PM
From what I understand it wasn't bloggers. One of his collaborators, Gerald Schatten, quit starting a chain of events that ended with Suk's University discovering the scientific fraud.
This was totally within science, and not a bunch of idiotic bloggers thinking they've dis proven global warming.
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: Anymouse | November 8, 2007 8:00 PM
To PZ: Sheesh...grow up, professor.
To Lycosid: Climate change is not simple. It's only simple to people who are not involved in atmospheric science.
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?
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: Craig | November 8, 2007 8:01 PM
My second comment ever - the first was on "show yourself" day a few months back.
I read you every day, PZ, but feel like I have nothing to add to the comment section. The commentary is mostly above my unscientific head. Sometimes I find the comments fawning and chorus-like.
But this, this is a comment section! Keep checking back, small-minded denialists!
Sic 'em, scientists!!
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: Fabius Maximus | November 8, 2007 8:02 PM
"I'm going to unload on you as a proxy for all your fellow denialist idiots!"
Thnks fr bng s clr n yr pstn. Yr s f strng lblng nd nd prsnl ttcks svs lt f tm whch wld hv bn thrws spnt rdng yr blg.
Posted by: David Marjanović, OM | November 8, 2007 8:04 PM
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...)
--------
What do you think ", OM" means? :-) On the top of the page, click on "Commenters".
No, and I'm only starting my PhD thesis, too.
-----------
Comment 41 in other words.
Then forget the 2001 report. Two more have been issued since. :-|
------------
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...
----------
Introductory lectures into biology have several hundred students in Vienna...
---------
Ehem. Near the top left corner of this page, there's a headline saying "Profile". Explore.
---------
To be fair, such ScienceBlogs exist. Tetrapod Zoology is one. Great posts, strictly about science... and only one post every few days. :-(
----------
Yes, against the hockey stick -- and nothing else.
Posted by: gg | November 8, 2007 8:04 PM
#91 wrote: "...because I am myself a scientist (Ph. D. in physics and quite a few publications and so on and so on)....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."
I hate to jump back in here, but I REALLY doubt you're a real scientist, maybe a 'scientist'. Your attitude towards the peer-review process makes me think that maybe you're a guy whose 'quite a few publications' have been rejected quite a few times. You know, most scientists are aware of the limitations of the peer-review process. Sadly, though, those that complain about it the most never have any alternative process, other than "PAY ATTENTION TO MY WORK!!1!"
The best strategy is always to disbelieve what you read? No, going in with any preconceived notions is a very unscientific attitude. Scientists are taught to treat results with a critical eye.
"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."
PZ, I'm also jumping in because I don't want you to think that all physicists have this idiotic smug superior attitude (again, I have my doubts about him being a physicist).
"Sorry that you lost this contest, but hey, it's because of the right wing nuts!"
What on Earth contest are you talking about? The ad hominem attacks on this thread? Was that even a contest? You certainly can't be talking about the climate science, because scientific consensus ("NO! IGNORE THE CONSENSUS! PAY ATTENTION TO MY WORK!1!!") says human-caused climate change is occurring. The consensus is so absolute at this point, that those who claim, "Gosh, we need more evidence, I'm still not convinced," are denialists by default.
Yeesh. Enjoy your drinks, PZ! I'm off...
Posted by: Moses | November 8, 2007 8:04 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: gospel disbeliever | November 8, 2007 8:06 PM
Francois (#91) says: 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.
Hey Fran, what world are you from? Just because an article is peer-reviewed doesn't mean that the report is taken as gospel....especially in the Life Sciences. Maybe it's different in the world of physics.
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: SaulOhio | November 8, 2007 8:08 PM
Hey Johnny Vector: The dispute isn't over warming in the last 400 years. Nobody is disputing that. In fact, the "deniers" insist that the Earth has been warming since the Little Ice age. Its what has happened in the last 1000 that is controversial. Pay attention to what people are actually saying.
Stogoe: Trickle down economics is a strawman. No free market economist has ever proposed any theory that he called "trickle down". The real theory is that free markets allow people to create wealth for themselves, not get it "trickled down" to them from the rich. And thats not the topic, anyway.
Both of these usefull idiots demonstrate common alarmist tactics: Strawman arguments and diverting the discussion with irrelevancies.
And Stogoe reinforces the theory that most environmentalists are refugees who need a new religion since socialism was discredited. They are the kind that hate the prosperity that capitalism has created. Their concern about inequality, what they see as a problem, is not that there are poor, or the suffering of the poor, but that there are people who aren't poor, who aren't suffering.
Posted by: Alex | November 8, 2007 8:10 PM
Pharyngula is getting trolled. :P
Posted by: jeh | November 8, 2007 8:10 PM
"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)."
You know this be true? Where's the evidence?
"So I started a company and did all sorts of other stuff to get a taste of the "real world"
Please enlighten us as to the nature of your now more authentic life. All of us practicing scientists would like to know what we're missing.
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: David Marjanović, OM | November 8, 2007 8:19 PM
Shock horror! How dare a scientist be impolite! That makes all his publications burst into flames instantly!!!1!
"Polite" and "scientific" are orthogonal.
1) Evidence, please.
2) Evidence that whatever ties they might have influence what they write.
Science is never balanced. Science is about what the evidence says. Go ahead, disprove a single post on realclimate.org, if you can.
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: Rey Fox | November 8, 2007 8:20 PM
"They are the kind that hate the prosperity that capitalism has created."
Can you really and truly be that stupid?
Posted by: AtheistAcolyte | November 8, 2007 8:21 PM
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: Graculus | November 8, 2007 8:23 PM
how many IP addresses are all these puerile little whines coming from?
At a guess, all from the same address, but it's a company with 200 computers using someone else's mailserver, that happens to be located in a town with no building larger than a three car garage.
Nothing like this has ever happened before.
Posted by: PZ Myers | November 8, 2007 8:24 PM
I love all the denialists trooping over here one by one to announce, "you aren't a scientist and I'm never going to read your blog again!"
Get over yourselves, people. I don't care. I don't want you here. You're a mob of quacks, and your promises that you won't come back are just sweet nothings whispered in my ear.
Posted by: PZ Myers | November 8, 2007 8:25 PM
These aren't sock puppets -- they have different IPs.
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: David Marjanović, OM | November 8, 2007 8:32 PM
The hockey stick is so 2nd millennium. Scroll upward a few tens of posts.
All he managed to find out was that the 1930s were not marginally cooler but marginally warmer than the 1990s in the 48 contiguous United States. The resulting correction to the global temperature curve is hardly visible.
A contribution? Yes. A microscopic one, though.
And?
That proves it, then. Darwin only used the word "evolution" once near the end of one of his later books, and the term "Big Bang" was supposed to make fun of the theory in question...
The hypothesis is that, if taxed less, corporation owners will invest their extra cash into creating more jobs. Has been tested (Reaganomics) and disproven: instead of using it to create jobs, the rich just bunker the money. Bush insists on repeating the experiment anyway... it's giving the same result again.
That would be harmless. They are sulfuric acid.
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: obscured by clouds | November 8, 2007 8:35 PM
BA is in the LEAD! Narrowly, lets hope he can stay there!
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: qedpro | November 8, 2007 8:38 PM
Let him have it PZ - both barrels.
Every once in a while you just get sick of listening to these fucktards.
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: Brian | November 8, 2007 8:40 PM
Hey I just tried to vote and it says the polls are closed. It seems that Bad Astronomy has squeaked out a victory by 44 votes, although the results are still unofficial
Posted by: PZ Myers | November 8, 2007 8:40 PM
Amazing. Because I previously pointed out Tim Lambert's rejection of McIntyre, and because I pointed out that various nutty sites like Free Republic and Junk Science endorsed McIntyre, it somehow rebuts my assertion that I've read Climate Audit before?
Wacky. But typical. Can you crawl back into your hole now?
Posted by: Alan D. McIntire | November 8, 2007 8:42 PM
Here's a couple of paragraphs from PZ's November 8 column:
"And then, of course, what's bringing you and your fellow naive whiners here is the need to defend the climate change denialist, McIntyre -- so many of you, after carping that I'm not meeting your demands, are protesting that he's not a denialist, and you aren't denialists, and you're all here in the cause of good science.
Bullshit."
And here's one from the November 8 "Climate Audit"
"Prior to this vote, I (and doubtless many CA readers) had been unaware of the Bad Astronomy blog (and other interesting nominees who have undeservedly not attracted the attention that deserved) and I'm sure that this same holds in reverse. I hope that readers of each blog will take the opportunity of this introduction to visit the other site; I've added a link to Bad Astronomy in my very short blogroll. "
I think those two selections leave nothing more to be said-A. McIntire
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: Stogoe | November 8, 2007 8:45 PM
You may need to take a look outside your mom's basement window, shit-for-brains. Take a gander at Europe - socialism works, and it makes life vastly better for most people.
Prosperity for whom? Oh, that's right. The people who were already obscenely wealthy. Everyone else can go starve in a ditch.
Whut.
My concern is that we could reduce suffering for most if not all people, but that selfish assholes would rather shit in a solid gold toilet than make sure everyone has food, shelter, an education, and health care.
These denialist fucktards are more annoying than the Scott Adams acolytes.
Oh yes. Oh yes. That stupid and much, much more.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: ennui | November 8, 2007 8:50 PM
That link to Bad Astronomy is a bad URL! Investigate!
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: jen_m | November 8, 2007 8:52 PM
Ah, then you've looked at your referrer logs, Dr. Myers. Which means you are currently wrestling with the temptation to tell us whence the moron-flood. Resist! Resist! For it would be deeply silly to flood their site with Pharyngulites. (I like Rich's approach. Poke them, Rich, poke them firmly and at considerable length!)
Apropos of nothing - if I had not had "mstrbtng" to use for context, I would never have figured out "frsly." Re-vowelling the trolls is hard work.
Posted by: Stogoe | November 8, 2007 8:52 PM
OMGWTFBBQ. The lady doth protest too much.Posted by: obscured by clouds | November 8, 2007 8:53 PM
You should see the grade A trolling on BA,
http://www.badastronomy.com/bablog/2007/11/08/last-call-to-vote-for-weblog-awards/
Posted by: bPer | November 8, 2007 8:53 PM
Stogue @ #170 wrote:
Man, you got that right!
Prof. Myers, you have my sympathy for having to put up with shit like this.
Posted by: woozy | November 8, 2007 8:57 PM
Well, a nice thing about being a visitor to this blog and not the blog owner is I don't have to read all the whiny repetitive comments if I don't feel like it.
Hence I have the luxary of not being cranky and short-tempered as PZ deservedly is.
But from what little I've seen of Stan Palmer's posts, I'm not sure he deserved to be a public whipping boy. Not having read through all the whiny repetitive comments, it didn't occur to me to read Stan's "where's the science" as a climate change denialist dropping a scathing insult and chuckling at his acerbic wit ("Hyuck, hyuck, I said 'where's the science', get it? I implied he's unscientific, hyuck, hyuck"). Instead I saw it as a naive and clueless newbie being stupid and inapropriate. He could be, say, a junior high student looking for answers to his science homework and assuming a "science blog" would just be full of posts saying things like "For today's post I'm going to list the names of the muscles in the hand."
Reading through some of the whiny repetitive comments, I can certainly see how PZ would assume the former, and now I do too (probably, maybe, ... most likely ... oh, I don't know...) but I'm not sure Stan was the best candidate for the post of whipping boy.
... not that I'm going to lose any sleep over it.
Besides, PZ's darned cussedness is part of his charm.
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: Lar R | November 8, 2007 8:59 PM
"Ww. nvsn. t's lk lcsts. Wht hppnd?"
dn't knw, myb lk m thy wnt t chck t ll th cl scnc blgs p fr rwrd nd wr srprsd tht ths ws jst nthr fr lft-wng pltcl dlg rnt st lk dmcrt ndrgrnd wth n ccsnl scnc pst r lnk thrwn n fr gd msr. gss n sm ppls mnds tht rd-fcd, mth-frthng, ht-flld, cls-mndd, pltcl dtrbs cmng frm scntst qlfs ths s "scnc blg"?
Hpflly yr stdnts hv n pprtnty t lrn sm scnc btwn rnts. (r y r prfssnl ngh t lv th dlg tndncs t th clssrm dr)
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: Chris Christner | November 8, 2007 9:02 PM
"Wacky. But typical. Can you crawl back into your hole now?"
Sure, Prof. From experience, I know there'll be nothing of value in what you'll have to say.
Time to go...well what d'you know, I posted three comments that didn't have an F-word in any of them! Of course, my writing suffers for it because it isn't as edgy and earthy as yours!
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: CalGeorge | November 8, 2007 9:04 PM
I guess in some peoples minds that red-faced, mouth-frothing, hate-filled, close-minded, political diatribes coming from a scientist qualifies this as a "science blog"?
What do you call ranting about hockey sticks on every other post?
Sensible?
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: eewolf | November 8, 2007 9:07 PM
A call to all you auditors! The great and powerful Steve McIntyre has just discovered a .01C temperature differential for 1948 in Lithuania. You need to gather back at the hive and praise the Great Precision and pat each other on the back.
There is a "Al Gore is fat" party afterward and free carbonated beverages for everyone.
Ya'll come back now, ya here?
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: RamblinDude | November 8, 2007 9:21 PM
Cuttlefish: : - )
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: Dustin | November 8, 2007 9:24 PM
PZ doesn't have it half as bad as Tara.
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: j | November 8, 2007 9:28 PM
Thanks to all the people on this thread who are providing comic relief in spite of the trolls. Y'all are great.
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: Who Cares | November 8, 2007 9:29 PM
@Francois O (post #91):
I doubt you are what you claim seeing that you don't understand why that parts of papers which appear in the journals are already known. This is because almost all science builds on previous discoveries and a good scientist explains how he got from A to B.
@(#116):
Ah yes the sun did it defense. Unfortunately the sun was going through a quiet period when the hot end of the century occurred. Then there is the problem of less sunlight reaching the Earth due to other pollutants in the air (part of it reflected, part of it absorbed and re-radiated into space, part of it heating the atmosphere) while the temperature staid fairly constant.
@cbone (#131):
Prove it. All you need to do is show proof that pumping greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere in the amounts humanity has been doing in the last century or so will not cause additional warming.
@Lycosid (#132):
Climate is not simple as the people trying to make the estimations keep finding out. The example cited fails to include other reasons why Venus is hotter, distance to the sun, atmosphere composition, etc.
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: cbone | November 8, 2007 9:35 PM
re: truth machine
"What sort of fucking moron comes to a far reaching conclusion based on a single data point, Ms. Curry?"
Actually it is Dr. Curry, and she is a professor at Georgia Tech.
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: Chris R. | November 8, 2007 9:38 PM
Well this certainly turned into a clusterfuck :)
Posted by: PZ Myers | November 8, 2007 9:39 PM
You know, maybe all the people who accuse me of sour grapes should stop and think for a minute: a) I wasn't trying to win, and was casting my votes for Invasive Species and Bad Astronomy; and b) it seems that one blog I was strongly rooting for, Bad Astronomy, may have won.
Not that making sense is their strong suit, after all...
Posted by: sammy k | November 8, 2007 9:39 PM
myers,
first time visitor to blog...read your take about the blog race...that had to be one of the most pathetic tirades i have heard in awhile...perhaps if you would have studied alittle more geology, you would have a better appreciation for why the A in GW is so suspect...screaming, hollering and stereotyping of individuals that differ from your opinion is typical of someone who cannot argue the facts scientifically and all you have propping your argument is name calling...if your disappointed in the results of the blog voting, perhaps you should look in a mirror...pathetic whining, such as your post, probably did more harm than good...is no wonder your didnt finish where you thought you should have
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: melatonin | November 8, 2007 9:41 PM
Heh, these fraudit dudes are grade A tards.
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: chip | November 8, 2007 9:48 PM
"Thr r ppl wh pt tgthr chrnt pctr f scntfc ss, wh rvw lts f vdnc nd ssmbl rtnl synthss. Thy'r clld scntsts. Thn thr r th mypc lttl ntpckrs, ppl wh scrry bt skng lttl bts f grbg n th fbrc f scnc (nd f crs, thr r sch flws vrywhr), nd whn thy fnd sm scrp f rt, thy sqk trmphntly nd hld t hgh nd dclr tht th scnc vrywhr s smlrly crrpt. Thy lck prspctv."
Ths s qt tllng cmmnt. Scntsts, pprntly, r ppl wh "pt tgthr," "rvw" nd "ssmbl" whl mypc ntpckrs r ths wh scrry bt skng bts f grbg.
Th wrtr s clrly tchr nd nt rsrchr, fr th lttr ds lt f ntpckng vr bts f grbg. Tht s th fndtn f gd scnc.
ssmblng nd rvwng s wht brcrts d.
pty yr stdnts.
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: Alan Kellogg | November 8, 2007 9:50 PM
Update to #197 (Aint this a busy thread? :) )
Samuel Wilberforce's father was one William Wilberforce. Politician, member of Parliament, abolitionist, and Evangelical Christian. Notably, two of his sons converted to the Roman Catholic Church. William Wilberforce was instrumental in getting the ordinances regarding abolition passed in 1833.
He also appears as a character in Naomi Novik's Empire of Ivory, book 4 in the Temeraire series. He agrees to be enlisted in the cause of dragon emancipation in conjunction with human emancipation, seeing that both endeavours have much in common.
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: Bert Chadick | November 8, 2007 9:51 PM
Not enough scientists tell idiots to fuck off. PZ is developing a following of wingnut religious stalkers. This is not good, but inevitable. The sock puppets are cowards by their nature, but can be dangerous in packs.
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: truth machine | November 8, 2007 9:52 PM
Actually it is Dr. Curry, and she is a professor at Georgia Tech.
I know that, moron. If you weren't such a dishonest and stupid fuck, perhaps you could grasp why I left off the title.
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: obscured by clouds | November 8, 2007 9:56 PM
Maybe there should be a Sock Puppet Award ;)~
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 10:00 PM
"Thank goodness for that.
It's very satisfying to think that you will remain deluded about religion for the remainder of your ignorant life."
Like I said, What wit! What maturity! etc etc.
Obviously, when referring to rational, intelligent, civil athiests I was not referring to you.
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: Rey Fox | November 8, 2007 10:06 PM
c) That's not really what "sour grapes" are in the first place.
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:
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: eewolf | November 8, 2007 10:06 PM
Maybe she has a reading disorder?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: SueinNM | November 8, 2007 10:08 PM
Michelle,
And we nasty atheists are all so VERY grateful that you came over here, to a blog you never read, just to share your Christian wit, wisdom and maturity with us, instead of actually contributing anything to the conversation.
What was that about removing the log in your own eye first?
Never mind the bit about turning the other cheek.
Ah, those inconvenient Jesus quotes. They always seem to get in the way of a good religious rant.
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: Richard Anderson | November 8, 2007 10:10 PM
Sorry, but what exactly did you guys expect when you got all het up about a fatuous popularity contest organised by fucking Wizbang?
I cannot believe some of the more decent blogs got sucked into this. And I cannot believe the publicity they've helped generate for this moronic non-event.
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: truth machine | November 8, 2007 10:12 PM
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).
Isn't this exactly what Curry (or some fool posing as Curry) did in characterizing this blog based on one outlier thread?
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: Jim | November 8, 2007 10:14 PM
Oh, this is pure, sweet, entertainment! Much better than your typical pissing contest. I can't wait for these web awards to come around again next year. Thanks everyone!
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: Ric | November 8, 2007 10:18 PM
So I see the scummy-ass trolls are out in full force. All I have to say is: good post, PZ. Right on the money, as usual.
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: Rey Fox | November 8, 2007 10:22 PM
Big-M Michelle: Susan was referring to little-m michelle when she made that comment. Rest assured, you are not a smug hypocrite.
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 10:24 PM
What justified that attack?
It was rather obviously justified by your moronic and dishonest
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?
If you've been reading this blog "since a few months", you know that PZ hasn't been stripped of any such ability. And if you're talking about this thread -- it's not about God belief, now is it? You would make more sense if you asked "is this what defending AGW does to you?" So you're just another stupid lying troll, even if your game is a little bit hard to make out for being incoherent.
Posted by: truth machine | November 8, 2007 10:25 PM
Could have fooled me.
It doesn't take much to fool idiots.
Posted by: CalGeorge | November 8, 2007 10:26 PM
This pretty much sums it up!
McIntyre Unearths Fresh Climate Graph Outrage
24 May 07
Steve McIntyre, who with Ross McKitrick has been the author of the long-running hockey stick controversy, has replotted all of the climate reconstructions recently reported in New Scientist magazine and has discovered - well, he seems to have discovered a whole equipment bag full of hockey sticks (see illustration).
Under McIntrye's careful analysis, some of the climate reconstructions don't extend back fully to 1,000 years and some peter out more recently for lack data. And all have been recalibrated to spend a bit more time above zero. But taken individually or together, they all seem to suggest exactly what the much-debated Mann hockey stick suggested, lo those many Congressional hearings ago: that we are currently enjoying (or enduring) the hottest period on earth in the last 1,000 years.
Thanks, Steve, for clearing that up.
Thanks, Steve!
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: Clayton | November 8, 2007 10:27 PM
And what kind of real scientist ever tells people who disagree with him to 'fuck off'?
Agreed. If he was a _real_ scientist, he'd send in the giant mutated squids to attack.
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: Michelle Rochon | November 8, 2007 10:28 PM
Truth Machine: Nono! I'm sorry, I thought suein was talking to me. It was a mistake!
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: kps | November 8, 2007 10:31 PM
I'm a life long atheist, I never voted for any Bush, yet I still find CA interesting as well as RC.
What bothers me is how certain both sides are in knowing just what is going on with an open system. This issue has become quite political, yet science is not a democratic process.
The reality is there aren't that many 'climate scientists' and every other scientist, no matter that they forgot that emistivity and absorptivity can be different if the radiation isn't blackbody - they just know that this is slam dunk science - a computer model told them so.
What gets me is so few in the climate field are talking about the limits of the knowledge. And then scientists outside the field are even more certain they know - no matter which side of the issue they are on.
Hell, if the hockey stick is for real, why is it missing from satellite data? (yeah there is some warming, but it looks pretty linear over time from space). People either seem to "know" AGW is for real or they "know" its BS - what is wrong with not taking a side if you don't know even after reading the papers and looking at raw data? Oh - I know whats wrong - you will get tagged as a denialist.
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 10:34 PM
And what kind of real scientist ever tells people who disagree with him to 'fuck off'?
The kind who grasps that there's no inconsistency between being a real scientist and telling stupid arrogant dishonest assholes trolling his blog to fuck off.
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: Ray Stein | November 8, 2007 10:41 PM
He e-vets temps (a gasp), met Steve eh?
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: Who Cares | November 8, 2007 10:47 PM
@kps (#240):
Would be a good research subject about why satellites do not find the same amount of heating.
I am guessing several factors, including (but not limited to) a small change in composition of air compared to the gas mix used to calculate how much of the IR radiation received is reflected from the Earth, heat retention inside the atmosphere, increased reflection in the upper atmosphere of sunlight which doesn't get converted into IR radiation because of this.
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: CalGeorge | November 8, 2007 10:48 PM
People either seem to "know" AGW is for real or they "know" its BS - what is wrong with not taking a side if you don't know even after reading the papers and looking at raw data? Oh - I know whats wrong - you will get tagged as a denialist.
This 2004 WaPo article puts it well:
So why does it seem as if there is major scientific disagreement? Because a few noisy skeptics -- most of whom are not even scientists -- have generated a lot of chatter in the mass media. At the National Press Club recently, Massachusetts Institute of Technology professor Richard Lindzen dismissed the consensus as "religious belief." To be sure, no scientific conclusion can ever be proven, absolutely, but it is no more a "belief" to say that Earth is heating up than it is to say that continents move, that germs cause disease, that DNA carries hereditary information or that quarks are the basic building blocks of subatomic matter. You can always find someone, somewhere, to disagree, but these conclusions represent our best available science, and therefore our best basis for reasoned action.
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: truth machine | November 8, 2007 10:53 PM
You don't need a lot of data points to figure out your dealing with an asshole.
Indeed, we now know that you're asshole. But that doesn't help Ms. Curry any.
Mr. McIntyre has falsified the hockeystick.
No he hasn't, you ignorant jackass. See, for instance, #234. And the hockey stick isn't all there is. From the NAS report (per that link):
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: truth machine | November 8, 2007 10:58 PM
The non-trolls are worse than the trolls.
The bad thing about the trolls is that they are trolling. Non-trolls can't be worse, as a matter of linguistics.
Almost makes me ashamed to be an atheist.
That's pure trollery. The issue here is AGW, not God belief.
Back to BA for me.
Not to be missed.
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: PZ Myers | November 8, 2007 10:59 PM
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.
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: truth machine | November 8, 2007 11:01 PM
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.
Hey, apparently the CA folks aren't all dishonest assholes.
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: Graculus | November 8, 2007 11:08 PM
If I could apologise for the whole sorry lot I would. Inexcusable.
"The sins that we do two by two, we pay for one by one"
Don't feel responsible for them, they don't feel responsible at all.
Now, how do you feel about tentacles?
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: Dustin | November 8, 2007 11:12 PM
Not at all, actually. To quote one of his posters, that shows who the adults are.
His latest thread has, as of comment #82, turned to "ZOMG, teh Nazis were Greenies!" I mean, come on, making fun of these guys is like picking on the poor kid who had to wear a helmet all the time -- it just isn't decent. I'm going to go post some fake comments at UD instead.
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: Garth | November 8, 2007 11:29 PM
"I'm an associate professor of biology at a small liberal arts university in the upper midwest."
Yes, we can see from the "quality" of this post, especially its small-minded and petty spite (go over to Climate Audit to see a generous reaction from somebody who at least has good manners, but also a genuinely scientific approach), why you are at a small liberal arts university in the midwest ;)
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.
I wish I could be as wise as Steven Mosher.
Posted by: truth machine | November 8, 2007 11:36 PM
To quote one of his posters, that shows who the adults are.
Post #3 says
The posts of the hosts at Phar and BAB have been markedly political with plently of ad homininem. It's nice to see that the host of this blog maintains neutrality and civility.
which is amusing because, like all complaints about "civility", tone, etc., it's ad hominem. And because it ignores important facts ... like that this thread is a response to a horde of rude trolls from CA. As for "maintains neutrality" -- does that mean McIntyre hides his own political views and suppresses those of his commenters? If not, what could it mean? And why would it be a good thing?
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: Dahan | November 8, 2007 11:41 PM
Came really late to this post (had 7 hours of class to teach today), but still gonna toss my 2 cents in.
To start with, amen PZ.
Second, there are some REALLY ignorant people commenting here. All I can think to say is that the opinions of the worthless are worthless. I won't engage the blathering idiots or even bother to name the names of those I'm talking about here, those identities are obvious to all. It's just not worth it. Don't waste time on these people. Water off a duck's ass. That's what it is.
Third, yeah, I voted for Bad Astronomy. Not because PZ asked, but because it was one of the first blogs I ever came across that was worth reading and it still holds great info and entertainment. I love this blog, but think BA could use the award.
Talk to ya all soon.
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: CalGeorge | November 8, 2007 11:48 PM
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. Unlike some "skeptics", I don't argue that decisions should be deferred pending perfect certainty. I have business experience and know that people make decisions all the time with uncertainty - you have to. At the same time, if you're going to make effective decisions, you need to have the best possible information. And I vehemently disagree that scientists can use the "big picture" as a justification for being careless with their details. People should try their hardest to get the details right as well as the big picture.
He can't even write coherently. What is the point of this long-winded paragraph? What the fuck is he talking about?! The guy's a wind-bag of the first order. Pray that you never end up trapped in a room alone with this idiot.
Posted by: MartinDH | November 8, 2007 11:48 PM
YAY. Phil (and Bad Astronomy) won. There was much rejoicing...
Posted by: Orac | November 8, 2007 11:50 PM
Re: The invasion of anti-AGW wingnuts.
Ack. Coming to this thread, I'm having an acid flashback to the recent invasion of my blog by the same sort of anti-AGW denialists.
So similar, and so many more of them. I don't envy PZ when the wingnuts descend en masse.
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: Robin Levett | November 9, 2007 12:02 AM
kps:
(i) The satellite data prior to say 1960 is considered unreliable.
(ii) For the period for which satellite data is reliable, it reflects the instrumentally recorded surface warming.
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: papertiger | November 9, 2007 12:04 AM
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.
Sounds like railing against natural selection to me.
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: truth machine | November 9, 2007 12:08 AM
Proof that papertiger is an idiot: it left this dropping at CA:
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: Dustin | November 9, 2007 12:11 AM
Look at the thread I linked to. The CA trolls are already in there gasping for air and raving about weird poll behavior and possible cheating. Tomorrow, CA will probably "audit" the blog award.
If they do, I'll dump paperclips on their floors and watch them hyperventilate.
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: Mike from Ottawa | November 9, 2007 12:14 AM
Especially since their hero, McIntyre certainly isn't a scientist, but is a consultant for an energy company (CGX Energy), something he didn't feel a need to disclose until he got outed for it.
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: papertiger | November 9, 2007 12:17 AM
Re #250
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.
So let me get this straight. The NAS says you can toss out the thermometer and still prove the temperature went up?
Sure - Everybody knows you don't need a thermometer to measure how hot it is. How silly of me. I guess the NAS wants us to stick a finger out the window.
You think this helps the AGW argument,how?
I'll have to pass that on to my fellow denialists. They could use a good chuckle.
Posted by: truth machine | November 9, 2007 12:21 AM
How silly of me.
Yes, you are silly and stupid.
Posted by: Paul S | November 9, 2007 12:26 AM
== Mike from Ottaw said: ==
="Especially since their hero, McIntyre certainly isn't a scientist, but is a consultant for an energy company (CGX Energy), something he didn't feel a need to disclose until he got outed for it."=
That's pretty lame Mike. Does Al Gore publicly report how many millions he is pocketing in speaking fees every year?
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: Paul S | November 9, 2007 12:31 AM
Is there any way to turn off the "truth machine" spambot? ;)
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: Rick T. | November 9, 2007 12:37 AM
Papertiger,
"I guess the NAS wants us to stick a finger out the window".
You can do that or just look out the window if you can remove your ass hat long enough to do so.
Whatever it takes to see the melting of the polar ice caps. You can play the idiot if you want and say that humans have nothing to do with global warming but wouldn't it be prudent to make an attempt to ameliorate the situation?
It's like arguing over how the fire got started. Why not put it out first then argue later?
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: truth machine | November 9, 2007 12:42 AM
="Especially since their hero, McIntyre certainly isn't a scientist, but is a consultant for an energy company (CGX Energy), something he didn't feel a need to disclose until he got outed for it."=
That's pretty lame Mike. Does Al Gore publicly report how many millions he is pocketing in speaking fees every year?
No one suggested that McIntyre should disclose his finances, asshole.
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: CalGeorge | November 9, 2007 12:51 AM
Where there are no reasonable discussion going on...
Hey, these denialists sound just like the religious nuts who blather on about "fairness" and insist that schools "teach the controversy."
What a load of crap.
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: truth machine | November 9, 2007 12:55 AM
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.
So the fuck what? Are you too fucking stupid to understand how ad hominem that is? No amount of name calling by "AGW people" will alter the reality of AGW, you fucking cretin.
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: truth machine | November 9, 2007 1:00 AM
Why the fuss over his consulting work for an energy company then?
Are you saying you're too fucking stupid to understand? Really, you would look better if you were just dishonestly pretending not to.
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 1:03 AM
He'd look like less of a moron, yet, if he'd didn't put that fucking winking smiley at the end of his insult. He also isn't the first CA troll to use it in that fashion.
It's a little like those old annoying Catholic aunts we all seem to have, the ones who think that leading off with, "Marty, God bless him," gives them free license to blast the hell out of poor Marty.
Anyway, Paul S, I don't think hanging around here is going to make you or your fellow trolls quite as happy as fellating Martin Durkin or jacking off to some single, statistically insignificant data point seem to make you, so kindly fuck off. ;)
Posted by: Dustin | November 9, 2007 1:07 AM
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: dogmeatib | November 9, 2007 1:08 AM
All I can really say is ... "wow."
These CA guys are this pissed off and their boy won? Imagine how they would be if he'd lost?
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: DLC | November 9, 2007 1:11 AM
Right... Late again. Congrats to Phil Plait.
I have declined to comment on the climatology, because my comments are too long for a simple reply-button text -- it would take at least one full-blown article to make my points.
However, I would like to remind people that there is a point beyond which criticism becomes nitpickery and crankery.
Legitimate critique is necessary to science, nitpickers and cranks are not.
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: Glen Raphael | November 9, 2007 1:14 AM
Regarding the claim that NAS agreed with McIntyre's claims, Johnny Vector wrote (in #15):
Um, let's see, this would be the report that is summarized at the NAS website thusly?
You use that word "agreed". I do not think it means what you think it means.
Yes, that's exactly the study. And I thought the press release/executive summary excerpted above was a truly masterful bit of spin when I saw it in the resulting newspaper headlines.
What makes it spin? It's missing the word only. Because the big news in that paragraph is the conclusion that it's only the last 400 years we can be reasonably confident about. Not a thousand. Not two thousand. Just prior to this study, Mann and the Realclimate gang had been claiming high confidence that we were at a 2000 year high, while McIntyre and various statistical authorities were skeptical. In fact, everyone on all sides of the debate agreed going in that we'd probably been in a warming phase since the little ice age. So 400 years of warming wasn't news, other than in the negative sense of "it's not 2000". Thus, even that summary-of-a-summary was a subtle vindication of McIntyre's views.
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: Paul S | November 9, 2007 1:16 AM
Tough day at the office, eh?
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: MrPete | November 9, 2007 1:22 AM
This would be funny if it weren't sad. The "non-trolls" here, including the blog owner, have lost track of what real science is all about. You want good biology? Great. Let's do good biology.
As part of a fun little CA project, my wife (biologist) and I helped update a set of Bristlecone proxies. Why? Because the available data is VERY poor, has not been updated since 1984.
I'd think a Biology prof and his followers would be encouraging of a citizen science project that does a basic good job of properly collecting the data, including environmental context, and makes the results publicly available.
I'd think you would be happy about that no matter WHAT the results show. We don't have all the data back yet, but early returns have already demonstrated a few things:
1) Dendroclimatologists could easily do a much better job of recording and sharing data. (I'm trying very hard to be nice.) Sadly, our "amateur" work is apparently higher quality than is typical. Shouldn't it be the other way around? Shouldn't the pro's be able to do much better than we who have never done this before?
2) We do have some experience understanding trees and environment (my wife, besides her college education and teaching experience, is certified through the Colorado State University extension system.) Apparently, the "real" climate scientists who make the GCM's do not have field experience. Because we're demonstrating some pretty obvious things that are ignored in the proxy studies. Such as: snow pulls branches off trees and strips their bark. And when that happens, apparently the trees respond with extra growth in the remaining live areas. Nothing to do with climate change at all. It's a bit surprising that such things are not considered in all the heated debates "out there."
Does it matter? You bet it does. To know what's causing today's warming, we need scientific research that actually tells us something true. Right now, I don't know that I can trust ANY of the dendro-based studies. And unfortunately, that covers a whole lotta studies.
What else will we learn? I dunno-- hopefully the rest of the data will be back soon. You're welcome to make use of it in your classes, PZ. It's a rather interesting and complete data set. Hopefully within a few days I'll have some more detailed photos ready to post as well (who cares about photos? Anyone who wants to understand the impact of strip bark on dendro growth.)
Well, have fun folks. I hope my little post gives pause for one or two people to stop and think. (I'm not hopeful... too many years in a flame suit to expect more than wasted vitriol. But hey, it was worth a try. Quite a few poeple have been awakened in the last few weeks to recognize that CA really is about Good Science. That's why I am involved. Not for politics. Not for any particular pro/anti view. (My take: we know less than we think we know. We don't even know if proposed solutions will help or hurt! What foolishness. Let's get serious about good science. And let's do it quickly.)
(BTW, if you are actually interested in learning something from any of this rather than continuing your oh-so-smart rants, google Almagre Bristlecones and you'll get plenty of links.)
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 1:25 AM
The "non-trolls" here, including the blog owner, have lost track of what real science is all about.
Howe the fuck would you know? This thread is a response to assholes like you who have come here because of some stupid web contest. This isn't a climatology blog, so FUCK OFF.
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: Paul S | November 9, 2007 1:30 AM
Well, one get's bored easily and quickly on this site (and no wonder). Adios.
Posted by: Dustin | November 9, 2007 1:30 AM
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: CalGeorge | November 9, 2007 1:33 AM
What else will we learn? I dunno-- hopefully the rest of the data will be back soon. You're welcome to make use of it in your classes, PZ.
Wow, PZ's going to be excited about this!
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: Ariock | November 9, 2007 1:34 AM
PZ.
You are awesome. I enjoyed the battle between you and BA last year. Good humoured, good natured fun, that. I'm sure this is trying right now, but it'll be over soon. Obviously some folks think that the scientific method involves a lot of shouting and bombast.
I've recently dealt with the same kind of issues online. An AGW denier admitted that the globe was warming (apparently because even GWB now admits it), and then immediately started arguing AGAINST GW, by pointing out the growth of a few glaciers in Europe. It was pretty amusing.
oh, the other brilliant bit is when they cry about how they are being silenced by Al Gore and mainstream science! Loudest damn silenced people I ever did hear.
To Sum Up: You, PZ, awesome. BAB, awesome. AGW deniers, hi-larious.
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: Costard | November 9, 2007 1:44 AM
Incendiary comments tend to attract incendiary replies. This applies to blogs, conversations, anything. So it seems a little disingenuous for the regulars here, and the host, to start a fire and then cry "smoke!".
In my opinion, PZ Myers has done himself a disservice over the past several days with his unabashedly personal attacks on another blog. He sounds neither professional nor academic, whatever his excuses. But since I'm not a regular here, it seems clear to me that my opinion won't mean much - and needless to say, I have no desire to become a regular.
Posted by: Dustin | November 9, 2007 1:47 AM
Well, it's a good thing you didn't waste your time by commenting here!
Posted by: sunsettommy | November 9, 2007 1:49 AM
Ah well since the replies to my comments are hostile and irrational.There is no point responding anymore since I do want to waste my time dealing with immature people here.
I will just leave.
Good bye.
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: Michael X | November 9, 2007 2:01 AM
Looks like the trolls are finally getting sleepy and going back under their bridge.
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: Warren | November 9, 2007 2:12 AM
Good golly. So many possible Soylie recipients in one day.
I mean, the mind just boggles.
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: grog | November 9, 2007 2:33 AM
Wow... I can't believe I just waded through that entire thread.
Funny how the civility of the comment thread is inversely proportional to the number of concern trolls whining about how uncivil the comments are, and how they're even real live atheists and skeptics who believe that evolution has been "proven" and whatever the hell else they think will resonate with the regulars.
Too bad the random Capitalizations by the self-described Civility Skeptics tend to give Them away...
Am I the only one to think of them as scientific parasites? All we see from them are nit-picking attacks that feed off the body of other, larger work. They don't come with their own theories or their own models or their own peer-reviewed research. They can only survive by nibbling at the edges. They're like bugs.
And the infestation is so thick today that a favorite Mencken quote springs to mind: "Every normal man must be tempted at times to spit upon his hands, hoist the black flag, and begin slitting throats."
So papertiger, you're gonna be first, matey. Fuck off.
And yes, I say that as a scientist. I've read enough from you to know that you're more interested in the mechanics of arguing than actually trying to get closer to the truth of anything. So kindly go fuck yourself, pack your bag, and take your sorry ass home. You've worn out your welcome, and if I had the power I'd be merrily disemvoweling the lot of you right about now.
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: Shawn Wilkinson | November 9, 2007 2:39 AM
It seems McIntyre dwells too much on one reconstruction whereas there are other reconsturctions that show the same general pattern of an increase in global temperature in the 20th century compared to previous centuries.
That's my take on the issue. Besides, I think there are more pressing issues to address than a single reconstruction, such as carbon cycle positive feedback.
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: grog | November 9, 2007 2:44 AM
"Passion is frequently confused with certainty. Experience shows that the two are normally incompatible."
Grog the Pirate sez: "Aarg! What the fuck kind of drivel is this? Who says you can't have the best answer and care about having the best answer, all at the same time?"
Crudely Wrott: (1) first-year humanities grad student, (2) stoned philosophy dropout, or (3) plaintiff's lawyer? You decide.
And while we're deciding, Crudely, fuck off. And go home.
That wasn't too hostile, was it?
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: Jay Currie | November 9, 2007 2:54 AM
At best, the Arctic icecap. It is this sort of sloppiness which tends to undermine the AGW postion's advocates.
That and the endless use of "fuck, fucktard, shill, denialist" in place of actual argument.
Sloppy and inarticulate: what's not to like?
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: grog the pirate | November 9, 2007 3:05 AM
"At best, the Arctic icecap." Um, Larson B?
So by "At best," do you mean that 36 cubic miles of ice per year is what, then, if not melting? Sublimating? Getting turned to pixie dust by the polar ice fairies? Abducted by UFO aliens and getting probed in unnatural ways?
See, it's this sort of sloppiness which tends to make Grog the Pirate start talking in third person and exacerbates his Tourettes. Fucktard! Shill! Denialist!
Fuck off. And go home.
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: JR | November 9, 2007 3:12 AM
Interesting post. Where does all the anger come from?
As I cannot find a single coherent argument in this post, I'll take my science interest elsewhere in th future.
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: Timothy | November 9, 2007 3:21 AM
When's the book going to be out, PZed?
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: grog the pirate | November 9, 2007 3:28 AM
Aarg! Don't let the door hit yer ass on the way out, JR!
(Or on your "science interest" for that matter.)
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: John Phillips | November 9, 2007 3:42 AM
Well that was fun. BTW Cuttlefish, you rock, again :)
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: Darwin's Minion | November 9, 2007 4:09 AM
Jesus Christ on a hockey stick (and I leave it up to the individual to disbelieve in any of those or neither), what a mess.
I applaud #251, who seems to be one of the few people who gets what this is all about.
So PZ got angry and blew off some steam. So he has an opinion. So what? That doesn't make him a bad scientist, it only makes him human. ...but then, we can't have that, scientists being humans. Because everybody knows that we're fucking (omg I said a bad word) robots.
I suggest everybody get over themselves, and then get a nice cup of tea. And retire to whatever their favourite blog is. Talking to brick walls isn't going to move them, folks.
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: Tog | November 9, 2007 4:26 AM
My God! You're all such losers! Ignorance piled upon stupidity! And such unmitigated arrogance! Based on what? Like you're all so very proud that you're all so moronic? Sheesh! Never have I seen a performance like this on any blog! You guys take first prize! Dear Lord, this has been unbelievable!
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: Maugrim | November 9, 2007 4:37 AM
My goodness, what a thread to wake up to.
*Ambles back to BA with tea in hand and an expression of mild bemusement*
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: Shawn Wilkinson | November 9, 2007 5:45 AM
JohnS, it may behoove you to learn about the commentators of a blog before you assume we are all biology undergraduates. I don't think i've ever been so insulted for my life, except that time someone called me a Ron paul supporter.
The commentors here range from science to non-science. From chemists and physicists to economists, mathematicians, historians. Hell, we probably also have a number of white and blue collar folk lurking.
And surprisingly, some of us do know climatology and statistics and realize McIntyre is making a big fuss about nothing concerning the "hockey stick". So, buzz off before you over-generalize. It only makes you look incompetent.
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: John A | November 9, 2007 6:06 AM
@Moses #136:
Isn't it fascinating that you resort to revising history in order to make a false statement?
Schatten didn't expose the scientific fraud. He left because of the problem of the source of the human eggs, but only six weeks after he asked for a half share in Hwang's research.
See http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=476 for the chronology
The scientific fraud was exposed by bloggers - the very people PZ castigates as "rats".
The fraud wasn't disovered by peer review, nor by distinguished scientists but by people interested in the details, and because attempts to replicate Hwang's research had failed.
It's the devil in the details that neither PZ nor the dittoheads seem remotely interested in. All we get is this handwaving dismissal of scientific audit and statistical insight being referred to as "statistical pettifoggery"
So when it comes to whether or not key studies done to supposedly reconstruct past climate have any statistical, mathematical or physical validity that we get, as the bloggers and a lone TV journalist found in Korea, a shitstorm of ad hominem attacks. Until they were proven right.
There is a reason why PZ doesn't take his "complaints" to CA about Steve's supposed "pettifoggery" and it has nothing to do with science. PZ knows that his ignorance of statistics and his over-inflated view of his own importance will make him look an even bigger doofus over there than he's managed on his own weblog.
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.
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.
And it pays the same, doesn't it PZ?
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: Steve Massey | November 9, 2007 6:45 AM
Can I suggest that all you guys grab what weapons you may find, and arrange to meet up in a field somewhere and hack away at each other? I think you will find it more cathartic to slay the unbelievers than to waste time in swivel-eyed ranting. Speaking as a drive-by agnostic, who is doing nothing more than looking up high-scoring blogs from the awards, the above is flipping crazy. Is your mental model of the universe really so important that you have do despise people who do not hold it?
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: Dave King | November 9, 2007 6:59 AM
PZ, You have made an exhibition of yourself. It was entertaining, but not very pretty. Congratulations.
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: Boris | November 9, 2007 7:28 AM
This is a huge insult to the memory of those lost in the holocaust. There's a big difference between someone being rude to you and someone exterminating your race. Try to have some perspective and be less of a baby.
Posted by: melatonin | November 9, 2007 7:34 AM
So,I hear the auditors are in for the results...
Posted by: Who Cares | November 9, 2007 7:37 AM
It is almost to funny to see all the people coming out of the woodwork claiming (and complaining) that bad language automatically disqualifies arguments made by the same person.
Steve Massey (#353):
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'.
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: Pleasey | November 9, 2007 7:54 AM
Hey - Suppressed homo-eroticism at its best! Perhaps this site should be called "Phallicgula"? Errr... sorry to stumble in on the harem PZ.
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: JohnS | November 9, 2007 8:04 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: 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: CalGeorge | November 9, 2007 8:22 AM
I am embarrassed to share the prevailing AGW viewpoint of this blog. I hope that you are not representative of AGW affirmers in general.
Go away, you one-note gasbags.
Go back to the land of spaghetti and hockey sticks and plot some data points.
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: PrimerX | November 9, 2007 8:28 AM
'Climate change is simple. Look at Venus. The temperature on the surface can melt lead because high CO2 concentrations trap heat. Based on this, what do you think increasing the CO2 concentration in Earth's atmosphere does?'
See, idiotic statements like this is why CA needs to be around. CO2 levels have been 10 times higher in earth's past history without any runaway effect. Climate change is not simple.
Btw, Phd physics, publications, academic position here too and I've met plenty of 'skeptics' as irrational and dogmatic in their dismals than the worst of the creationists.
Posted by: minimalist | November 9, 2007 8:31 AM
#351, John A:
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 8:40 AM
Oh dear, the trolls are back, just when I thought the infestation was abating...
For all of the whinging denialists out there that can't understand why we find McIntyre highly suspect, get over it. If McIntyre is really just saying that we need to make some minor adjustments to the data, but that the current theories of global warming remain correct, then we don't care. No-one cares... Sure, whatever...data's changed...
If on the other hand he is really saying that the adjustments to the data analysis suggest that global warming is wrong, then that is another kettle of fish. With all the stink McIntyre has kicked up, it is natural to suspect that he falls into this second camp, especially when coupled with his refusal to "deny" global warming denial.
If we doubt the guy's intentions, it's only natural. All he has to do to allay those suspicions is to make a clear unambiguous statement of his view. His refusal to do so speaks volumes.
Now, rack off, and go lurk under someone else's bridge. We want our blog back.
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: CalGeorge | November 9, 2007 8:47 AM
CO2 levels have been 10 times higher in earth's past history without any runaway effect.
Well, there's a runaway effect now and that's all that matters.
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: CalGeorge | November 9, 2007 9:03 AM
That was an shameful appeal to authority at #259!
Hey, the Bad Astronomer says we have to rely on experts, so I'm relying on experts!
And there you have it. How do any of us interpret these crucial findings when we are not experts? We have to rely on other experts. In this case, the overwhelming number of experts, truly overwhelming, say that GW is anthropogenic. That doesn't mean they are right, but it does mean it's the way to bet. And I encourage people to look into the studies on both sides of this. Science is all about keeping people honest.
He's so calm, cool and collected! My new hero.
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: Brendan S | November 9, 2007 9:07 AM
This reminds me of High School when two people would get into it and everyone would stand around and chant 'Fight Fight Fight Fight'
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: windansea | November 9, 2007 9:13 AM
is this a gay blog? with all the talk of buggering, brooms up the ass, and bubble me blue martinis it obvious,
you should have been nominated for best LGBT blog
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: 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: Charlie | November 9, 2007 9:17 AM
PZ, what an unpleasant rude offensive rant. Maybe you shouldnt post a thread when you are 'feeling extremely cranky'.
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: Deepsix | November 9, 2007 9:22 AM
Wow. Throw a firecracker in the cave and all the knuckle-draggers come running out.
Posted by: Mike from Ottawa | November 9, 2007 9:22 AM
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: Ashutosh | November 9, 2007 9:25 AM
Bad Astro wins...by a hairsbreadth.
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: ZoneWright | November 9, 2007 9:33 AM
Thank you PZ.
Posted by: Moses | November 9, 2007 9:41 AM
The whole rebuttal was wonderful. The paragraph sublime. The punch line, one of the best ever.
Definitely worth a Molly.
Posted by: JePe | November 9, 2007 9:46 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: Moses | November 9, 2007 9:53 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: Jonas Doubts | November 9, 2007 9:54 AM
Got this from a SEO blog I read: http://www.tellinya.com/read/2007/11/09/science-blogs-2007-anatomy-of-a-break-in/ .
Wow...
Posted by: Moses | November 9, 2007 9:57 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: Ryan F Stello | November 9, 2007 10:00 AM
JePe wrote:
Oh, burn! You done showed them what-for!
Calling something a spade obviously done make it a spade!
Don't forget the religion of reason!
Because doubt without good evidence is totally reasonable!
Plus, you apparently don't have to explain the doubt in order to say you doubt!
Totally, because they are religious acolytes!
And that can't be called name calling, itself!
Glory!
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: Wicked Lad | November 9, 2007 10:02 AM
John A wrote in #351:
So are you saying it wasn't scientists, just "people interested in the details" who failed to replicate the results?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: ctenotrish, FCD | November 9, 2007 10:19 AM
With a mere 388 comments as I add my own, I'd like to add my 2 cents worth. I am not quite sure how I originally ended up ready this blog. I started about two-three years ago, well before PZ threw in with ScienceBlogs. I was in the final painful stages of completing my dissertation, and reading the posts here was an entertaining and welcome relief. And bloody well educational! PZ had a summary on jaw evolution that cited a reference I had missed during my own extensive literature searches, and that paper and its conclusions (well summarized here, I might add), strengthened my conclusions about my own data.
Any reader who can't find the science here simply isn't looking, and we really don't need any more willful ignorance in the world. There is plenty of non-personal writing, and the science posts are excellent; many, many are worthy of bookmarks and forwards (anything on Plan B, for example). Now, the non-science posts? Non-regular readers may be surprised that not EVERY post is 'science-y'. There is more to life than science, even for those of us who are scientists! This blog never fails to entertain, educate, challenge, and/or provoke thought. I remain a big fan. I appreciate the science posts, and I appreciate the ID posts, I love the cephalopod posts (!), and if PZ is having a snarly, cranky day, well, I find that those are pretty darn entertaining too.
When I was in College Station (Aggieland, Whoop!) we had a saying about Highway 6 running in two directions . . . if you didn't like it, leave. Same goes here. Don't like Pharyngula? Can't find the science? No worries, mate, just leave. Bye-bye.
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: Francois O | November 9, 2007 10:51 AM
Wow, this thread has become totally out of control!
O.K. just to reply to those who doubt that I am a "real" scientist. You must be right. Since we don't share the same opinion on the merits of Climate Audit, I cannot be a "real" scientist. And I don't know anything about peer review. Granted. It was all a lie. After all, I must be a liar since I side with the denialists, and, God forbid, Steve Fuller!
Of course we could have a pissing contest, and I could show you my CV and you could show me yours. What exactly are YOUR original scientific contributions? How many papers have you published? How many citations did they get? And you, PZ?
And about that "real world" outside of academia. Yes, it does exist. There is something else than writing grant proposals, and pretend that you're doing useful and breakthrough science.
See, the nice thing about being a retired former scientist-turned-businessman at 49 is that you finally have time to read about and learn about a lot of topics that are highly interesting, something that you can never do in academia, where you are stuck in your own little sub-sub-sub-field for the rest of your life, thinking it's so, so important. It's also great not to be in academia any more and having been there, because you can see things from the outside that you don't see from the inside.
So, unlike PZ, unlike 99% of the posters here, and also unlike Steve Fuller (that annoying pest who always has an answer to the simplistic arguments about the fool-proof validity of scientific claims), I have actually been there, I've actually been in a lab, I've actually made genuine discoveries. (O.K. PZ has probably done that during his PhD.) Does that qualify me to judge the validity of AGW? Not at all! But at least I know I'm not qualified, whereas the majority of posters here think they are. And I also know that no one is going to convince me of the "truth" of AGW by throwing IPCC reports to my face. That's argument from authority. I said: just disbelieve. Someone said no you mustn't do that. Well I say bullshit. Dig deeper. Find the flaw. AGW, as a theory, is a gigantic house of cards that could collapse if you remove just one of them. From afar, it looks like a solid edifice. Just look closer. I'm not saying it's false. But if you look closer, like Steve McIntyre does, you see the building for what it is: a house of cards. What's amazing is how we can become so enthusiastic about it, because it suits our feeling of guilt at being so rich, and consuming so much.
But it's not the first time that as a society, we become so enthused about a shaky scientific theory that suits our prejudices. Go read the history of eugenics, the similarities are so striking. I know, this was first brought up by the denialist Michael Crichton. but you know what? I didn't believe him, so I went to the source. I've now read three books on the subject, and dug up articles published in the 1920's that are now avalaible on the Web. And guess what? He was right. You find the same self-righteouness about science, the appeal to peer-reviewed papers, the alarmist calls about "race suicide". And those who would question it would be treated as denialists.
Of course now we have 20/20 hindsight. But what will people say about us 100 years from now? How ignorant will they think we were? We don't know what we don't know. Just remember that.
Posted by: Ryan F Stello | November 9, 2007 10:52 AM
cbone done wrote:
vs.Man, these whiny folks are self-refuting, eh?
Posted by: Tweedy | November 9, 2007 10:56 AM
I feel dirty and a big let down as a son to my parents. I read here, BA and CA most days.
The only thing I think we can take from this whole experience is how much fun other awards like the Oscars or Emmys would be if they could learn from this episode. I know I'd stay up for the Award for the Best Stitching of a Bodice in a Period Drama if I knew we were to get a good b*tch slapping like that generated by these awards.
Hats off to both BA and CA in ultimately backing slowly out of this war, and perhaps sharing a sherry while they watch their relatives fight with each other.
BTW, the only thing I deny is that TV will ever improve on the show The Wire.
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: Stevie_C | November 9, 2007 11:00 AM
We have no need to defend ourselves.
We just want your lot to FUCK OFF.
It's not hard to understand.
Posted by: JimC | November 9, 2007 11:14 AM
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: CalGeorge | November 9, 2007 11:15 AM
Francois, Francois, Francois.
On Crichton and eugenics:
He argues that scientists who supported the eugenics movement in the early 20th century were politically motivated, and, because there are political issues at stake in climate change, climate science must be mistaken, too.
This argument is both illogical and historically unfounded. The eugenics movement was based on the idea of improving the human race through application of the scientific principles of genetics. In the early 20th century, the new science of genetics had demonstrated that many traits are controlled by heritable elements, which came to be known as genes. Social reformers had meanwhile noted that many social ills -- prostitution, gambling, alcoholism -- seemed to run in families. From this, they concluded that these ills were inherited and sought to do something about it.
[...]
The social program of eugenics is reviled in hindsight, but the science of genetics is not. Moreover, to argue that any particular consensus is mistaken simply because a previous consensus was mistaken is illogical. Scientists revise their views in light of new information: This is to their credit and all of our benefit.
But since no one can predict where new information will emerge, the only relevant question to ask is: Is there any reason to suspect that the current science is mistaken? Crichton claims there is, that the current climate science is "politicized." But here he has got the politics wrong, too. In fact, the shoe is on the other foot. It's no secret that many of those who have been active in climate-change denial have ties to the energy industry, or to politically motivated think tanks. Some live in or work for states that have large fossil-fuel industries, which have not hidden their interest in this issue.
And why should they? The fact that groups or individuals are politically motivated does not mean that they are wrong. The detailed exploration of the deep oceans and sea floor in the 1950s was motivated by the political concerns of the Cold War, particularly the desire to track and monitor prowling Soviet submarines. But the knowledge produced was still reliable, and it led to the plate tectonics revolution.
Crichton is a novelist, and he knows how to write fiction. But he should leave the scientific facts to scientists, the historical facts to historians and the politics to all of us to debate.
Grow up. Discover Google. Learn something.
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 11:27 AM
This is just bizarre. Some scientists butt heads with the largest companies in the world, companies that enjoy the benefits of fat tax credits, obscene windfall profits, oligopolistic cartels, waning government oversight, relaxed restriction of emission and pollution requirements, and exploitation of old mining laws that let them snatch up land in Colorado for 40 cents an acre because they have one of their old cartel lords in the White House, and droves of the best zombified dittoheads their advertising dollars can buy all in the face of a steadily declining public research sector in the US... and THE SCIENTISTS ARE THE ELITISTS?
These trolls are either very stupid or very dishonest but, in either case, they're seriously challenging Dembski's previously uncontested title of "World's Biggest Pseudo-Mathematical Wanker".
Posted by: Dustin | November 9, 2007 11:28 AM
That's news to me.
Posted by: mpaul | November 9, 2007 11:43 AM
First, please don't use the term denialists, we prefer that you call us 'blasphemers'.
Mann's math was wrong. Its a simple objective fact. I'm sorry if that upsets your religious views. If any of you are truly open minded, you would seek to understand why Mann's math is flawed. Science is not about blind faith.
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: Tog | November 9, 2007 11:49 AM
I see y'all haven't sobered up yet. Well. I had a good nights sleep. May I suggest a twelve-step program, and after you've achieved sobriety, you can begin learning from your bad experiences, such as the bruhaha here last night. Good luck in your recovery, the road back will be tough, and for most here, impossible, but if only one life is saved it will all be worth it. Ask your Higher Power for help.
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: Joseph Addams | November 9, 2007 11:50 AM
David Marjanović, OM
yo dude sulfer clouds don't let heat out man
that venus is one hot lady
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: CalGeorge | November 9, 2007 12:08 PM
mpaul, you might want to review the congressional testimony of Michael Mann:
Perhaps the most serious omission in the Wegman report, however, is its failure to acknowledge that its central focus -- the conventions used for centering in the Principal Components Analysis used to represent certain tree-ring proxy data -- has no significant implications on the results of our analysis. The hockey stick pattern derives from the data, not in the PCA. Nonetheless, Wegman's report claims that the PCA centering convention used to represent the North American tree-ring data network in our 1998/1999 studies is responsible for the "hockey stick" shape of our reconstruction. But the report's conclusion does not follow from its premise. Even accepting that certain statistical conventions that were used in our original studies might not be optimal under some circumstances, the use of alternative conventions yields the same "hockey stick" figure.
Posted by: Steverino | November 9, 2007 12:22 PM
WOW!...Who left the lid up???!!!
Posted by: Dustin | November 9, 2007 12:22 PM
Yeah, it either means that the evidence supporting their conclusion isn't up to snuff, or they're just pomo wankers. Sometimes both. In either case, it's clearly our fault for not being credulous enough.
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: CalGeorge | November 9, 2007 12:24 PM
Mann seems to care very much that his results are tested by other climate scientists (from his testimony again):
The reconstruction work by other scholars like Wahl and Ammann also lay to rest any suggestion that my colleagues and I did not fully disclose our underlying data and therefore hindered replication of our work. Attempts by other climate scientists, such as Wahl and Ammann (2006), have successfully reproduced our results based entirely on our publicly available data and algorithmic descriptions. 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.
Sounds like science is working the way it should.
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: Dahan | November 9, 2007 12:32 PM
#410
"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"?"
Lol! Molly worthy.
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: Dustin | November 9, 2007 12:36 PM
There are compensatory processes, like particulate emissions, that are blissfully ignored by people who think that drawing lines through data should be the extent of scientific inquiry.
As particulate emissions decrease, the effects caused by greenhouse gasses will become much more pronounced unless gas emissions are decreased at the same time. Of course, that won't mean anything to the denialists... they'll crow in triumph: "See we reduced pollution and it's still getting warmer!"
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: Dahan | November 9, 2007 12:46 PM
It's got to be so tiresome arguing with idiots like Theo Richel and Francois. Why are you all still bothering? Fuck em.
Posted by: Stevie_C | November 9, 2007 12:46 PM
Yeah,
If you completely ignore what Cal posted.
Posted by: CalGeorge | November 9, 2007 12:47 PM
Professor says: I did a very good job...
I believe the exact opposite. It doesn't matter what the individual scientist thinks. It's the independent testing and retesting of the scientist's results that give weight to his/her conclusions.
What more do you want? The guy's work has been independently confirmed - over and over again.
Hockey sticks are here to stay.
Posted by: Dustin | November 9, 2007 12:47 PM
Here, Theo, I'll fix that comment for you:
Or did you miss the part of the post that said:
Posted by: cbone | November 9, 2007 12:52 PM
re: RickD ""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."
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.
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: Francois O | November 9, 2007 1:03 PM
Cal, Cal, Cal,
So you know all about eugenics after a quick Google search? wow! That brilliant newspaper article by Naomi Oreskes should have been enough. I've got so much to learn... I'm still reading books, amazing isn't it? I've got to catch up with modern technology.
Just let me give you a quote from the foreword to G.K. Chesterton's book, "Eugenics and other evils" published in 1923 (foreword by Michael Perry written in 2000).
" As a writer he stood virtually alone against a juggernaut that threatened to sweep all before it. In 1924, a eugenist could speak proudly of a scholarly bibliography listing thousands of articles on eugenic-related topics. (...) Apart from him, almost no one of importance spoke out against it."
Sounds familiar? So how do you know that THIS TIME, we are right? Did we really learn from our mistakes? You tell me. I find it great that you are so sure of yourself. I'm not.
Funny that you bring up continental drift and plate tectonics, as it's a brilliant example of (1) how hard it is to overthrow a "consensus", and (2) how scientists can be good at rewriting history when it makes them look stupid. Naomi Oreskes has become an expert at that (yes, I have read her book. You know, those things with so many pages that existed before Google).
A final quote on peer review:
"The peer review system in grant making and in academic advancement has the major disadvantage of creating conformity of thoughts and values. It's a modern equivalent of a Middle Ages guild, where you have to sing a particular way to get grants, promotions and tenure. The pressure to conform means you lose the people who want to get up and go in a different direction. There is no place for the wild ducks. The result is more sameness and less innovation. What we need is a cultural revolution in the research community, academic and non-academic. We need to give wild ducks the opportunity to emerge and quack their way to success."
Whoever said that must be another right wing nut. I'll let you guess. The thing is, peer review is good when you're within the system. It is what gives structure and hierarchy to the scientific community. That's what you use to climb up the ladder. Nobody wants to get rid of it. Scientists thrive on recognition, and this is how they get it. But when you're outside the system, you realize how pathetic it has become. Sure, good science is still done. But it's always done despite the system, not because of it. It's not a simple issue that we can resolve here, but the thing is, if peer review is no guarantee of truth or quality, why, why, why is it always, always, always brought up as an argument whenever AGW is discussed? You can't have it both ways.
I would love to see a discussion of the AGW theory that goes beyond the usual "IPCC said it, so it's true". I would like someone to explain to me how we are so sure about climate feedbacks, how we can feel so confident about our temperature measurements, how well we understand the glacial ages, or the Sun's influence on the climate, and how much confidence we can put in GCM's. I've read "peer-reviewed" papers on all those subjects, and I'm still unconvinced. We know a lot, that's for sure, but there's a lot we don't know. And the worst attitude is to pretend that we know everything.
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: wildlifer | November 9, 2007 1:07 PM
Who the hell cares what you believe? Most of us have been around long enough to know if PZ says something, he means it. But I spent enough time to learn the majority of the folks at CA are nothing but conspiracy-theorist-creationists in climate drag, so you're used to tweasing gods out of the gaps. Or in this case, plucking irrelevent nonsense from inbetween the lines. After only a couple of days readings in one or two threads, you think you know PZ's mind better than anyone who's spent years reading PZ's blogs.
Well, you're wrong. So why don't you take your punk ass back to your make-believe lab and your make-believe science at CA, as you're obvious poorly equipped to post around here - little boy.
Posted by: Dustin | November 9, 2007 1:07 PM
You aren't good at paying attention, are you?
Posted by: Josh | November 9, 2007 1:13 PM
and (2) how scientists can be good at rewriting history when it makes them look stupid.
Which of the major holdouts during the "tectonic revolution" have been revisionist when looking back at their part in the history of that time?
But when you're outside the system, you realize how pathetic it has become.
I'm confused here. How has peer review become pathetic? You're suggesting that no review is a better system?
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: Ryan F Stello | November 9, 2007 1:17 PM
At the risk of getting any freeper vomit on my shoes, that's from Andy Grove. If you bothered, PZ already had a post about his drivel.
As I indicated at that time, that's the result of a conspiratorial nonsense (no justification was given for making the comment, or in the notion that the medical community is not just being cautious).
So, It's at least half of the Republican wingnut equation.
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: Scholar | November 9, 2007 1:22 PM
"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..."
You are right that the folks from Climate Audit are elitists. However, you are wrong in that that nobody here is supposing that they are educated OR intelligent.
Posted by: molecanthro | November 9, 2007 1:22 PM
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: Dahan | November 9, 2007 1:23 PM
David says:
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?
Well golly David, there are answers for all of those things. Why don't you go do some research and find out? Or do you expect all of us here to take the time to enlighten you?
I'll give you a place to start with answering at least one of your questions. You asked who makes up the majority of the main stream media. Check this link out to begin.
http://wotmedia.blogspot.com/2006/11/nsf-funded-study-finds-newspaper-slant.html
While you're doing some research on your questions, think on this. We all understand that one of the easiest way to try to act like your winning an argument is to throw out a shit load of questions that require detailed answers. Then to repeat this over and over to make it look like there's some sort of real controversy. Don't be an ass. Doing that on a blog like this just makes you look stupid.
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: themann1086 | November 9, 2007 1:42 PM
This thread and the latest one invaded by Ron Paul's supporters over at David Neiwert's place are quickly becoming my two favorite threads, EVAH.
Keep it up guys, I'm gonna go make some popcorn.
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: Stevie_C | November 9, 2007 1:53 PM
Fucking hell. Yeah because all scientists are friends with each other.
They just form a gangstyle Kabal that supresses "real" science.
They are soooo like the cool kids in high school.
Whateeeeeever.
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: cbone | November 9, 2007 2:01 PM
Re: guthrie "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."
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.
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: shiftlessbum | November 9, 2007 2:02 PM
Jepe #446 wrote; "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."
Thanks for your response, but I'm still confused. Not only is the "hockey stick" discussed (And the supporting data as well as criticisms cited) but there are at least three graphs showing a variety of models, all of which have the "hockey stick" shape to them, referenced in the text and following on the next page.
See again
http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/Report/AR4WG1_Print_Ch06.pdf
Pages 34-36 and references.
I am at a loss in understanding what you mean. Can you please cite the report you are referring to?
thanks
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: cbone | November 9, 2007 2:07 PM
Re: Scholar "You are right that the folks from Climate Audit are elitists. However, you are wrong in that that nobody here is supposing that they are educated OR intelligent."
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.
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: Francois O | November 9, 2007 2:08 PM
Of course Andy Grove is a right wing nut. The fact that he's one of the main reasons you can write this on your computer doesn't count. You know better than him and that's enough. Why listen to these guys?
So, about rewriting history, or just writing it. Oreskes claims, for example, that continental drift was rejected because it didn't fit the way the geologists of the time were doing science. And for her, that's a good enough excuse. But she doesn't really dwell on HOW it was rejected. How "drifters" were labeled as nuts, and how the slightest perception that you might consider the hypothesis as worthy of investigation was enough to stop your academic carreer. It's the "how" that is important. How peer pressure acts through the publication and funding system. Geologists of the 1920's knew full well how to conduct science. They lived in a world where physics was in the middle of a revolution, with relativity and quantum theory. But "how" those who controlled the major publications and grant agencies succeeded in not only rejecting continental drift, but making sure no one would dare bring it back again for 30 years, that's what is relevant here. You can reconstruct and say anything you want, for example claim that the data at the time were not good enough, and so on and so on. But the fact remains that Wegener was right, and the fixists were wrong. That in itself is not worrying. YOu have the right to be wrong in science. What is worrying is that the fixists won for 30 years, and they won by silencing the opposition through control of the publication and funding system.
How is dissent treated? Can the publication system, combined with social reprobation, act in a way as to silence dissenters, by threatening to not publish anything they write, and cutting their funding? Can it, or not? And if so, is it the case now with AGW? Is there so much intimidation and peer pressure that no one dares publishing dissenting results? That's the real question. How come it took Steve McIntyre and a blog to reveal the mistakes in Mann's papers and other reconstructions? Why is it so hard to acknowledge that an error was made? Is that symptomatic of something or not? If there are major flaws in the AGW hypothesis, will we know about them, or will we have to wait 30 years to see someone having the guts to publish about them?
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: Vitis01 | November 9, 2007 2:11 PM
I wanna answer David! *raise hand REALLY high*
1. They don't.
2. Because you and your ilk have labeled them as such.
3. Humans.
4. Humans.
5. Humans (but I'm less sure about this one).
6. Yes, sometimes it is required, although I think "advocate" is a better word.
Posted by: Dustin | November 9, 2007 2:15 PM
So now Theo is deploying the "Mean Girls" defense too. Behe has created a monster!
Posted by: Apparently an "elitist" | November 9, 2007 2:16 PM
Re: 412 comparing the denialists to the scientists in the "Memory Wars":
JePe, I know Loftus. Beth Loftus and I published a paper together. JePe, you're no Beth Loftus.
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: Dustin | November 9, 2007 2:19 PM
Well, my killfile is getting lethargic from its endless buffet of fresh trollmeat, so I'll let this be the final word.
Peace out, freepers.
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: cbone | November 9, 2007 2:23 PM
Re: Dustin "Peace out, freepers."
What is a freeper?
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: Theo Richel | November 9, 2007 2:25 PM
No melatonin, we are not pissed because of that, we are pissed because of the fact that the lot of this other material is largely the same stuff that the Mann stuff was made of. Sure, new journals, new titles, but the same unaudited, unarchived material.
Its simple: if you are a scientist and trust your own findings then there is no problem showing other people your stuff. You are confident arent you? You were honest werent you?
But the hockeyteam behaves like a second hand car salesman that doesnt allow you to look under the hood. Now that's good for confidence!
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: Ryan F Stello | November 9, 2007 2:29 PM
From 453,
The fact that he's brilliant at computer chips has no relevancy when it comes to medical science.
And even so, he gave no justification for his comments that would indicate he has a good understanding of how medical research progresses.
But hey, I can see why you ignore that.
Not really. You shouldn't project so much. It's elitist.
Exactly! Why do you listen to ignorant and conspiratorial lunatics? Other than the fact that you are one?
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: cbone | November 9, 2007 2:30 PM
Re: CalGeorge "Works for me. A little sanity in a denialist world that refuses to see the forest for the trees."
That explains quite a bit. To think that a press release from the UCS represents balance and sanity. You really have been hitting the Kool Aid pretty hard.
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: shiftlessbum | November 9, 2007 2:34 PM
Re the comment in #463
I am not very familiar with the denialist position, but if I have read this particular post rightly, one such position is that researchers who've made models that result in the "hockey stick" have not let anyone see the data on which they based their models.
Can anyone say if this is an accurate description? Can someone point me to any evidence this is true? If it is, it is an egregious violation of the very basis of scientific inquiry...which is why I am deeply skeptical of the claim.
Anyone? Denialists? Freepers?
I will try to find this on my own, but some assistance would be greatly appreciated
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: Jay Hovah | November 9, 2007 2:45 PM
The trolls are so hard at work that it's become difficult to post comments.
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: Jay Hovah | November 9, 2007 2:49 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: Kyle Huff | November 8, 2007 10:48 PM
------------------
You must have missed comment #169...
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: Apparently an "elitist" | November 9, 2007 2:53 PM
JePe (468): You claim that "AGW is the UFO of climate science, as was repressed memory."
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.
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. You know -- how they're an oppressed minority with the revealed Truth, struggling nobly against a cruel and hostile world.
Care to try again? We're almost to 500 now...
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: Francois O | November 9, 2007 2:58 PM
#469
Go read Climate Audit. There are no "models" based on hockey sticks. There are temperature reconstructions based on tree ring measurements. It is a very complex issue and there is no simple answer. The point is: how valid can such reconstructions be, given that we only have a few samples of trees here and there? Can we really reconstruct the past average temperature of the entire Northern hemisphere for the past 1000 years to within a half of a degree? Can we then just splice such a reconstruction with actual temperature data? Is it not extremely dangerous to do that? And what if one set of trees in one location was enough to bias the final result and give it a hockey stick shape? What if the computer algorithm used will give a hockey stick whatever you feed it, even numerical noise?
What if the scientist who produced such a dubious reconstruction has been named a visionary by Scientific American? What if it was used prominently in the IPCC Summary for policy makers? What do you make of that? Is he going to back off and admit that he made a mistake? What about his career? His freshly obtained tenure position, his editorial positions in journals? We all want to believe it's only about science, glorious science, but is it?
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: Ryan F Stello | November 9, 2007 3:03 PM
I agree wholeheartedly.
And it was by me when his comments first appeared.
Considered, and then noted that he had no justification.
His 'achievements' however, are irrelevant if they aren't have bearing on his statement.
Of course you do! You're both delusional when it comes to big 'ol, meany Mr. science!
Nope. Why? Because he himself is looking for 'conformity of thought' when it comes to Parkinson's research. I disagree because his statement self-contradicting.
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: Doug Rozell | November 9, 2007 3:11 PM
Dear me! Mildly entertaining, but hardly edifying, in any sense. To all visitors who have thought better never to visit Pharyngula again, please reconsider. This thread has been, in my experience, utterly novel on this site for its AGW trolls and vitriol (on both sides). PZed is wonderfully curmudeonly when it comes to the stupidly ignorant (Stan started it all when he said he couldn't find any science here), and PZed, obviously feeling unnusually out of sorts, whacked him, justifiably, but without his usual wit. No science? Good grief, this place is loaded with science. First order factual science in evo-devo biology, second order explanatory and predictive science, and third order explication of what good science is. (Popper's falsifiability is not the only criterion: there are also predictive power, explanatory coherence, parismony, consilience of inductions, historical continuity ...). In good measure, PZ's labours also constitute a stirring, robust defence of science and science education, which is why, for many of us I am sure, it is so much fun to visit regularly to read his posts in the categories of kooks and creationism. So please don't take this thread as typical of the site.
As for honest ignorance, I am confident that PZed is patient to explain. For example, what the H-E-double-hockey sticks are "freepers" and "limbots"?
Doug Rozell, Beachville, Canada
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: James | November 9, 2007 3:16 PM
And the worst of the rats are the sanctimonious ones that declare that they're just 'policing' science. They aren't. They're just providing fodder for their fellow denialists, and like them all, have nothing of value to contribute to advance the conversation. You can quit whining that you and McIntyre are finding valid errors; it doesn't matter, since you're simultaneously spreading a plague of lies and ignorance as you go.
476, if that wasn't an invite to reply, I don't know what is. If you value the scientific method (which I'm sure you do), you will applaud Steves efforts to replicate many of these studies which your government (and mine) intend to use to make policy decisions that could affect the very foundations of our modern societies. Whether or not those changes are good in themselves is a secondary issue in my opinion; something for the Philosophers and Technologists among us to ponder. But the fact is if you want to inform debate and bring the world along with you, it's better you do it with good science, not dodgy statistics.
The "spreading of a plauge of lies" is rather overstating the case. Although I am sure there are many who do, I'm equally sure that Steve McIntyre is not one of them. So please don't tar us all with the same brush of "denialist" or "kook" because a lot of us are just interested in science, rather than pushing a particular political agenda.
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: Jaye | November 9, 2007 3:20 PM
Wow, you folks are pretty amazing...childish comes to mind, ad hoc also, definitely rude. Are these the "shouting down" techniques that your profs taught you in school? You have learned those lessons well. No need to say "fuck" or call me an "evil wingnut" cause I won't be back. However, the Third Reich would have loved to have assimilated the lot of you. Again, wow. You do understand that personal attacks in response to something like "...well you see BCP's aren't a good proxy for temperature, the HS depends on them for its HS-ness, therefore the HS is probably not an accurate estimate of the average global temps for the last 1K years or so"...is a logical fallacy and tacit admission to being ignorant about the issue?
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 3:24 PM
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...
These guys just love showing what fucking morons they are. This blog is only "left with nothing" for those cretins who "can't find the science" because all they are interested in is climate change and hockey sticks, which isn't what this blog is about. The ones defending themselves here are the moron trolls who have infested this thread like a pack of vermin. Once again, if we are "left with nothing", then why are you here?
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: irony_bob | November 9, 2007 3:28 PM
Isn't life ironic?
No matter what side you come down on the raging debates presented in this blog site, you cannot disagree with the universality of the question when you search any level of your consciousness. No ask your self: How's your comfort level with life irony? From my perspective the answer does not come from your particular point of view, but rather the tone you elicit in your argument against the opposition. So choosing to respond with zealous judgment will never be a sign of strength, only a naked discomfort with irony and ambiguity.
Yet the fundamental tenants of both scientific and religious doctrine teach the entire spectrum of followers to embrace both. History has sided with the religious embracers thus far, comforting us with the faith that the answers are far beyond the limits of humankind's collective past, present, and, future consciousness; hence they are solely the domain of an infinite God, to which we will be elevated at the time of our personal or collective Armageddon.
So what is science's equivalent? Ah, how we live such interesting times. Even the most atheistic of scientist should take heart in a rapidly approaching event that by its definition will raise the collective consciousness of humankind's past, present, and future. Of course what I am referring to is the Singularity (http://www.singularity.org/). If you are a true believer in pure science, it would hardly be compatible with being a Singularity denialist.
Now what an irony it would be if the Singularity proved God's existence?
In the interest of full disclosure, my bet (i.e. Belief, Baptism, and Belonging) is that it will. If I am right I will have gained everything, if I am wrong I will only be guilty of loving my fellow man. A definite win-win in my eyes.
Insulting and taunting your opponent only strengthens their resolve. It takes far more courage and to be comfortable with the ambiguities of your argument, and intellect to demonstrate such, than to attack the character of its detractors.
Attitude is everything.
Peace.
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: truth machine | November 9, 2007 3:30 PM
First, please don't use the term denialists, we prefer that you call us 'blasphemers'.
Mann's math was wrong. Its a simple objective fact.
Great; go discuss it over at CA, moron.
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: Pablo | November 9, 2007 3:30 PM
JePe asked,
"If the Hockey stick graph is still relevant, why is there not even one reference to it in the latest IPCC report?"
Factual error aside, shouldn't one ask that, if the Hockey stick graph were so irrelevant, then why do deniers think that discrediting it is so important?
If the IPCC can write a report that concludes AGW without using the Hockey stick graph as claimed, then apparently the Hockey stick graph is not an important part of the case and it matters not one lick whether the Hockey stick graph is correct or not.
You can't have it both ways. You can't claim that discrediting the Hockey stick graph is a blow to AGW while at the same time claiming that scientists don't consider the Hockey stick graph to be relevant.
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: Stevie_C | November 9, 2007 3:34 PM
Ahhh fucking hell. Irony_bob... go fuck your singularity.
Go take your qunatum woo to Deepak Chopra's website.
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: David | November 9, 2007 3:36 PM
Here's a run down:
The right wingers that I know:
1. Care about the environment, but want to see free market solutions.
2. Notice that many green movements are really socialist or Liberal movements in disguise.
3. Really get skeptical when Orwellian terms start getting thrown around such as "Deniers," etc.
The left wingers that I know:
1. Care about the environment and see government control over our lives as the solution.
2. See green movements as just a means to an end that they agree with.
3. Throw around Orwellian terms and willingly adopt political correctness.
4. Vulgarly cuss at people who don't agree with them.
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: truth machine | November 9, 2007 3:37 PM
The "repressed memory" theory has already been debunked, the AGW 'theory' will follow.
You just reaped 25 points on the crackpot index.
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: truth machine | November 9, 2007 3:42 PM
I just realized that PZ is the Gregory House of all Science blogs. (In a good way, of course.)
Not a bad analogy. All these pathetic concern trolls with their early toilet training have stuck in their heads the fallacious ad hominem belief that there's some connection between polite and right or ornery and wrong.
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: Stevie_C | November 9, 2007 3:45 PM
David.
You're a fucking paranoid idiot.
At least you got #4 right.
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: Geral | November 9, 2007 3:46 PM
500th comment? Nice, I've never seen one this big.
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: Stevie_C | November 9, 2007 3:49 PM
I'm so happy for you Bob. Keep up the good woo.
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: James | November 9, 2007 3:51 PM
belief that there's some connection between polite and right or ornery and wrong
Not really 501. It's just that it's so much easier to argue politely than to do so while ranting and raving. It is also much more dignified and more in the spirit of the scientific method. Arguing with expletives almost always ends up generating more heat than light.
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: Francois O | November 9, 2007 3:53 PM
Ryan,
thanks for keeping the debate on a civilized level. Amazing the foul language here!
But we read criticisms of peer review everywhere, so there must be something wrong with it? Are you a scientist? Have you written papers? Have you reviewed any? I don't claim to be right because I've done both, but I can claim to have some experience with the system. Gee, even after ten years out of academia, they still send me papers to review, you just can't escape!
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?
I have sat on grant committees, and I can tell you how hard it was to get funds given to the young innovative applicants, when they have to compete with established scientists who know how to play the game. How many brilliant scientists do we lose because of that? Because you can write 20 insignificant papers a year, and it's worth more than one single innovative paper. You can have a lab full of graduate students doing the same boring stuff year after year, hitting the same nail on the head, and it's a self-perpetuating business.
And consider how hard it is to get out of your field and start another research thread. You need to refurbish your lab, you enter a field where you are an unknown, you need to have the grant agencies accept that. It is almost impossible, or if you still go ahead, you're in for a good 5 years or more of struggling.
There's no easy fix, but I know one thing. The anonymous peer review as we know it will not easily be replaced because it benefits a lot of people who are already in the system.
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: irony_bob | November 9, 2007 3:55 PM
Right back at ya Steve...
Posted by: melior | November 9, 2007 3:56 PM
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: Stevie_C | November 9, 2007 3:57 PM
There's a difference between an argument and asking someone to get the fuck out.
We're cursing because we DON'T CARE. We didn't ask for you CA trolls to come over and defend you're goofiness. We don't ask creationists to come here and explain how god created the earth 10,000 years ago. Or Scott Adams fans to come here to defend his "humor". Or Hovind fans to defend that nut job either.
Buncha boring conspiracy theorists. You make Ufologists look fun.
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: truth machine | November 9, 2007 4:02 PM
Whoever said that must be another right wing nut.
Close enough, moron.
http://pipeline.corante.com/archives/2007/11/06/andy_grove_rich_famous_smart_and_wrong.php
Posted by: Stevie_C | November 9, 2007 4:04 PM
Your. Damn it.
Posted by: Nick Sullivan | November 9, 2007 4:07 PM
Fuck, the trolls haven't been this bad since the libertarian thread...
To the care trolls, go defenestrate yourselves, to the Climate Audit trolls, likewise.
And to Francis O whining about the IPCC report being an argument from authority, it's only a logical fallacy if the authority is a false authority dipshit.
Once more, you're a festering moronic "science" concern fucktard troll.
I don't know Jepe, maybe they had say more fucking accurate models? Scientists tend to look for better data and models most of the time, it's part of the whole process which keeps grad students busy and under-paid.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 4:11 PM
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!
Funny how the trolls insist that they're just skeptics and then proceed to blatantly lie before our very eyes.
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: irony_bob | November 9, 2007 4:15 PM
Hey Rey,
You are right, I don't have the foggiest idea about what irony is. But that does not bother me one iota, hence I have nothing to fear.
As far as gushing treacle on the debate; I loathe to think that would be the ultimate outcome of my participation here. However, I'd much rather prefer to a put pint of ale in everyones hand to take the edge off.
Cheers!
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: truth machine | November 9, 2007 4:18 PM
Of course Andy Grove is a right wing nut. The fact that he's one of the main reasons you can write this on your computer doesn't count. You know better than him and that's enough. Why listen to these guys?
Explain to me who anyone who isn't completely retarded would use such a ridiculous argument from authority?
Posted by: Nick Sullivan | November 9, 2007 4:22 PM
And you call yourself a scientist... The point of peer review ultimately is to publish solid, correct data and analysis, innovation is a side effect and something that doesn't come all to often when there's a crap load of monotonous work to get through to give us the ground work. And finding interesting stuff? Perhaps this new-fangled device called a "search engine" might help you there, or possibly skipping down to your local university library for a skim through the major journals?Posted by: truth machine | November 9, 2007 4:23 PM
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?
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.
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: JR | November 9, 2007 4:28 PM
Although I jumped to conclusions in my earlier post, I couldn't help myself. I had to have a second look.
And hey, it turns out there has been interesting discussions here---especially the discussion between Francois O and CalGeorge among others.
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: truth machine | November 9, 2007 4:35 PM
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.
That's a lie, and a rather stupid one.
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: Francois O | November 9, 2007 4:36 PM
Well boys and girls, I give up. I've tried to stay civil and polite and reasonable. Time to move on.
PZ maybe you should stop this thread.
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: Josh | November 9, 2007 4:39 PM
I think you succeeded in being polite, actually
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: truth machine | November 9, 2007 4:40 PM
Time to move on.
Gee, only 377 posts after PZ explicitly told you "I don't want you here. You're a mob of quacks, and your promises that you won't come back are just sweet nothings whispered in my ear."
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: Stevie_C | November 9, 2007 4:43 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.
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: JR | November 9, 2007 4:44 PM
I have a single observation:
truth machine wakes up and starts posting and Francois O gives up.
Sad.
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: truth machine | November 9, 2007 4:49 PM
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.
Isn't it funny how so many of these trolls shares the same sort of stupidity? As I wrote back in #195, "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 ...?"
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: truth machine | November 9, 2007 4:52 PM
I have a single observation:
truth machine wakes up and starts posting and Francois O gives up.
Sad.
Yes, it is sad that you are such a moron. Once again, back in #157 PZ said that quacks like F.O. aren't wanted here.
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 4:53 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?
Yes, there are many such people, moron.
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: Peter | November 9, 2007 4:58 PM
Re. #547 "I suspect PZ will eventually have to shut comments down to get it to stop (and by so doing lose the argument)"
What argument?
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: curious_bob | November 9, 2007 4:59 PM
Mr. Machine,
"Yes, there are many such people, moron"
Please name five. Surely you have the courage to elaborate.
Posted by: Rey Fox | November 9, 2007 5:01 PM
"and by so doing lose the argument"
This is an argument?
Posted by: CalGeorge | November 9, 2007 5:03 PM
Steve today at Climate Audit:
In 2003, Thompson took a new ice core at Bona Churchill. We haven't heard anything about it. On previous occasions, e.g. here , I've predicted that 20th century values at this site would be lower than 19th century values - using the mining promotion philosophy that if Thompson had had "good" results, we'd have heard about them.
Basically insinuates (becasue that's what he excels at) that this scientist Thompson is hiding data.
Steve is a nasty piece of work.
Let's consider Dr. Thompson's career (as provided by Wikipedia). Does someone achieve this level of success by being a liar and a data destroyer? Have any of his research assistants come forward to say that Thompson is a lying, data-destroying fraud? No. Just Steve.
2001: Thompson was featured among eighteen scientists and researchers as "America's Best" by CNN and Time Magazine.
2002: Thompson was awarded the Dr A.H. Heineken Prize for Environmental Sciences by the Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences.
2002: Thompson was awarded the Vega Medal by the Swedish Society for Anthropology and Geography.
2005: Thompson was elected to the National Academy of Science.
November, 2005: Thompson was featured in a "Rolling Stone" article, "The Ice Hunter"
2005: Thompson was awarded the prestigious Tyler Prize for Environmental Achievement, an honor often regarded as the environmental science equivalent to the Nobel Prize.
February, 2007: Mosley-Thompson and Thompson were jointly awarded the Roy Chapman Andrews Society Distinguished Explorer Award at Beloit College, Beloit, WI.
May, 2007: Thompson is named to receive the National Medal of Science. This honor is the highest the United States can bestow upon an American scientist. It will be presented to Thompson by President Bush sometime in July
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: Jake Boyman | November 9, 2007 5:04 PM
What argument?
"LIBRULS SUCK", would be my guess.
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: les | November 9, 2007 5:05 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...and what the hell is a blue bubbler martini, or whatever BA favors? Yeah, I know, I should do my own homework.
Posted by: Brownian, OM | November 9, 2007 5:06 PM
No, that's an observation and an emotional response.
Posted by: Brownian, OM | November 9, 2007 5:08 PM
What, no parting shot about we really don't understand science?
Well, thanks at least for admitting you came here with your mind already made up.
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: Lar R | November 9, 2007 5:10 PM
After the initial shock at the original post, much to my surprise, this thread actually turned out to be great entertainment. This is the professional wrestling match of the "science" blogosphere. 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. It's almost cute in a pathetic kind of way. Great job all!
Now if we could only set up a match between the wingnuts on FR and the moonbats on DU. Then again, that might be too much hilarity for any one person to take.
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 5:14 PM
Please name five. Surely you have the courage to elaborate.
Sorry, but not playing your stupid game doesn't make me a coward.
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: tomh | November 9, 2007 5:17 PM
Francois O wrote: PZ maybe you should stop this thread.
Someone is forcing you to view this thread? Your only hope is if it gets stopped? You're an even bigger idiot than you first appeared to be.
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: JR | November 9, 2007 5:19 PM
#559
True.
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: Zog | November 9, 2007 5:26 PM
Re: 554
" Does someone achieve this level of success by being a liar and a data destroyer?"
Well actually, yes, and you just proved it with your extensive list of honors that the enviro-charlatan has won.
Also, refer to the fame accorded to Hansen and Mann.
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: SaulOhio | November 9, 2007 5:29 PM
"Denialists of all stripes use the same tactics. Doesn't take a science degree of any kind to spot them."
"Either there's a denialist invasion in full swing, or some people