…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: Jake Boyman | November 9, 2007 5:04 PM
What argument?
"LIBRULS SUCK", would be my guess.
Posted by: Peter | November 9, 2007 5:04 PM
Dammit. I finally have something to contribute and three other people make the same point.
Posted by: Theo Richel | November 9, 2007 5:04 PM
Stevie_C: It must be a burden to be clairvoyant but I do not think that the war in Iraq is a success, its a disaster. And a right winger I am not, they expect far more from government than I do. As do leftists
Apparently an "elitist": You've corrected me rightly. Spelling error! Well as I am from the Netherlands ( see www.richel.org/resume ) maybe you will excuse me.
And in general, as to why we are all here, I guess it has to do with your LEADER (I mean, that is the way you look at these things don't you, he leads and you follow and he is always right). He started this thread with some remarks that most of us couldnt resist.
And I think it is really a pity, because both he and Steve McIntyre adhere to the scientific method, and I think he (as your LEADER!) is probably the only one who will realise that one of these days. And what that means for the future of this 'science-blog' only God - who I do not believe in - knows.
Some here have whined about us asking for an 'open mind' on your site. I will not, an open mind is often an open sink in which you can throw anything. I go for the ultimate skepticism, for the realisation that once a science (stem cells, climate) is in the news, on the government agenda, there is all the more reason to check it a bit extra. But all that is wasted on people (sheeple? ) like you with your follow the leaders mentality.
Btw. it now appears that the original tpoll - which got us all 'together' - was as leaky as a basket, so there may never be a real winner that everybody agrees on.
Goodbye to you all, it was fun and answered all expectations!
Posted by: 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 are posting under multiple different names."
"More rats. Rats with their moldy flecks of rotting garbage. You guys don't get it, do you?"
"You wouldn't know science if it bit you."
"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."
"You're a liar."
"And an asshole. Go take your "good manners" back under the rock you crawled put from."
"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."
So much of this sounds like "Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain!"
Posted by: Heterocronie | November 9, 2007 5:29 PM
I wish there was a Pharyngula B that just contained science postings so I wouldn't get sucked into pissing away hours of my life reading, and occasionally contributing, to this kind of junk. All I really want is to check out PZ's normally-excellent summaries of recent bio papers - which sadly are becoming rare.
Posted by: CalGeorge | November 9, 2007 5:30 PM
This is my favorite Steve M. post so far:
Dendroclimatologists Answer Back
By Steve McIntyre
This thread is dedicated to dendroclimatologists who are seeking for a way to answer alleged "misinformation" at climateaudit without having to defend themselves against dozens of follow-up posts. Any posts on this thread from non-dendroclimatologists seeking to argue or contest these comments will be deleted, although posters, including myself, will be free to discuss these pearls on other threads. Given the allegations against us, I'm sure that this will be the most active thread in our history.
Or maybe you just want to give information on site selection or resolving mixed temperature and precipitation signals in the tree ring data. Over to you, dendroclimatologists.
One brave soul responded to the challenge:
My response to this post is that I think you will get few, if any, responses from dendroclimatologists - for what I'll call 'sociological' reasons rather than scientific reasons. Underscoring my hypothesis are the responses to Peter Brown's post. If any of you knew Peter, you'd know that he is an honest, sincere and hard-working scientist, like Rob Wilson. Yet, the majority of responses to Peter and Rob are so accusatory [or worse] that it is completely a waste of their time to bother corresponding on this site. Only a small portion of what is happening here is of academic or scientific value.
I've read this blog for ~6 months now and have been offended by the discourse and personal attacks against many of the scientists discussed. What is most offensive is that few, if any, of the readers here know: 1) how hard-working most of the scientists slammed are, 2) the difficulties of academia [for example, NSF funding rates in paleoclimatology have dropped from somewhere near 20% in the 1980s to nearly 5% in recent years, despite an increase in the number of scientists in the field. On top of this, there are more stringent requirements about reporting preliminary results related, etc. these days; and this does not include the need for and competitive nature required to publish a new finding or idea. Free time is evaporating in the life of academics; most of the people you talk about work 6+ days/week and sleep much less than they should.], and 3) many of the scientists who are accused of being on 'the team' do not get along as well as is assumed here: many have extremely competitive personalities. To think that this science and its results is a collusion is a delusion. The discussion of people on this blog is uncivil and uninformed.
Why would anyone come here to defend their methods when the same battles are occurring within the science? There are many other time-consuming tasks to deal with on a day-to-day basis within the science that super cede posting here. Several, of the top scientists in dendro do not even subscribe [or rarely post] to the dendro listserv because they do not have the time.
The science is self-corrective as all science is. There has been some significant improvement in methods over the last 20 yrs. Is it complete? Nope. But which science is?
And, finally Steve M, though you are more civil than most here, you cherry-pick pretty well in making your arguments. One case in point - the quotes you copied from the discussion on the dendro listserv. A second case in point is the broad 'Project for the Dendro Truth Squad' stone you hurled up on this page. Those in the know, who really know the science, know not to use that chronology and know who still use that chronology. The work that uses that chronology for a temperature reconstruction is less-respected than others. Please, do not cast the whole field as deceitful or ignorant of this. You state that it is not your intention to slander the whole science, but why post the picture of that tree and make [b]road statements, make a separate post about it and string a long list of papers that use that chronology if you are not trying to undermine the science? Why not post the longer string of papers that DO NOT use that one site? The final point, you and others are beating some extremely dead horses. The people and papers you 'audit' is very selective. You ignore more recent work that surpasses others.
I know this post is futile, but I had to write it. Tear away.
Awesome.
Posted by: truth machine | November 9, 2007 5:31 PM
This thread is full of vulgar juveniles.
Yes! Yes! We are vulgar juveniles! This is an awful place and you really don't want to be here!
Now excuse me for a while, I've gotta go drive my extra large gas guzzling SUV over some polar bears.
We're all so sad to see you go -- just ask JR.
Posted by: curious_bob | November 9, 2007 5:32 PM
Mr. Machine.
"Sorry, but not playing your stupid game doesn't make me a coward."
...just thought I'd give you the opportunity to demonstrate that, indeed, you possess at least a measure of humility. Although your response curiously begs the question of what actually would make you a coward?
Posted by: GallileoWasADenier | November 9, 2007 5:37 PM
Peter,
"Dammit. I finally have something to contribute and three other people make the same point."
Of course. It's a very predictable point.
What argument? Why, that filling a post and a subsequent comment thread with ever more vitriolic insult is a good way to persuade people that you really are a scientific blog committed to fighting fallacy and pseudoscience, and that you're opinion on AGW is correct.
If you don't want to discuss climate science, do not even mention climate science blogs or AGW sceptics or any associated topic. Especially do not devote entire posts to insulting particular climate science blogs and their readers. If you don't want an argument with someone, don't insult them. If you don't want an argument, don't keep on arguing with everything they say. It clearly doesn't work. Pass over the topic in silence. Refuse to debate or answer any further. Resist the temptation to get the last word.
I'm confident you won't be able to.
Posted by: Peter | November 9, 2007 5:38 PM
#576 "Although your response curiously begs the question of what actually would make you a coward?"
On an entirely unrelated matter, the increasingly common misuse of the exprssion "begs the question" drives me batty. Thanks for listening.
Posted by: Tog | November 9, 2007 5:39 PM
"Lee. There was no interest in debate. We were acting like assholes because we wanted them to go away.
But feel free to take your concern elsewhere."
You were acting like assholes because you are. Believe me, that's no act! As for "interest in debate", it is to laugh! None of you are capable of debate. You maligned a whole group of people, and then became disconcerted when they came here to set you straight. Many tried to help you understand, but did anyone listen? Umm....no?
I'll be back!
Posted by: truth machine | November 9, 2007 5:40 PM
I wish there was a Pharyngula B that just contained science postings so I wouldn't get sucked into pissing away hours of my life reading, and occasionally contributing, to this kind of junk. All I really want is to check out PZ's normally-excellent summaries of recent bio papers - which sadly are becoming rare.
Sigh. Why are so many people so helpless? Go to http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/archives.php and check out "By Category". Hint: don't click "Kooks".
Posted by: truth machine | November 9, 2007 5:42 PM
You were acting like assholes because you are.
That's right! We are! We're assholes! You've won the argument! Congratulations!
So, why are you still here?
Posted by: CalGeorge | November 9, 2007 5:43 PM
Crap.
We are announcing a tie between Bad Astronomy Blog and Climate Audit, so there will be two winners in this category. Both blogs agree with this decision. We thank them both for helping resolve the issues that affected this poll as voting closed Thursday.
Next year, I go back to cheating and I'm casting all my votes for Pharyngula.
Posted by: truth machine | November 9, 2007 5:44 PM
..just thought I'd give you the opportunity to demonstrate that, indeed, you possess at least a measure of humility.
I don't need you to give me opportunities, asshole.
Although your response curiously begs the question of what actually would make you a coward?
Uh, no, it doesn't, either by the correct use of that expression or by your misuse of it.
Posted by: Stevie_C | November 9, 2007 5:45 PM
I love when creationists call me a bigot. Warms my heart.
Creationists are such clueless godbots.
I'm a vulgar juvenile! Spank me. Pretty please... with a crucifix... while wearing a naughty nun's costume in latex... please.
Posted by: Rey Fox | November 9, 2007 5:46 PM
Hey, Saul, you forgot "Can you really and truly be that stupid?"
Posted by: truth machine | November 9, 2007 5:48 PM
What argument? Why, that filling a post and a subsequent comment thread with ever more vitriolic insult is a good way to persuade people that you really are a scientific blog committed to fighting fallacy and pseudoscience, and that you're opinion on AGW is correct.
That's not a claim that anyone has made, moron.
I'm confident you won't be able to.
No one gives a fuck what some cretin is confident about.
Posted by: curious_bob | November 9, 2007 5:50 PM
Touché Peter.
"On an entirely unrelated matter, the increasingly common misuse of the exprssion "begs the question" drives me batty. Thanks for listening."
Indeed, I felt quite low in the misuse of an actual logical fallacy (oh the irony) as soon as clicked the "Post" button. But hey, look around...When in Rome...
Personal apologies to you Sir.
Posted by: wildlifer | November 9, 2007 5:51 PM
They're godless?They're godless?
The godless?
The godless?
The godless? The mind boggles, you're right, it's a godless conspiracy.
Well, in the current Bush-infused anti-science state of affairs, it's become incumbent upon scientists to be activists, rather than have their work white-washed over by the corporatists, Bush et al.
Would you just rather let the politicians redact everything they found, let's say, unpleasant?
Posted by: Hank Roberts | November 9, 2007 5:51 PM
> dendro thread
Thanks for the excerpt and pointer, CalGeorge.
Posted by: Stevie_C | November 9, 2007 5:52 PM
Is saying "fuck off" over and over, feeding the trolls?
I didn't think it was. And didn't PZ even ask them to bugger off?
Yet they keep coming. I don't get it.
Do they think we just tell everyone to fuck off who's not a regular?
This is a special circumstance. It's just for you thick denialists specifically.
Usually we have fun for a while with our trolls. And we have a 3 post rule.
But with these guys... there was never a reason to hold back.
Posted by: JR | November 9, 2007 5:53 PM
CalGeorge:
Like I said earlier, I liked the discussion you had with Francois O.
I think your dendroclimatologists on CA has many good points. I too think he is a brave soul to take on the whole lot at CA. That is a one-against-may situation. However, I would say that the same can easily be found in this thread or over on RealClimate.
As for the dendroclimatology---there is one passage that stands out
"Those in the know, who really know the science, know not to use that chronology and know who still use that chronology. The work that uses that chronology for a temperature reconstruction is less-respected than others. Please, do not cast the whole field as deceitful or ignorant of this. "
Isn't this the core of the problem in dendroclimatology: what chronologies can we trust?
Posted by: David Marjanović, OM | November 9, 2007 5:56 PM
Then why did the two peer-reviews of my thesis advisor's & my soon-to-be-resubmitted article praise it for its innovative approach?
I have seen glaring failures of peer-review published, several times. But it's like how democracy is the best of all bad forms of government: there is no better way in sight for preventing mistakes from getting published. Papers that are not peer-reviewed tend to have major flaws over and over; I can think of a recent example of an invited paper that certainly wouldn't have passed peer-review in the form in which it was published.
(And there were mistakes in the math and an unclear figure caption in our paper, and the reviewers did point that out.)
Posted by: Lar R | November 9, 2007 5:56 PM
Truth Machine: "You obviously aren't a regular here. Which is what this is all about."
Come on, don't get all rational on me here. Where is my little red-faced bully yelling "Fuck you Go away!"?
Posted by: Ktesibios | November 9, 2007 5:57 PM
I got as far as #128 before I saw where the data from this thread was leading. I'd just like to share an observation:
Notice how many variants on "you're a sore loser" the whinger horde has indulged in? In particular, the guy up near the top who took the time to assemble a list of words ("beaten, baffled, bested, circumvented, conquered, cowed, crushed...") that read like the Merenptah Stela?
That shows something very clearly: for our unwelcome visitors, the issue isn't anything remotely resembling science, good or bad, or about any of the technical aspects of climatology. For them, it's all about winning, and the psychological need to beat up on those they see as their enemies. Their "leaders" having told them that they've "won", they pile over here in a mob to take out their anger on what they think is a defenseless target.
This is something which anyone familiar with recent work on authoritarian personalities will recognize as classic authoritarian-follower behavior., i.e., authoritarian aggression (against PZ and the regular commenters) andauthoritarian submission (demonstrated towards the CA blogger). The high conventionality isn't so obvious, but it's most likely in there somewhere.
It's impossible to reason with people suffering from this personality defect. "Piss the fucking Hell off" is therefore a highly appropriate response.
In the meantime, I think I'll spend a little time having yet another "can we please do the decent thing and go extinct now before our species humiliates itself any further" moment, something which having my face rubbed in the vileness of RWA behavior invariably triggers.
Posted by: truth machine | November 9, 2007 5:58 PM
a good way to persuade people that you really are a scientific blog committed to fighting fallacy and pseudoscience
What these moron trolls with their stupid contests aren't able to grasp is that PZ Myers never set out to persuade anyone about what his blog is or isn't, he simply posts what he posts and, as a result, has a very successful science/atheist/liberal/cephalopod/etc. blog with a large following. Some people appreciate what he writes and some don't; c'est la vie. What's really kind of funny is all these trolls who are addressing PZ here, who most likely is no longer reading this thread, having moved on to other things as he does constantly.
Posted by: truth machine | November 9, 2007 6:02 PM
For them, it's all about winning, and the psychological need to beat up on those they see as their enemies.
Yes, I noted the same thing at #561
It's impossible to reason with people suffering from this personality defect. "Piss the fucking Hell off" is therefore a highly appropriate response.
Right on.
Posted by: truth machine | November 9, 2007 6:04 PM
Come on, don't get all rational on me here. Where is my little red-faced bully yelling "Fuck you Go away!"?
See #595 for why that too is rational.
Posted by: curious_bob | November 9, 2007 6:06 PM
Mr. Machine,
Do you honestly believe you will ever vanquish the Hydra of Dissent on the Internet, or more specifically in your little corner of it?
Feeling a tad quixotic yet?
Posted by: CJO | November 9, 2007 6:07 PM
I believe tm already said this, but it bears repeating; morons often benefit from hearing simple concepts explained multiple times.
An ad hominem is a fallacious argument taking the form of "X is an asshole, therefore what X says is wrong."
Calling X an asshole when X (and Y and Z and several Cyrillic characters as well, since we long ago ran out of asshole tokens) is behaving like an asshole is just calling X an asshole. Like it or not, agree or disagree.
But don't use Latin to feebly try to obscure the fact that logic is not, well, your strong suit, let's say.
Posted by: truth machine | November 9, 2007 6:13 PM
Is saying "fuck off" over and over, feeding the trolls?
It feeds a few like GallileoWasADenier (bonus crackpot points for incorporating a crackpot list item in his handle) who think they're oh so clever to claim that it feeds them. Most of the trolls are drive-bys who haven't read the other comments and are unaware of their fellow dittoheads. And there are a few of the crackpots like F.O. who somehow think this is a place to have a serious discussion about climate change, who get all offended when not everyone takes them seriously.
But the bottom line is that, as Ktesibios notes, telling them to fuck off is the appropriate response -- regardless of whether they do or not.
Posted by: truth machine | November 9, 2007 6:15 PM
Feeling a tad quixotic yet?
Feeling a tad like a concern troll, asshole?
Posted by: wildlifer | November 9, 2007 6:16 PM
GallileoWasADenier
You fuckwits just don't get it. The majority of us aren't interested in discussing your "science" with you. This thread isn't about science, it's about an arrogant dickwad who waltzed in here and spouted off.
As it has been repeatedly stated, if we gave a shit about your opinions, we would come to CA. Now FUCK OFF.
And unless it's not been addressed. Gallileo wasn't a denier, he, as are the climate scientists, was trying to break the back of the established, dominant view. IOWs, Mann et al = Gallileo.
Posted by: truth machine | November 9, 2007 6:21 PM
Indeed, I felt quite low in the misuse of an actual logical fallacy (oh the irony) as soon as clicked the "Post" button. But hey, look around...When in Rome...
Ah, but apparently you live in Rome, and are just visiting here.
Posted by: David Marjanović, OM | November 9, 2007 6:25 PM
Ooh. You used the word "liberal". How scary.
Ah, no. If correct, that would be the tu quoque fallacy. But it isn't. Pointing out oil ties (no idea if McIntyre has any) serves as an a posteriori explanation of why they seem to have overlooked so many important papers and why there are such large holes in their logic. It also increases the general level of skepticism... I thought that was a good thing?
Now, please go over to realclimate.org and disprove one of their articles.
----------
They are left-wing by US standards because the center in the USA is so far to the right. Remember: the conservative candidate in the presidential election of 2004, by all standards I know except the US one, was Kerry.
Posted by: JohnS | November 9, 2007 6:29 PM
Hey great the ruck continued. Truffer is right, this is a phuck fight on this franger...fraght.. or whatever this phucken blog site is called. Did I mention you lost..hahaha. Cal George, truffer, dustin, stevie c great stuff go on phuck off, phuck off, phuck off. Science discussed on this site- hahaha- and did I say you lost- hahaha, phuck off, phuck off, phuck off
JohnS
Posted by: Brian Macker | November 9, 2007 6:33 PM
No comments by Stan other then these:
Notice the economy of words and the effect it's had. I'm in awe. That plus he's probably some twelve year old kid who was just trying to figure out global warming for himself.
Posted by: truth machine | November 9, 2007 6:33 PM
Science discussed on this site
Indeed, science has been discussed in a half dozen threads posted since this troll-bait was put up.
Posted by: darwinfinch | November 9, 2007 6:36 PM
Not that I have the time to wade through the sterile muck of them all (I followed this thread, scrolling more and more rapidly, until about #150 and then jumped to here), but no one who cites a certain truthy sciency site that PZ referred to will ever command even a rebuttal for what they think in the future. Such things do make life easier.
Oh, and if the troll "truth machine" turns up on other threads and is not sent to Dungeon immediately, I won't bother following whatever threads he derails. What a maroon tool that chump is!
Posted by: curious_bob | November 9, 2007 6:37 PM
"Feeling a tad like a concern troll, asshole?"
LOL...not in the least.
Here's a prediction with an incredible grasp of the obvious: It's just gonna keep comin' and there ain't anything you can do about it. Unless, of course, you create a password protected message board to tickle each other on all day. I am not sure what makes you believe your attitude is productive in a forum that is ultimately public. You are simply past the point no return. It will give me guilty pleasure the day some script kiddy decides to mess with this blog you just for the sheer fun maniacal of it.
Best wishes and warmest regards! Peace out.
Posted by: Ike | November 9, 2007 6:38 PM
I come to this site because it is rational and calming. I started this thread and I hearby end the torture.
Posted by: curious_bob | November 9, 2007 6:43 PM
Oops...bad form...especially for a farewell post...hence I offer the following correction
It will give me guilty pleasure the day some script kiddie decides to mess with this blog just for the sheer maniacal fun of it.
Have fun with your unproductive GOAT Flames.
Very Truly Yours,
Bob
Posted by: Rey Fox | November 9, 2007 6:47 PM
JohnS: Please stop huffing butane before you post.
Posted by: GallileoWasADenier | November 9, 2007 6:51 PM
"You fuckwits just don't get it. The majority of us aren't interested in discussing your "science" with you."
Except that you have been discussing it, by saying it's rubbish.
"This thread isn't about science, it's about an arrogant dickwad who waltzed in here and spouted off."
In response to another one who spouted off about a blog that he later admitted not to understand.
"As it has been repeatedly stated, if we gave a shit about your opinions, we would come to CA. Now FUCK OFF."
Ah! How sweet! Still doesn't work. Try a different approach.
"And unless it's not been addressed. Gallileo wasn't a denier, he, as are the climate scientists, was trying to break the back of the established, dominant view. IOWs, Mann et al = Gallileo.""
The established, dominant view changes all the time. At one time Mann was indeed challenging the scientific consensus at the time - for which I commend him. Now that he has succeeded, somebody else is. The entire point of science's history of never-ending revolutions is that consensus is never an infallible guide to truth. I will grant you, that according to Von Storch's survey of professional climate scientists, it was something like 55% in favour of AGW to 30% against a few years ago, and that does indeed mean there is a majority and a consensus in favour at present, but it is far too soon to declare the matter settled. Science doesn't work like that.
Posted by: truth machine | November 9, 2007 6:56 PM
"Feeling a tad like a concern troll, asshole?"
LOL...not in the least.
Odd that you don't feel like what you are, and then follow up with two paragraphs of concern trolling. Snore.
Posted by: JohnS | November 9, 2007 6:56 PM
Hey Rey Fox, I know you're a tad upset that I didn't include you as one of troll lancers, but you know what you can do so phuck off, phuck off phuck off. Hey truffer no science on ongoing threads, just less of a presence of phuckwits like you, but phuck off, phuck off phuck off. Did I say you lost- hahaha, phuck off, phuck off, phuck off
JohnS
Posted by: truth machine | November 9, 2007 6:59 PM
Still doesn't work.
"Fuck off" is an indication of contempt; it works to convey it, and it works as social cohesion.
Posted by: truth machine | November 9, 2007 7:01 PM
no science on ongoing threads
Factually incorrect.
Posted by: CalGeorge | November 9, 2007 7:01 PM
Isn't this the core of the problem in dendroclimatology: what chronologies can we trust?
Gaaaa! He said the later ones were more trustworthy!
You can't claim that it's all untrustworthy just because there are problems with one chornology.
You either respect the scientific process or you don't.
If you think it's a politicized, bogus enterprise, you are going to get called a nut.
If you think that some climate scientists have a hidden political agenda, you need to explain why you think that is so, provide evidence for it, and provide solid evidence of how they have distorted their findings to achieve their political ends.
I just read a paper by Lonnie Thompson. The conclusion was full of words like "may" and "suggest" and "likely":
Implications
The recent, rapid, and accelerating retreat of glaciers on a near-global scale suggests that the current increase in the Earth's globally averaged temperature (Fig. 6D; refs. 49 and 50) may now have prematurely interrupted the natural progression of cooling in the late Holocene. These observations suggest that within a century human activities may have nudged global-scale climate conditions closer to those that prevailed before 5,000 yr ago, during the early Holocene. If this is the case, then Earth's currently retreating glaciers may signal that the climate system has exceeded a critical threshold and that most low-latitude, high-altitude glaciers are likely to disappear in the near future.
These aren't climate dogmatists. They are scientists, trying to figure stuff out.
Posted by: truth machine | November 9, 2007 7:06 PM
The entire point of science's history of never-ending revolutions is that consensus is never an infallible guide to truth.
Silly strawmen like these is a source of much of the contempt.
it is far too soon to declare the matter settled. Science doesn't work like that.
You have no idea of how science works. As Myers said above, "There are people who put together a coherent picture of a scientific issue, who review lots of evidence and assemble a rational synthesis. They're called scientists."
Posted by: curious_bob | November 9, 2007 7:10 PM
Aw Shucks Mr Machine,
I can only leave you with the sentiment I clipped from the wit of another poster of my alleged ilk:
I am so sorry that you doomed to carry the burden of Clairvoyance.
Indeed, I'll pray for your soul brother.
Posted by: David Marjanović, OM | November 9, 2007 7:11 PM
In comment 285, I don't see how the two quotes contradict each other. So Mann et al. were the first to establish the connection... that doesn't mean they have been the only ones ever since, and in fact they weren't, as the first quote says.
Huh?
Sulfuric acid clouds reflect light, which has the effect of not letting heat in. Very little energy from the sun reaches Venus; Venus stays hot because, due to the carbon dioxide that absorbs the IR radiation from the ground, just as little energy leaves Venus as reaches it.
Wow. Has apparently never heard of realclimate.org. :-o
ROTFL!!! :-D :-D :-D
And extra points for misspelling the good man. In Italian, double-spelled consonants are pronounced as at least twice as long as simple ones; Galileo (who, incidentally, had a surname, too: Galilei) wouldn't recognize himself.
Posted by: maquina verdad | November 9, 2007 7:14 PM
¿Quien es mas macho?
¿truth machine o Maquina Verdad?
Get your mexican wrestling mask ready!
Posted by: truth machine | November 9, 2007 7:19 PM
"This thread isn't about science, it's about an arrogant dickwad who waltzed in here and spouted off."
In response to another one who spouted off about a blog that he later admitted not to understand.
Even if, for the sake of argument, that were true, how does it justify some moron coming here and saying he can't find any science? He simply proclaimed himself to be stupid to those who spend time here and have seen great amounts of science, science you can readily click on from this page. Regardless of whether PZ was wrongly dismissive of CA, those who have come here from CA have, over and over again, provided justification for the dismissal, whether it's Palmer who can't see any science or David who blathers about the Sierra Club being a left wing organization or you with your "Gallileo was right when he disagreed with the church so I must be right when I disagree with the scientific community" crackpot idiocy. It is you who are trying to win an argument about CA not being "junk science", but you have failed to convince anyone reading here.
Posted by: truth machine | November 9, 2007 7:22 PM
And extra points for misspelling the good man.
I figured it would be petty to mention it. :-)
Posted by: truth machine | November 9, 2007 7:26 PM
I'll pray for your soul brother.
You really are an idiot.
Posted by: curious_bob | November 9, 2007 7:29 PM
"You really are an idiot."
:-)
Posted by: Sam Urbinto | November 9, 2007 7:30 PM
If you're over here from CA, or any of the other environment hating, right wing, non-scientific and creationist moron sites where they speak of nothing of substance, I would suggest not wasting your worthless time posting here any more. It's quite clear nothing you'll say is going to be discussed at any sort of adult level in a rational manner, so just go back to your fucktard ass hat fearless leader.
Posted by: Jay Hovah | November 9, 2007 7:36 PM
JohnS - By all means keep up the trolling, Dr Myers will eventually either disenvowel your posts and or ban you.
Have a nice day.
Posted by: Jay Hovah | November 9, 2007 7:37 PM
Wow, now even I am not goodly with da Engrish glammer...but I'm sure you get the message.
Posted by: David Marjanović, OM | November 9, 2007 7:39 PM
Science! At last!
Let me just mention that, according to what I've read, there is no "natural progression of cooling in the late Holocene". The beginning of the next ice age is scheduled for 50,000 years from now, and the next glacial maximum for 100,000 years from now. (...We may be preventing the whole ice age, but that's another story.)
A. Berger & M. F. Loutre: An exceptionally long interglacial ahead?, Science 297, 1287 -- 1288 (23 August 2002)
(Talks about Milanković cycles. Right now, "the amplitude of insolation variation is too small to drive the climate system", so greenhouse gas concentrations become much more important than they would be, say, during the beginning or end of an ice age.)
You of all people! :-D Just goes to show I have a few Asperger "symptoms", too. :-)
Posted by: GallileoWasADenier | November 9, 2007 7:40 PM
"Silly strawmen like these is a source of much of the contempt."
The natural philosophic consensus in Gallileo's time was that the Sun revolved about the Earth. Gallileo denied it. That does not, of course, mean that all who denied a consensus of their peers is a Gallileo, but it does demonstrate the lesson that had to be drummed in over and over, that a consensus of experts is not infallible. If you're prepared to accept that the current AGW consensus might be wrong, and that they might be overstating their confidence grossly, then we would be in full agreement. Since we're not, I can only conclude it isn't a strawman.
"You have no idea of how science works."
A brave assertion without evidence.
"As Myers said above, "There are people who put together a coherent picture of a scientific issue, who review lots of evidence and assemble a rational synthesis. They're called scientists.""
Agreed, that's part of what they do, although it does reminds me of the decadent collapse in Asimov's Foundation series.
We're not saying they haven't put together a rational synthesis, we're saying we think they've done it wrong. And that's normal and perfectly OK as part of the scientific process, up until the point where they refuse to either acknowledge or correct their errors, and try to label those who disagree with them as kooks and deniers. Scientists assemble their synthesis, and then other scientists try to knock it down, and if all attempts to do so fail, the hypothesis gains in credibility. After surviving the onslaught for fifty or a hundred years without substantial change, it approaches being an established theory. Natural selection in action. Even if you don't accept the validity of a particular attempts to knock it down, you can't argue against honest attempts without denying the scientific method.
Posted by: Owlmirror | November 9, 2007 7:53 PM
That's for damn sure.In this case, Galileo had the data. He performed experiments. He used old tools (ramps, balls, pendulums) in a new way. He used new tools (telescopes) to bolster his findings. He did the math. He published his work.
He didn't deny on a friggen whim.
Bullshit. Galieleo was the expert, because he did the damn work.
Those he was refuting were not experts. They were ideological morons who did no work, performed no experiments, used no tools, published no data, and had no evidence.
Just like the ideological morons who "deny" the scientific consensus on global climate change.
Posted by: truth machine | November 9, 2007 7:54 PM
The natural philosophic consensus in Gallileo's time was that the Sun revolved about the Earth. Gallileo denied it.
If you're prepared to accept that the current AGW consensus might be wrong, and that they might be overstating their confidence grossly, then we would be in full agreement. Since we're not
Who says I'm not prepared to accept that? I actually understand scientific epistemology. But we are in disagreement about much else.
I can only conclude it isn't a strawman.
It's a contemptible strawman regardless of what I accept or don't accept, moron.
A brave assertion without evidence.
You also don't understand what evidence is.
you can't argue against honest attempts
No, I argue with dishonesty, which we've seen plenty of here.
Posted by: truth machine | November 9, 2007 7:57 PM
Oops, I edited out part of my response:
The natural philosophic consensus in Gallileo's time was that the Sun revolved about the Earth. Gallileo denied it.
You don't know the history of science; there's a reason that it's called the Copernican Revolution, not the Galilean Revolution.
Posted by: David Marjanović, OM | November 9, 2007 7:58 PM
If it ever was large enough to be a theory.
Indeed not. We're just saying those who have tried so far have exhibited a lack of knowledge of important data -- and acted as if everyone were just as ignorant as them.
Posted by: truth machine | November 9, 2007 8:05 PM
To be a little more specific:
The natural philosophic consensus in Gallileo's time was that the Sun revolved about the Earth. Gallileo denied it.
No, Galileo's astronomical discoveries and arguments were well received by natural philosophers. Rather it was his challenge to the biblical passages stating that the world cannot be moved that got him in trouble. It isn't natural philosophers who put him on trial.
Posted by: phat | November 9, 2007 8:06 PM
The references to Robert Altemeyer's research on right-wing authoritarians was spot on by the way. These denialists are perfect examples.
phat
Posted by: infatuated | November 9, 2007 8:07 PM
truth machine,
what is not to LOVE about you?
Posted by: truth machine | November 9, 2007 8:10 PM
After surviving the onslaught for fifty or a hundred years without substantial change, it approaches being an established theory.
If it ever was large enough to be a theory.
Aside from the fact that this is a completely incorrect characterization of scientific theory formation. The theory of evolution, for instance, has undergone substantial change throughout its history, and numerous scientific theories have become well established in far less than 50 years. It isn't time or failure to change that matters, it's supporting evidence and predictive capability.
Posted by: truth machine | November 9, 2007 8:11 PM
what is not to LOVE about you?
I can think of a few things.
Posted by: Ozymandias | November 9, 2007 8:18 PM
You should really get off the whole Galileo thing by now. Obviously, the screen name was meant to be an ironic metaphor, albeit a poor one, clearly a point that's been made well enough. Move on.
Posted by: Ktesibios | November 9, 2007 8:19 PM
At one time I thought that PZ, Tara and Orac could have a contest to see who could draw the greatest quantity of idiot trolls to a single post- PZ would post something about religion, Tara about HIV and Orac about anti-vaccination nutbars, and after a set period of time the comments would be counted up and the winner declared.
I gave up on that idea a couple of weeks ago when one of Tara's posts on HIV denialists drew over a thousand comments. I really couldn't envisage anyone ever topping that.
Now, however, I'm not so sure. Perhaps the contest wouldn't be completely one-sided after all.
Posted by: truth machine | November 9, 2007 8:20 PM
You should really get off the whole Galileo thing by now. Obviously, the screen name was meant to be an ironic metaphor, albeit a poor one, clearly a point that's been made well enough. Move on.
Fuck off.
Posted by: truth machine | November 9, 2007 8:23 PM
I gave up on that idea a couple of weeks ago when one of Tara's posts on HIV denialists drew over a thousand comments.
How long did it take? I'll be too busy this weekend to continue my steady stream of troll bashing; it's been fun, but after a while shooting ducks in a barrel loses its appeal.
Posted by: GallileoWasADenier | November 9, 2007 8:24 PM
"Even if, for the sake of argument, that were true, how does it justify some moron coming here and saying he can't find any science?"
I think he probably looked at what was up on the front page, and noted that virtually all of it was political commentary or trivia. At the moment, I see a comment on a paper about synesthesia which probably wasn't actually synesthesia, and a picture of an octopus with teeth. Yes, if you look through the archives you can find much better, and the comment was over hasty and probably a bit bad tempered, but compared to CA, where roughly every other post is doing some sort of analysis or discussion of technical papers, there isn't really a lot of science going on here. It was a bit of a tu quoque back against the claims made against CA, and not something I really approve of, but I understand why it was made.
"He simply proclaimed himself to be stupid to those who spend time here and have seen great amounts of science, science you can readily click on from this page."
Good! Well done! So why not just point him to the science, and get on with it? Why make such an extended point of calling him stupid?
"Regardless of whether PZ was wrongly dismissive of CA,..."
Thanks. That's the nearest I've seen to any graciousness on this. For that, I'll drop a few comments I was planning to hang around and make.
"... those who have come here from CA have, over and over again, provided justification for the dismissal, whether it's Palmer who can't see any science or David who blathers about the Sierra Club being a left wing organization..."
Some people, who are probably not actually from CA so much as fans of it, haven't made the best of points. To be fair to them, this was often in response to provocation, but I won't excuse it. But by the same token, an extended series of comments telling people to "fuck off" in capital letters doesn't speak too well for Pharyngula, does it?
In my experience, you either maintain the moral high ground and discuss the science with them, or you ignore them. Insult never work.
"... or you with your "Gallileo was right when he disagreed with the church so I must be right when I disagree with the scientific community" crackpot idiocy."
I neither said nor implied that. I said that no consensus of learned experts is infallible. That doesn't mean that anyone who argues against such a consensus is a new Gallileo, most are not, but it does mean that arguing against the consensus is not necessarily crackpottery, and it does mean that arguing from peer reviewed authority is still a fallacy.
I do not claim to be Gallileo, but I do claim that Gallileo's lesson is still of value. Gallileo was a denier, and was right to be so whether he was ultimately right about the sun/Earth thing or not. What matters is not consensus, but evidence.
"It is you who are trying to win an argument about CA not being "junk science", but you have failed to convince anyone reading here."
Some people tried that early on, but it soon became clear that no amount of reasonable arguments would be able to budge people. Failure to convince is not evidence of being junk science. (You would have to show a failure to follow scientific method.)
But my intention wasn't to convince you about CA, but to suggest that your tactics were counterproductive. The more you insulted CA and its readers, the more complaints you got. It was obvious to me that the insults were driving the "trolls" as you called them. Classic runaway positive feedback. In a way, I hoped to help you out by breaking the loop, but I also wanted to make the point that you had brought it on yourselves with your attitude. Nobody is asking you to necessarily agree with CA, it would be a sad world indeed if everyone had to agree to everything, but we'd be ever so grateful if you could manage to disagree with us without using all the insults. At least, not until you had tried to interact with us on a civilised level for long enough for us to have deserved them.
Posted by: CalGeorge | November 9, 2007 8:28 PM
How long did it take? I'll be too busy this weekend to continue my steady stream of troll bashing; it's been fun, but after a while shooting ducks in a barrel loses its appeal.
I'm done, too. These people have nothing interesting to say.
Posted by: truth machine | November 9, 2007 8:31 PM
Insult never work.
They work to show contempt, moron.
in capital letters doesn't speak too well for Pharyngula, does it?
We don't care, you stupid fucking moron. PZ speaks for himself in what he writes; if you don't like it, you welcome to go away, fuck off, and die.
Posted by: infatuated | November 9, 2007 8:31 PM
"I can think of a few things."
i can't. i've been reading you all day lover boy, and i'm pretty sure it's you. you might not remember me, but i have always had a thing for you. got to go.
sweet dreams! XOXO
Posted by: phat | November 9, 2007 8:32 PM
You've completely missed the point of Galileo haven't you?
He didn't deny anything insofar as he observed things that forced him to deny the consensus. That consensus was not a scientific consensus. It was an ideological and theological consensus. There is nothing remotely comparable between the AGW denialists and Galileo and it's pure ego that makes anybody who thinks otherwise.
phat
Posted by: truth machine | November 9, 2007 8:42 PM
I'm done, too. These people have nothing interesting to say.
Indeed. GallileoWasADenier's moronic concern trolling above is just a repetition of the same themes that have been over and over: we're rude, we're not productive, reasonable arguments don't budge us, blah blah blah ... none of which can be concluded from a response to an invasion by a horde of troll assholes. The control troll morons are so arrogant, they actually think they are telling us something novel or subtle, something we don't already know, just because we aren't engaging them is some deep intellectual conversation. This thread is troll bait, a vehicle for troll bashing, not a place to have a serious discussion about climatology, the philosophy of science, or the ins and outs of social etiquette. The only really insightful thing said by any of the CA folks was #251.
Posted by: truth machine | November 9, 2007 8:44 PM
you might not remember me
I wouldn't know, since I don't know who you are.
Posted by: JohnS | November 9, 2007 8:46 PM
Hey truffy you got it wrong again. Shooting blanks, at ducks or in life has been your your single claim to fame here. And you're starting to screech some pretend science-what sort of phuckwit are you, little bovver boy. And Jay Hovah, I don't give a phuck about PZ banning me-only proves who can and cannot take the heat, phuckwit. Joke Science at the other threads- factually correct truffer phuckwit. Phuckoff, phuck off, phuck off
JohnS
Posted by: truth machine | November 9, 2007 8:47 PM
At least, not until you had tried to interact with us on a civilised level for long enough for us to have deserved them.
But we don't care about you; you're trolls, invaders from another space.
Posted by: truth machine | November 9, 2007 8:48 PM
JohnS, even your friends think you need to take your meds.
Posted by: GallileoWasADenier | November 9, 2007 8:49 PM
"In this case, Galileo had the data. He performed experiments. He used old tools (ramps, balls, pendulums) in a new way. He used new tools (telescopes) to bolster his findings. He did the math. He published his work."
Yep. And CA has the data (where it's been published), performs experiments (from experiments in data processing, to Stevenson screen paint IR absorption, to collecting tree cores), uses old tools (standard statistical techniques) in new ways (applying it to climate data properly). They certainly do the maths. They publish the results on the web, where peers and all comers can review it to their hearts content. And do.
"He didn't deny on a friggen whim."
Quite right too. Wouldn't think of it. And in fact, the word denier is inaccurate. Many of us don't deny AGW - if there are indeed a bunch of unknown positive feedbacks in the climate system that triple the CO2 sensitivity, it might even be true - but we do consider it unsupported by the evidence. The proper term is "sceptic".
"Bullshit. Galieleo was the expert, because he did the damn work."
Yes, but many people at the time thought Aristotle was the expert. Or the Church.
"Those he was refuting were not experts. They were ideological morons who did no work, performed no experiments, used no tools, published no data, and had no evidence."
No they did lots of work, reams of textual analysis and interpretation, a coherent synthesis of the classics. But it was all wrong, because they relied on authority and consensus over going out and looking at the evidence. They were considered to be the experts at the time.
It wasn't the climatologists who went out to look at the monitoring stations to check they were OK, it was the sceptics over at surfacestations. McIntyre and Watt publish all their data and working. The professional climatologists often do not.
Your analysis is most apt, just not the way you think it is.
"Just like the ideological morons who "deny" the scientific consensus on global climate change."
Will you please stop talking about consensus - 55% is nothing to get that excited about anyway - and talk about the scientific evidence instead. Do you even know what the evidence actually is? And yes, I'm well aware of the absorption properties of CO2, and just as well aware that they're not the issue.
Posted by: GallileoWasADenier | November 9, 2007 8:57 PM
"He didn't deny anything insofar as he observed things that forced him to deny the consensus. That consensus was not a scientific consensus. It was an ideological and theological consensus."
The popular opinion was that the Earth could not be moving at a thousand miles an hour because people would feel it if it were. Under Aristotle's idea of physics, they'd be thrown off. That's a scientific opinion, just a wrong one.
The current AGW "consensus" is also, to some degree, an ideological one. Yes, there's a certain amount of science in it too, but not very good science.
Posted by: truth machine | November 9, 2007 8:58 PM
But my intention wasn't to convince you about CA, but to suggest that your tactics were counterproductive.
Counterproductive at what? Why do you repeat the same nonsense when we've already been over it? See above about getting this thread over 1000 posts; it would be an achievement. Of course, it would also be an achievement if all you trolls really did fuck off and go away, but it doesn't matter one way or the other, really.
The more you insulted CA and its readers, the more complaints you got.
So what? Why should anyone care about getting complaints? What do you suppose your complaints achieve? You're idiot troll assholes, you complain, it's in your nature. Big deal.
Posted by: truth machine | November 9, 2007 9:00 PM
The current AGW "consensus" is also, to some degree, an ideological one. Yes, there's a certain amount of science in it too, but not very good science.
Crackpot.
Posted by: phat | November 9, 2007 9:01 PM
Can you find me a specific instance that shows that the AGW consensus is inspired by ideology? Can you find me some evidence of this?
You may be able to find some evidence that it's junk science, although I don't expect you to find that either. But do us a favor and find the evidence of ideological bias.
phat
Posted by: GallileoWasADenier | November 9, 2007 9:02 PM
"We don't care, you stupid fucking moron. PZ speaks for himself in what he writes; if you don't like it, you welcome to go away, fuck off, and die."
If you really don't care, why do you keep replying? Why do you keep using language that befouls Pharyngula's reputation as a place of science? Why do you do exactly the things that I've told you will ensure I hang around even longer, if you really want to be rid of me?
Like I said, if you don't want an argument, don't argue.
Posted by: qubit | November 9, 2007 9:04 PM
Wow, 650 comments, mostly from dumbass cranks and trolls. I'm feeling a bit ornery at the moment (helping my geologist friend on his research on spectroscopic dating of fluorite crystals is driving me up the walls), so I figure why not take my frustration out on some deserving targets?
Francois O (if you're still reading -- if not, well, tough, I'll talk much deserved shit about you anyway):
Are you sure you're a scientist? Because if you are, you're a piss-poor one, and I'm glad to read that you left... what? Particle physics? Geochemistry? Botany? Molecular biology? (I'm always suspicious of someone who proclaims to be a "scientist" without specifying what they work on, since in my experience that's always the coolest. thing. EVAR!!! to a real scientist.) Whatever it was, if anything, good riddance. I'm sure my whole field (spectroscopy of cataclysmic variable stars -- yes, I'm a little disturbed myself at how specialized I'm already becoming) is "poor quality (boring) science" by your standards. I'm sure most people here would consider the stuff I do boring, and you know what? I'm okay with that. I'm *not* okay with someone equating that, or the boring gathering of reams of detailed data that allows for breakthroughs, with "poor quality".
To consummate moron Brian Macker:
Fine, you don't want to look at an extreme case as an example. Fair enough. Care to argue against basic radiative transfer equations instead? Oh, wait... you don't understand those? Just know how to pull factoids off Wikipedia? Awww, too bad. (For non-physicists out there who are actually interested in learning, the radiative transfer equations describe how light interacts with matter it passes through. CO2 is basically opaque in large chunks of the infrared, where the peak emission is for Earth and Venus radiating heat from the surface, so it absorbs that light, heating the atmosphere.) Also, your meaningless arithmetic is wrong -- you forgot to take account of the different scale heights and volumes of Earth's and Venus' atmospheres, and the fact that you're using mass abundance not number abundance.
Also, re: #495, academic fraud like that is a very serious accusation. Care to give one piece of evidence for it? Which data specifically? I really don't feel like plowing through the whole AR4 again to count the number of independent datasets on this, but its certainly in the dozens. Oh, wait, that's right, the whole international leftist conspiracy is in on it. Guess what: we're also working with the Illuminati and Freemasons. Yeah, you're totally screwed.
BTW, care to point me to any economics or policy prescriptions in the AR4? What's that? There aren't any? That's what I thought. Now STFU and RTFM.
JePe (and really all the cranks):
Page 135. I see what looks a hell of a lot like not one, but three hockey sticks: CO2, CH4, and N2O abundances. Page 448. Another three hockey sticks (actually, that's being generous -- more like cliffs), this time of radiative forcings. Page 242. A sharp rise in late 20th century global temperature that, if you scaled it to include paleoclimate data from the past 1000 years, would look a hell of a lot like a hockey stick. Yeah, so none of these are "The" hockey stick, but that's how science works -- you get better data and revise your conclusions. You don't pick a conclusion and stick to it regardless. Deal with it. Now, all of you idiots: read the fucking AR4 before you make claims about what is and isn't in it, and what it does and doesn't rely upon. What, 940 pages (plus appendices and errata) too much for you? Boo fucking hoo. If you want to make claims about what's in it, that's the price of admission. But none of you could even be bothered to read the SPM apparently.
David (#498),
Fuck you. I say this not because I disagree with you, but because you're a simplistic, lying sack of shit. (Cf. all the cranks here denying anthropogenic global warming -- or even any global warming -- instead of arguing over the right solutions.)
G-WAD (#645),
Yup, evidence is what matters. So show me some. Any. Just to pick an example, what is your explanation for the global temperature increase, what is your evidence for that explanation, and why is this a better explanation that what's in the AR4? As for reasonable arguments, I inflicted reading this thread on myself, and I have yet to see actual arguments from you or any of your ilk, just lots of broad accusations, high-school debate rhetoric, and self-righteous posturing over civility. Oh, and the rejection of whole fields of scientific inquiry.
Really, if you actually want to debate AGW, and you have given me no reason to believe you actually do, first state exactly what your position is (be specific), how this differs from the AR4 or what specific criticisms you have of the AR4 (and there are legitimate criticisms, but I've yet to see one from the trolls here or at CA), and what evidence and/or theoretical basis you have for this (again, be specific). I want numbers, equations, and models. The AR4 and its referenced papers give this. You don't. The CA people sometimes do, but often with hilariously bad reasoning, obvious selection bias in the data, or clear evidence of fabrication of results left in their code (McKitrick's cosablat code is so obviously leftover from fudging the equations until they give the desired result that I'm willing to accuse him of bad faith on that).
Peter (#550),
"I came here for a good argument.""No you didn't; no, you came here for an argument."
Gah. Why couldn't once, just once, there be an actual discussion of solutions to a problem with overwhelming evidence or of the actual science (I'd really like to see / participate in a debate - an actual debate - over the relative merits of fines vs. cap-and-trade, or which projections are most accurate, or why radiative forcings appear to be linearly additive... anything) instead of dealing with anti-scientific cranks. Times like this, I feel like John Rogers: I miss Republicans.
Added on preview:
Can you cranks get off the whole "theory of anthropogenic global warming" schtick for once? AGW is a conclusion derived from a combination of empirical data and well-established scientific theories.
There's 20 minutes of writing down the drain.
</rant>
Posted by: Nick Sullivan | November 9, 2007 9:08 PM
Oh joy, not only are you selectively blind to both PZ's science posts, which are awesome, but you also fail to notice the fairly fucking obvious statement that PZ didn't care about wining you moronic wannabe troll.GallileoWasADenier, fuck up. This thread is pure troll bait, perhaps so we can gleefully fill our kill-files or more likely just to make fun of the morons it attracts. And your knowledge of the history of science? It's shit.
Posted by: truth machine | November 9, 2007 9:15 PM
If you really don't care, why do you keep replying?
To show contempt, as I have said more than once.
Why do you keep using language that befouls Pharyngula's reputation as a place of science?
Why are you too fucking stupid to grasp what I just wrote about the irrelevance of "reputation"?
Why do you do exactly the things that I've told you will ensure I hang around even longer, if you really want to be rid of me?
Why are you too fucking stupid to understand "it would be an achievement" to reach 1000 posts?
Like I said, if you don't want an argument, don't argue.
"You're a stupid fucking asshole troll" isn't an argument, cretin.
Posted by: JohnS | November 9, 2007 9:23 PM
Truffy comes because he lost. Big bro FZ got dudded by his mates who couldn't rig the woggle contest, so FZ cracks the shits. Truffy tells people to go away from big bro site as wankers want to cry alone. Did I say you lost.. francid... fryburg or whatever the name of the site is. Hahaha At least phat spells his own name correctly. O yeah, phuck off
JohnS
Posted by: truth machine | November 9, 2007 9:27 PM
GallileoWasADenier says, in essence, that he keeps coming back here to demonstrate to me that, as long as I keep insulting him, he'll keep coming back here. Could anything be more stupid than that? He can't get it through his head that I don't really care; if he keeps trolling, I'll keep insulting him (except that even my available time isn't infinite and I'm about to run out), if he doesn't, I won't. And the reputation of Pharyngula as a place of science is irrelevant to me; it's not my blog, one would have to be an idiot to judge it by my posts, especially in this thread, and its reputation as a place of science is a function of the science that PZ posts here -- biological science, not climatology, which isn't his field -- which is plentiful. It's somewhat bizarre that someone so concerned about the science of climatology and AGW would keep coming back to a blog that simply isn't a player in that arena.
Posted by: GallileoWasADenier | November 9, 2007 9:28 PM
"Can you find me a specific instance that shows that the AGW consensus is inspired by ideology? Can you find me some evidence of this?"
Excellent question! Polite, too. Exactly the sort of approach you ought to take. (And as a reward, I think I might go to bed soon.)
It's hard to come up with a brief case, a lot of it is the accumulation of many minor events that all seem to go one way, but how about this?
"On the one hand, as scientists we are ethically bound to the scientific method, in effect promising to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but -- which means that we must include all the doubts, the caveats, the ifs, ands, and buts. On the other hand, we are not just scientists but human beings as well. And like most people we'd like to see the world a better place, which in this context translates into our working to reduce the risk of potentially disastrous climatic change. To do that we need to get some broadbased support, to capture the public's imagination. That, of course, entails getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have. This 'double ethical bind' we frequently find ourselves in cannot be solved by any formula. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest. I hope that means being both." (Quoted in Discover, pp. 45-48, Oct. 1989, see also American Physical Society, APS News August/September 1996.)
You might also be interested in this one. Here's the NOAA on climate reconstructions.
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globalwarming/paleolast.html
First look at the first graph and pay particular attention to the Briffa 2001 series up at the right hand end. Now click on the link to Briffa 2001 below, scroll down to plate 3, and look at how the graph ends. Why the difference? And why does a study done in 2001 end its reconstruction in 1960? I can assure you they have data from after that, but they didn't publish the result. See if you can find out why.
And while you're at it, find out why all the other reconstructions have endpoint errors all in the same direction. A one in thirty two coincidence?
Seriously, I'd be quite interested if you can find a good explanation. I know what the sceptics say, but have been unable to find a good "official" justification.
Posted by: David | November 9, 2007 9:30 PM
Steve_C: You share a lot in common with Creationists from what I can tell. You believe in the Universe being created out of nothingness, and you worship a god. It might be the god of secularism, science and technology, environmentalism, and/or money, but a god nonetheless. Everyone worships something. You should not judge others so harshly.
I'll say it again: Consensus science sent THOUSANDS of women to their DEATHS by recommending hormone therapy and giving these women breast cancer. So while you were all out there wearing your pink ribbons, marching in parades, looking down on others, and worshiping at the alter of science and technology, it was your god who was killing these people.
Posted by: truth machine | November 9, 2007 9:31 PM
But at least GallileoWasADenier is somewhat more effective in making an impression (I would be a lot more gracious, GWAD, if this weren't a troll-bait/bash thread) than that JohnS wanker who appears to be truly mentally defective.
Posted by: truth machine | November 9, 2007 9:38 PM
Exactly the sort of approach you ought to take.
Ought, if the aim is what, moron?
Quoted in Discover
WHO is quoted? And this doesn't show what was asked for, moron -- that the AGW consensus is inspired by ideology. What it shows is someone who already accepts the consensus is seeking ways to communicate that consensus to the public, given the urgency of doing so.
Not just a troll asshole, but a stupid one.
Posted by: phat | November 9, 2007 9:39 PM
That quote you use is not evidence of ideological bias. It's a quote of someone trying to articulate the problems of discussing science in modern times.
you might be inferring some sort of bias based on a disagreement you have with AGW. That's not evidence of anything but your bias.
phat
Posted by: JohnS | November 9, 2007 9:40 PM
And what truffy, you are the peak of decorum. Hahaha. You got 666 items above yours to read what phuckwits you and your mates were.
JohnS
Posted by: truth machine | November 9, 2007 9:46 PM
P.S. If you're going to offer evidence to show that the AGW consensus is inspired by ideology, you ought to at least make it clear what ideology you're referring to. In the quote you gave, the closest I can find is wanting to see the world a better place, wanting to reduce the risk of potential disaster, wanting to be effective -- not the sort of thing one usually thinks of as pejorative when talking about inspiration.
Posted by: truth machine | November 9, 2007 9:47 PM
Meds, JohnS, meds.
Posted by: GallileoWasADenier | November 9, 2007 9:47 PM
TM,
It wasn't inspired by ideology, it was inspired primarily by the low resolution analysis of the Vostok ice core and a few other bits and pieces, before they knew which way round the peaks were.
I said the current consensus was to some degree an ideological one. That's as a result of the early (and perfectly sensible and scientific) results and ideas being taken on by the save-the-world ideology that then kept it going in the face of weakening evidence. They have their doubts, but they portray it as a more solid consensus than it is for political reasons.
Posted by: phat | November 9, 2007 9:49 PM
You say they have doubts but won't portray these doubts for political reasons.
I have two questions.
1) Show me the evidence of this.
2) Show me the political reasons.
phat
Posted by: truth machine | November 9, 2007 9:50 PM
That quote you use is not evidence of ideological bias. It's a quote of someone trying to articulate the problems of discussing science in modern times.
Indeed. Funny how the "polite" request led to the sort of bullshit that we already expected, from experience with the denier types that PZ discussed way way above.
Posted by: phat | November 9, 2007 9:59 PM
Yep, I'm not surprised.
Altemeyer strikes again.
phat
Posted by: GallileoWasADenier | November 9, 2007 10:01 PM
What sort of evidence would you accept, if you won't take a leading pro-AGW scientist saying it was appropriate to put forward scary scenarios and play down scientific doubts for the sake of getting the public to take action?
The political goal is to get the world to take action: to cut fossil fuel emissions primarily. The pro-AGW political groups are not monolithic, and push the need for urgent action for many different reasons. In any case, their reasons are not germane, except for ad hominem arguments which I'm not interested in. What happened to the end of that Briffa data? The evidence, not the motives.
Anyway, I'm taking a break now. I'll be back later if you haven't broken the 1000 mark by the time I get up.
Posted by: truth machine | November 9, 2007 10:02 PM
It wasn't inspired by ideology
Hey, asshole, you were asked ""Can you find me a specific instance that shows that the AGW consensus is inspired by ideology? Can you find me some evidence of this?" and that's what you offered up. So you're just another run-of-the-mill liar.
They have their doubts, but they portray it as a more solid consensus than it is for political reasons.
There are always doubts -- that's the nature of scientific epistemology -- but the significance of the doubts get twisted, as ExxonMobil does day in and day out, so yes of course there are political reasons for toning down doubts as part of the communication process, but that doesn't make the consensus any less solid. You're mixing up different things, stupidly and dishonestly.
the save-the-world ideology
Ah, I suppose from a certain thuggish conservative ideological standpoint, wanting to address threats to society is an ideology. But it's the same ideology that inspires a great deal of science, and there's only good to be said of such inspiration.
Posted by: Mena | November 9, 2007 10:12 PM
Why does it seem like whenever there are more than two or three hundred messages in a thread we always find that it's a couple of people nit picking semantics or listing mistakes in logic at the end of it? It's not worth it guys, really. Take some nice deep breaths and go visit the nice toothed octopus thread instead. It's Friday, maybe even have an adult beverage or two.
Posted by: truth machine | November 9, 2007 10:12 PM
What sort of evidence would you accept
Evidence that actually supports the claim, moron.
if you won't take a leading pro-AGW scientist saying it was appropriate to put forward scary scenarios and play down scientific doubts for the sake of getting the public to take action?
No, I won't take that as AGW being ideologically inspired, because it obviously isn't. Why would anyone want the public to take action on something that they didn't genuinely believe, for independent reasons? Your taking this as "ideologically inspired" is circular.
The sort of ideological inspiration that we do see is people who believe in free markets and unfettered corporations denying global warming because dealing with it would involve applying restraints -- facts are denied because they don't like the consequences of them being true (we see the same thing with evolution); and a number of those people, like Milloy, are heavily funded by economic players who have a lot to lose if such restraints are applied. On the other side, you would have to show that AGW is being upheld because, say, people dislike corporations and want to see their power limited. There are such folks who are ideologically driven, but you have failed to show that any of the science is a result of such ideology.
Posted by: truth machine | November 9, 2007 10:14 PM
It's not worth it guys, really.
Troll troll concern troll.
Posted by: truth machine | November 9, 2007 10:19 PM
kept it going in the face of weakening evidence
From "skeptic" to denier in one easy step. The evidence for AGW, as a whole, has only strengthened over time.
Posted by: phat | November 9, 2007 10:24 PM
I'm working, partaking in an adult beverage and as my computer crunches numbers I check out websites.
Besides, this isn't semantics. If you think expecting evidence is anything but a plea for science, well...
I'm also having a little bit of fun baiting the troll. I don't do that too often.
phat
Posted by: Brian Macker | November 9, 2007 10:41 PM
This sounds like a Monti Python skit.
Meanwhile he's arguing global warming.
Posted by: wildlifer | November 9, 2007 10:44 PM
This is your justification? Two wrongs (alleged) make a right?
Funny, I thought it worked just fine.
I disagree. AGW's never been the dominant view. The concept's been fought since the possibilities were first proposed in the late 19th Century. When all the "old-timers" die (Gray et al), is usually when there's a paradigm shift.
Until them and the creationists give up on the idea God created the climate for them, and there's nothing they can do to screw it up, the new paradigm will never take hold.
Posted by: truth machine | November 9, 2007 10:47 PM
Meanwhile he's arguing global warming.
Yeah, I'm a bad bad person, sometimes arguing and sometimes not.
Posted by: Zog | November 9, 2007 10:47 PM
Where do knuckle draggers like "truth machine" breed and multiply? Oh well, he's a tad more out of it than the typical warmist lobotomate but, nevertheless, he is illustrative of the species. I'll be linking this thread to as many blogs as possible so that a few rational people can get a glimpse of what conversion to apocalyptic warmist theology leads to.
I've lingered here too long, so I'm off to remove the warmist contagion in a very hot shower.
Posted by: tomh | November 9, 2007 10:55 PM
Zog wrote: I've lingered here too long, so I'm off ...
This is the 79th troll to announce a departure yet they just keep coming.
Posted by: phat | November 9, 2007 11:05 PM
"Warmist"
That gives me a chuckle.
Is "warmist" the new "commie"?
phat
Posted by: JohnS | November 9, 2007 11:10 PM
Nothing required truffy, keep them all for yourself, but I'mutraged that you are starting to sound even a teeney bit sound of mind- a phuckwit joke yes, you must be tied, yes. I thought you were shooting blanks tonight or tomorrow, or whenever. Come on- we got the 1000 to make. Wildflower- running- petal has returned, dropping phuckwit paradigms everywhere. You kids are wonderful, big bro PZ goes away and because you all failed miserably in the beauty contest vote rig, you puff chests out and stamp feet.
JohnS
Posted by: octopod | November 9, 2007 11:46 PM
Oh man, PZ, you've got a moron infestation! You should call the exterminators, or disemvowelers, or something. Because although this is pretty funny to watch, my only worry is that some poorly-informed highschool student might actually believe one of these unfortunate little denialists.
It's like the Diggtard coalition got in here or something. The funny part is what they're saying...the sad part is that they actually probably believe it. How can people be so easily led by what they wih twas true?
Posted by: octopod | November 9, 2007 11:48 PM
*wish was true. Sorry, typing drunk.
Posted by: ChemBob | November 10, 2007 12:33 AM
Wow, I continue to be pissed off that all these denier wankers think we're all still undergraduates! Not that there would be anything wrong with that; it's just not even close to true.
If you weren't merely ideologue trolls with strong corporate, neoconservative, and "Daddy in the Sky" predilections arguing here incessantly due to your authoritarian subservience to your hockey stick idol, perhaps you could each post one of your journal publications that have contributed to environmental science. How about it?
Francis O (or whatever your moniker was) are you still out there? Because you are claiming a moderate amount of scientific and academic accomplishment for yourself while, at the same time, saying lots of things that sound like something you just heard or read somewhere about the entire scientific endeavor.
I've peer-reviewed a butt-load of journal articles and reports and have not been hesitant whatsoever to trash the work of colleagues who I knew and liked in the interest of good science and I always enjoyed it (masochist?), appreciated it anyway, when they did the same to me. Your statements about grant applications eliminating the talented and innovative young researchers (or however you put it, that was several hundred posts or so ago) is utter rubbish. I've seen many proposals from departments where a student's potential results could damage the hypotheses under which his/her professors had been operating for years.
I've said my piece. Good luck with these one-trick ponies Truth Machine. My condolences to you PZ on having to host this lot; except this might drive your blog traffic rating even higher in Minnesota. If I didn't know better....hmmm
Posted by: tihson | November 10, 2007 12:53 AM
truth machine, I applaud your tenacity. How about changing your moniker to PZ's pitbull? Good work...
Posted by: David | November 10, 2007 1:13 AM
Those who adopt Orwellian tactics such as calling people "deniers" and changing the lexicon to fit their purposes are little more than fascists. They throw out politically correct terms and make up words that start with "eco". Talk about being mindless robots.
Global warming does exist, it just isn't human induced. 0.038% of the atmosphere is CO2, which does reflect some heat back to the surface, but:
1. It also reflects heat away from the earth in equal amounts. This cancels much of the trapping effect out.
2. Heat flows from hot to cold. Ocean currents carry much of the heat to colder parts of the earth (say the side not facing the sun, or depths where the sun does not reach, or to the poles, etc.)
3. Water vapor makes up a larger part of the atmosphere (around 1%), and it is a much greater greenhouse gas. The hotter the earth gets, the more water vapor, the more clouds, the more reflected heat, the more cooling evaporation, etc.
Greenland used to be green and England used to be known for its wine. This hasn't happened again. Even if it does, why should we worry about it? It is not in our control.
Does this mean that we should continue to dump stuff into our environment? No. Does it mean that we should adopt socialistic policies and cry that the sky is falling and blame Capitalism and "Neocons" for it? No.
Posted by: Zarquon | November 10, 2007 1:37 AM
CO2 is transparent to visible light that's why it's a greenhouse gas, and why the effect doesn't cancel out. If you don't understand this basic bit of the argument you're just a moron.
Posted by: JohnS | November 10, 2007 1:57 AM
Hey the phuckwits decrease and clowns arrive. Chembob as peer reviewer- classic, outright fib, but classic. Typical almost- biology major, he's one of the PZ students trying to suck his way through to degree. And he criticises Francis for only reading about the process. Octopod warning highschoolers- laughable- its the high school answers by truffy that brings them here and gives them a chance to cuss and such when if they did that to their betters they would get a clip on the ear. Juice running out around the 700 mark. You silly buggars can't even rig this response number.
JohnS
Posted by: Michael Ralston | November 10, 2007 2:04 AM
Which is why we can't see the sun when there's a lot of CO2 out! ... wait. Yes, this *actually* is why it is called GLOBAL warming, as opposed to "industrialized-area warming". If water is a "much greater greenhouse gas" it can't be a negative feedback loop. You just contradicted yourself. And here we have the real reason for the AGW denialism: they want to feel helpless, because if we weren't helpless, we might actually have to do something.Posted by: MB | November 10, 2007 2:06 AM
God I love this site! I can remember when a troll was something a gay man didn't want to pick up in a bar - but I guess it still is...
Thanks, PZ, for a great blog!
By the way, I'm a liberal atheist scientist who would really like your site if you didn't allow obscenities and people were nicer and agreed with me and treated me with respect no matter what I posted.
Posted by: Zarquon | November 10, 2007 2:15 AM
Oh, piss off.
Posted by: MB | November 10, 2007 2:38 AM
Zarquon, you stupid fuck - go fuck yourself. Dumbass. Hey, that's kind of fun, even if the shithead hasn't been a troll until telling me to piss off... Ok, maybe not a troll, but a... fucktard? Yeah, go fuck yourself you stupid fuck fucktard, Zarquon. If you don't understand this basic bit of the argument you're just a moron.
Now I can see how much fun truth machine had in this thread... and if the piss off wasn't directed at me, never mind!
Posted by: Rey Fox | November 10, 2007 3:18 AM
"It might be the god of secularism, science and technology, environmentalism, and/or money, but a god nonetheless. Everyone worships something. "
You might want to drop the projection there, Dave. I worship nothing. Worship debases both the worshiper and the worshipee. I will have no part of such behavior.
"So while you were all out there wearing your pink ribbons, marching in parades, looking down on others, and worshiping at the alter of science and technology, it was your god who was killing these people."
So if we project and anthropomorphize everything we don't happen to like into gods or godlike beings that are "worshipped" by those who support them, then we can make all of life into some sort of warped morality play. I'm glad I don't live in your head, it sounds like a scary place.
Posted by: JohnS | November 10, 2007 3:18 AM
hey truffer, thats not bad. Call yourself MB and Zarquon, you get three responses, I make it four and you're on your way over the 700 mark. MB says nice words about you, nothing like self congratulation, Now thats what I call rigging. Good effort. Come on Cal George, Dustbin, rigging standard has been set. Dicks to the grindstone boyos.
JohnS
Posted by: MB | November 10, 2007 3:35 AM
must be some West Coast trolls - or maybe the midwestern crank trolls - usually no one's on after overtime in the west coast hockey games...
Posted by: Michael X | November 10, 2007 3:36 AM
Yes, JohnS, thank you, bad paraody noted. Though as Truth Machine has repeatedly and vulgarly mentioned, we're all regulars here, you don't happen to be one. So you have quite the task up to you. We'll still be here tomorrow reading and commenting like we always do, and you'll have to spend alot of time teasing Truth Machine for being a jerk that you could be using on other things you normally do. You do see the advantage we have, yes? Whatever fun you're having badly attemting to tease someone who holds not but contempt for you, you can't be dim enough to realize that sooner ot later you'll have to leave and that we'll be here regardless. So unless you're making the ill informed choice to become a regular, then I'd advise you to retire, otherwise you'll only allow Truth Machine to reach 1000 posts. And how does that benefit you?
And Rey you beat me to the "everyone worships something" line. I do hate to argue from the dictionary, but damn. Understand your words people! Diluting the word worship not only makes us all polytheists, but hey theists, it also degrades the word worship. Not that I mind or you understand...
Posted by: MB | November 10, 2007 3:39 AM
Ducks 3 Sharks 2 in a shootout - I know, I know, nobody gives a shit. But please do continue, science weenies, to fight the good fight against the freepers, wingnuts, theocrats and trolls... and provide late night entertainment.
Posted by: JohnS | November 10, 2007 3:56 AM
But Michael X, very mysterious designation too, good boy, I look forward to you reaching 1000 posts. Great for the CV- frisulus... fregal.. or whatever this blog is called, we defended the PZ honour by wacking trolls in 1000 messages, unfortunately, proving what phuckwits we were by not making same effort in rigging the beauty contest that PZ wanted to win this year. Yes I know he said he didn't want it, but boyo, read between the lines. Hint- Dummy spit straight after realising he hadn't a hope.
As I said in my first post, I'm here for the ruck. I thought when all you boys went home, there may have been a few cold beers in the fridge. Found you were all kids drinking low alcohol beer- what a bugger.
Anyway Michael Y, we moved it along a few more numbers. Truffy will be proud. Common-you're not truffy are you playing a little joke again. You jokers at this site, ah you kill me.
JohnS
Posted by: Michael X | November 10, 2007 4:15 AM
And thus ends my reasonable approach.
JohnS you seem to have no drive but an idiots one. I already explained as to why your looking for a ruck will only exhaust you, and not us. My handle was suggested to me by other commenters by the way, because Michael is such a popular name. Much like john. Though thankfully I don't share that name with you.
As for the contest you people don't really seem to be playing along with reality. PZ has already won this popularity contest once. I don't remember, was CA was even listed that time around?
And no, I'm thankfully not Truth Machine, if only for the reason that I don't often choose deal with your type.
Posted by: truth machine | November 10, 2007 4:31 AM
I'm thankfully not Truth Machine, if only for the reason that I don't often choose deal with your type.
It's quite amusing to me how these fools have allied me with folks I've had run-ins with like you and Marjanović; I'm even being viewed by some as some sort of hero of this blog ("PZ's pitbull"). But I explained that in #616: "social cohesion". A real triumph would be for Azkyroth to show up and applaud my performance. :-)
Posted by: Michael X | November 10, 2007 4:50 AM
Yes, Truth Machine, while we've had our run-ins and I don't envy your position or reputation, we do have our agreements: Mainly, the blockheadedness of the few assholes still hanging around and obviously the existance of particular deities.
I may begrudgingly come to accept the fact that we have anything else in common. Though I'm sure JohnS will give us reason enough to chuckle in unison without having to delve into that morass right now.
As for Azkyroth, lets not be silly.
Posted by: truth machine | November 10, 2007 5:13 AM
I may begrudgingly come to accept the fact that we have anything else in common.
Well, your very first comment to me, IIRC, was an ad hominem slam about me habitually coming late to the party, but (except for #322) you're the late one this time, so that's something in common, sort of.
Posted by: Michael X | November 10, 2007 5:53 AM
Funny, I do remember that comment and still somewhat agree with it. Though lately you've spent more time actually talking to people other than yourself, which I'm only pleased to see.
My comment was of course in reply to your off base misinterpritation of my post. But that is neither here nor there in regards to this thread.
You'll forgive me of course for not jumping into the ruck earlier, I thought this would burn out like most troll infestations do. Though as it hasn't I thought I'd help bat a few around as I tend to be up late. Otherwise, like I mentioned, I don't tend to get mixed up in such forum bar fights.
Posted by: Michael X | November 10, 2007 5:55 AM
What I'm seeing at the moment though make me laugh the most. Our conversation seems to have quited the whole place down.
Posted by: GallileoWasADenier | November 10, 2007 6:18 AM
Only 714? How disappointing!
Posted by: Michael X | November 10, 2007 6:18 AM
In any case 5:15am wins. I'm sure we'll have our time another day. As for you JohnS, your feigned inability to spell "Fuck" or understand a biological term leaves me to laugh. I'll simply tell you to go where you're wanted and appreciated. If such a place exists.
Posted by: Michael X | November 10, 2007 6:19 AM
Stick around my boy, I'm sure someone will stay up to play.
Posted by: JohnS | November 10, 2007 6:29 AM
Boys, Boys, Boys- common, stop putting on the show for me. Back to the trolls. But Michael Y, how do you know I'm not truffer. Seen us in the same room together? Truffer, the question, have you seen Michael Y and me together. Spooky. I felt the disturbance in the force, Luke,came to see, and found the force very disturbed. And now Luke, the last posts are loveins. Well bugger me, and still low alcohol beer!
I'm counting 713 posts. Longs way to go boyos.
JohnS
Posted by: ChemBob | November 10, 2007 7:39 AM
OK, JohnS, where are those environmental publications of yours that I asked about? I don't care what area of environmental science, just some evidence that you have the slightest credibility in science that doesn't flow from only between your own ears, but is considered actual science by others as well. Do you have even one, just one, peer-reviewed journal article?
FYI, I'm 57 and have been a practicing scientist for 30+ years; I'm not saying that as an argument from authority, only to tell you that no, we're not all undergraduates and that many of us are quite experienced at the scientific endeavor and have plenty of experience in recognizing bullshit. I call bullshit on you.
Crap, I thought I "said my piece" before I went to bed. Oh well.
Posted by: firemancarl | November 10, 2007 9:04 AM
Well, PZ musta done something right to get all of these trolls here. I think this maybe the longest amount of comments i've ever seen on here. Thanks trolls, for making this such great reading!
Posted by: CalGeorge | November 10, 2007 9:25 AM
Global warming does exist, it just isn't human induced. 0.038% of the atmosphere is CO2, which does reflect some heat back to the surface, but:
1. It also reflects heat away from the earth in equal amounts. This cancels much of the trapping effect out.
2. Heat flows from hot to cold. Ocean currents carry much of the heat to colder parts of the earth (say the side not facing the sun, or depths where the sun does not reach, or to the poles, etc.)
3. Water vapor makes up a larger part of the atmosphere (around 1%), and it is a much greater greenhouse gas. The hotter the earth gets, the more water vapor, the more clouds, the more reflected heat, the more cooling evaporation, etc.
Greenland used to be green and England used to be known for its wine. This hasn't happened again. Even if it does, why should we worry about it? It is not in our control.
Does this mean that we should continue to dump stuff into our environment? No. Does it mean that we should adopt socialistic policies and cry that the sky is falling and blame Capitalism and "Neocons" for it? No.
You've pretty much summed up the moronic mainstream what-me-worry approach to this whole issue. Thank you for putting it so well.
Posted by: harold | November 10, 2007 10:29 AM
#721
And your point is....?
Here is IMO where the AGW movement looks like a religion:
they never state what positions they hold.
1 The earth has warmed the last 100 years.
2 This warming is unprecendented
3 The warming is caused (in part) by human action.
4 The warming is caused by CO2 emmisions.
5 The warming will increase because CO2 emmissions are
still going on and because of the "Greenhouse effect".
6 The (only) solution is to cut CO2 emmissions (by taxation)
and thereby stopping the forecasted rise in temperature.
Is this the AGW package?
I agree with 1 and 3, and am interested in 2,4 and 5.
Does this make me a denialist?
have a nice weekend
Posted by: ChemBob | November 10, 2007 10:48 AM
Harold, even the questions that you ask betray your ignorance of the science of this issue and of science in general. In your head, any problem that requires people to organize towards a common goal is evidently a "religion." This is probably because you are so effectively brainwashed by religion that you can't understand people coming together for any other reason than to worship bronze-age mythology. Science, properly done, has nothing to do with mythology, bronze-age or otherwise.
Scientists who, based on the preponderance of evidence, have a pretty good level of confidence that global climate change is being caused by human activities, do not have a common "position" that they hold except that the evidence seems to support this contention. Again, we aren't reading a global warming "Holy Book" written by dead shepherds thousands of years ago to get our concepts and solutions to everything.
Your number 6 is the nail that really shows where you are coming from on this issue. Taxes, naturally. Hah, what a wanker.
Posted by: wildlifer | November 10, 2007 11:16 AM
So, if you're not a denier, that means you accept AGW then? There are zealots on both sides of the issue, but aligning yourself with the zealots of the "right" because you oppose the zealots of the (godless) "left," is irrational.
Too funny. The atmosphere reflects 6% of incoming solar radiation, clouds reflect another 20%. The atmosphere and clouds absorb another 19% of incoming radiation. The earth absorbs 51% of incoming solar radiation while it reflects a mere 4% that reaches it. Your little ocean current ditty means what wrt AGW? Nada.
You really should fact check your bull shit.
I can't believe you think that eliminates the forcing quotient of CO2. Water vapor does not cause warming, as you even wrote. It's a feedback. You can't pump water vapor into the frozen atmosphere and cause it to warm. It's basic chemistry.
CO2 on the otherhand absorbs radiation and re-radiates it in all directions, including back to the earth. As CO2 levels increase higher in the atmosphere, the slower the process of radiation escaping back into space.
I'm sure the operators of England's wineries will be very disturbed to hear that.
As for Greenland, all the evidence shows that was a regional warm period, not global. You dittoheads keep having to be reminded of that fact.
Well, seeing how it's corporatists (facist capitalists) who are the real puppetmasters of our elected officials - on both sides of the aisle - they are to blame for the politicalization and polarization of the problem.
Scare words like "socialism," when they really mean "godlessness" is just more evidence against them.
Posted by: harold | November 10, 2007 11:19 AM
Thank you for replying Chembob,
Do you have a suggestion to lower CO2?
Nuclear power perhaps(or even better a return to the B.A.)?
Or does this also "show where I am coming from" ?
The doubling of CO2 leading to a rise of 2-4% is
an interesting conjecture.I would favour more
real world solutions to upcoming problems
(oops..now i have really blown my cover).
Posted by: JePe | November 10, 2007 11:28 AM
Is CO2 the cause?
An interesting lecture by professor Bob Carter:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FOLkze-9GcI
Posted by: Brian Macker | November 10, 2007 11:38 AM
Qubit,
"Fine, you don't want to look at an extreme case as an example. Fair enough."
Exactly right and I proved my point.
To disprove nonsense doesn't take an exact calculation. It's enough to know they are not analogous.
You didn't mention cloud cover does that make you a "consummate idiot"? You didn't mention distance from the sun, etc. Your goal was far higher than mine and you didn't even do any calculations.
For your information I do have the math background that you assume I don't.
I know all about black body radiation, absorption spectra, and all the other crap that goes with it. I'm also aware of the behavior of light, even the quantum behavior. I understand for instance how holograms work, and that light doesn't really go in a straight line but takes all potential paths, etc.
You are yet another instance of the rude thought police that infest P Z Myers blog.
Posted by: harold | November 10, 2007 11:43 AM
Thanks for posting the lecture JePe,
You know that's what I do not like about science,
you find out things are always more complicated than you expect.
Now ..off to watch part 2.
Posted by: David Marjanović, OM | November 10, 2007 11:45 AM
Except you, I trust.
Are you alluding to the fact that the temperature changes always lead the greenhouse gas concentration changes in that core?
This is not at all surprising. We are living in the first time in the last few million years when a change in greenhouse gas concentrations happens for a reason other than a temperature change.
This doesn't mean changes in GHG concentrations can't lead to temperature changes. As I mentioned near the beginning of this thread, we've had a few cases in the last few hundred million years where GHG concentrations changed for other reasons than temperature (flood basalt eruptions, large-scale weathering of newly exposed silicates, methane burps), and in all those cases the temperature followed suit.
The effect of GHGs probably explains why glacials and interglacials are as binary as they are, as opposed to being a continuum. The GHGs dampen the influence of small changes in insolation and increase that of large changes.
Show me that, say, the IPCC agrees with this statement made by one person in 1989.
Before trolling, take note of the fact that truth machine is unique.
Argument from ignorance. Heat doesn't come in as the kind of long-wave IR that CO2 absorbs. It comes in as light and as short-wave IR, to which it's transparent.
Did you really believe the climatologists don't know that?
Yes, and? Where's your point?
By that logic, the average global temperature would have had to be completely stable for the last few billion years.
Come on, dude. The hotter the earth gets, the more evaporation happens, the water vapor is transported to cooler latitudes, condenses, which releases the heat the evaporation has taken up, and rains out.
The hotter it gets, the lower are the differences between the tropics and the poles. The tropics have always had more or less the same temperature in at least the last 90 million years; the poles have been much hotter and much colder than today.
The name is a marketing gag. It hasn't been ice-free for over 400,000 years.
That's a plain lie.
You have distorted out of the fact that wine was grown in England in the Medieval Warm Period. The quality was horrible -- nobody would have bothered if drinking water wouldn't have meant getting cholera.
Nowadays, however, growing wine in England starts getting a serious business. Here, read, if you can.
Wishful thinking.
What socialistic policies?
Posted by: Andrew Wade | November 10, 2007 11:51 AM
He did indeed. Water vapour is a major greenhouse gas. Unfortunately it's not one we can do much about. (We wouldn't want to get rid of the the greenhouse effect of water vapour--goodness no! Just reducing it slightly would be enough). David is confused about how the greenhouse effect works: the "heat" from the earth is infrared radiation and the "heat" from the sun is (in large part) visible light. The two do not interact with greenhouse gases in the same way.
Posted by: ChemBob | November 10, 2007 11:51 AM
There are no easy answers and there is mounting evidence that it is too late to avert very serious consequences. There are numerous recommendations being made, including the use of more nuclear power which is, unfortunately, only economical when subsidized and you clearly don't like taxes.
Some of these ideas include truly interesting engineering concepts, like huge pipes that float at the surface of the ocean while penetrating its depths and allow the wave action to cause the deeper waters to be pumped to the surface, generate more algae and act as a CO2 sink. There are other innovative ideas for actually reducing the CO2 already present, but I'm no expert on any of these.
I don't even understand most of your last post; e.g., return to B.A.? Doubling CO2 leading to a 2-4% rise in something? It's all out of context to me. At any rate, there are a lot of things we could be doing but most of them are poorly tested or untested (such as atmospheric removal approaches, above), carbon sequestration from power plants, harnessing tidal action to generate energy, wind farms, more solar power, diplomacy with other countries (such as China) to reduce their emissions, etc.
What are your ideas?
BTW, I've got things to do today and, while I might read this thread from my iPhone, I will probably not have the time to comment.
Posted by: Onias | November 10, 2007 11:53 AM
By "socialistic policies" they mean "tax hikes". Petty, small-minded, selfish troglodytes.
Posted by: ChemBob | November 10, 2007 11:58 AM
Oops, my last post should have been addressed to Harold to avoid confusion.
Posted by: harold | November 10, 2007 12:08 PM
Have a nice weekend Chembob
corrections:
- 2-4% = 2-4%C
- B.A. = Bronze Age (joke)
I am not against taxes, but trying to adjust the Earth's
thermostat by controlling a CO2 knob seems like a
wrongheaded and pretentious idea.(I could be wrong)
CO2 has been shown as a greenhouse gas in laboratory
experiments but not in the complex real world.
Posted by: CalGeorge | November 10, 2007 12:09 PM
Does it mean that we should adopt socialistic policies and cry that the sky is falling and blame Capitalism and "Neocons" for it?
I blame Harold and all Harold-like people.
I blame anyone who chooses to ignore our pressing environmental problems, puts all their effort into explaining them away (badly), and think we live in the "best of all possible capitalist worlds" no matter what happens.
Sorry, Harold. "So what?" and "been there, done that" are not adequate responses to the climate crisis.
Posted by: harold | November 10, 2007 12:10 PM
2-4% = 2-4 degrees Centigrade (oops)
Posted by: David Marjanović, OM | November 10, 2007 12:11 PM
Undeniable.
What do you mean?
The temperatures it has caused so far are unprecedented within the last 8,000 years or so (and will soon be unprecedented in the last 120,000 years... if we run out of luck, we'll reach temperatures unsurpassed in the last 410,000 years).
The speed of the warming, which is an important factor in how fast anything can cope with it, is unprecedented in the last 11,000 years.
Solar activity hasn't increased for decades, so all warming since 1940 or so is manmade.
Mostly. There's also soot, methane, and laughing-gas.
Yes.
That's your point 4.
That's not part of the science, that's politics. Yes, if we want to stop the rise in temperature -- and the alternative is to evacuate Bangladesh --, we have to stop the emissions. The "how" is a different question. Taxation alone clearly won't work, because for a lot of uses there are currently no alternatives to burning fossil fuels; research on alternatives has to go on.
Why do you ask us evolutionary biologists? Why don't you spend a few hours reading on http://www.realclimate.org?
Spare me the lecture, what does Carter say? I bet it's not anything new.
Posted by: David Marjanović, OM | November 10, 2007 12:20 PM
This is precisely what we are doing. We can either try to turn the knob in the other direction or evacuate Bangladesh.
This is ridiculous. What reason does anyone have for supposing it might not absorb IR in the real world?!?
BTW, you don't need to press Enter at the end of a line. Line breaks are made automatically when you click "Post". Is this the first time you write on a computer?
Posted by: Lar R | November 10, 2007 12:29 PM
WildLifer: "Scare words like "socialism," when they really mean "godlessness" is just more evidence against them. "
That's ridiculous. Socialism is scary (maybe worrying is a better word) for a lot of reasons, but I doubt religion even ranks in the top 3 or 5. It puts the state above the individual and is an anathema to personal liberty. Socialists, communists, fundamentalists (the far lefties and righties alike) all want state control over peoples lives. The difference is only in degrees. I know leftists think they are enlightened and well intentioned, but they don't realize the rightists feel the same way about themselves. (Not too mention that leftist ideology leads the body count last century by quite a bit) I am sure that todays far lefties and righties think they are different incarnations than the murderers of yore. But with both groups it all eventually leads to the same place.
As Pol Pot used to say: "To keep you is no benefit, to destroy you is no loss"
Posted by: JePe | November 10, 2007 12:43 PM
@David Marjanović(#737)
You said: "Spare me the lecture, what does Carter say? I bet it's not anything new."
I can't read minds, so I can't answer that.
But he talks real science, not the crap type sloppy science that realclimate produces.
Posted by: phat | November 10, 2007 1:05 PM
That's funny. It's possibly the funniest thing on this thread...
No, the guy who called the Sierra Club commies is still the funniest.
phat
Posted by: Rey Fox | November 10, 2007 1:36 PM
"BTW, you don't need to press Enter at the end of a line. Line breaks are made automatically when you click "Post"."
From my experience on another web site with a fillable form on it, I know that certain browsers (like Safari) sometimes automatically insert the line breaks from the original comment box, regardless of how long the lines are set in the output. I don't see that here very often, but I would guess that the formatting isn't harold's fault.
Posted by: Janine | November 10, 2007 1:52 PM
Calling greens "commies" is a common Limbaugh talking point. It is Rush's contention that after the fall of the Soviet Union, all of the discredited commies moved into the environmental movement.
Makes one wonder, can Theodore Roosevelt retroactively be called a marxist?
Posted by: Steve_C | November 10, 2007 1:58 PM
Anyone who brings up socialism when talking about AGW and reducing pollution is an idiot.
Cleaner fuels, renewable energy, lower CO2 emissions are all such scary worrying things... and all the money making industries spawned by new technology are so socialist.
Al Gore totally wants a socialist state where your right to drive a Hummer to Taco Bell is totally stripped away and everyone has to ride on solar powered sailboards and wear clothes made of hemp.
Buncha babies.
When we're all driving hybrid hondas and toyotas in 15 years and most new buildings are green and fuel efficient won't you all look like whiney little children.
Unfortunately all these denialists are doing is slowing progress down. I'd rather the new technologies were american made rather than in asia or europe.
Posted by: GallileoWasADenier | November 10, 2007 3:15 PM
"The temperatures it has caused so far are unprecedented within the last 8,000 years or so (and will soon be unprecedented in the last 120,000 years... if we run out of luck, we'll reach temperatures unsurpassed in the last 410,000 years)."
Be careful with terminology. Temperatures are far from unprecedented. Global mean temperature anomaly is very likely to be unprecedented in 400 years, and might or might not be unprecedented in a thousand years or longer. It depends how you interpret the error bars and whether you're willing to compare values between different time sources of data for which the conversion factors are uncertain. (And to what extent you think the data has been fiddled with, of course.)
It isn't unprecedented by much, if it is. And it isn't entirely clear what this is supposed to mean. I think the argument goes that the global mean temperature anomaly is unprecedented, and the CO2 levels are unprecedented, therefore the latter causes the former, maybe. That seems to be how it is used by popularisers, anyway.
"The speed of the warming, which is an important factor in how fast anything can cope with it, is unprecedented in the last 11,000 years."
I haven't seen any graphs of that, except those I've plotted myself. Do you have a reference or source? I know it's been said of the northern hemisphere, and if you look at the plot the number does come out a little higher than all the other spikes, but it is by no means exceptional. It's about 2.7SDs above the mean in about 1800 datapoints for Mann's 04 northern hemisphere reconstruction, compared to 2.25SDs for the 1920s-1940s peak which is the next highest. There was a -4.3SDs drop back around 900AD, when it dropped 0.4 degrees in ten years! It obviously depends on what smoothing you apply, and I wasn't particularly careful nor calculated error bars (which I couldn't really do anyway without knowing what Mann did to construct it), but it doesn't seem a very firmly established result.
Posted by: Lar R | November 10, 2007 3:17 PM
Steve C "Cleaner fuels, renewable energy, lower CO2 emissions are all such scary worrying things... and all the money making industries spawned by new technology are so socialist.
Al Gore totally wants a socialist state where your right to drive a Hummer to Taco Bell is totally stripped away and everyone has to ride on solar powered sailboards and wear clothes made of hemp.
Buncha babies.
When we're all driving hybrid hondas and toyotas in 15 years and most new buildings are green and fuel efficient won't you all look like whiney little children.
Unfortunately all these denialists are doing is slowing progress down. I'd rather the new technologies were american made rather than in asia or europe."
I know, you have some righteous utopia that the State needs to impose for the good of us all. Though the transition might be difficult, well all be happy when we achieve it.
We haven't heard that before. (Yes, Yes I am sure this time its different)
Its always fun to argue with ideologues, but the fundies are probably the best. Many of them also have some version of utopia where by State imposition people will go to church and lead a clean moral life. With the virtual elimination of crime, hedonism, family break ups, out of wedlock births, etc the benefits to society would be enormous.
Though you don't recognize it, you are a different face of the same coin. Your goals are no more righteous, or well intentioned then theirs. But the means to those ends are equally as dangerous. (At least in the long run)
Posted by: truth machine | November 10, 2007 3:18 PM
I see the trolls have gotten around to demonstrating that their denial is ideologically based; it was just a matter of time.
Posted by: truth machine | November 10, 2007 3:25 PM
My comment was of course in reply to your off base misinterpritation of my post.
You do understand the difference between a disagreement with a position (even if, as you tendentiously put it, it is an off base misinterpretation) and a stupid ad hominem about posting habits, don't you?
Posted by: CalGeorge | November 10, 2007 3:34 PM
At the L.A. Auto Show, the winner of the 2008 Green Car of the Year is expected to be the Chevy Tahoe Hybrid (winner to be announced on Nov. 15).
This miracle of green technology gets 22 mpg highway, 21 mpg city.
Only in America.
Posted by: Christ Davis | November 10, 2007 4:01 PM
Oy! I got started reading this thread, thought about abandoning it after 30 or so comments and then found myself unaccountably drawn in. I have now read all comments while drinking a pot of coffee and smoking too many cigarettes. I am a tyro on climate change science,so I followed some links that the CA folk mentioned and will read them. I do not post often, here or anywhere, but I read Pharyngula and 8 or 9 other Scienceblogs every day. Not being a scientist myself I have learned to trust the people who consistently demonstrate that they know what they are talking about, whatever that might be.
I am thoroughly bored with the interjection of politics into every discussion, everywhere. I expect to find out that there is a correct position regarding the evolution of jawbones or Zebra fish and that I may be condemned to an eternity of tightening up my backstroke in the Lake of Fire for holding the incorrect position.
On to something more substantive. Thanks everyone for an entertaining afternoon!
Posted by: Steve_C | November 10, 2007 4:23 PM
Wow. Thanks Lar for proving my point.
Yeah, because Europe is so fucking scary... would hate adopt ANY of their ideas.
Grow up.
Posted by: Paradiggm | November 10, 2007 4:32 PM
I would just like to point out that the U.S. Energy Star "climate zones" are being pushed further north for qualifying products. I was just at a conference at ASU and a DoE representative showed us the new maps. The changes are being made because data (yes, data) collected over the last two decades have been showing increased average and maximum temperatures.
Human caused? Maybe. But the trend is definitely toward warming.
Great blog P.Z., weather the trolls.
Posted by: DAV | November 10, 2007 4:44 PM
"An admittedly brief search through McIntyre's site finds no reference to the phrase "I am not a denialist" by McIntyre."
Well for a "science" site I really have to wonder at the reasoning that goes on here.
I'll bet a brief search though McIntyre's site won't turn up phrases like "I am not a murder" or "I am not a child molester" or "I am not a wife beater" either. Does that mean he is one or more of those things? What exactly was your observation supposed to prove?
Isn't it interesting that showing the errors and inconsistencies in an argument automatically makes one a "denier?" Isn't that like calling someone an atheist when they point out errors and inconsistencies in a theist argument? There is absolutely no chance that anyone could just be with an "I don't know one way or other" position or maybe just can't abide by erroneous argument? And if a person does point out a fallacious argument from a theist why would that person suddenly incur an equal-time obligation to point out the fallacies of an atheist?
Hurling epithets is not only a demonstration of low class but a very real demonstration of the lack of intelligent response.
Sure, it might argued that intelligent response is a waste of time. I wouldn't think so but then I've never been here before. After seeing some of the posts I can now see what that might mean.
Posted by: JePe | November 10, 2007 4:58 PM
The Hockey-stick graph is a total fraud, as are all other replica's.
You want prove?
Read this:
http://homepages.tesco.net/~kate-and-david/2007/Holland(2007).pdf
Posted by: Onias | November 10, 2007 5:09 PM
Lar R:
I hope you realise how ironic it is that you're comparing socialists and environmentalists to fundies, considering your less than subtle implication that ALL State intervention is evil, regardless of individual circumstance.
Also, you seem to have little to no knowledge of either socialism or environmentalism. You should read up a little on these topics before you post again because you sound like a total Rush Limbaugh jackass.
Posted by: Steve_C | November 10, 2007 5:12 PM
DAV. Your declaration means nothing. If you want science.. go to a different article. When PZ posts about climate change, feel free to join in with and denials or nondenials but this was never meant to be a debate about AGW. It's about telling CA trolls to fuck off.
So.
Go take a head first dive off a cliff. Bugger off. Kiss my ass. Suck it. Shove it. Eat it.
DAV. Fuck off.
And yes I must be a low class uneducated barbarian. It's just so obvious.
Posted by: truth machine | November 10, 2007 5:14 PM
I've never been here before.
Yes, we know. And your first appearance is in a thread 2 days old, a thread that is troll-bait stemming from a troll attack from another blog due to a stupid web contest that this blog essentially bowed out of. And guess what? This isn't a climatology blog. So why are you even here? You're just another troll drive-by, one of so many.
Posted by: harold | November 10, 2007 5:14 PM
Hello,
just stopped by to say goodbye.
It seems that after a hard (and bitter) fight
the BA and CA votes are tied: 20k vs 20k. :-)
I see truth machine has woken up
(...and not used the F word ... yet!).
I still am puzzled by the sharp divide.
I will leave you with an ("right wing") explanation:
First, what do I mean by global salvationism? The salvationist doctrine has
two main strands, which originally were separate but have long since come
together to form an influential world-wide consensus. The first strand is
developmental salvationism, and relates to the economic fortunes of poor
countries. The second strand is environmental salvationism. In both strands,
two elements are combined. One is a relentlessly dark - not to say alarmist -
picture of recent trends, the present state of the world (or 'the planet'),
and prospects for the future unless prompt and far-reaching changes are made
in official policies. The second is a conviction that known effective remedies
exist for the various ills and threats thus identified, remedies which require
action on the part of governments and 'the international community'. 'Solutions'
are at hand, given wise collective resolves and actions. Global salvationism
thus combines alarmist visions and diagnoses with confidently radical collectivist
prescriptions for the world.
From a speech by David Henderson
http://www.staff.livjm.ac.uk/spsbpeis/David-Henderson.htm
All the best
harold
Posted by: DAV | November 10, 2007 5:40 PM
"DAV. Fuck off."
Yep. Nothing like "intelligent" response to a reasonable observation, Steve_C. You poor thing. Feel better now? Thanks for providing more evidence for what I initially suspected.
Posted by: phat | November 10, 2007 5:55 PM
More with the jokes.
phat
Posted by: DAV | November 10, 2007 6:00 PM
"And guess what? This isn't a climatology blog. So why are you even here? You're just another troll drive-by, one of so many."
Not a climatology blog??!! No kidding??!! Not a science blog either from the looks of it.
Gee I wonder why PZ was referring to "deniers" and expressing his opinion on climate at all. Maybe he just never expected any response because his loyal followers NEVER hold differing opinions? Weird.
As to what I'm doing here is quite simple. The real reason behind the Blog Contest is to provide a kind of advertisement for the various blogs. I've been going around to the various science ones and came across some that I really liked. This one has gotten quite a reputation after the poor loser invectives spewed forth. No need to take my word for it. Go google for some of the sites commenting on the behavior here.
I was kinda hoping they were wrong and decided to see for myself. Seems they were right, though.
Don't worry your little brain over it, sweetie. I'm not sticking around. I really don't need to be stepping in what comes out of your mouths.
Bye, Bye, kids!
Posted by: ChemBob | November 10, 2007 6:20 PM
JePe,
I read the 1st 3 pages of that paper and encountered nothing but an apparently neverending rant against the IPCC with only a mention of the "bad" data. It was nothing but an industry propaganda piece and I'd be stunned if it had ever been impartially peer-reviewed. The author wants to address bias and begins with complete bias on his part. FYI, real scientic journal articles are not written in that format. It was written for people exactly like you, the sort who think that Limbaugh and O'Reilly actually do research and present their viewers with facts. You need to broaden your science reading to include actual science.
Posted by: Steve_C | November 10, 2007 7:14 PM
Woohoo! My potty mouth works!
Crackpot denialists.
Posted by: Jordan | November 10, 2007 8:13 PM
Whoopee!!! We've got to over 750 on this thread.
That's if we ignore the diluation of quality, since as much as 50% appear to be the spambot Machine telling everybody to effoff. Thank god for cut and paste!
On dilution of value, I seem to recall wildlifer's foray into CA in recent months. Wildlifer offered a number of abrasive assertions but nothing of substance. Seems to be the way of things around here.
Great for CA to have won the poll, but on reflection not such a big deal given the level of the competition.
I better effoff before the effin spambot Machine tells me to effoff and adds to the amazing number of posts.
Posted by: Michael X | November 10, 2007 8:25 PM
"You do understand the difference between a disagreement with a position (even if, as you tendentiously put it, it is an off base misinterpretation) and a stupid ad hominem about posting habits, don't you?"
Of course I do. That's why I went on to discuss the matter then at hand in that very same post. I'm sure you of all people can understand such rhetorical schemes as our entire conversation went: A slam and an argument, an argument and a slam, etc.
Posted by: J. Peden | November 10, 2007 8:52 PM
No,as you say, water vapor is in fact a much greater greenhouse gas - much greater than CO2, given the same molecular/atomic mechanisms, and concentrations. So the more relevant question, perhaps, is why we have not had run-away atmospheric warming due to water vapor physics.
Something is stopping it.
Posted by: Bob Cormack | November 10, 2007 9:14 PM
Posted by: efrique | November 8, 2007 7:00 PM:
"I worry about America (how did you guys ever get people on the moon?), and as a result I worry for us all."
Not to worry -- engineering isn't science, it is much more reality based.
Scientists couldn't have done it (go to the Moon); and they won't be able to do anything about global warming.
For instance, regarding CO2 emissions: an engineer might recommend we put out the coal fires in China and Indonesia. This would be straightforward (technically, and probably politically as well), and would have an order of magnitude more effect than Kyoto (whatever that might be), even if the Kyoto goals were being met (which they aren't). Climate scientists will keep insisting that we must revamp our whole economic system (something else they don't understand -- but hey! If it wasn't in their PhD syllabus, how hard could it be?).
Oh, and keep throwing more money at climate research!
To have a successful career, scientists only have to convince their peers that they are right -- engineers have to be right. Good engineers have attitudes more like Francois O's -- skeptical about all untested claims -- than PZ's -- I'm right, so F.O.! (BTY, would that be the Francois O Bochud who has published in the optical journals?)
Posted by: Onias | November 10, 2007 9:43 PM
Bob Carmack, your post is absurd rubbish and you should be ashamed of yourself. You haven't a clue what you're talking about, do you? Honestly, fess up.
Posted by: Gary | November 10, 2007 10:27 PM
The reason for so many new posts from people who agree with the outdated views of this site is simple.
Links to this site are being all over the net as an illistration of how completely out of touch with reality most AGW cultists have become.
I see what they mean.
People! Its almost 2008. The world has been accepted as round for years now. DDT has been proven harmless, the Ozone hole was found to be natural and the great ice Age never came.
Your religeous devotion to this dying cult is really pathetic.
I will of course post links to here where ever I can to make sure everyone sees the true depth of the AGW cult.
Cheers:
Posted by: Rey Fox | November 10, 2007 10:34 PM
"DDT has been proven harmless"
Not to birds of prey, you clueless twit.
Posted by: ChemBob | November 10, 2007 10:39 PM
Ok, Cormack, so engineering is totally separate from science is it? My God (if you existed), aren't you trolls the most ignorant bunch of verbose crap on whom I've ever wasted my time. All of engineering is merely the application of scientific theories and discoveries, you ignoramuses!
I bet none of you have ever done any actual science, e.g., come up with new and testable ideas and concepts to explain reality and then tested them to see if they or the alternative hypotheses are superior. My guess is that if you've ever done any engineering it was while playing with your toy choo choo trains as children. You've no concept or understanding of anything that you post, you are completely out of touch with any meaningful definition of reality, and yet you think you are intellectual giants of some sort.
It is sad and sickening to me to realize that I have to share a world with intellectually lazy and dishonest dolts like you who have no goals other than hanging on to their chests of gold like they are your Savior while smugly believing you've won arguments when you are not even in the fight. You are truly depressing and serve primarily as individual indictments of the elementary and secondary school systems and the failure of the mass media in this country to provide factual information and impart the ability to think rationally and clearly.
Posted by: CalGeorge | November 10, 2007 10:45 PM
"DDT has been proven harmless"
Rachel Carson is rolling in her grave (metaphorically speaking).
"AGW cultists" -
We are mainstream, you doofus.
YOU are the cultists.
Time Magazine in 2006:
A large majority of Americans -- 85% -- say global warming is probably happening, according to a new TIME magazine/ABC News/Stanford University poll. An even larger percentage (88%) think global warming threatens future generations. More than half (60%) say it threatens them a great deal; 38% feel that global warming is already a serious problem, and 47% feel that it will be in the future.
[..]
Six in ten Americans (62%) think much can be done to curb global warming and 52% favor government mandates. A majority (61%) say they would support a government mandate on lowering power plant emissions, and 87% support tax breaks to develop water, wind and solar power. But 81% oppose higher taxes on electricity, 68% oppose higher gasoline taxes and 56% oppose giving companies tax breaks to build nuclear power plants.
Posted by: phat | November 10, 2007 11:03 PM
This thread is still entertaining. I don't know why!
phat
Posted by: CalGeorge | November 10, 2007 11:13 PM
What do these idiots offer as an explanation for the hockey stick if they don't believe it is the result of our influences on the environment?
Do they think that our industrial society - which has been going full-tilt for more than a century - has no influence on the environment?
I don't understand how they could think that.
It seems they want to discount all that we have done to change our environment - pretend that the earth and atmosphere can absorb all that abuse and remain fundamentally in the same, age-old patterns.
That doesn't seem likely.
What is most scary is that they are hindering positive action on climate change.
That is bound to have a human cost!
Posted by: CalGeorge | November 10, 2007 11:30 PM
Oh, I forgot, "there are public health benefits to climate change."
Any denialists out there want to explain some of the theoretical health and environmental benefits of climate change?
Posted by: Robin Levett | November 10, 2007 11:33 PM
J Peden:
Rain.
Posted by: phat | November 10, 2007 11:41 PM
Cal:
The thing is about denialists and any sort of human harm is a little bit difficult to figure out.
But I suspect (and Robert Altemeyer's research points to this) that it doesn't much matter to them either way. It strikes me at this point to consider if this climate crisis weren't human influenced. Would they be arguing against mitigating the damage anyway? I suspect so. Given a perfect set of tools that we could use to mitigate the problems caused by this crisis, with some cost of course and the savings of lives and property, I suspect they would chose not to do anything about it.
They either adhere to this perverted obsession with "the market" or an obsession with religious dogma.
None of the potential, and likely, serious human suffering matters to them.
phat
Posted by: phat | November 10, 2007 11:44 PM
Oh, and I forgot to add this. The evidence that shows that human activity is making the situation worse just causes them even more fits. That causes their ideology to get even more tweaked.
phat
Posted by: Gary | November 10, 2007 11:46 PM
Rachel Carson is rolling in her grave....
And well she should. She was an idiot. And very much responsible for millions of deaths in Aftrica from malaria.
(But they don't count do they, they are just africans after all)
And Cult is the correct term. It's just a big cult.
There are going to be a lot of depressed people when this all blows over, (soon) their great noble cause to save the world will be shown to be nothing more than a devious political scam.
Enjoy it while you can. GW will turn to GC soon enough and all this silly nonsense will be laughed at.
Remember the words of the main architect of the Kyoto Protocol (Maurice Strong) in the late 80s:
"Isn't the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn't it our responsibility to bring that about?"
His dream is close to reality. AGW cultists are working hard to make it come true.
Posted by: wildlifer | November 10, 2007 11:48 PM
Before he fucked off, Jordan quipped:
Nutjob creationists always find the truth abrasive.
Posted by: ChemBob | November 10, 2007 11:56 PM
CalGeorge,
It seems to me that many of them bring up money, taxes, fear of government, and not wanting anything that might cause them to have to alter their lifestyles (as vapid and unfulfilling as their life-styles appear to be); typical right-wing talking points. Also they seem to suffer from a self-indulgent pretense that they are better educated than they actually are. Not one of the accepted my challenge to show us a peer-reviewed environmental science paper that they authored.
They also are highly subject to finding an "authority" that spouts verbiage that is in coherence with their thoughts on certain issues, no matter how ludicrous they and the authority figure are with respect to evidence and reason (sort of like religion, imho) and appear to be John Dean's authoritarian followers (or however he put it).
We are sadly saddled with the fact that half of the IQs are below average among our fellow persons. However, I can't imagine how far below 100 they have to be to retain the foolish belief systems we've witnessed in this thread (and a few others). I'm sure you noticed, as did I, that no matter the facts or the logic, they could not be persuaded about anything, not one iota. I, on the other hand, not only can be persuaded that there are mistakes in climate change science, I'm certain there are mistakes. However, as we know on this blog, the discovery of mistakes and their correction and refinement of hypotheses are what science is all about. With regard to climate change, although I'm not an expert in the field, it seems pretty apparent that the preponderance of evidence leads to the ineluctable conclusion that it is indeed happening. Our trolls don't seem to even understand the multiple lines of evidence beyond the hockey sticks.
I'm tired and rambling. Goodnight all.
Posted by: CalGeorge | November 11, 2007 12:01 AM
And very much responsible for millions of deaths in Aftrica from malaria.
Oh, fer crying out loud, not this bullshit topic!
You people are sponges for all kinds of wacko theories!
Posted by: Stanton | November 11, 2007 12:02 AM
Gary, if DDT is harmless, then, why is it that ever since DDT was used and manufactured in Southern California, all bald eagles that try to live in the wilds of coastal Southern California die?
Does the giant pool of DDT that lies beneath the waters at the base of the cliffs of Palos Verdes have anything to do with this phenomenon?
Posted by: Stanton | November 11, 2007 12:04 AM
Also, Gary, are you aware that there are several strains of insects, including mosquitoes, that are resistant, and or even immune to the effects of DDT?
Posted by: ChemBob | November 11, 2007 12:07 AM
One more quick thing:
Gary, don't be an idiot. It's not environmental scientists who are destroying the industrial bases of this and several other countries, it's the neoconservative fascists enabled by the sexually-closeted and repressed religious fanatics who want to impose some sort of Religio-Corporate servitude on everyone who's not in their club. I actually work with many industries on their environmental issues. I don't know any of them who are as anti-enviroment as you and your troll squad seem to be. How old are you, 20? You probably don't even remember the burning rivers and the intense city smogs, do you?
You are sickeningly ignorant. Go enroll in a college or a university, I beg of you.
Posted by: CalGeorge | November 11, 2007 12:08 AM
GW will turn to GC soon enough and all this silly nonsense will be laughed at.
How is that going to happen, exactly?
Is Stevie really going to convert the world to his pet theory?
I'm having a hard time envisioning how this great awakening is going to take place?
Will Exxon flood the airwaves with commercials for Steve's "brilliant" deconstructions of Al Gore's presentations?
Give me a break.
Posted by: J. Peden | November 11, 2007 1:10 AM
No one has to be too brilliant to deconstruct Al Gore's presentations.
Posted by: CalGeorge | November 11, 2007 1:39 AM
These denialists people are nutty. They complain mightily about the manipulation of statistics by scientists but they are more than happy to provide their own anecdotal evidence for what is happening to the climate, based on the temperature where they live.
From Climate Science blog:
1) Harold
Here are the results of analysis of the temperature records from the lighthouse at Quatsino, BC, which is located on the West Coast of Vancouver Island
[some data from the beginning and end of the last century]
These data speak for themselves, as they always do, and they say: No change in the mean daily minimum temperature at and around the Spring Equinox at the Quatsino Station for a century.
Absolute truth is in the treasure chests (filling cabinets with temp records) of the lighthouses.
Absolute truth? Really, Harold? Are you going to show the world that global warming is not happening by amassing lots of Canadian light house temperature data?
At least he stopped shot of drawing a conclusion about global warming based on the data he got from that one lighthouse. He deserves credit for that. Maybe there's hope for Harold.
2) Bruce Hall
Although I do not have access to the exact location of the stations reporting the higher readings, I suspect that they are situated such that the late afternoon sun is baking them in a way that significantly raises the temperature readings. In both instances, the maximum temperature difference occurred around 6 p.m. with a bright sun. Right now one of the reporting stations is still 3 degrees higher while the other is one degree higher than my thermometer which suggests that there may be residual heating from pavement or buildings. The one that agreed with my thermometer earlier is about 2 degrees below mine now, but that may be because of the slight residual heat in my porch while the one lower than mine probably is located completely outdoors. Obviously, there may be calibration issues as well, but the directional differences are very obvious.
There's no hope for Bruce. Completely, certifiably nuts!
Posted by: J. Peden | November 11, 2007 2:03 AM
Obviously, nuclear energy is the way to go, that is, if you think the World is going to die otherwise from fossil fuel CO2. So why do the Kyoto Protocols exclude countries containing 5 billion of the the World's 6.5 billion people from having to follow them, thus allowing fossil fuel use - and massive increase - to run ad lib in places like India and China?
You've made your bed, now sleep in it.
Posted by: phat | November 11, 2007 2:12 AM
You should be just the man to do it then.
phat
Posted by: Jordan | November 11, 2007 2:16 AM
Creationist? Not me wildlifer! That's just another example of your abrasive assertions.
So where did you and spambot woof machine get your degrees in Applied Arrogance?
Anyways, I reckon I know what your problem is: you guys have no credibility. And that means no authority.
Go ahead, tell me to effoff if you want. No cred.
Posted by: David | November 11, 2007 2:23 AM
1. Much of the Sun's output is in the Infrared range. More CO2 in our atmosphere means that more infrared gets reflected back into space. I'm sorry that some of you seem to think that the word reflected only applies to visible light.
2. Water vapor overpowers and negates anything that the measly 0.038% of CO2 in our atmosphere can do. If most of the greenhouse effect comes from the visible spectrum, and heat leads to more water vapor, and water vapor reflects visible spectrum back into space, then the earth will cool.
3. My phrase that everyone worships something is true. If you don't understand symbolic analogy, I cannot help you. The line between genius and retarded is very thin for many of you. Get a hold of your Aspergers and take a deep breath.
4. Green movements are mostly socialist movements. This isn't Rush Limbaughisms, this is truth. I'll give examples: The Green Party is as close to a socialist party as one can get. Earth day sprang from the hippie commune movements (commune ~= socialist/communist). The WWF, Sierra Club, and Greenpeace are all far left organizations. IMHO, this is clear as mud when you start looking into who is behind them and what they support.
5. High taxation is only a small part of socialism, nobody has said otherwise that I know of.
Posted by: CalGeorge | November 11, 2007 2:23 AM
Obviously, nuclear energy is the way to go, that is, if you think the World is going to die otherwise from fossil fuel CO2.
How many of them do you want to see built?
In the U.S., a couple hundred of them should do the trick.
Where do you want 'em?
Posted by: CalGeorge | November 11, 2007 2:31 AM
Earth day sprang from the hippie commune movements (commune ~= socialist/communist).
I don't think Gaylord Nelson, U.S. Senator from Wisconsin, was a hippie.
Wikipedia:
The story goes that Earth Day was conceived by Senator Gaylord Nelson after a trip he took to Santa Barbara right after that horrific oil spill off our coast in 1969. He was so outraged by what he saw that he went back to Washington and passed a bill designating April 22 as a national day to celebrate the earth.
Any thoughts about Arbor Day?
Posted by: CalGeorge | November 11, 2007 2:55 AM
Water vapor overpowers and negates anything that the measly 0.038% of CO2 in our atmosphere can do. If most of the greenhouse effect comes from the visible spectrum, and heat leads to more water vapor, and water vapor reflects visible spectrum back into space, then the earth will cool.
Quoting from How to Talk to a Climate Skeptic:
...any artificial perturbation in water vapour concentrations is too short lived to change the climate. Too much in the air will quickly rain out, not enough and the abundant ocean surface will provide the difference via evaporation. But once the air is warmed by other means, H2O concentrations will rise and stay high, thus providing the feedback.
And here's a study that says Water Vapor Feedback Is Rapidly Warming Europe.
Posted by: Zarquon | November 11, 2007 3:12 AM
Nope:
The Earth's surface absorbs this visible light and re-radiates it as IR. Some of the re-radiated IR heats up the atmosphere due to R absorption by greenhouse gases. You don't seem to understand this basic point.
Negates? What does the water do? Give off negative energy? Water and CO2 absorb in different IR bands. That's why there's a positive feedback.
If you don't understand the pretty basic physics of what is happening (and you obviously don't) you should try getting a better education.
Posted by: phat | November 11, 2007 3:24 AM
You're killing me, seriously. Hollywood couldn't write this stuff.
"Clear as mud," that phrase, you use it, but I do not think it means what you think it means.
You're right though, that senator George Perkins was a real socialist. You've got that point going for you.
phat
Posted by: J. Peden | November 11, 2007 3:36 AM
CalGeorge: I'll take a few nuclear plants in my backyard. It's no problem. France has about 1 plant per million. We've got about 1 plant per 3 million. We simply have to go nuclear. I've about given up on alternative energy, although I am probably more energy efficient and alternative than 99.9% of people in the U.S.: I have no electricty in my house in the Summer. I heat with wood in the Winter and Summer, when needed. I can get all my hot water from wood for the major part of the year.
Look, you can't even get people to drive slower, which would conserve energy proportional to v squared. Driving at 50 mph uses 1/2 of the gas compared to driving at 70 mph.
Coal supplies about 50% of our electricity. If you want to get off coal and oil, you have to go nuclear.
Then the environmentalists want to tear down the hydroelectric dams, to save the Salmon, for example.
I say, give it up and go nuclear. I've been hearing and struggling with alt. energy and conservation for nearly 40 years, and I just don't think it's going to work, given energy demands and human nature.
Posted by: Brian Macker | November 11, 2007 8:16 AM
No, David, CO2 absorbs infrared and at particular bandwidths only.
The different temperatures of the earth and sun mean that their black body radiation is at different frequencies also.
Furthermore, technically reflection occurs a the interface of two different media. If I recall correctly the boundary between space and our atmosphere is not sharp enough in relationship with the wavelengths involved for reflection to occur.
So what happens is that radition does enter the atmosphere and is absorbed by CO2 and reradiated. Half that reradiation continues in an earthward direction. So it does end up warming the atmosphere by some percent.
All that increasing CO2 does is move that net warming upwards in the atmosphere.
No, it's additive. Again, no reflection. In the case of visible light no absorption, reradition, or reflection.
Oh, please. Not everyone worships something. That's just silly. People may hold their beliefs dogmatically in this area but that doesn't mean they are worshiping them. Well I've heard of analogy but why add the qualifier "symbolic". Why can't you help me, you not understand it yourself? Well you see since I don't believe what you are claiming I'll take it that I'm one of your targets.Posted by: ChemBob | November 11, 2007 8:17 AM
J. Peden, I'm neither pro nor antinuclear as many are, there are both good and bad arguments for nuclear, but here are some of my thoughts on what you've mentioned:
Nuclear power is expensive in this country and is currently highly subsidized by the government. What are you willing to pay in increased taxes (because the corporations won't let their subsidies lapse)? Are you willing to have the extremely radioactive waste stored in your back yard too? Fortunately there is some good research (science, wouldn't you know) going on regarding future designs that will fully deplete the radioactivity. Will be ready in perhaps 20-30 years was the estimate I heard.
Heating your house with wood is more harmful to the environment than using the power from natural gas (in particular) and coal-fired electricity (provided the power company is meeting its air emission permit requirements; this will be even more true when carbon sequestration is in place). Don't get me wrong, I'm no lover of coal, but I am a realist. Wood was fine at low world population levels, but not so much at those we have now. Fires, such as those recently in CA, are natural (usually), but also not particularly beneficial to human civilization and health. I must say though that I admire your intent to minimize your personal environmental impact.
With regard to driving, indeed people won't slow down very easily. Plus, do we really want our economy slowed down by delaying people and products? What we need in that regard are at least two things: 1) CAFE standards that force greatly improved fuel economy, 2) much better mass transit both within urban areas and between urban centers, 3) a reduction in urban sprawl to reduce the requisite travel distances; this would be accompanied by increasing the remediation/reuse of Brownfields in blighted and underused urban areas. OK, so I came up with three things rather than two.
Hydroelectric dams can't supply all our electrical needs, but dams can be designed to improve the situation for salmon runs, etc.
We could have bought massive amounts of oil from the middle east, Venezuela, etc., and, in the meantime, been making huge investments in massive solar, wind, tidal power, etc., with the trillion+ dollars we've spent in Iraq on nothing. Then we could have sold our technology to the rest of the world and helped rebuild our industrial/technological base.
Most scientists want to move forward on these and other similar fronts (I could have gone on); it is the Luddites, the neoconservatives, and the radical religiosos who are against change. This is because they fear everything except reality, which they do not understand due to their inane beliefs in phantom powers that rule everything. When one begins to accept such beliefs it damages one's judgment about virtually everything.
Posted by: CalGeorge | November 11, 2007 8:38 AM
I'll take a few nuclear plants in my backyard.
Can we store the waste there, too? (I hope you don't live anywhere near me.)
Is there enough uranium available to power - for the long-term - all of these plants you want to build? I don't think so.
Posted by: kim | November 11, 2007 9:20 AM
How amusing. Steve McIntyre and crew have one of the most important ideas of the 21st Century well in hand, and you, PZ, make jokes?
Soon, maybe next year, when it is obvious the globe is cooling, Steve will finally get credit.
====================================
Posted by: CalGeorge | November 11, 2007 9:40 AM
Science Daily (Mar. 22, 2007)
Lack Of Fuel May Limit US Nuclear Power Expansion
That shortage of uranium and of processing facilities worldwide leaves a gap between the potential increase in demand for nuclear energy and the ability to supply fuel for it, said Dr. Thomas Neff, a research affiliate at MIT's Center for International Studies.
[...]
Currently, much of the uranium used by the United States is coming from mines in such countries as Australia, Canada, Namibia, and, most recently, Kazakhstan. Small amounts are mined in the western United States, but the United States is largely reliant on overseas supplies. The United States also relies for half its fuel on Russia under a "swords to ploughshares" deal that Neff originated in 1991. This deal is converting about 20,000 Russian nuclear weapons to fuel for U.S. nuclear power plants, but it ends in 2013, leaving a substantial supply gap for the United States.
Further, China, India, and even Russia have plans for massive deployments of nuclear power and are trying to lock up supplies from countries on which the United States has traditionally relied. As a result, the United States could be the "last one to buy, and it could pay the highest prices, if it can get uranium at all," Neff said. "The take-home message is that if we're going to increase use of nuclear power, we need massive new investments in capacity to mine uranium and facilities to process it."
I don't think we should be depending on nuclear to save us.
Posted by: CalGeorge | November 11, 2007 9:49 AM
Soon, maybe next year, when it is obvious the globe is cooling, Steve will finally get credit.
Poor guy. Can't get no respect (except from a bunch of nuts).
I wonder why.
Posted by: ChemBob | November 11, 2007 9:54 AM
Kim, perhaps you'd care to make a bullet point summary in a post explaining McIntyre's "most important ideas of the 21st Century." I'm always open to alternative scientific explanations, provided they are truly scientific and not just repeated talking points and/or propaganda. Then those explanations have to be compared to the other lines of evidence within that same context and examined with respect to current and past measurements and predictability.
If this is merely going to be another "hockey stick was wrong" discussion, please go ahead and post the relevant points (bullets, remember) that are causing you so much aggravation, but you must be aware that there are lots of lines of evidence that have to be examined. Not just that one. Also, don't just start harping on taxes and Socialism; those are not the topics really. Broaden your scientific perspective please, if one certain type of descriptive statistical plot is your sole focus.
Posted by: Brian Macker | November 11, 2007 9:59 AM
So what? Is anyone claiming that humans are ruining the environment by producing too much water vapor?Dubious claims. What is too much and not enough mean? This is also misleading to the uninformed because it makes it sound like natural water vapor is a minor factor. It is not and it doesn't just "rain out". If it did then the claims of the next sentence would be moot.
A very poor attempt at trying to say that human contributions to water vapor don't matter in the extreme long run, which is absolutely true. Of course continuing contributions have an effect but are so tiny that they don't need to be considered.
Of course, no one cares about any of this. No one is talking about artificial water vapor concentrations having any important effect whatsoever. Everyone on the several sides of this issue are talking about natural water vapor, not artificial. So it's a straw man. Why waste our time.
Well, while it's true that water vapor in the atmosphere is exculsively a greenhouse gas this is only a half truth in that increased water vapor may mean increased cloud cover which does reflect insolation. Water in the atmosphere is better thought of as a buffer gas, like sodium bicarbonate is a buffer for PH.
Of course, increased CO2 is going to cause increased temps all other things being equal. There is no mechanism for it not to. The question is how important human contribution is, and whether the economic hardships caused by any attempt to abate the changes are worth it.
If temps would have increased by 5 degrees anyway and we can change that to 4.98 degrees while destroying our economies then what's the point? Further, if after the 5 degree increase the temperature was due to decrease by 10 degrees as we exited the interglacial then maybe the increased CO2 might be a good thing.
What certain is that superhurricane, mega droughts, and tidal waves aren't going to destroy the country. Like the movie "The Day After Tomorrow". I'm still pissed that this movie got my mom all upset over nothing. She called me because she thought this was based on science. I had to tell her it was nonsense. It required quite a bit of explaining that made certain scientists look quite bad.
Some people seem to think that any lie and any behavior is moral for a good cause. I just happen to think this kind of thinking is foolish.
Yes, it's quite probable that human action is having an upward effect on temperature. No, it's not the end of the world. No, trying to limit our consumption of oil etc. will not reduce oil consumption in total. Simple economic fact. It will merely raise our production costs which will just restructure the economy so that others who don't restrict their consumption will pick up the slack and use the oil instead. Of course, now in a less efficient manner since they are not as capitalized as we are. If you don't understand that then all I can say is get educated.
I don't understand why some people can understand when Dawkins explains mechanisms that undermine group selection, like migration and mutation, but cannot then understand mechanisms that undermine socialistic policy prescriptions. Often to the extent that they are totally ineffectual.
It requires guns and military and economic might to enforce reduced oil consumption on the unwilling. Those things tend to be less effective when you are rolling around on bicycles instead of tanks, and living hand to mouth instead of in prosperity. How do those who advocate reduced consumption plan to force this on the unwilling without increased oil consumption? War is a costly thing, and who's going to police broke energy treaties?
First step is you have to honestly convince people there is such a serious problem, and you've failed at that step. Then you have to overcome human nature, but to try to do so might cause more carbon emmissions than just doing nothing.
Posted by: David Marjanović, OM | November 11, 2007 10:01 AM
I haven't read the last 100 comments... I'm just saying:
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/11/sokald.php
Also, at the present speed of consumption (or rather at the speed of a few years ago), there's enough uranium for the next 60 years, and of course the speed of consumption is supposed to increase drastically. Either people figure out how to make a viable brood reactor, or nuclear energy won't last much longer than the oil.
We need alternatives anyway. We might as well invest real money into the research now.
Posted by: David Marjanović, OM | November 11, 2007 10:11 AM
Therein lies the rub. We have no idea on what the "economic hardships" would actually be.
Many of them would be an investment anyway. Better insulation for buildings means lower costs for heating and cooling, with lower CO2 emissions as a nice side effect.
Posted by: kim | November 11, 2007 10:13 AM
ChemBob, a simple idea, really. That carbon is not the culprit.
Have you read Gerlich and Tscheuschner? Or are you too busy with taxes and socialism?
===========================
Posted by: Brian Macker | November 11, 2007 10:19 AM
David,
A big "So what?". You don't think there are idiot environmentalists out there who are suckers? Remember the "Ban Dihydrogen Monoxide" scam. I'm well aware that Rush Limbaugh is not a source for good science. I abhor his tactics as much as I do those on the left.
Posted by: kim | November 11, 2007 10:20 AM
Oh, sorry, CB, I note you asked for alternative explanations. It's clouds, my dear man, which are determined by cosmic rays, determined by the earth's magnetic field, determined by that of the sun, determined by the wiggle of the sun around the gravitational center of the solar system. Google Svensmark, and CERN.
I think I've never heard so loud,
The quiet message in a cloud.
=========================
Posted by: kim | November 11, 2007 10:35 AM
Broaden my perspective. Hah, he wants me to broaden my perspective. Honey, if my perspective were any broader it would be so thin as to disappear.
==================================
Posted by: kim | November 11, 2007 10:38 AM
And listen, childe, if you continue to sacrifice my virgins for your superstitions, there are gonna be consequences. Everytime the Gorebellied Fool opens his mouth, somewhere something sentient freezes. Not good karma, me boy.
=================================
Posted by: JePe | November 11, 2007 10:57 AM
@Chembob #762
I read the 1st 3 pages of that paper and encountered nothing but an apparently neverending rant against the IPCC with only a mention of the "bad" data. It was nothing but an industry propaganda piece and I'd be stunned if it had ever been impartially peer-reviewed. The author wants to address bias and begins with complete bias on his part. FYI, real scientic journal articles are not written in that format. It was written for people exactly like you, the sort who think that Limbaugh and O'Reilly actually do research and present their viewers with facts. You need to broaden your science reading to include actual science.
In all fairness, you should read the whole paper, instead of starting to rant and dismiss it as a piece of propaganda because it does not fit your believe-system.
Check the references, point out where the author is wrong, substantiate your allegations.
And please refrain from stupid remarks like:
"It was written for people exactly like you, the sort who think that Limbaugh and O'Reilly actually do research and present their viewers with facts. You need to broaden your science reading to include actual science."
It makes you look stupid, not me.
Posted by: Jepe | November 11, 2007 11:13 AM
@Kim #811
I think I've never heard so loud,
The quiet message in a cloud.
GREAT!
Posted by: CalGeorge | November 11, 2007 11:17 AM
What certain is that superhurricane, mega droughts, and tidal waves aren't going to destroy the country.
Water shortages will have a significant impact.
In California, we are going to lose a lot of the storage that happens in the Sierras.
From a California DWR report:
The ability of the SWP and the CVP to meet the water demands of its customers and the environment depends heavily on the accumulation of winter mountain snow melting into spring and summer runoff. A warming planet may reduce this natural water storage mechanism. Projected increases in air temperature may lead to changes in the timing, amount and form of precipitation - rain or snow, changes in runoff timing and volume, sea level rise effects on Delta water quality, and changes in the amount of irrigation water needed due to modified evapotranspiration rates.
I'm thankful that planners in California are working on these climate-related problems so that people will not face shortages in future.
Thank goodness they don't have the cavalier attitude that you bring to the subject of climate change.
Posted by: David Marjanović, OM | November 11, 2007 11:34 AM
What do you mean by "global mean temperature anomaly"? I'm talking about the global mean annual temperature.
For the speed of the warming, I don't have references, because that's the first time I see someone doubting it. But I'm sure a few hours in realclimate.org must find something.
Yes, but it isn't your ignorance. It is the fact that water vapor condenses and rains out. CO2 doesn't do that.
If it got so hot that it wouldn't rain anymore, we would have a runaway greenhouse effect. But making it that hot isn't easy. 55 million years ago, the poles had a subtropical climate, and there still was no runaway greenhouse effect.
(Ah, Indonesia too?)
Yes, there are lots of huge coal-seam fires in China, and their combined emissions are impressive. I agree they should be put out.
Politically it would be, of course. Technically it doesn't seem to be; many are huge. Small ones are being put out in China all the time.
On the other hand, I have yet to see evidence that putting them out alone would have a sufficiently large effect.
I also wonder where your "revamp the whole economic system" strawman comes from. We "merely" need to find a substitute for oil.
Argument form ignorance. Science consists of testing hypotheses. Against what? Against reality.
Ever seen a university from the inside?
Argument from ignorance. The mosquitos were already evolving resistance. Keeping on spraying would have killed the non-resistant ones and would have left the resistant ones to spread completely unchecked. Restricting the spraying made the competitive disadvantages of the resistant ones visible.
Also, never mind the fact that many countries have never outlawed DDT completely. It's still being used in plenty of places, even though not on such large scales. Yet again we have an ignoramus who believes there's no difference between the USA and the world (and can't even read Wikipedia, let alone the sources it cites).
Wrong. Go back to reading.
You are right on that one. You have overlooked that since the late 80s no serious climatologists believed that the next ice age would come soon. All evidence that ever existed for it was 1) the tiny cooling of the 70s and 80s, which was due to sulfur dioxide emissions, and 2) mistakes about the durations of previous interglacials.
No. If the CO2 concentration had never increased above preindustrial values, the next ice age would start in 50,000 years and have a glacial maximum in 100,000 years. I posted the reference about 100 comments above this one.
That's diplomacy for you. "Politics is the art of the feasible".
It's also hypocrisy for you. Coal fires included, the US emissions are still way above those of China.
Incidentally, a few years ago China introduced fuel economy standards for cars that were higher than those the USA had at the same time. I don't know what has changed since... I do know that by European standards a large part of US cars would have to be taken off the road, and yet we still survive on this side of the Big Pond, somehow.
Hey, look, an argument from ignorance. How unusual!
1) Much of the sun's output is in the short-wave IR range where CO2 doesn't absorb.
2) That's right: it doesn't reflect, it absorbs. In the process it heats up, and then it distributes the heat to neighboring air molecules by ordinary heat conduction.
What do you mean "overpowers and negates"? Water vapor is ephemeral. Evaporation and condensation happen all the time, and in different places. CO2 is distributed evenly in space and time -- except that it started increasing over time in the late 19th century and has been doing so at an accelerated rate lately. Water vapor concentrations depend much more on temperature than the other way around.
Water vapor doesn't reflect anything. When it condenses, giving off the heat it took up in evaporation, it forms clouds, and those reflect light and IR. That works in both directions, which means that the effect of clouds on the climate is quite complicated and depends on things like height and time of day. But it is included at apparently sufficient complexity in the latest climate models, including those used in the latest IPCC report.
If you don't know the difference between socialism and communism, go read, and then come back...
BTW, I'm not aware of any country with an "Earth Day" other than the USA. And I live in two countries where one of the two biggest parties calls itself "Social-Democratic" and is mighty proud of that.
For each temperature, air has a certain capacity of water vapor. Stay under it, and there'll be evaporation; reach it, and you'll see condensation. Don't tell me you didn't know that.
Indeed not. It's only the end of Bangladesh, if it goes far enough. (Never mind southern Florida etc. etc. etc..)
You wish. The oil is running out anyway, and its market price keeps increasing. In a few decades at the latest we'll need alternatives anyway.
Posted by: Onias | November 11, 2007 11:36 AM
To all the libertarians out there: What would you spend your money on if it wasn't taken for carbon emissions reductions? A bigger car? Some nice jewellery? Seriously, fuck off, you're lucky you have a roof over your head and food on the table, you childish swine.
Posted by: David Marjanović, OM | November 11, 2007 11:45 AM
Which one?
Sure there are. For the record, there are also outright communistic environmentalists (not many, though -- remember that communism was about "the primacy of the economy" and meant heavy industry by "economy"). I just don't see what that tells about the reality of AGW.
Ah yeah. That was a very nice idea. What a shame it was wrong.
(That's not the last word either. Search that blog for "cosmic rays" and you'll find more.)
So what? What do I care about Gore? I haven't seen his movie -- there's nothing new in it as far as I can tell. No suprise, because Gore isn't a climatologist.
Posted by: kim | November 11, 2007 11:46 AM
Thank you, jepe. I've been posting that couplet for years, back when I thought water vapor could be both a positive or a negative feedback depending on circumstances, and before I'd even heard about cosmic rays. Your's is the first favorable comment. Perhaps it is a couplet whose time has come.
===============================
Posted by: kim | November 11, 2007 11:48 AM
DM. please don't give me RealCllimate. That is the echo chamber. And you, my good sir, are out of date about cosmic rays.
=========================
Posted by: kim | November 11, 2007 11:53 AM
Hint, I suspect that cosmic rays come only in one flavor and energy level at RealClimate. Really.
================================
Posted by: CalGeorge | November 11, 2007 11:54 AM
It requires guns and military and economic might to enforce reduced oil consumption on the unwilling.
Does this means that legislating higher fuel economy standards isn't on your list of possible solutions?
Posted by: kim | November 11, 2007 11:57 AM
Oh great, Gore is not a climatologist, the Piltdown Mann is not a statistician. So, why the fuck do you believe these guys? The temperature is static for ten years while carbon dioxide rises. Do you not recognize the post hoc, ergo propter hoc fallacy? Might not it be coincidental the late 20th Century rise in temperature with the rise in CO2?
Look at the facts, folks. We are cooling. Explain that with greenhouse warming from carbon dioxide.
=========================
Posted by: Onias | November 11, 2007 12:13 PM
First of all, I don't listen to Al Gore, I listen to climatologists who say the Earth is warming.
Second, the climatologists are using a technique called logical abduction, or inference to the best explaination. Look it up.
Third, you're a stupid troll and you deserve to be shot. Good day.
Posted by: JePe | November 11, 2007 12:48 PM
@Kim #820
Your's is the first favorable comment. Perhaps it is a couplet whose time has come.
From what I have observed here on Pharyngula you won't get much approval from PZ Myers acolytes. In their mindset the science is settled, so all AGW skeptics must be stupid.
And because the science is settled they don't have to examine disproving evidence: they disqualify it beforehand as Chembob illustrated.
That's not a true scientific attitude but a religious one.
Posted by: tomh | November 11, 2007 12:59 PM
JePe wrote: From what I have observed here on Pharyngula you won't get much approval from PZ Myers acolytes.
And yet you keep coming here spouting your ignorant nonsense. Unbelievable.
Posted by: JePe | November 11, 2007 1:11 PM
tomh wrote:
And yet you keep coming here spouting your ignorant nonsense. Unbelievable.
If that's the only reply you can produce, you have proved my point!
Posted by: kim | November 11, 2007 1:11 PM
Onias, you deserve a look at the evidence. climateaudit.org in case you missed something.
=========================
Posted by: Steve_C | November 11, 2007 1:25 PM
Kim and JePe... Are you kidding me? We have tag teaming trolls now?
Take it to your echo chamber please. CA misses you. We will not.
Posted by: Onias | November 11, 2007 1:25 PM
There's no evidence there, just pedantic quibbling.
Posted by: ChemBob | November 11, 2007 1:28 PM
JePe and Kim,
I don't have time to read the article(s) at this point and trust me when I say that real scientific papers DO NOT begin with the first three pages as a political indictment of those with whom they disagree on the meanings of the data (as per JePe's article).
If you bothered to read my other posts, I stated quite clearly that I'm certain there ARE mistakes in portions of the climate science data and analysis, but those have to be considered in the context of the preponderance of the evidence. That is what science is all about, testing and refining or rejecting hypotheses. It is pointless anyway to argue over this aspect of a cloud or that aspect of a cosmic ray. Our brains (at least mine) can't possibly integrate all the possible combinations of atmospheric circumstances and derive probabilities. That is why real practicing climate scientists are working ceaselessly to develop and refine computer simulations and models of these data. That is why I asked both you and Kim for bullet points salient to your arguments from these papers that you toss about and how those points would overwhelm the data which indicate otherwise.
I just don't have any more time for this, so I will argue from authority knowing full well that is what I'm doing. Sometimes it is better to pay attention to an authority than a layperson and I suspect that is considerably more true when something like 99% of said authorities are in 90% statistical agreement about a topic.
I am a Senior Project Scientist and Project Manager for a corporation (gasp!) that assists other corporations, government agencies, even Native American tribes with environmental issues that they might encounter. My specialty is not climatology but, rather, soils, ground water and surface water, in particular with regard to contaminant transport, fate, and remediation. In prior parts of my career 35 year career I've worked with some of the smartest people imaginable, both at USEPA and within the US national laboratory system (Los Alamos in particular). I don't have the time to waste with you (I've already terribly overdone it) unless you or your heroes have some sort of actual credibility on these issues and, so far, I've seen nothing but misunderstanding, incomplete or just plain incorrect comprehension of the facts, no awareness of how these facts can be assembled into testable models, and arguments from non-authority. In fact, forget it, I just don't have time to spend on you anymore.
If you are really, truly interested in climatology and the intersection of science and politics, I strongly urge both (and the others of you) to go back to school and enroll in graduate programs that will allow you to study and develop theses in these areas of your interest. Perhaps you will change your minds, or perhaps you will confirm what you currently believe and then you can write the real scientific papers that will correct the current wrongs that you perceive; but either way you will learn a lot and you are bound to find it a rewarding experience.
Good luck, good lives, and good bye.
Posted by: kim | November 11, 2007 1:29 PM
Well, PZ was feeling cranky, but we're just getting cranked up.
The evidence? tinyurl.com/2szwh8 Untechnical enough for those intimidated by the scientific gravitas of climateaudit.org.
=============================
Posted by: gary | November 11, 2007 1:31 PM
Well... that was fun. for a time.
It really reminds me of some aruments I have had with Creationsists only less civil.
But I really don't have time to banter with such closed minds.
I would really suggest that anyone with an open mind do a little broader search for information.
Try researching the history of this little cult movement.
I am old enough to have lived through the begining of it.
What you find will shake your fervent beliefs to their core.
But it won't matter the least in the long run since it is all just about over now anyway.
A couple more years and sanity will again return.
If we can just keep the zealots from blowing the budget on nonsence in the mean time we will be OK.
Posted by: kim | November 11, 2007 1:32 PM
ChemBob, you argue eloquently for the democratic theory of science. A consensus, you say. Well, if Steve is wrong, why does it take a multitude to show it?
==============================
Posted by: Steve_C | November 11, 2007 1:32 PM
What about "fuck off" do you guys not get?
We don't care about your little denialist quibbling arguments.
Posted by: DAV | November 11, 2007 1:35 PM
"And although McIntyre never explicitly 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!"
One last comment. I won't be looking here for any replies. If you really have something intelligent to say then e-mail me. I'm sure PZ would be glad to give it to you. For those whose minds still need to be flushed, by all means repeat F-O as often as necessary. Just be aware I won't know it.
There clearly seems to be a great deal of confusion between effect and cause in this blog.
EFFECT: Is there Global Warming (GW)? Sure looks like it. Still the evidence should be examined with caution. Climate is clearly cyclical. It wasn't all that long ago that there were dire warnings of a coming Ice Age (If-We-Continue-As-We-Are-Currently). Sound familiar? That evaporated and the lyrics changed when the temperatures began swinging the other way. There is no reason to not believe this could happen again.
CAUSE: Is Man causing GW (called AGW)? The cute answer is: only if it's spelled "Mann." A more serious answer is: maybe but there doesn't seem to be any evidence.
The reason for continued focus on the HS is largely due to the fact it is continually trotted out as evidence for AGW even though it's been discredited. Why is that?
For example, Al Gore's film used a graphic from Thompson presumably as proof that MBH99 is correct. Funny thing is a) Thompson's graphic used z-score values of an oxygen isotope, which is not normally associated with temperature; b) the title of the graph was changed to "Northern Hemisphere Temperature" but was otherwise unchanged; c) the rightmost part of MBH99 was grafted onto Thompson's; and d) hilarious, but unimportant, the scale of the Y-axis was reversed so the graph was implying severe Global Cooling! For those thinking this little piece of clip-art proves anything, it doesn't. MBH99 is being used to prove the correctness of MBH99.
So, what's wrong with the HS?
1) it contains a serious mathematical error -- top U.S. statisticians concur with this assessment,
2) the error forces the output to a HS shape -- most evident when fed red noise.
In the light of (1) and (2), how exactly then is the result unaffected? (2) in particular says the HS will tend to appear regardless of input. Because of the constant referral to the HS by AGW folks, it is necessary to re-issue that litany of errors. Most everyone I know also regards this as tiresome.
You'd think the AGW proponents would present their BEST evidence. What are they doing? Presenting garbage and keeping the BEST close to their chests awaiting to pounce in the future? C'mon already!
Again I ask, where is the evidence for AGW (as opposed to GW)? Why is it not being used to forward the AGW cause instead of the HS? Occam's Razor leads to believing it doesn't exist.
Posted by: grog the pirate | November 11, 2007 1:40 PM
It's fascinating to see how the minds of trolls like kim and JePe are wired for following people and not ideas or data.
They're here to defend their cult leaders, while squaring off against those they perceive to be leaders in the other tribe like PZ or Al Gore.
They even keep bringing up this science=religion nonsense, which reveals that at the most fundamental level, they just don't get it. They seem incapable of understanding how independent minds can argue and come to conclusions based on observation and data rather than faith and followership.
Thus, every scientific argument gets hopelessly mangled as it passes through the lens of their perception. While this is amusing to watch -- at least for a while -- it's also infuriating. (For example, it's sobering to think that these cretins vote and influence policy.)
But now, they've just become tiring, trying to make up with mouth what they lack in brains, continuously trolling with their insults, high-school debate tactics, and feeble attempts at argument.
Besides, even if they were receptive to argument, they seem incapable of correctly processing it. Their minds operate on a different plane. Their intellectual stimulation comes from the mechanics and tactics of argument, not the knowledge that comes from the correct use of it. Engaging dimwits like JePe and kim on the scientific merits is hopeless.
Posted by: Steve_C | November 11, 2007 1:42 PM
I hope they're disemvoweled soon.
Posted by: j | November 11, 2007 1:43 PM
When I follow threads like these, I always get depressed about the future of our world. I start walking around town and thinking that maybe the person who just passed me is a denialist troll on Pharyngula; sure, the guy looks normal in real life, but what if when he goes home he repeatedly posts spam on science blogs for fun? It's unnerving.
Posted by: grog the pirate | November 11, 2007 1:43 PM
Oh, let me add DAV as Exhibit 3 to my earlier post about the denialist focus on people and authorities rather than data or methodology. Just pick a paragraph at random from 837 and see what you can find...
Posted by: grog the pirate | November 11, 2007 1:47 PM
Steve_C: I'll second that.
Posted by: Janine | November 11, 2007 1:53 PM
The tar pit is still working, I see.
Posted by: Karen Blint | November 11, 2007 2:01 PM
wh dnt ll f th plpl hr jst f 'n d?
stpd fkrs, whnl bbs, whhhh, wnt r mlk?
fgs
N mr srs nt, s m d
And God so loved the world, he fucked them up the ass with stupid ideas of his gay little kid.
Seriously, fuck you.
"I raped God's mom in the mouth, and I read Climate Audit."
Yes, indeed.
You fucking retarded faggots.
Suck dick, eat shit, go to Hell.
Your nonsense will be proven in time, so until then, suck my left tit until the right one gets jealous.
Yours in faith
KB
Posted by: Jordan | November 11, 2007 2:16 PM
Coming back to something mentioned above:
"No,as you say, water vapor is in fact a much greater greenhouse gas - much greater than CO2, given the same molecular/atomic mechanisms, and concentrations. So the more relevant question, perhaps, is why we have not had run-away atmospheric warming due to water vapor physics.
Something is stopping it."
As I understand the way it works, water vapour is not part of direct Enhanced Warming(that is, excluding the proposed feedback mechanisms). The IR bands are pretty well closed in the Troposphere. That is what stops run-away warming due to water vapour as a greenhouse gas.
If there is a direct Enhanced Greenhouse Effect (and I phrase that as a question) it would be due to the accumulation of CO2 in the cold, dry stratosphere.
Posted by: Karen Blint | November 11, 2007 2:19 PM
Water vapor uses a lot of energy to change to a liquid. Fucking so what.
The globe is warming! It's warming and people caused it! Wake up! Get your head of the the sand! We MUST do something about it! We have to SAVE the environment!!
I suggest we drop nuclear weapons on China, India, Iran and Poland, turn them into sheets of glass, and bomb the rain forest for a few months, light that baby on fire, fuck yeah!
Yours in faith
KB
Posted by: grog the pirate | November 11, 2007 2:21 PM
Wow. I wish I could check the referrer logs for this site so I could see where THAT one came from...
Posted by: Rey Fox | November 11, 2007 2:29 PM
"My phrase that everyone worships something is true."
Even granting you the enormous boon of assuming that you know what you're talking about, your "phrase" is still only true in the rhetorical sense (which is apparently all you're good at, what with the way you keep trying to scare us with the socialist bogeyman). And, of course, based on an extremely tortured definition of the term "worship". And when you get right down to it, all you're really saying is that anyone's devotion to anything (science, political movments, justice, etc.) is as blind and stupid and debasing as your devotion to the Phantasm in the Sky. Better be careful with those double-edged swords.
"their great noble cause to save the world will be shown to be nothing more than a devious political scam."
Okay, a scam...for what? Speaking fees? Research funding? Seriously, there are a great many easier ways to scam money out of people that require far less coordination of thousands of colleagues in every part of the world and pay out way more in money and power.
Yeah, bye bye Gary, keep adjusting that tinfoil hat.
Posted by: Gridiron Guru | November 11, 2007 4:57 PM
Does anyone here play NFL Fantasy Football?
Can you believe Westbrook today?
Posted by: Sastra | November 11, 2007 6:01 PM
I wonder if this has become the longest thread on Pharyngula (and this my first and only post on it)?
Posted by: Lazarus Long | November 11, 2007 6:14 PM
"Anyone who cannot cope with mathematics is not fully human. At best he is a tolerable subhuman who has learned to wear shoes, bathe, and not make messes in the house."
Posted by: Arnosium Upinarum | November 11, 2007 6:44 PM
Sastra, I wouldn't be surprised. Looks to me like a semi-coordinated attack, attempted saturation-bombing, coming here just to muck it up. It's got all the hallmarks of an infestation
It's amazing anybody would bother after the first several hundred comments just to root out the rats. Got to wonder if it's tenacity or just folks in search of a life. "Pest and Vermin Control." Honorable living, that. Except that the concentration of feeders draws more of them. What a way to spend precious time.
Posted by: JePe | November 11, 2007 6:54 PM
The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.
H. L. Mencken
Posted by: wildlifer | November 11, 2007 8:02 PM
Fucking creationists' tune never changes. Maybe it's the irrationalism associated with faith that makes them believe they're prophets?
Posted by: j | November 11, 2007 8:02 PM
Actually, the demented-fuckwit apocalyptic thread was longer than this one. Thanks to the persistent spamming of Alexander Vargas, we managed to get to almost 1000 comments; I think we stopped at 993. It looks like this thread won't break the record though.
Posted by: kim | November 11, 2007 10:03 PM
Tinyurl.com/2szwh8
You got responses like reasoning humans or insults like savages?
================================
Posted by: truth machine | November 11, 2007 10:29 PM
Sure, it might argued that intelligent response is a waste of time. I wouldn't think so but then I've never been here before. After seeing some of the posts I can now see what that might mean.... Thanks for providing more evidence for what I initially suspected....Not a science blog either from the looks of it....I was kinda hoping they were wrong and decided to see for myself. Seems they were right, though.
Don't worry your little brain over it, sweetie. I'm not sticking around. I really don't need to be stepping in what comes out of your mouths.
Bye, Bye, kids!
Oh dear, PZ and the rest of us are all so devastated that yet another clueless moronic arrogant troll showed up, blathered about this not being a science blog, and then departed. (How many is that, now?)
Posted by: truth machine | November 11, 2007 10:42 PM
I won't be looking here for any replies. If you really have something intelligent to say then e-mail me. I'm sure PZ would be glad to give it to you. For those whose minds still need to be flushed, by all means repeat F-O as often as necessary. Just be aware I won't know it.
How do people this stupid get this arrogant?
When he gets no email, will he conclude that it's because no one here has anything intelligent to say? Most likely.
Posted by: CalGeorge | November 11, 2007 10:48 PM
I've come to the conclusion that Steve McIntyre's favorite activity is harassing people.
Every other post is about how he was denied information from someone.
"This the 39th email in my correspondence with Science..."
"After about 26 emails and nearly 10 months, Crowley provided by email..."
"I sent several emails to the Bureau of Meteorology this year..."
"I've requested information through an email (this will be my 3rd request)..."
By now, I bet everyone has him in their spam filter.
Posted by: truth machine | November 11, 2007 10:54 PM
Yes, it's quite probable that human action is having an upward effect on temperature. No, it's not the end of the world. No, trying to limit our consumption of oil etc.
The debate is about AGW; if you concede that you concede everything; talk about how we should respond is a red herring. You're acting no differently from those who complain that evolution leads to eugenics or a godless purposeless world -- the social consequences of the answer to an empirical question have no bearing on the answer.
Posted by: truth machine | November 11, 2007 11:01 PM
Soon, maybe next year, when it is obvious the globe is cooling, Steve will finally get credit.
I wonder if Steve "I've never claimed to be a denialist" McIntyre knows that his moronic fans are representing him as that and then some.
Posted by: truth machine | November 11, 2007 11:14 PM
"And very much responsible for millions of deaths in Aftrica from malaria."
Oh, fer crying out loud, not this bullshit topic!
You people are sponges for all kinds of wacko theories!
Sooner or later these ignorant nutjobs show their true colors. I wonder if McIntyre knows how CA is being represented here. If he did, do you suppose he would "audit" any of their blatant errors?
Posted by: David | November 11, 2007 11:16 PM
1. The sun emits a lot more infrared than visible spectrum. Go look it up. More CO2 would mean more heat emitted back into space.
2. CO2 traps heat, which causes evaporation, which causes clouds to form, which causes visible spectrum to be reflected back into space, which means less visible spectrum to be converted into heat by CO2.
3. I cannot believe that so many smart people on this thread cannot see that everyone has a religion of some sort. Everyone worships something. Think of the term "idolize." Where do you think it comes from? If money drives you more than anything, then you worship money, etc. Who cares if you don't physically go to some literal temple, the result is the same. Quit being bigots.
4. Yes, I know the difference between Communism and Socialism. Hitler was a Socialist, Stalin was a Communist. They both shared a lot in common for being such enemies. My point was that some Hippie communes were Marxist/Maoist, others were more Socialist. And before you start babbling about how Hitler was a Fascist, I must explain that Fascism was nothing more than socialism + dictatorship + strong nationalism. The first earth day was in San Francisco in 1970, if that doesn't tell you enough.
Posted by: CalGeorge | November 11, 2007 11:20 PM
Aha!
Source Watch:
McIntyre does not have an advanced degree and has published two articles in the journal Energy and Environment which has become a venue for skeptics and is not carried in the ISI listing of peer-reviewed journals.
I has a feeling there was something funny going on with those articles I was coming across on the denialist blogs!
Bogus people publishing bogus articles in bogus journals.
Posted by: truth machine | November 11, 2007 11:24 PM
I'm sure you of all people can understand such rhetorical schemes as our entire conversation went: A slam and an argument, an argument and a slam, etc.
I understand that this is a red herring; you said that "My comment was of course in reply to your off base misinterpritation of my post" -- that is, you justified your personal attack as a reply to what was an attack on your position.
Posted by: truth machine | November 11, 2007 11:27 PM
I cannot believe that so many smart people on this thread cannot see that everyone has a religion of some sort.
It's no surprise that a stupid person doesn't understand the thought processes of smart people.
Posted by: truth machine | November 11, 2007 11:31 PM
as much as 50% appear to be the spambot Machine telling everybody to effoff.
And these morons pass themselves off as statisticians?
Posted by: truth machine | November 11, 2007 11:34 PM
P.S.
It's amusing how these moronic trolls can't grasp context; the topic of this thread is: "So bugger off, denialists."
Posted by: CalGeorge | November 11, 2007 11:40 PM
Not a pretty picture (Physorg.com, Oct. 22, 2007):
Human activities are releasing carbon dioxide faster than ever, while the natural processes that normally slow its build up in the atmosphere appear to be weakening. These conclusions are drawn in a new study in the early online edition of the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, October 22-26. The report states that "together, these effects characterize a carbon cycle that is generating stronger-than-expected climate forcing sooner than expected."
Between 2000 to 2006, human activities such as burning fossil fuels, manufacturing cement, and tropical deforestation contributed an average of 4.1 billion metric tons of carbon to the atmosphere each year, yielding an annual growth rate for atmospheric carbon dioxide of 1.93 parts per million (ppm).
"This is the highest since the beginning of continuous monitoring in 1959," states the report. The growth rate of atmospheric carbon dioxide is significantly larger than those for the 1980s and 1990s, which were 1.58 and 1.49 ppm per year, respectively. The present atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide is 381 ppm, the largest concentration in the last 650,000 years, and probably in the last 20 million years.
While the worldwide acceleration in carbon dioxide emissions had been previously noted, the current analysis provides insights into its causes. "The new twist here is the demonstration that weakening land and ocean sinks are contributing to the accelerating growth of atmospheric CO2," says co-author Chris Field, director of the Carnegie Institution's Department of Global Ecology.
Changes in wind patterns over the Southern Ocean resulting from human-induced global warming have brought carbon-rich water toward the surface, reducing the ocean's ability to absorb excess carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. On land, where plant growth is the major mechanism for drawing carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere, large droughts have reduced the uptake of carbon.
Emissions from the burning of fossil fuels constituted the largest source of anthropogenic carbon, releasing an average of 7.6 billion metric tons each year between 2000 and 2006, a significant jump from 6.5 billion tons in the 1990s. Emissions generated by land-use changes such as deforestation have remained constant, but shifted in geographic focus.
Posted by: truth machine | November 11, 2007 11:58 PM
Oh yeah? So why don't they mention the hockey stick?
Posted by: kim | November 12, 2007 12:01 AM
So, CalGeorge, with the CO2 continuing to rise, why has the temperature not risen for the last ten years?
=====================================
Posted by: kim | November 12, 2007 12:04 AM
#868, may I paraphrase your characterization of the theme of this thread as 'lalalalalala'?
=====================================================
Posted by: truth machine | November 12, 2007 12:23 AM
It isn't up to me how you demonstrate your cluelessness, kim. But lalalalalala is as good a response to your type as any.
Posted by: Sales MAchine | November 12, 2007 12:32 AM
So you are smarter than me. That happens to be the case with geniuses who develop the technology I purvey to the masses. It's never ceases to amaze me how you brainiacs consistently step on you dicks when it comes to closing a deal. If you would just focus your energy on delivering a practical solution while checking your ego at the door, perhaps we may get on with solving this "crisis".
For all the brilliance you profess with self-accolade, the hubris that begets blindness to your severe lack of intuition is glaring. It's as if you are totally unaware that the meathead bouncer letting all hot chicks and the hipster taglongs into the bar ahead of you doesn't sense you are mocking him while you doddle at the velvet ropes in your Members Only jacket.
Emergency or not, we can all benefit from the ultimate result of a workable solution (e.g. alternative sustainable energy taking the place of fossil fuels). So all of you Titans of Science, please stop wasting your gifts and energy conjuring verbal thunderbolts to hurl at us mortals, and go create something useful to save us. At least Chicken Little got of his ass to do something after he rang the alarm bell.
You give something I can sell and I'll do just that...perhaps you'll even get rich saving the planet. There may be hope of getting you in the VIP room yet.
Can you believe Manning with 6 interceptions tonight???...must have been the heat in San Diego. Gotta be global warming.
Posted by: kim | November 12, 2007 12:32 AM
I noticed. Now read the linked Tinyurl.
=======================
Posted by: kim | November 12, 2007 12:36 AM
A shocking suggestion, SM. Why would you want to foul up the earth's natural regulatory mechanisms, like the sun, the water, and the wind, by deriving significant amounts of energy from them in untraditional ways? Google Boedelle Depression and contemplate what wind farms in Africa would do to the Amazon Basin.
================================
Posted by: CalGeorge | November 12, 2007 12:41 AM
Temps globally and in the U.S. appear to be going up, up, yp!
Oh, I forgot, the evil people at NASA put this together, never mind.
Please explain what's wrong with this one.
Or this one.
Or this one.
The trends are pretty clear.
All available here: http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/
Posted by: Rey Fox | November 12, 2007 12:47 AM
Words don't mean whatever you want them to, David. But if I am to take you at your retarded point, then fine. I worship science and the biota of the planet I live on. You appear to worship the burning of fossil fuels. Big deal.
Posted by: David | November 12, 2007 12:50 AM
I cannot believe that so many smart people on this thread cannot see that everyone has a religion of some sort.
It's no surprise that a stupid person doesn't understand the thought processes of smart people.
It was smart of you to understand your own shortcomings. You did not have to point them out to everyone though.
Posted by: Sales Machine | November 12, 2007 12:55 AM
As far as I am concerned your all fiddling while Rome's burning. That's why us salesfolk play so much golf...because we are waiting for the geniuses to deliver something that can actually be sold. We may not have all the brains, but we know when were getting should on by the geniuses who know better. screw you too truth machine. Why don't you shut your pie hole until you can change your moniker to something like reality machine or inventor of the millenium; and do so with straight face.
Now excuse me while I go sell something, that will put food on the table of the employees and secure the pensions of institutional investors (of which many of you will benefit) of my employer.
Posted by: kim | November 12, 2007 12:58 AM
SM, Pebble Beds. Learn Chinese first.
=======================
Posted by: truth machine | November 12, 2007 1:07 AM
It was smart of you to understand your own shortcomings. You did not have to point them out to everyone though.
You are the one who said you couldn't believe that smart people think what they think, moron -- thus they are your self-confessed shortcomings, and you here prove your stupidity yet again.
Posted by: CalGeorge | November 12, 2007 1:07 AM
Gerard Roe, recently:
"Some warming is a virtual certainty, but the amount of that warming is much less certain."
"We already know about as much as we are going to about climate system's response to greenhouse gases. We already have the basis for making the decisions we need to make."
http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?ItemID=14155
End of story!
Posted by: truth machine | November 12, 2007 1:10 AM
Sales Machine seems nearly as deranged as JohnS.
Posted by: truth machine | November 12, 2007 1:16 AM
End of story!
But he doesn't mention the hockey stick, so there's no global warming, nanananana.
Posted by: David | November 12, 2007 1:19 AM
Rey, my point was about bigotry.
I am all for not putting anything excess into the atmosphere or environment if at all possible (or feasible). I just don't agree that man has caused the earth's global temperature to rise. We give ourselves way too much credit. I think that it is an ego thing.
I don't mind government regulation of pollution in general. Neither does anyone who I know. That does not mean that I am for "progressive" solutions. The free market is already developing solutions as we speak. All it needed was the current incentives (higher oil prices, higher customer demand for alternative energy, etc.).
Posted by: kim | November 12, 2007 1:24 AM
CG, the precautionary principle is a useful precaution, but only if the science stands. Did you read the Tinyurl I referenced, or the G&T article debunking the IPCC's conception of the Greenhouse Gas Effect? Why has the temperature of the earth not risen for the last ten years while the CO2 levels continued to rise?
=============================================
Posted by: David | November 12, 2007 1:26 AM
It was smart of you to understand your own shortcomings. You did not have to point them out to everyone though.
You are the one who said you couldn't believe that smart people think what they think, moron -- thus they are your self-confessed shortcomings, and you here prove your stupidity yet again.
I was being figurative, but judging by your statements, you don't know what that is. Either way, you don't have to get your underwear in a bunch just because I turned your statement around on you.
Posted by: kim | November 12, 2007 1:27 AM
In the middle of laughing my self sick over Sales Machine, I noticed my wallet was empty, and I have no idea what he sold me.
=======================================
Posted by: truth machine | November 12, 2007 1:30 AM
I just don't agree that man has caused the earth's global temperature to rise.
It doesn't matter what an obvious ignoramus and idiot thinks.
We give ourselves way too much credit. I think that it is an ego thing.
Which shows what you're a moron you are. It's an empirical science thing. We don't believe that "The present atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide is 381 ppm, the largest concentration in the last 650,000 years" because we give ourselves way too much credit, we believe it because that's what the evidence shows.
Posted by: truth machine | November 12, 2007 1:31 AM
I was being figurative
You were being stupid, and you continue to be. Even your fellow denialists think you're an idiot.
Posted by: David | November 12, 2007 1:36 AM
You were being stupid, and you continue to be. Even your fellow denialists think you're an idiot.
Wow, you must still be reeling. Sit down and take an aspirin.
Posted by: kim | November 12, 2007 1:37 AM
Ah, CG, I just noticed your post #877. If you'll look closely at those graphs you'll see a flattening of the curve around ten years ago, which diverges from the continued upward slope of carbon dioxide concentration. That shouldn't happen if CO2 is the culprit.
=============================================
Posted by: David | November 12, 2007 1:45 AM
It's an empirical science thing.
Yes, and so was the whole "hormone replacement therapy for hot flashes" thing. How many women were given death sentences? Yes Virginia, your god failed you.
How many times have you been told that being overweight is bad? A recent study just said that being a little overweight is actually good. Now if they cannot even get this right (and they can study people directly), how on earth do you think they are going to get climate science right? Yes Virginia, your god failed you.
Climate science relies heavily on interpretation of proxies, bad statistics, inadequate computer models, thousands of variables, and poor peer review. It is very much in its infancy. I definitely don't put my full trust in the studies, at least not yet.
Posted by: kim | November 12, 2007 1:59 AM
The warmers will be driven to distraction as the divergence between global temperature and CO2 levels continues to increase, as it does daily.
================
Posted by: truth machine | November 12, 2007 2:00 AM
I have to admit that David is even more stupid than I could have imagined.
Posted by: truth machine | November 12, 2007 2:01 AM
That shouldn't happen if CO2 is the culprit.
And kim is no brighter.
Posted by: kim | November 12, 2007 2:03 AM
Ad homs are a sign of a losing argument, tm. What about his last paragraph about the mess in climate science?
===========================
Posted by: kim | November 12, 2007 2:04 AM
So, Bright One, why does CO2 continue to climb and the temperature stall out around the turn of the century?
===============================
Posted by: CalGeorge | November 12, 2007 2:06 AM
I don't mind government regulation of pollution in general. Neither does anyone who I know. That does not mean that I am for "progressive" solutions. The free market is already developing solutions as we speak. All it needed was the current incentives (higher oil prices, higher customer demand for alternative energy, etc.).
Yeah. Like Green SUVs. Great technology. A whopping 22 mpg for the Chevy Tahoe Hybrid.
Woohoo! Technology! Way to go!
That's real progress.
My Honda got 35 mpg in 1987, but hey, no worries, technology will see us through!
Posted by: kim | November 12, 2007 2:09 AM
Forget Hondas, CG, what about temperatures? See them flatten? What's next? Global temperature cycles.
=============================================
Posted by: truth machine | November 12, 2007 2:13 AM
Ad homs are a sign of a losing argument, tm.
We've been through this many times in this thread, moron. That was an insult, not an ad hominem, and insults aren't any sort of sign about what arguments are valid. Sometimes something is so stupid, such as implying that there's a strict relation between CO2 levels and global temperature, or implying that because someone somewhere said something that isn't true that somehow empirical evidence of CO2 levels is irrelevant, that there is no better response than to ridicule the idiot who offers it. It is obvious to any halfway intelligent person that you and David are idiots; that you think that me saying so somehow loses some argument further demonstrates it -- my written words don't have the power to change the empirical facts.
Posted by: truth machine | November 12, 2007 2:16 AM
We have less than 100 to go. With the help of our latest, and perhaps stupidest, trolls kim and David we be able to make the target sometime tomorrow. See ya later.
Posted by: truth machine | November 12, 2007 2:30 AM
P.S.
Change in average global temperature, 1987-1997: 0.22 degrees C
Change in average global temperature, 1997-2007: 0.21 degrees C
Posted by: kim | November 12, 2007 2:30 AM
Thanks for the useful lesson in insults, tm. Now would you care to address the science. It bugs you that CO2 is rising and temps are not, doesn't it? CG at least attempted to bring evidence rather than insults.
I'll alter my previous comment. Insults are a sign of a losing argument.
It's obvious to me that it will take more than a thousand comments to convince some of you. Will a cooling globe convince you? Look around. Carefully. We are no longer heating at the rate from the seventies to the nineties. Why not?
=================================
Posted by: kim | November 12, 2007 2:33 AM
Did you look at CG's curves, tm? I'm dubious about your figures.
===================================
Posted by: David | November 12, 2007 2:40 AM
Yeah. Like Green SUVs. Great technology. A whopping 22 mpg for the Chevy Tahoe Hybrid.
Battery technology has not advanced much because science has not advanced much in this area. Blame it on your god, science. It isn't because people haven't poured money into developing better batter technology either.
my written words don't have the power to change the empirical facts.
Like the medieval warm period was localized? Empirical evidence points towards a global MWP. Like replacement hormone therapy is safe for treating hot flashes? Like being even slightly overweight is bad? Like pseudophedrine is perfectly safe? I'm still confused about whether caffeine is good or bad for me.
I hope you've gotten over your temper tantrum.
Posted by: truth machine | November 12, 2007 2:46 AM
I'm dubious that you have an IQ over 95, kim -- you certainly don't demonstrate it.
Of course it will take more than 1000 comments to convince intelligent people of something absurd, especially when your comments are to repeat a false claim over and over.
Now would you care to address the science.
It's already been addressed, you stupid fucking cretin. Global temperature is rising, and did rise .21 degrees C over the last decade; picking out one period when it didn't increase is stupid, because there isn't a strict relationship between CO2 and average global temperature -- there are other factors that vary over time.
I'll alter my previous comment. Insults are a sign of a losing argument.
Once again you demonstrate how stupid you are; insults are a sign of contempt, nothing more.
Posted by: kim | November 12, 2007 2:47 AM
Post #877 has CG's curves.
================
Posted by: kim | November 12, 2007 2:49 AM
You want to source your data in #904?
=========================
Posted by: kim | November 12, 2007 2:50 AM
Wow, what you don't know about insults and arguments.
==================================
Posted by: truth machine | November 12, 2007 2:53 AM
my written words don't have the power to change the empirical facts.
Like the medieval warm period was localized?
No, you stupid dickwad, that "The present atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide is 381 ppm, the largest concentration in the last 650,000 years". Whether you or that other moron thinks that CO2 causes global warming, the CO2 increase is something that man caused -- not a matter of giving ourselves way too much credit; that was your stupid claim, which you are apparently too stupid to remember. If you accept that the CO2 rise is human induced but continue to think that attributing global warming to human activity is a matter of ego, then you are not merely stupid but incredibly dishonest.
Posted by: kim | November 12, 2007 2:54 AM
Historically, there is no relationship between CO2 level and global temperature. Why should there be now?
=======================================
Posted by: kim | November 12, 2007 2:59 AM
No, tm. It is possible to think that CO2 rise is from burning fossil fuel, without believing global warming is from human activity. All it takes is to believe that CO2 is not the reason the globe warmed in the last quarter of the last century. That is why we are called AGW skeptics.
========================================
Posted by: truth machine | November 12, 2007 3:01 AM
Wow, what you don't know about insults and arguments.
If all men are mortal and Socrates was a man, then Socrates was mortal, you stupid fucking moronic cretinous retarded idiot.
Posted by: truth machine | November 12, 2007 3:06 AM
No, tm. It is possible to think that CO2 rise is from burning fossil fuel, without believing global warming is from human activity.
I didn't say otherwise. You're clearly too stupid to understand what I did say.
This is getting too boring even for me; at least people like GallileoWasADenier demonstrated a modicum of intelligence. I'll check in again tomorrow to see what other slime goes after this troll-bait thread.
Posted by: kim | November 12, 2007 3:26 AM
Silly sophistry, my good man. Surely, you said that I would have to be stupid or dishonest to deny anthropogenic global warming if I conceded CO2 rise from fossil fuel burning. I then showed that it would not be dishonest. The charge of 'stupid' might still apply, but why is it you that stoops to stupid insults? If CO2 is not the real cause of warming, then I'm not stupid, either.
====================================
Posted by: truth machine | November 12, 2007 3:36 AM
Surely, you said that I would have to be stupid or dishonest to deny anthropogenic global warming if I conceded CO2 rise from fossil fuel burning.
No, I did not say that. I wasn't even addressing you, I was addressing David.
So so so stupid.
Posted by: kim | November 12, 2007 3:39 AM
While we're at it, do you know the difference between a moron and an idiot?
==============================================
Posted by: kim | November 12, 2007 3:43 AM
Now I think you are getting a little untruthy. You did refer to me in that post. And what did you mean to say if I have not adequately paraphrased it?
=======================================
Posted by: Rey Fox | November 12, 2007 3:46 AM
People, our god, the great and powerful Sci'enz, has failed us. We must go back to reading chicken entrails now.
Posted by: Tog | November 12, 2007 3:48 AM
Hey Truthbot! I just dropped back in. Most of the posts on here are yours! If you get over 1,000, don't you think that's cheating a little? After all, you're only talking to yourself. What gives?
Posted by: kim | November 12, 2007 3:48 AM
No, your politicians and your echo-chambered climatologists have failed you. Science is going strong, and busily debunking the Piltdown Mann.
================================
Posted by: truth machine | November 12, 2007 3:49 AM
You did refer to me in that post.
The post in question is #912; you are not referred to in it, cretin.
And what did you mean to say if I have not adequately paraphrased it?
What I meant to say is what I did say, idiot.
Posted by: truth machine | November 12, 2007 3:53 AM
The post in question is #912; you are not referred to in it, cretin.
Excuse me, but I did refer to you -- as "that other moron" -- but that you were referred to is irrelevant; as I said, it was addressed to David, not you. David, not you, claimed that attribution of global warming to humans was a matter of ego, of giving ourselves "too much credit". My claim about dishonesty applied to David, not you. But my claim about stupidity certainly does apply amply to both of you.
Posted by: kim | November 12, 2007 3:55 AM
Oh, I'm so sorry. I was sure 'that other moron' in post #912 referred to me. If not me, then who, buster?
And if I did not adequately paraphrase what you said, can you point out my error? How did I mistake your meaning?
You've got to be 'truthy' if you are the genuine 'truth machine'. So far, you are more like the Deus Ex Sophistica.
=========================================
Posted by: truth machine | November 12, 2007 3:58 AM
No, your politicians and your echo-chambered climatologists have failed you. Science is going strong,
You stupid stupid stupid fucking moron -- Rey Fox is referring to David's comment "Blame it on your god, science".
Most of the posts on here are yours!
Another innumerate moron. "most" means more than half, but most of the posts are not mine. With such a level of accuracy, it's no wonder you idiots have so many erroneous beliefs.
Posted by: truth machine | November 12, 2007 4:03 AM
I was sure 'that other moron' in post #912 referred to me. If not me, then who, buster?
See #925, dumbfuck.
And if I did not adequately paraphrase what you said, can you point out my error? How did I mistake your meaning?
Uh, If I say "1+1 = 2" and you paraphrase it as "5*7 = 99", how should I point out your error other than to note that you're a stupid fuck? Your error is that your "paraphrase" isn't; it doesn't mean the same as what I wrote. That you can't understand what I wrote is because you're stupid, and being that you're stupid, repeating it won't help.
Posted by: kim | November 12, 2007 4:06 AM
David saying that 'too much credit' is given by humans to their role in warming is structurally analogous to my saying that carbon is not the culprit. You have found an irrelevant, nay sophistical, objection and labelled me stupid because of your finding. Look again at that worm you pulled up in the dark. It is straw.
================================
Posted by: truth machine | November 12, 2007 4:06 AM
You've got to be 'truthy' if you are the genuine 'truth machine'.
No, moron, I'm truthful, you're "truthy": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truthiness
Posted by: kim | November 12, 2007 4:08 AM
I'm a dumbfuck because you posted #925 while I was composing #926? In your dreams.
=====================================================
Posted by: kim | November 12, 2007 4:13 AM
This is amusing. You are raving because I don't interpret Rey Fox's posts the same way you do? How do people ever have a conversation with you?
=======================================
Posted by: truth machine | November 12, 2007 4:15 AM
David saying that 'too much credit' is given by humans to their role in warming is structurally analogous to my saying that carbon is not the culprit.
More incredible stupidity; David was talking about ego.
You have found an irrelevant, nay sophistical, objection and labelled me stupid because of your finding.
You're beyond stupid -- you made a claim as to what I meant; you were wrong, and I said so. Your stupidity is in your inability to understand what I did say, and mean, which surely I am a better authority on than you are.
We're getting closer to 1000 posts, but do you think you're getting any closer to convincing anyone of your position? Obviously that's not really what you're here for; you're just trolling, and continuously making PZ's point in his original post.
Posted by: truth machine | November 12, 2007 4:18 AM
I'm a dumbfuck because you posted #925 while I was composing #926?
No, you're a dumbfuck for a host of other reasons.
This is amusing. You are raving because I don't interpret Rey Fox's posts the same way you do?
Uh, you mean the way he obviously meant it? Hey, why don't you ask him, idiot?
How do people ever have a conversation with you?
By being smarter than a turnip.
Posted by: kim | November 12, 2007 4:24 AM
Oh, my. There can be only one legitimate reaction to Rey Fox's post? So just why was David's argument dishonest, and if man isn't causing the temperature to rise, why was it stupid?
=================================
Posted by: kim | November 12, 2007 4:27 AM
Actually, I think you are making Stan's point. I'm happy to discuss global climate regulation and the state of the art of knowledge about it. You seem to think this is a tutorial on rhetoric and insults.
Where's the beef? What about my Tinyurl?
=====================
Posted by: truth machine | November 12, 2007 4:31 AM
I think you are making Stan's point
That proves that you're a cretin. It also would subject you to disemvoweling if the host of this blog still had enough interest in this thread to carry out his threat.
Posted by: kim | November 12, 2007 4:51 AM
I've talked about science and I've been more respectful than most of my correspondents. Furthermore, I think PZ is still interested in this thread. With any luck he'll look at my tinyurl. It's not difficult. That's Tinyurl.com/2szwh8
That Bob Carter lecture is one not to miss, either.
==============================================
Posted by: truth machine | November 12, 2007 4:58 AM
I think PZ is still interested in this thread. With any luck he'll look at my tinyurl.
My word but you are a stupid fuck. PZ's interest, as he originally stated, was to tell you denialist trolls to bugger off. Since then (but 4 days ago), he wrote "More rats. Rats with their moldy flecks of rotting garbage. You guys don't get it, do you?", "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.", etc.
Posted by: truth machine | November 12, 2007 5:01 AM
I've been more respectful
How so, when you were repeatedly told by the host of this blog that you aren't wanted here?
Posted by: A reminder from RWE | November 12, 2007 5:01 AM
"A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines." Ralph Waldo Emerson
Truth Machine,
There only so much name calling you can do before you start to embody the above quotation.
Chicks must really dig you!
Posted by: truth machine | November 12, 2007 5:05 AM
There only so much name calling you can do before you start to embody the above quotation.
Aside from the idiocy of that comment, Neither Emerson nor his quote have much to recommend them.
Chicks must really dig you!
Quite a few do, actually.
Posted by: Peter Hunter | November 12, 2007 5:14 AM
Oh, after I've read these comments I got the feeling we got a new church:
"The Holy Church of Climate Change (HCOCC)" providing Mr. Hansen/GISS as Pope and the UN climate council as the conclave. I'm curious when we will watch the first heteric court case and subsequent auto-da-fé of evil devil obsessed denialists. Hey, Mr. PZ Myers, will you apply for the job as the hangman?
I propose instead: please calm down, take a cup of good green chinese tea at your living room window and watch the weather outside; sometimes it is warm, sometimes it is cold, sometimes sunny, sometimes cloudy and finaly please consider then: in 1000 years nobody will recall your fashionable anger.
Posted by: enihcam hturt | November 12, 2007 5:14 AM
TM, what is your honest assessment of your work here on this thread, and what does it say to the world about you, your character and general disposition?
Posted by: truth machine | November 12, 2007 5:15 AM
Peter Hunter
Another fucking asshole rat troll.
Posted by: kim | November 12, 2007 5:16 AM
Read the Tinyurl. I doubt PZ would call that garbage. I'm curious if you do.
=================================
Posted by: truth machine | November 12, 2007 5:18 AM
TM, what is your honest assessment of your work here on this thread
See #695
what does it say to the world about you, your character and general disposition?
What does your trolling say of yours?
Posted by: truth machine | November 12, 2007 5:25 AM
I doubt PZ would call that garbage.
Again proving you're a cretin.
I'm curious if you do.
See ChemBob's comments in #762
Posted by: enihcam hturt | November 12, 2007 5:30 AM
So you fancy yourself a pitiful? Hmm...very interesting choice.
If you I am as you say "trolling", I'm not really sure I care, do you?
Posted by: truth machine | November 12, 2007 5:30 AM
I doubt PZ would call that garbage.
He already stated his position on this sort of thing:
Posted by: truth machine | November 12, 2007 5:32 AM
So you fancy yourself a pitiful?
You need to scrub your eyeglasses or your brain, moron.
Posted by: Who Cares | November 12, 2007 5:38 AM
Whoa, this still going on?
@Kim:
There is a good reason why TM doesn't bother with the tinyurl. Besides you being way to credelous and accepting something like that PDF as gospel. I'm not going to mention the reason though seems that TM is having to much fun with you.
And now for your url. See post #754 and reactions to it.
First problem you have with E&E is that it is not a peer review journal.
Second it is classed as social science journal not a climate related journal.
Third any peer review journal would have turned the article down since it is based on circular reasoning.
Fourth it would be rejected in any peer reviewed journal since it misses the most important thing in an article. Data instead it replaces that with `I think´ and `I feel´ which are big warning signs that an article is anything but scientific. Simply put if the hockeystick were wrong it should be easy to find counter evidence. Unfortunately for you and the other dittoheads that have invaded, almost 10 years of data gathering after it was published have shown it to be correct (as has been posted to this thread numerous times).
Sixth E&E accepts and keeps papers that other journals have retracted due to bad science (see for example the paper Climate Research by Soon and Ballunias).
I can go on with reasons why E&E has little credibility and anything published in it should be taken with a grain of salt.
Posted by: enihcam hturt | November 12, 2007 5:42 AM
You're the one who directed us to post #695 as some kind of badge of honor.
BTW, Bull Terrier ranks #66 on the intelligence list, coming in right above Chihuahua at #67.
Posted by: enihcam hturt | November 12, 2007 5:53 AM
...from 953...not to mention the #1 pet choice of thugs and criminals.
Posted by: truth machine | November 12, 2007 5:55 AM
You're the one who directed us to post #695 as some kind of badge of honor.
Thomas Huxley was referred to as Darwin's pitbull -- it was indeed a badge of honor.
BTW, Bull Terrier ranks #66 on the intelligence list, coming in right above Chihuahua at #67.
And at #999 are folks like you who can't comprehend a metaphor.
Posted by: kim | November 12, 2007 5:56 AM
Wow, wasn't #762 cogent refutation of all the points in Tinyurl. Can you do any better? Can anyone here?
Tinyurl.com/2szwh8
===========================
Posted by: truth machine | November 12, 2007 5:57 AM
not to mention the #1 pet choice of thugs and criminals.
This is one of the better examples I've seen of what I once heard someone refer to as The Fat Cow Fallacy: He who tends fat cows must be fat.
Posted by: truth machine | November 12, 2007 5:59 AM
Wow, wasn't #762 cogent refutation of all the points in Tinyurl.
#950 is the refutation.
Posted by: Who Cares | November 12, 2007 6:02 AM
@Kim:
I would as soon as you can provide me the data on which the article is based.
Posted by: kim | November 12, 2007 6:05 AM
Do you note, Who Cares, that your entire post #952 is ad hominous? Care to address any scientific points within that tinyurl link?
Perhaps we can get PZ to actually read it.
===================================
Posted by: kim | November 12, 2007 6:08 AM
#950 is barely coherent let alone a competent refutation. I know he was cranky, but the objective scientist did not show through.
==============================
Posted by: truth machine | November 12, 2007 6:08 AM
Perhaps we can get PZ to actually read it.
You are fucking thick.
Posted by: truth machine | November 12, 2007 6:10 AM
#950 is barely coherent let alone a competent refutation.
You've repeatedly proved that you're a cretin, so your inability to comprehend something is irrelevant.
I know he was cranky, but the objective scientist did not show through.
So it may seem to someone who knows nothing of science.
Posted by: kim | November 12, 2007 6:14 AM
You seem to willing to go to any lengths to avoid commenting on that article. Have you read it?
=================================
Posted by: truth machine | November 12, 2007 6:17 AM
You seem to willing to go to any lengths to avoid commenting on that article. Have you read it?
Have you read the entirety of the science supporting AGW? You seem willing to go to any length to avoid commenting on it.
Holland's article isn't science, it's politics. Someone should write "Bias and Concealment by David Holland and Energy & Environment".
Posted by: Who Cares | November 12, 2007 6:17 AM
@Kim:
You need to learn your debating fallacies better. There is one thing that might be classified as an ad hominem, that is my use of the word dittoheads. And even only then if you do not consider that (as read in the urban dictonary) it does cover my opinion of you and your ilk.
As for your request for scientific points. No since there is no science in the article. It is based on circular, I think and I feel reasoning. There is no data to work with. Like I said earlier the article is deficient. The journal it is posted in a joke.
Posted by: kim | November 12, 2007 6:22 AM
Pitiful. You cannot even address his points?
===========================
Posted by: Who Cares | November 12, 2007 6:37 AM
@kim:
What point? The I set out to prove that the IPCC is flawed and whoa it turned out to be so. Or the I feel that the IPCC is flawed points?
The first is refuted by seeing that that is circular reasoning. The second that it is mere opinion. Neither has a place in a science article.
Where is the data? Where is the (re)source list? If you have them I'm happy to deconstruct the article. It will take a while though due to source and fact checking.
Posted by: truth machine | November 12, 2007 6:43 AM
Pitiful. You cannot even address his points?
It's pitiful that you cannot even address the points of climate scientists. Mr. Holland, OTOH, refers at
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/co2-in-ice-cores/#comment-87
to his "now somewhat distant scientific education".
This is the strategy of you rats that PZ refers to, as we well know from the evolution denialists; rather than deal with the science, they trot out this or that unrefereed paper by this or that engineer or lawyer, and demand that we respond to its "points", which often turn out to be a series of half-truths or outright lies. What is clear from this paper is that it is a highly biased political polemic aimed at processes and organizations; it has nothing to do with science. Holland says "It is concluded that the IPCC has neither the
structure nor the necessary independence and supervision of its processes to be acceptable as the monopoly authority on climate science", but that's bullpucky; there is no "monopoly authority on climate science", and the IPCC doesn't have any sort of authority at all, as is clear from how their findings are ignored by executive powers.
Posted by: kim | November 12, 2007 6:43 AM
Can you explain divergence? How about the Barton subcommittee? What about Hansen's code errors? Didn't that make you wonder about the steady upward curve of temperature?
==============================
Posted by: kim | November 12, 2007 6:50 AM
Oh, TM, the IPCC is without authority? I don't think you know what you have said.
The IPCC has a monopoly on policy papers. And the writers of the policy papers find it convenient to ignore science that doesn't fit the narrative.
At least you've tried to refute a point or two in the article. For that I must give you credit. Tired of insults? I'm not. I'm used to them.
======================
Posted by: kim | November 12, 2007 6:52 AM
On the authority of IPCC we have Kyoto, and all the tragedies and betrayals that entails.
========================================
Posted by: kim | November 12, 2007 6:57 AM
Oh boy, TM, can you answer the scientific question Mr. Holland asked in your link?
===========================
Posted by: Who Cares | November 12, 2007 6:59 AM
@Kim:
No, as someone working daily with mathematics I am not surprised that an extrapolation that passed beyond 1/2 the average distance of datapoints used in this extrapolation behaves like that. I've seen it happen fairly often. However the trend indicated is (usually) useful on it's own.
Posted by: kim | November 12, 2007 7:06 AM
So how does the trend look now, with new data points? Surely for something this important there is now new data. We're not just trusting extrapolations here, are we? There are big stakes, no?
========================================
Posted by: truth machine | November 12, 2007 7:16 AM
I don't think you know what you have said.
You told me that about insults and arguments, and you were as wrong then as now.
At least you've tried to refute a point or two in the article.
You remain as thick as shit.
24 to go.
Posted by: Bride of Shrek | November 12, 2007 7:20 AM
I'm running a book. We're sitting here in Australia, post dinner party with a few fine glasses of port and reading the thread.
Odds are on Truth Machine for making post # 1000
Don't disappoint me lad!!!
Posted by: kim | November 12, 2007 7:20 AM
You still insist the IPCC has no authority and is not a monopoly on climate policy?
======================================
Posted by: kim | November 12, 2007 7:22 AM
So what do you think of Bob Carter, BoS?
==========================
Posted by: truth machine | November 12, 2007 7:22 AM
BTW, according to http://www.ipcc.ch/about/princ.pdf, "IPCC reports should be neutral with respect to policy".
Posted by: Who Cares | November 12, 2007 7:23 AM
Still going up. see post #904
Posted by: Bride of Shrek | November 12, 2007 7:24 AM
I've got $20 on you....and my (admittedly in tatters after too many chardonnays) reputation as a microclimatologist. Go get them boyo.
Posted by: kim | November 12, 2007 7:25 AM
Yessir. They should be neutral on policy. Are they?
=============================
Posted by: truth machine | November 12, 2007 7:26 AM
So what do you think of Bob Carter, BoS?
Why do you think that "Bride of Shrek", running a book in Australia and commenting in a troll-bait thread at a biology/atheism/cephalopod blog knows of or care about Bob Carter?
Posted by: kim | November 12, 2007 7:28 AM
#904 is unsourced, but his contention is controversial. I don't think you know what I mean by divergence. I'm talking about the habit of tree ring proxies diverging from the temperature record, quite recently.
===================================
Posted by: truth machine | November 12, 2007 7:28 AM
Yessir. They should be neutral on policy. Are they?
You claimed that they have a monopoly on policy papers. It's a pretty stupid claim, unless you can provide extraordinary evidence, when their governing principles direct their reports to be policy neutral.
Posted by: Bride of Shrek | November 12, 2007 7:30 AM
Couldn't give a crap about Bob Carter. Dont' care. Not interested at this point. Just want Truth Machine to be the #1000 dude.
Posted by: kim | November 12, 2007 7:31 AM
You presume the Bride is unacquainted with Bob Carter. It's a small world down under.
And you should acquaint yourself with Bob Carter's lecture. Somewhere way up above JePe linked it. I'm sure you can google and find it.
===================================================
Posted by: truth machine | November 12, 2007 7:32 AM
#904 is unsourced, but his contention is controversial.
No, the contention is not controversial. But since you insist that the temperature has leveled, feel free to provide data that demonstrates that and that indicates the change in average global temperature over the last two decades.
Posted by: kim | November 12, 2007 7:33 AM
Are their reports policy neutral? You've gotten a little absurd lately. Been up all night?
Oh, Bride, ask around. Surely someone in that party cares.
======================
Posted by: truth machine | November 12, 2007 7:34 AM
It's a small world down under.
Fuck but you're stupid.
And you should acquaint yourself with Bob Carter's lecture.
You should acquaint yourself with the science supporting AGW.
Posted by: Bride of Shrek | November 12, 2007 7:34 AM
Go Truth Machine. Might not always agree with him but the chap speaks his mind, is honest, truthful and doesn't play crappy mind games. THAT is a scientist!!!!
Posted by: truth machine | November 12, 2007 7:35 AM
Are their reports policy neutral?
Look, you fucking asshole, you claimed that they have a monopoly on policy papers; provide some sort of support for your moronic claim.
Posted by: kim | November 12, 2007 7:36 AM
Yes, temperature is controversial. How do you measure it?
====================================
Posted by: truth machine | November 12, 2007 7:37 AM
Surely someone in that party cares.
No, fuckhead, no one but denialist rats cares who Bob Carter or David Holland (the engineer, not the oceanographer) is.
Posted by: Bride of Shrek | November 12, 2007 7:37 AM
Kim
Fuck off. we're not as stupid in Australia as you seem to presume.
No one here gives a rats arse about Bob Carter's theories.
Posted by: Who Cares | November 12, 2007 7:37 AM
@kim:
Thanks for clearing up what kind of diverence you meant (there is also several to be found in math).
Since I indeed don't know about that one I spend some time looking it up. Seems that it only happens with density rings and at higher altitudes and it doesn't hamper the multi-proxy approaches. Note that this comes from an article co-auhored by Mann.
Posted by: truth machine | November 12, 2007 7:39 AM
Yes, temperature is controversial. How do you measure it?
Hey, you fucking asshole, if you don't know how to measure it, then HOW DO YOU KNOW IT'S LEVELED OFF?
Posted by: kim | November 12, 2007 7:40 AM
Who else puts out influential policy papers? Nobody. Hence, they have a monopoly. Any moron can see that.
The science supporting AGW is an unphysical model of the greenhouse gas effect, the Piltdown Mann's Crook'd Hockey Stick, and inadequate computers modeling a chaotic system. It tells you nothing of the truth.
===============================
Posted by: truth machine | November 12, 2007 7:41 AM
lalalalalala
1000 and I'm out of here.
Good bye, asshole trolls.
Posted by: kim | November 12, 2007 7:43 AM
There are lots of ways to measure it. I wanted to know how you do it. The varying ways of measuring and calculating a mean global temperature is what leads to the controversies.
MORON
=====
Posted by: chiwawa | November 12, 2007 7:43 AM
Congratulations with the hottest scienceblog thread on the web!
Posted by: Bride of Shrek | November 12, 2007 7:46 AM
Truth Machine is a fucking LEGEND!!!! !1000 posts and he stayed true. Woo Hoo,What can be said about such a lad? Awesome. Saw through the trolls. Put them to the test and put them to rest (except for that pissant Kim).
If I'm ever in the States I shall seek you out and buy you a drink my boy.If for no other reason than you can provide the most stimulating, intellectual arguments I've ever heard.
Posted by: kim | November 12, 2007 7:49 AM
I'm sorry, Who Cares, Mann no longer has any credibility. Whether his initial mistake was deliberate or not, his subsequent conduct will forever place him outside the pale of scientists. And where are the data points to make the divergence go away? There is very little recent tree boring. If dendroclimatic proxies are so important, why aren't they updated?
Bride, well you just might be right about that, but you aren't disabusing me of the notion.
=====================================================
Posted by: JohnS | November 12, 2007 7:53 AM
Proving you got to the 1000, but couldn't rig the beauty contest, Truffy phuckwit. PZ is even more pissed off. As to ChemicalBobby-ha.
JohnS
Posted by: kim | November 12, 2007 7:54 AM
Oh Bride, no contest. I was just here for the last part of the thread. He sure was getting flaky at the end though, huh?
================================
Posted by: Bride of Shrek | November 12, 2007 8:00 AM
It's nighty night time here in the land Kim thinks is so stupid so I'm off but I'd like to leave the following.
a) Truth Machine just made me $80 bucks in the dinnner party sweeps for who made post #1000. I owe him bigtime.
b) The award for the most "In Need Of Therapy" post goes to JohnS.
c)Kim, try and make a point in ONE POST. Trying to make you agrument over several entries with this "=========" crap in between is really fucking irritating when you're trying to read it.
Posted by: kim | November 12, 2007 8:01 AM
Oh, my, God. Who Cares, I have a bone to pick with you and if I weren't tired I'd have noticed it immediately. You trash Holland's article like you understand it, then admit you've no idea of the term 'divergence' as he used it.
Who Cares? I do, damnit. Can you not read the article?
===========================
Posted by: kim | November 12, 2007 8:03 AM
Bride of Shrek has style criticisms. Well, there is no accounting for it, but the criticism was as cogent as any here.
================================================
Posted by: Who Cares | November 12, 2007 8:05 AM
Provide backup to the assertion that Mann is disqualified.
You do realize that you just disqualified every scientist on the planet because Mann was one of several people working on that article, so those would be disqualified as well, which in turn leads to disqualifying the scientists they worked with, which ...
Besides Mann did correct mistakes he made but the mistakes corrected were not in the methods or data used. Oh wait that was checked by the IPCC and you do not accept their research.
And why the proxies aren't updated? Just ran a check on the NCDC and it seems there are 207 updates available just for tree rings after 1999. Oh and another update on temperature by Mann, et al in 2005 using the data available on Volcanic and Solar effects.
Posted by: JohnS | November 12, 2007 8:15 AM
Hey Shrekables, thanks for your therapy listing. I'm indeed flattered to be counted. After big bro PZ banned me I thought I would be forgotten. I had all my peer reviewed paper lists for ChemicalBobby to check over, and banned, BANNED, most unfair. Anyway now that all you boys have gone, any beer in the fridge- none of that low alcohol stuff, mind. 1000 but couldn't rig a beauty contest, whoda thought it.
JohnS
Posted by: Who Cares | November 12, 2007 8:18 AM
I read the article. What I do not understand I generally store as an unknown variable. Normally I'd look up that kind of unkown. However in this case the variable didn't have impact on my responses so I saw no need to do the look up.
Posted by: kim | November 12, 2007 8:40 AM
In other words, you were so biased you didn't see the importance of the divergence problem. It speaks to Mann's credibility, you know.
==================================
Posted by: kim | November 12, 2007 8:46 AM
Well, Stan, I got insults, fairy tales, and refusal to look at the evidence. And this site was neck and neck with Climate Audit for awhile.
Simply amazing. I'm finished. I'd rather talk to laymen. They are a lot more scientific.
============================================
Posted by: Goatboy | November 12, 2007 8:47 AM
To Truth Machine,
Sir, I salute your indefatigability.
To The Trolls (and with all due credit to Bill Hicks),
"Shut the fuck up. Your denial is beneath even you and, thanks to the use of hallucinogenic drugs, I see through you.
Ha ha. Have a nice life."
Posted by: CalGeorge | November 12, 2007 9:20 AM
Kim at #913:
Historically, there is no relationship between CO2 level and global temperature. Why should there be now?
Chew on this post from Jeff Severinghaus, Professor of Geosciences, Scripps Institution of Oceanography, University of California, San Diego (via RealClimate):
This is an issue that is often misunderstood in the public sphere and media, so it is worth spending some time to explain it and clarify it. At least three careful ice core studies have shown that CO2 starts to rise about 800 years (600-1000 years) after Antarctic temperature during glacial terminations. These terminations are pronounced warming periods that mark the ends of the ice ages that happen every 100,000 years or so.
Does this prove that CO2 doesn't cause global warming? The answer is no.
The reason has to do with the fact that the warmings take about 5000 years to be complete. The lag is only 800 years. All that the lag shows is that CO2 did not cause the first 800 years of warming, out of the 5000 year trend. The other 4200 years of warming could in fact have been caused by CO2, as far as we can tell from this ice core data.
The 4200 years of warming make up about 5/6 of the total warming. So CO2 could have caused the last 5/6 of the warming, but could not have caused the first 1/6 of the warming.
See also his Science article conclusion:
Although the recent CO2 increase has clearly been imposed first, as a result of anthropogenic activities, it naturally takes, at Termination III, some time for CO2 to outgas from the ocean once it starts to react to a climate change that is first felt in the
atmosphere. The sequence of events during this Termination is fully consistent with CO2 participating in the latter 4200 years of the warming. The radiative forcing due to CO2 may serve as an amplifier of initial orbital forcing, which is then further amplified by fast atmospheric feedbacks that are also at work for the presentday and future climate.
The nice thing about this thread is that it exposes the extent of denialist idiocy - all in one handy place. Thanks, folks!
These threads don't go away, you know. Your idiocy will be on display for a very long time!
Posted by: kim | November 12, 2007 9:48 AM
Hah, Roger of Ockham should move to La Jolla. Even laymen find that reasoning tortured.
=====================================================
Posted by: CalGeorge | November 12, 2007 10:00 AM
Doesn't take any time at all for Kim to outgas an opinion and outguess the experts.
Posted by: Who Cares | November 12, 2007 10:06 AM
@Kim(#1013):
Yes. I'm biased due to the general tone of the article you try to uphold as sound research. It is not sound, it is trash. It is based on circular reasoning, wishful thinking, distortions and possible selective use of data (which can't be tracked since unlike a sound scientific article there is no reference/source or data list) instead of sound data. Which is one of the reasons I could not be bothered to sacrifice my free time to do look up unknowns.
What is more once I did go after this so called divergence problem I found within about 10 minutes an article explaining where the problem is. And it is not as general as your apologia is trying to make it out as. Further it is a known problem, coping strategies are/have been devised.
Then there is the additional problem of this apologia you are defending being the only article against the data and methods used which means that to defend it you need to ignore stacks of other articles that did not have to be published in a journal of which it is known that the editor will publish just about anything and can't be bothered to see if the article is good science.
Then there is your implicit agreement that scientists are untrustworthy due to the people they worked with or worked for because they are not accepting your delusion of how the world should work.
Posted by: CalGeorge | November 12, 2007 10:24 AM
What is more once I did go after this so called divergence problem I found within about 10 minutes an article explaining where the problem is.
Yes. Tons of great knowledge is out there, readily available. There are many sound, reasoned responses to every one of their idiotic claims, and yet they refuse to take off their blinders.
Posted by: Stevie_C | November 12, 2007 10:24 AM
Hehe. Kim is a creationist... she says it can't be proven false.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHA.
AAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHH.
She loves science though. Fuckwit.
Posted by: JePe | November 12, 2007 10:33 AM
@ stevie_C (#1021)
Hehe. Kim is a creationist... she says it can't be proven false.
Please tell me how in your opinion the AGW-hypothesis empirically could be proven false.
Posted by: PZ Myers | November 12, 2007 10:39 AM
It's truly stating the obvious, but it's a sad commentary on the denialists' intelligence that I actually have to point this out to them: JohnS, who claims in his comment #1011 that he has been banned, has not been banned. Can we go on for another thousand comments in pointing out that if he had been banned he would not have been able to make comment #1011?
Posted by: kim | November 12, 2007 10:40 AM
CG, which is more likely, that CO2 outgassed from the ocean after warming, or that something else started the warming cycle, and CO2 finished it? A simple one for the razor.
Who Cares, why on earth you choose to interpret a persuasive article as some sort of research article is a mystery to me.
So little wonderstruck Stevie, if you can't prove creationism false does that make you a creationist? So prove it false.
====================
Posted by: nevermind | November 12, 2007 10:43 AM
This is science???
Posted by: kim | November 12, 2007 10:45 AM
Easy, JePe, if the earth cools and CO2 continues to rise, voila. You'll know soon enough, one of these mananas.
========================================
Posted by: kim | November 12, 2007 10:57 AM
By the way, I don't understand Mann's explanation for the divergence. Would you care to explain it to me, Who Cares? Has it gone away?
================================
Posted by: JePe | November 12, 2007 10:59 AM
@ #1023
It's truly stating the obvious, but it's a sad commentary on the denialists' intelligence that I actually have to point this out to them
PZ Myers obviously concludes that all "denialists" are by definition stupid?
Intelligent generalisation!
Posted by: Stevie_C | November 12, 2007 11:02 AM
I don't have to prove it false. The theory of evolution and every other science has shown it to be completely unnecessary. Unless your of the "big bang" goddidit crowd, then you can just say god did evolution too and makes bummble bees fly while he's at it.
Can't "prove" god doesn't exist either. But you can say the same about Zeus, Thor and Gnesh too.
Kim claimed CREATIONSIM can't be proven false. You have a creationist on your side JePe. With friends like that who needs logic.
Posted by: Who Cares | November 12, 2007 11:03 AM
Who Cares, why on earth you choose to interpret a persuasive article as some sort of research article is a mystery to me.
Because persuasive articles do not have to be true. Take for example "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion", it was very persuasive but a complete fraud and forgery.
Then there is the use of this article to discredit research without bothering to look up the reasons why your persuasive article is wrong.
And the disingenuous claim that it comes from a scientific journal without pointing out that it is a social sciences journal or that it is known that the editor will publish anything that contradicts AGW because of her upbringing.
In short if you want to discredit research you don't do it with a polemic/apologia but with other research.
Posted by: Stevie_C | November 12, 2007 11:08 AM
JePe. No. Just you and the stupid denialists that have infested this blog.
We label our denialists on a case by case basis.
Evolution denialists are usually deluded religious sheep.
Walked on the moon denialists, are crackpots or paranoid conspiracy theorists.
Posted by: kim | November 12, 2007 11:09 AM
So PZ, what do you think of the circularity of the main signal in Mann's hockey stick coming from strip bark bristlecones more sensitive to CO2 fertilization than to temperature. Do you understand that on that tautology hangs the horror of Kyoto?
=========================================
Posted by: Sales Machine | November 12, 2007 11:14 AM
If logic ruled the world Stevie C Smartypants, you wouldn't need the likes of me. The world is full of should'ers and do'ers...which one are you? What have you done lately to produce economic value for your fellow man?
If intelligence were the only measure of man, perhaps you would have it made. So you and the rest of the brainiacs around here should get over the copious atomic wedgies you suffered as youths, drop the the act, and get a sense responsibility and make a contribution that would really make a difference.
Get you hands dirty or get out of the way.
Posted by: kim | November 12, 2007 11:17 AM
Shall we remind Steve that unnecessary is hardly the same as impossible?
===========================================
Posted by: Stevie_C | November 12, 2007 11:18 AM
So Kim, are you a Young Earth Creationist, or an Old Earth Creationst?
Posted by: Stevie_C | November 12, 2007 11:22 AM
I sell drugs Salesman. Lots and lots of drugs.
It's nice that you value humanity one the dividends it pays though... brilliant philosophy.
So big oil are the saints and scientists lepers? Brilliant.
My plan is to get in your way.
Posted by: kim | November 12, 2007 11:28 AM
If I'm a creationist because I can't prove creationism false, then surely you are one too, if you can't prove it false. You are stumbling over your first baby steps in logic.
=========================================
Posted by: JePe | November 12, 2007 11:30 AM
@ Stevie_C (#1031)
Considering the tone of this thread I am ashamed by the lack of civility by fellow atheists.
I don't know if Kim is a creationist, I do know that Al Gore is a Christian Fundamentalist.
Most interesting:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Phelps#Support_for_Al_Gore
Posted by: kim | November 12, 2007 11:31 AM
Ethical drug salesmen are bound by law to tell the truth and nothing but the truth, but they are not required to tell the whole truth. Professionally, that is.
============================================
Posted by: kim | November 12, 2007 11:36 AM
JePe, I am not a creationist. Steve-C lies deliberately, but ingenuously. Tough that one. Deliberately because he should have read my refutation of creationism on the same thread that he picked the other quote up on. Ingenuously because he really has no clue about my point about falsification.
================================================
Posted by: David | November 12, 2007 11:40 AM
"truth machine" should be renamed "Napoleon complex" (or at the very least, "insult machine"). You are going to feel pretty silly in a few years when people are crying "Global Cooling" again. I'm sure you'll find a way to link the two just to save face. You remind me of that comic book store owner on the Simpson's.
Posted by: Who Cares | November 12, 2007 11:42 AM
@Stevie_c:
Off course creationism cannot be disproved. That is because it is setup in such a way that it is unfalsifiable.
Posted by: Stevie_C | November 12, 2007 11:44 AM
I didn't see your refutation of Creationism. Just that you state it can't prove it to be false. Which I disagree with. I didn't say I was a drug salesman. There's more than one way to sell drugs.
Al Gore is not a christian fundamentalist. That's absurd. Mike Huckabee is.
I'm uncivil to assholes, it doesn't matter if they're atheists.
Posted by: kim | November 12, 2007 11:46 AM
Thank you, Who Cares. But who set it up that way?
===============================
Posted by: JePe | November 12, 2007 11:47 AM
@ Kim (#1040)
I did not think you were a creationist, the regular folks here at Pharyngula specialize in creationists and if you only have a hammer, everything looks like a nail.
Posted by: Peter Hunter | November 12, 2007 11:47 AM
Dearest Truth Machine,
reading your postings I really get the feeling that you are a kind of Insult Producing Machine (IPM) but if your name refers in any way to science then there is a contradictio in adjecto in your disgusting name: Truth!
By defintion science and truth can't considered as synonymic because every scientific statement and even theory is just a hypothesis about reality and possibly will be falsified one day. Truth(!) is a religious matter. So please just lower your head and pray, ask the LORD for enlightment about climate change; may be HE will help you to boost your little stinking rinky-dinky [TRUTH(?)]-machine. By the way, when you have choosed your name you obviously must have been in a dangerous state of overestimation of your abilities.
After all I find this thread quite funny. I'm a foreigner from old Europe and always interested in new English words. I have learned a lot of interesting swearwords here. Is that the normal way of dialog in the USA? How teachs PZ Myers his scholars? I guess they will become perfect cursers, but what else? Shame on him...
Here him and some other guys appear more like neanderthals than like homo sapiens sapiens.
I'm curious for your reply, dear IPM and for the funny invectives you will provide...
Posted by: kim | November 12, 2007 11:49 AM
It's probably #21 at the Kentucky thread, but I'm not going back there. Too many have insulted me while agreeing with me.
Now, I may return for amusement, but for now it palls. It's a small point I had there, but oh did they tussle over it like it was a big bone.
======================================
Posted by: David | November 12, 2007 11:51 AM
It is easy to criticize creationists until you start going into how YOU think something came out of nothing. It usually comes down to the many world's theory, which states that what can exist does exist, but then you have to conclude that this allows for a creator or god. If this is the case, then such a god could have the power to create a consistent physical Universe, one that would throw the unfaithful into an fruitless hunt for what they think is truth.
This is why I think Atheists are bigots. I have more respect for Agnostics, even though they are so broad minded as to be unable to form an opinion.
Posted by: Jason Salinas | November 12, 2007 11:56 AM
My cat's breath smells like cat food.
Posted by: Sales Machine | November 12, 2007 11:57 AM
Tetrahydrocannibol and Psylopsybin or Phencyclidine and Benzoylmethyl Ecgonine?
NIce jump in inference with oil v. scientists. Could you step on your dick anymore? Most science minded folk in my opinion lack the social intuition to get anything tangible done on their own; this thread is, indeed, empirical proof of that. The outcasting they (you) deserve is of their (your) own making. Grow up!
PZ lined up two piss buckets for a silly contest; and from the looks of it they started overflowing with urine days ago. Perhaps you enjoy the smell.
Posted by: Who Cares | November 12, 2007 11:58 AM
@Kim:
I might not be on my best behavior on this thread (seeing that it is a troll/spam trap), have used some underhanded and sneaky debating tricks but I do value truth (biased from how I look at it)
Posted by: JePe | November 12, 2007 12:01 PM
@ Stevie_C (#1043)
Al Gore is not a christian fundamentalist. That's absurd.
Well, he is a "born again christian".
You should really check Al Gore's political voting behaviour in the past.
Posted by: kim | November 12, 2007 12:05 PM
Who Cares, I know, but you were still as honest as any here. Now, merely as an exercise, try reading that paper as a believer.
===============================
Posted by: kim | November 12, 2007 12:07 PM
I suspect Gore would reject Phred now in a Washington Moment, but they do have a past.
======================================================
Posted by: Stevie_C | November 12, 2007 12:14 PM
Perhaps you enjoy it Macheen. You did come in here.
I'm not even a scientist, few in this thread are.
So what evidence are you claiming exists?
Besides that fact that the regulars here want
the AGW denialists to go away.
What evidence do you have?
David, yeah yeah something from nothing, heard it all before,
but then you have to skip the whole "where did gods come from?"
problem. Oh right, they exist outside the universe, laws within
the universe (and logic) don't apply to them.
Posted by: kim | November 12, 2007 12:20 PM
David, I thought I was an atheist until age fifteen, when I realized I could no more support the belief in no god as I could in God. Since then I have gloried in the twin blessings of curiosity and agnosticism. Several years ago, though, some moron told me about The Everlasting Man, and now I wonder about the limits of skepticism. Probably, I'm just getting old.
===================================================
Posted by: CalGeorge | November 12, 2007 12:22 PM
By the way, I don't understand Mann's explanation for the divergence. Would you care to explain it to me, Who Cares? Has it gone away?
I wish you all would explain your explanations as well as he does.
Here's an excellent overview article from New Scientist on the topic of this thread, worth quoting extensively:
[snip]
So the politics is nasty, but what about the science? First, the big picture. The rise in temperatures during the 20th century is generally accepted because it is based on direct measurements. What the hockey stick graph shows is that such a sustained and rapid rise is an anomaly in the context of the past thousand years. This is what you would expect if human activity is to blame for the 20th-century warming, but it is suggestive only. The warming might be caused by natural factors.
Evidence of human involvement comes from many other sources, including climate models. The simulations created by these models can be made to match the temperatures measured over the past 140 years only when the increase in greenhouse gases is included. These graphs also appeared in the 2001 IPCC summary.
The hockey stick has been repeatedly misrepresented as the crucial piece of evidence when it comes to industrialisation and global warming. It is not. Even if the hockey stick were shown to be a doodle that Mann did on a napkin during a night out, the evidence that the world is getting warmer, and that this warming is largely due to human activities, would still be overwhelming.
Fraught with danger
Leaving that aside, did Mann get it right? Does the hockey stick accurately reflect northern hemisphere temperatures over the past 1000 years? There is no doubt that reconstructing past temperatures from proxy data is fraught with danger. Take tree ring records. They sometimes reflect rain or drought rather than temperature. They also get smaller as a tree gets older, so annual or even decadal detail is lost. "You lose roughly 40 per cent of the amplitude of changes," says tree ring specialist Gordon Jacoby at Lamont-Doherty.
To reveal the "signal" behind the noise of short-term and random change, a proxy record for one region must be based on as many tree ring records as possible. It must also correlate with direct measurements of local temperature during the period of overlap - which adds another layer of complication, as in some cases human factors such as pollution might have affected recent tree growth.
So the first question is whether the proxy records Mann chose are reliable indicators of temperature. Some have been questioned. "He has a series from central China that we believe is more a moisture signal than a temperature signal," Jacoby says. "He included it because he had a gap. That was a mistake and it made tree-ring people angry."
Mann accepts that some of the measurements he uses do not directly represent temperature change. His argument is that, for instance, coral records showing rainfall levels in the Pacific are proxies for the El Niño cycle and so for changes in ocean temperatures. Jacoby is not convinced. "I'm not slamming what he did overall. It was a great effort, a great step," he acknowledges. "But he got into hot water by defending it too hard in places where he shouldn't."
[...]
Indeed, the proxy records suggest that high temperatures in one region tend to be balanced out by low temperatures in another. The tropical Pacific, for instance, appears to have cooled during the Medieval Warm Period and warmed during the Little Ice Age. "The regional temperature changes in our reconstruction are quite large; it's simply that they tend to average out," Mann says.
Most attacks on the hockey stick, however, focus on Mann's statistical methods. The meta-analysis he pioneered, in which different proxy records are merged, involves sorting and aggregating these signals and smoothing the result. Mann then meshed this proxy synthesis with the instrumental record.
Critics complain that by combining smoothed-out proxy data from past centuries with the recent instrumental measurements, which preserve more short-term trends, Mann created a false impression of anomalous recent change. "To be fair, Mann did correct that later on," Jacoby says. This made the blade shorter, but did not change much else. Mann also points out that he was one of the first to include error bars, which show how much variance is lost due to smoothing.
[...]
The charge from McIntyre and McKitrick, however, is that Mann's computer program does not merely accentuate this shape, but creates it. To make the point, they did their own analysis based on looking for differences from the mean over the past 1000 years instead of from the 20th-century mean. This produced a graph showing an apparent rise in temperatures in the 15th century as great as the warming occurring now. The shaft of the hockey stick had a big kink in it. When this analysis was published last year in Geophysical Research Letters it was hailed by some as a refutation of Mann's study.
McIntyre and McKitrick say that their work is intended to show only that there are problems with Mann's analysis; they do not claim their graph accurately represents past temperatures. "We have repeatedly made it clear that we offer no alternative reconstruction," McIntyre states on his Climate Audit blog.
The obscure statistical arguments were overshadowed in late 2005 when Mann refused to give Congressman Barton his computer code. Mann regarded the code as private property, but his opponents claimed he feared refutation of his findings. Mann did eventually publish the code, but the damage was done.
In the meantime, three groups had been scrutinising the claims of McIntyre and McKitrick. Hans von Storch of the GKSS Research Centre in Geesthacht, Germany, concluded that McIntyre and McKitrick were right that temperatures should be analysed relative to the 1000-year mean, not the 20th-century mean. But he also found that even when this was done it did not have much effect on the result. Peter Huybers of the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution in Massachusetts came to much the same conclusion.
The work of Eugene Wahl of Alfred University, New York, and Caspar Ammann of the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colorado, raised serious questions about the methodology of Mann's critics. They found the reason for the kink in the McIntyre and McKitrick graph was nothing to do with their alternative statistical method; instead, it was because they had left out certain proxies, in particular tree-ring studies based on bristlecone pines in the south-west of the US.
"Basically, the McIntyre and McKitrick case boiled down to whether selected North American tree rings should have been included, and not that there was a mathematical flaw in Mann's analysis," Ammann says. The use of the bristlecone pine series has been questioned because of a growth spurt around the end of the 19th century that might reflect higher CO2 levels rather than higher temperatures, and which Mann corrected for.
What counts in science is not a single study, however. It is whether a finding can be replicated by other groups. Here Mann is on a winning streak: upwards of a dozen studies, some using different statistical techniques or different combinations of proxy records (excluding the bristlecone record, for instance), have produced reconstructions more or less similar to the original hockey stick.
CASE CLOSED! And give Fred Pearce an award for excellence in science writing.
Posted by: JePe | November 12, 2007 12:22 PM
@Stevie_C (#1029)
I don't have to prove it false.
I don't ask you to prove it false, I only want to know what kind of empirical observation could falsify the AGW hypothesis.
Posted by: Andrew Wade | November 12, 2007 12:27 PM
David @ 863:
I did:
http://solardat.uoregon.edu/SolarRadiationBasics.html
The sun does emit many more infrared photons than in the visible range, but in terms of energy, they're about equal.
True. But this would be due to increased thermal radiation due to a warmer atmosphere.
To my knowledge, clouds do on the whole cool the earth, and are accounted for in modern climate models.
It's not the solar radiation in the visible spectrum that is converted into heat, Nor is it the solar radiation in the near-infrared. The solar flux is very low at the wavelengths that CO2 is strongly absorbing, but the thermal radiation from the Earth is significant at one of the absoption peaks. What is true is that clouds can help cool the Earth by reflecting solar radiation back into space.
That's beside the point. Ideology need not be incompatible with empiricism and honesty.
Posted by: Stevie_C | November 12, 2007 12:34 PM
JePe. I wasn't talking about AGW. I was talking about creationism.
Kim claims she's not a creationist. But I read her posts and she was either claiming that ID is something to teach in science class because it strengthens scientific thinking because it's fallacies are a good lesson to learn. OR she thinks ID is a sound idea to be investigated.
If she thinks ID is a sound idea, she's a creationist.
And she's not too bright if she can be swayed by the religious arguments of a mormon.
Plus she's fallen for the 50/50 fallacy of god versus no god.
Posted by: Sales Machine | November 12, 2007 12:44 PM
Steve_C
The only evidence I claim exists in regards to this thread is that you and you compadres are a social misfits (a fact embodied the invective posts above). That makes you neither worthless nor pathetic, simply immature. There is a glaring irony (that is, in the classic definition of troll) to the consistent GOAT flames purveyed by you and your ilk.
You called down the thunder. Well, now you got it. -Russell as Earp in Tombstone
..and yet you wonder why it keeps coming. Habitual dick steppers always do.
Take a clue from Who Cares and kim...although they may eschew my endorsement, at least they possess the skill and will to be decent.
Again if the the world/universe abided soley in logic..you would have ceased flaming long ago.
Posted by: JePe | November 12, 2007 1:12 PM
@ Stevie_C (#1060)
JePe. I wasn't talking about AGW. I was talking about creationism.
Yes, I saw that, but in #1022 I asked you explicitly to name empirical observations that could disprove the AGW hypothesis in your opinion. Until now you avoided to answer that question. Instead you started talking/writing about creationism, which was not the topic.
Posted by: Stevie_C | November 12, 2007 1:13 PM
Is it my fault you don't get it?
We got flooded by denialists from AC. We told them to bugger off. Yet they kept coming demanding a debate on AGW. One we never wanted or cared to engage. They came here with the insults, cluelessness and bullshit. Do they deserve decency and flowery language? No.
Yes, some have managed the stomach to debate them, or at least try to inform them. But like classic trolls, they just repeat themselves or move the goal posts.
You Macheen? You're just a pompous concern troll.
Posted by: David | November 12, 2007 1:16 PM
Steve C: The government should get out of the child raising and education business. That solves whatever problem you have with what teachers teach. It is funny how many so called "multiculturalists" want to get rid of the most important part of many people's culture. Their multiculturalism is only skin deep. They want the world to look like the "it's a small world" ride, but everyone must be secular, atheist, and believe in economic equality and environmentalism above all else. Yes their two most dastardly sins: Economic inequality and being politically incorrect.
Posted by: Stevie_C | November 12, 2007 1:16 PM
I don't want to debate AGW. I could give a fuck about CA denialism. Plus, I think many more here are better at making an argument for AGW than I am.
This is an evodevo godless liberal blog. Even says so at the top. When I want to go talk about climate change, I'll go to realclimate.
Posted by: Stevie_C | November 12, 2007 1:20 PM
Religion is not important or even necessary.
It's a distraction and pointless.
That's why it's kept out of public schools ya big baby.
I want chruches to be taxed actually. Their tax exemption should end.
Posted by: Jason Salinas | November 12, 2007 2:00 PM
The only problem with most replications of Mann's work is that they use the same data and/or are peer reviewed by the same people. Another issue is the graph sticks the proxy records and measurement records together at the same time. Whatever it is that means.
The issue here is that religion is not logic, it's emotion. It's not facts that can be proven or disproven, because it's faith. I think that's Kim's point, there's no way to prove or disprove it.
The problem with any explanation, scientific or religious, of why we're here (an unimportant question as far as I'm concerned), is that it ultimately hits the same wall; where is the material from? So there's always a point where you have to say that question is unexplainable, unknowable and since we're clearly here, unimportant, since we're here regardless of the answer. Regardless if you use religion or science to explain it, you can't explain where everything came from. You also then have to try and wrap your mind around the idea of infinity; material that goes on forever, or the idea of nothingness; material that stops and has nothing on the other side of where it stops.
So in the end, the debate is meaningless.
Posted by: David | November 12, 2007 2:17 PM
Religion is not important or even necessary.
It's a distraction and pointless.
You have a religion, you are just too blind to see it. The religion of non-religion, of worldly possessions, of worldly pleasure, etc. Benjamin Franklin once said "If mankind is this wicked with religion, imagine what we would be like without it."
Posted by: Rey Fox | November 12, 2007 2:19 PM
Er...for the record, I was addressing David with my chicken entrails comment. Carry on, everyone, but first, please shed a tear for David's poor, oppressed white Christian male heritage.
Posted by: JimC | November 12, 2007 2:22 PM
This is one of the most stupid posts I've read in quite awhile. Using 'religion' in this sense makes the word essentially meaningless and your comment even less so.
Worldly possessions doesn't even make sense as that is all anything is, the same for pleasure. There is nothing of merit in any of the above. And using Ben Franklin - no lover of religion- as your argument from authority is, well, odd.
Posted by: Stevie_C | November 12, 2007 2:22 PM
Then you have the religion of Athorism and Azeusism.
You just don't know it.
Is there something other than worldly pleasure?
I'm up for unworldly pleasures... what ya got?
Life should be enjoyed, not suffered through worrying about a fictional hell
or an enternity in heaven spent praising the man in the white robe (which sounds alot like my idea of hell).
Posted by: JePe | November 12, 2007 2:34 PM
@ Stevie_C (#1064)
I don't want to debate AGW.
If you don't want to debate AGW, why the hell did you bother to react on me or Kim or others?
If you are so cocksure of AGW it can't be a problem to define just ONE empirical observation that could falsify the hypothesis.
Posted by: David | November 12, 2007 2:34 PM
If that makes the term "religion" meaningless, then IT IS meaningless. That was my point. You are hypocrites and bigots. Everyone has a religion, a value system, a belief system, gods that they worship.
"
I have lived, Sir, a long time and the longer I live, the more convincing proofs I see of this truth -- that God governs in the affairs of men. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without his notice, is it probable that an empire can rise without his aid? We have been assured, Sir, in the sacred writings that "except the Lord build they labor in vain that build it." I firmly believe this; and I also believe that without his concurring aid we shall succeed in this political building no better than the Builders of Babel:" ...
-- Ben Franklin.
Posted by: Jason Salinas | November 12, 2007 2:38 PM
Yes, of course, "the lord of this world has blinded the minds of the unbelievers" and everything.
But really, are you seriously trying to compare the faithful belief in a supreme being that has always existed and created everything from the same nothingness it came out of, to paying attention to worldly possessions and the human experience?
I am pretty sure I've never gotten on my knees on a Sunday and prayed to my car. But whatever floats your boat.
Posted by: JimC | November 12, 2007 2:51 PM
I try not to participate in flame wars but really: You are a profoundly ignorant human being.
A value system is not a religion. Again your using the word in a way to make it mean nothing. A religion may incorporate a value system or many but they do note make it a religion.
Posted by: David | November 12, 2007 2:53 PM
I am pretty sure I've never gotten on my knees on a Sunday and prayed to my car.
I know a guy who spends so much time polishing his car that he probably could have bought another one with all the time and labor he has put into it so far. Prayer is just a connection.
Posted by: Stevie_C | November 12, 2007 2:54 PM
Does the phrase "Fuck Off" ring a bell? That's pretty much been the extense of my postings to a great degree.
David. Belief system does not equal religion.
And yes, I agree with you, religion is meaningless.
Posted by: Stevie_C | November 12, 2007 2:59 PM
Wow. He's managed to downgrade polishing a car to prayer.
At least when you're done polishing a car you've accomplished something.
Prayer, not so much.
Posted by: JimC | November 12, 2007 3:04 PM
#1076 is just wow weak. So much for this discussion.
Posted by: Rey Fox | November 12, 2007 3:06 PM
"That was my point."
A point that neatly grasped it's own tail and devoured it until it vanished into nothingness.
Posted by: JePe | November 12, 2007 3:09 PM
@Stevie_C (#1077)
You don't seem to have an answer, maybe your guru PZ Myers can answer my simple question:
What empirical evidence can falsify the AGW hypothesis?
I doubt if I will get a serious reply.
Posted by: Stevie_C | November 12, 2007 3:24 PM
Meet me over at CA! Hurry! I'm about to post!
Posted by: Jason Salinas | November 12, 2007 3:27 PM
In the end, it doesn't really matter if it's warming or not, or what causes our warming. The politicians overall are going to implement what the scientits tell them in a way the politicians want to implement them, however that is finally decided upon. Companies that will make money off of carbon controls will push certain legislation. Other companies that benefit in other ways will push other legislation. Other politicians and other companies that don't benefit or don't see one or would be harmed will fight certain things.
Nobody here has any control over it (basically), so arguing about what climate's doing and why is like arguing about religion or politics.
Posted by: Ozymandias | November 12, 2007 3:37 PM
JS...gotta love the irony of your typo: scientits. Freudian slip perhaps?
Nonetheless, fine post.
No control, indeed.
Posted by: Eisnel | November 12, 2007 3:53 PM
This thread is insane! I couldn't resist getting a comment in this 1000+ comment monster.
I'm a regular Pharyngula reader, and I know PZ is fond of using both barrels, which is what I like about this blog. At first I felt that his original post was even harsher than normal; PZ even admitted that he was cranky when he wrote it. But after sampling 1000+ comments (there's no way I'm going to read them all), PZ's original post seems tame in comparison. The pro-CA pit bulls that have been sent to troll here are pretty bad, but I'm sad to say that some of the Pharyngula supporters have also gone a bit too far. It seems to have made everybody cranky. It's strange how the anonymity provided by the internets allows people to say things they'd never say to each other over a beer.
What strikes me is that a lot of the anti-PZ commenters have been suggesting that Steve McIntyre has stayed above the fray by only saying nice and conciliatory things about other blogs. They try to paint McIntyre as the calm one and PZ as the lunatic. First, McIntyre doesn't need to say anything harsh because he's got hordes of vitriolic fans to do it for him. He can let his readers do the dirty work and keep his hands clean. Second, I read McIntyre's article about the voting. While he tries to play the good guy by suggesting that it should be a tie (which was a good idea), he repeatedly suggests that BA's supporters used vote bots. So out of one side of his mouth he suggests that both blogs deserve to win, and it's too close to call, while in the same breath he suggests that his opponent's supporters cheated. Instead of being conciliatory, I think McIntyre is saying that he is the obvious winner, AND he's also so magnanimous as to allow an undeserving runner-up to share the title. So he's not quite so kind as his supporters paint him. This whole debacle has become nasty, on all sides.
Posted by: Kseniya | November 12, 2007 3:58 PM
"David" must be a David Barton fan.
Franklin was not an atheist (he believed in a creator God) but he wasn't really a Christian (he doubted the divinity of Jesus.) He did not attend church. He supported the separation of church and state. He saw the primary function and benefit of institutional religion as being one of containment:
I don't see how any of that supports the claim that !R = R. David's use of the Franklin quote was a non-sequitur.
Posted by: Jason Salinas | November 12, 2007 4:15 PM
Many "founding fathers" and many folks back then in the realms of the upper ranks of society were deists.
McIntyre said it wasn't worth the effort or time to find out who won, and that it seemed clear that both sets of votes had been subjected to some kind of automated hack. Once it became political in nature, it might have been (and probably was) people that don't usually even frequent the blogs, but politically motivated people. However, at the close of voting, his site was ahead after all.
Whatever, it's just an Internet poll, who cares.
Posted by: Stevie_C | November 12, 2007 4:25 PM
The only reason it's even a tie is because PZ sent is votes to two other blogs rather than just BA. If he had known CA was going to even come close to winning he would of never thrown the match. He tried to do something nice and the CA twits benefits.
I'd be bitter too.
Posted by: Owlmirror | November 12, 2007 4:31 PM
I just like that quote.
There's also this:
Ben Franklin lived at a time when many were religious, and as a politician, he had to get along with them. Unsurprisingly, his public speeches — "That God governs in the Affairs of Men" was a speech — might not entirely reflect his private thoughts.
Posted by: Kseniya | November 12, 2007 4:50 PM
Indeed. Franklin wrote these words six weeks before his death, in response to a letter from Yale University president Ezra Stiles. I believe they accurately express his opinions at the time he wrote them:
Posted by: JePe | November 12, 2007 5:28 PM
#1088
The only reason it's even a tie is because PZ sent is votes to two other blogs rather than just BA. If he had known CA was going to even come close to winning he would of never thrown the match. He tried to do something nice and the CA twits benefits.
I'd be bitter too.
PZM lost all credibility in this thread. History shows that the type of people who call others rats etc. as mr Myers does, (like Joseph or Adolf) probably don't have good intentions.
Mr. Myers reminds me of Trofim Lysenko (considering AGW).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trofim_Lysenko
Posted by: David | November 12, 2007 5:29 PM
David. Belief system does not equal religion.
From dictionary.com:
Religion:
1. A set of beliefs ...
2. A specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices ...
3. The body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices ...
Pick which definition that you wish. I can give you a symbolic analogy to how you and the other so called non-religious really do have a religion when it comes down to basics.
Posted by: Dustin | November 12, 2007 5:39 PM
With a PZ = Hitler post followed by a post which not only quotes the dictionary, but also OMITS 75% of the definitions the dumbass is trying to quote, and the longest Pharyngula thread in memory, the Climate Auditors have verified that they are in fact more dishonest and more insane than the creationists.
And that's a feat if I've ever seen one.
Posted by: Jepe | November 12, 2007 5:53 PM
@Dustin
I don't call people rats, it's your host (Mr. P.Z. Myers) who did. I just observe and remind you that in general people who used this kind of terminology were not friendly to mankind.
Posted by: Robin Levett | November 12, 2007 5:58 PM
JePe:
It would be pretty easy to falsify AGW; a couple of thoughts on the evidence that would do so:
1 Evidence that CO2 does not absorb infra-red radiation as climatologists believe it does;
2 Evidence that burning fossil fuels does not release CO2;
3 Evidence that CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere have not increased from 280ppm to 385ppm over the period since the industrial revolution;
Many more similar observations could have falsified AGW; but your problem is that the evidence is in, and it is against you. There is a difference between unfalsifiable and unfalsified - AGW is unfalsified, not unfalsifiable, just like the theory of evolution.
Posted by: CalGeorge | November 12, 2007 6:04 PM
PZ = Hitler.
Butchering a few Zebrafish is not the equivalent of exterminating the Jews.
Surely you exaggerate, JePe.
Posted by: JohnS | November 12, 2007 6:09 PM
PZ liez, liez I tell you. Not little fibs but giant enormous fibs. Banned I was. I was too close to the truth that PZ was really pissed with his goons failing the beauty contest rig. Only let me back in after the 1000, which as I said before, rather unfortunately proves what a set of phuckwits his goons really are. Com'on PZ tell us who let you down. Truffer?. He didn't even fill the fridge with beer. You just can't buy good help these days.
JohnS
Posted by: Stevie_C | November 12, 2007 6:22 PM
If you were banned, why are you here?
Rigged? PZ won last year. And could of won easily this year.
BUT GET THIS THROUGH YOUR THICK FUCKING SKULL.
He told his regulars to vote for a BA after it looked like CA might win it.
He doesn't care about winning... he wanted another good SCIENCE blog to win.
Posted by: JePe | November 12, 2007 6:26 PM
@ Robin Levett (#1095)
Show me first that CO2 is the culprit of the global warming that took place until 1998. Since 1998 the warming has stabilized, which is incompatible with the growing CO2 in the atmosphere.
Posted by: Owlmirror | November 12, 2007 6:46 PM
Someone who was banned and yet is still posting here must, obviously, be a morpher.
Who on this list could that possibly be?
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/plonk.php
Posted by: JePe | November 12, 2007 6:48 PM
@ Calgeorge (1096)
Whoever calls humans "rats" as PZ. Myers did, places himself in the category of dubious figures.
Hitler used it upon jews/gypies.
Stalin used it upon his adverseries
Meyers used it upon "denialists"
It's a shame!
Posted by: Robin Levett | November 12, 2007 7:25 PM
JePe:
Which, if true, would be extremely worrying. Fortunately, it's not.
However, this is beside the point - do you accept that the evidence I suggested would, if found, falsify AGW?
Posted by: Badger3k | November 12, 2007 8:33 PM
It took over a thousand posts before a Hitler comparison? Wow. Call the Zombie!
First the denialists are the Galilleo-types, then they are the Jews...what's next? Do we go back in time and they will compare themselves with the "ultimate martyr" (ie - the Christ fellow, unless they go further to, say, Dionysus, or any of the others)? This just keeps getting better and better.
Posted by: raindogzilla | November 12, 2007 9:41 PM
Just who is this Steve McIntire of whom many here so fawningly speak? Does He not speak Himself or is that act simply beneath Him- and better left to His blind, idiot minions? Is there some sort of Koolaid and Electrodes to the Genitals induction ceremony and is it only after passing that test that Steve's Truth will be revealed? Is His hold on them somehow cyberhypnotic? Does His blog only give the uninitiated browser a throbbing headache, while gently soothing the psyche of the faithful with His carefully arranged symbols and numbers? And is it true that by believing in Him one receives a coupon good for 50 cents off every gallon of gas that one guzzles?
I mean, seriously, PZ, why don't we get some Koolaid?
Posted by: Stuart Weinstein | November 12, 2007 10:01 PM
Francaois O writes "
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."
Thanks for your cartoon version of history. Apparently you and your source left out the facts that perhaps the two greatest geologists of the 20th century, Sir Arthur Holmes and James Dutoit were among the "drifters" or at least anti-fixists.
The problems with Wegener's "Continental Drift" hypothesis are legion, though to a certain extent he was on the right track. Modern Plate Tectonics has little to do with Wegner, but is largely built
on the ideas of Holmes.
In Wegner's model, continentral drift was the motion of the sialic crust through the basalt sea-floor powered by an obscure force arising on rotating oblate spheroids "The Eotvos Effect". Geologists and Physicists were perfectly right to denounce this as the nonsense it was.
Holmes figured out the mechanism, thermal convection in the Earth's mantle, by the 1920's. Holmes and Dutoit tried to get Wegner to listen, but largely failed.
In some sense Wegner deserves a lot of credit for popularizing the issue, but because of a number of geological howlers he committed and his silly mechanism based on the Eotvos effect, he attracted the wrong kind of publicity in the scientific community. They were right to crap on him.
Holmes however persevered. He predicted the existence of subduction zones decades before they were discovered.
It wasn't bloggers or non-scientifically trained pundits who found eveidence for what is now called plate tectonics, but geologists themselves.
Sceince doesn't need the help of self-aggrandizing retards who think they are experts.
Posted by: Stuart Weinstein | November 12, 2007 11:00 PM
David writes:
"1. The sun emits a lot more infrared than visible spectrum. Go look it up. More CO2 would mean more heat emitted back into space.
2. CO2 traps heat, which causes evaporation, which causes clouds to form, which causes visible spectrum to be reflected back into space, which means less visible spectrum to be converted into heat by CO2."
And how's that been working out for Venus so far?
Posted by: Michael X | November 13, 2007 12:36 AM
Well I'll be damned. This might be the one thing that I have to actually give Truth Machine credit for. Not his own ability to never let an argument die, but his ability to lure the rest of you suckers in while constantly abusing you, only to reach a goal he made perfectly plain had nothing to do with you.
So he got to abuse you and get his wish.
Though I doubt that those of you still here will admit or even acknowledge to yourself that you've been played.
Let it never be said I don't give credit where credit is due.
Posted by: Kseniya | November 13, 2007 1:11 AM
David (#1092)
Wow, could you possibly be more dishonest? Or have you made an honest (if jaw-droppingly basic) logic error?
I believe this one is called an Illicit Conversion:
- All A are B, therefore all B are A.
- All dogs are mammals, therefore all mammals are dogs.
- All religions are belief systems, therefore all belief systems are religions.
Wrong, wrong, wrong.
A simple error, or rank dishonesty? Perhaps a little of both? Sadly, your use of ellipses gives you away. I've bolded the parts you left out, for easy identification:
1. a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.
2. a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects: the Christian religion; the Buddhist religion.
3. the body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices: a world council of religions.
Conclusion: Dishonesty.
Holy crumbling shortcake! You really believed you could get away with that kind of crap here?
Speaking of crap, JePe crapped all over whatever was left of his own credibility when he dragged Hitler into the discussion. Pathetic. Also interesting is that an AGW denialist would point to a short-term - and I mean really, really short, less than a decade - alleged discontinuity in the covariance between greenhouse-gas levels and warming trends. Grasping at straws, it seems.
Posted by: David | November 13, 2007 3:20 AM
And how's that been working out for Venus so far?
Venus is a lot closer to the sun, does not have an ocean, has a lot more CO2, has sulfur in the atmosphere, has slower rotation, etc., etc.
Kseniya: I was not being dishonest. I pointed to the source of the information (dictionary.com) and asked Steve C to pick one. I was emphasizing "set of beliefs," which is the only reason why I left the other stuff off. Assuming that Steve had picked the first one:
1. A set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe.
Atheists believe in the Big Bang (a creation of the universe, when time starts). They believe in a Creation from nothing into something. The only difference is that the Creator is some physical process that has always been there somehow rather than a Creator god that is supernatural (outside the subset).
And before you cry foul, the rest of that definition starts with "usually" and "often" which obviously implies that they are not necessary.
Posted by: Robin Levett | November 13, 2007 4:03 AM
David (#1109):
So how many religions do you have?
Posted by: Stuart Weinstein | November 13, 2007 4:22 AM
David writes (in a vain attempt to extricate his head from his posterior cavity)
"And how's that been working out for Venus so far?
Venus is a lot closer to the sun, does not have an ocean, has a lot more CO2, has sulfur in the atmosphere, has slower rotation, etc., etc."
Homework for David. What would be the black-body temperatures of Venus and Earth if neither had atmospheres?
Yes it has a lot more CO2. It also has twice the Albedo too, and that is rather the point, which seems to have sailed right over your head.
SO it has sulfur? And how far down in the Venusian atmosphere is that? And one can only wonder what Venus's rotation rate has to with its mean surface temperature of 460C?
Posted by: Stuart Weinstein | November 13, 2007 4:35 AM
David writes:
"Atheists believe in the Big Bang (a creation of the universe, when time starts)."
Was George LeMaitre an Atheist? He was only President of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences and along with Gamow, an architect of the Big Bang theory.
"They believe in a Creation from nothing into something."
Ah yes, the comic book version of astrophysics. The Big Bang singularity was not "Nothing".
"The only difference is that the Creator is some physical process that has always been there somehow rather than a Creator god that is supernatural (outside the subset)."
That physical process "Big Bang" can be interrogated with the Scientific method. God can not.
"And before you cry foul, the rest of that definition starts with "usually" and "often" which obviously implies that they are not necessary."
The only thing I'm going to cry foul over is your lack of scientific knowledge and history. It drives you to put your foot in your mouth.
Posted by: Peter Hunter | November 13, 2007 5:38 AM
It's a pitty that most of the scientists and also the bloggers here aren't able to reflect philosophic matters. Very often they simply collect and interpret data in a system immanent way. In particular in the knowledge of history and philosophic consideration they often are poor and of big ignorance. Furthermore the abilities of rationality itself is extremely overrated by them.
In fact rationality is like a lawyer: always following the interest of a party. When you look at history you will learn that rationality always creates systems which are rational in a closed system of "rational" believes and that the trust in rationality alone leads to mass murder and holocaust.
The "Age of Enlighment" found its terrible awakening in the French Revolution, when Robespierre, Saint Just and others killed thousands in the name of rationality. Later Lenin, Stalin and Hitler did so, too. Georg Buechner, a German revolutionist of the 19th century wrote "Dantons Tod" a play about the death of Danton, one of the leaders of the French revolution of 1792. Saint Just's speech in this play is a shining sample how rationality provides the basic for killing. In this speech he passionately affirms and glorifies the unyielding and inhuman necessity of history, the march of revolution which grinds underfoot whole generations that stand in its way, likening its effects to the irrestible eruption of a volcano or an earthquake. And he points out that it is pure rationality to recognize the essential way of history and to act as a tool of it. As a tool of history you have to forget of moral values, compassion and love, you have to act in the necessary way and you have no personal responsibility for you actions. And so Lenin, Stalin, Mao and Hitler sent out the NKDW, the revolution gards, the SA and SS to kill millions and millions in the name of rationality as each of them understood it.
Obviously human beings are not able to hold on moral values only by rationality. It looks like there must be something else what asks you very personally: "What are you doing? Why do you slaughter your brother?"
If you call this questioner conscience then you have to ask where comes conscience from? If you only consult rationality, rationality will tell you that it is not rational to pamper all those old people suffering from dementia in the homes for the aged, it is not rational not to kill all those thugs in the jails who have no chance for socialize and cost a lot of money and bear a lot of risk for the honest citizens. There is only one entity who says as a fixed point beyond of human scrutinizing and relativization : You shall not murder and you shall honour your father and your mother! In old Shinto and Buddhist Japan the elders often were sent to the mountains to die from starvation. This was very rational because it saved capabilities for the youngsters (but it missed love and compassion).
By the way: to call human beings "rats" is disgusting and reveals a serious lack of education and a limited view on moral values. Last time I've read this in relation to human beings was in a newspaper called "The Stuermer" (The Storm Trooper) a Nazi-magazine from the 30th of the 20th century and it referred to the Jews. So please be carefull with your swearwords, killing starts with killing words which deny someones humanity!
Posted by: Goatboy | November 13, 2007 7:00 AM
Wow 1113 posts and the concern trolls continue to Godwin.
Peter,
PZ's rat analogy was drawn against a specific type of behaviour.
Now personally, I don't like the analogy, since I have far less fondness for the parade of whining shills that have recently infested this blog than I generally hold for members of the genus rattus.
In fact, it's safe to say in thirty years I've not once encountered a rat that whored itself or its intellectual honesty for corporate interests.
But the behaviour that PZ cited has been evidenced over and over again in this very thread and no tediously sanctimonious post from you, however long, is going to change that.
The CA readership introduced themselves and lo' PZ was vindicated.
In fact, one member of the infestation is currently in another thread claiming ID as science, "because it's not impossible".
Frankly,
You guys are one big old heaped load of fail.
Posted by: JohnS | November 13, 2007 7:01 AM
Hey Michael- he -of -the- mysterious-X. Truffy did battle manfully. However I'm not sure however who was pulling who here old boyo. Confirmed for me what beauty contest rig failures you all were, although all you PZ goons, in delightful turns of phrase, were always keen to tell that old PZ had no winning intention. Indeed over 1000 posts to defend what was said to be not important. Stretches truth as well as other body parts don't you think, you wankers. Better effort expected next year- of course thats right - PZ is not interested in winning. Hahahahahaha. Did I say you lost. Hahahahaha
JohnS
Posted by: wildlifer | November 13, 2007 7:36 AM
Why argue with loons who think water vapor, which lasts ~10 days in the atmosphere, is responsible for climate change?
Giggles?
Posted by: Andrew Wade | November 13, 2007 7:57 AM
I don't think us "PZ goons" ever said AGW was not important. What some of us said was that we were not interested in argument, and "the truth machine" has in fact been fairly consistent in supplying abuse instead of argument. What I don't find credible is claims that denialists are unwanted here. It may be true for the blog in general, but with regards to this thread they are wanted--wanted as targets to abuse.
Posted by: Barn Owl | November 13, 2007 7:59 AM
I think that "JohnS" might be the aneuploid ghost of James Joyce.
O, rocks! she said. Tell us in plain words.
Posted by: Peter Hunter | November 13, 2007 8:33 AM
Dear Mr. Weinstein,
the big bang theory claims (be aware it's just a claim, it may be wrong, it's a theory - probably we will have a better one some day) that in the moment of the big bang there was a mass with a volume of zero and without the dimension of time. "Before" the big bang there was no time.
Accordingly to definition time is a dimension wherein the phenomena of cause and impact happen. When there is no time then there is no cause and no impact. If the beginning of time itself starts with the big bang, with the beginning of the universe (as stated by space-time-theorem) the cause of the big bang, which happened at a point of not existing time, must be something existing in a "time" dimension completely independent from space and time of our universe. There is no other way to understand the start of the big bang by logical reflection, because: there is nothing without sufficient reason that it is (principium rationis sufficientis - Leibnitz). This means that this "something" is transcendent and is neither inside the universe nor is it the universe itself. Because this something was the cause of the big bang we can call it Creator or God.
Stephen Hawkings suffered a lot by the problem of the not existing time before the big bang and tried to save his idea of a self creating universe by "imaginary time" which should be existent 10 to 43 seconds before the real time began. So our materialistic friends have a lot of problems to solve because a volume of zero and an imaginary time is just another word for "I don't know what is was!" Hawkings claims that his calculations about this imaginary time are correct and work out means nothing. Sir Herbert Dingle refers to the possibility to provide imaginary things as real in mathematics:
"You can tell logical truth and logical lies in mathematics and inside mathematics there is no way to distinguish one from the other. You only can differentiate them via logical reflection and experience outside of mathematics. You have to evaluate the possible relation between mathematical solution and physical execution then."
Hawkings reason to claim an imaginary time was, that he dislikes the original big bang theory because it "indicates a divine creation" and this he denies because he can't believe it.
Posted by: MartinM | November 13, 2007 8:58 AM
Well, that looks remarkably like reheated Hugh Ross material.
Tell me, Peter, do you actually understand the material you're using, or are you just a mindless parrot?
Posted by: wildlifer | November 13, 2007 9:36 AM
I'm sorry man, I just can't take anyone named "Peter Hunter" seriously. If that's his real name, just how fucked and cruel up were his parents?
Posted by: spurge | November 13, 2007 9:38 AM
Better name than Richard Hunter...
Posted by: truth machine | November 13, 2007 10:06 AM
"the truth machine" has in fact been fairly consistent in supplying abuse instead of argument
That's false. Virtually every one of my posts included argument, even if they included abuse. However, much of the argument was not about AGW, it was about the topic PZ wrote about -- trolling by AGW deniers, and how and why they aren't wanted here. And the abuse was always connected to the point, it wasn't abuse for its own sake.
Posted by: Stevie_C | November 13, 2007 10:55 AM
I noticed Kim never returned for her/his abuse on ID.
"I'm not a creationist"
Uh huh.
Posted by: Sales Machine | November 13, 2007 11:09 AM
@TM 1123, that does not change the fact that you are a social misfit, who would rather step on his own dick than close a deal. That is you ultimately value acrimony over harmony.
Like Stevie, this fact neither makes you worthless nor pathetic, simply immature. You may be intelligent, indeed f'n brilliant, but you possess neither the skill nor will to be decent. I sure you think you have many friends and admirers, but I am sure your at large appeal is minimal.
You may not care, but I believe that's what behaviorists call antisocial.
Posted by: David | November 13, 2007 11:34 AM
So how many religions do you have?
The first Commandment states "thou shalt have no other gods before me". This has never meant just literal gods such as pagan gods, etc. This means that one should not "worship" money, worldly things, lust for the flesh, etc. Christians struggle every day not to have "other gods" before Him. We are not perfect, of course.
Homework for David. What would be the black-body temperatures of Venus and Earth if neither had atmospheres?
If you were to measure the temperature on Venus at one earth atmosphere pressure, you'd find similar temperatures to what we have here on earth.
That physical process "Big Bang" can be interrogated with the Scientific method. God can not.
A thought experiment:
1. Atheist A exists in set of equations X
2. Entity B exists in superset of X labeled Y
3. Atheist A, no matter how hard he or she tries, would never be able to measure Y, as they are limited to the set of equations X.
4. Atheist A spends all his or her time measuring X and disbelieving in Y simply because they cannot measure it.
My point was that even Atheists have a religion. It doesn't matter if it is based on measurable things. Everyone worships something.
Posted by: MartinM | November 13, 2007 11:53 AM
That doesn't make much sense. If X is a closed set of equations, of what relevance is Y? Your entity B would never be able to do anything that violated the rules of X. You've just defined God into pointlessness. It can't be measured because it doesn't do anything.
Posted by: David | November 13, 2007 11:57 AM
If X is a closed set of equations, of what relevance is Y?
I never said it was a closed set. The set of equations themselves in atheists equations X prevent the Atheist from measuring Y.
Posted by: JimC | November 13, 2007 11:57 AM
Again clueless these are not religions.
As hard as it is to believe you are profoundly incorrect. You start with a bizarre assumption and then put your fingers in your ears.
This is not a thought experiment because it required little thought to make it and even less to see it's flaws.
You have to have evidence that the superset of Y even exists in the first place. This same silly ass experiment could be applied to invisible floating teapots.
And if atheist X can't measure it what makes you think you can measure/feel/know anything about it either? Simply -You can't so stop pretending.
Posted by: JimC | November 13, 2007 11:59 AM
Really, are you in 5th grade. The 'atheist' is simply a human being. If he can't measure Y then neither can anyone else. Again- no evidence of existence.
There is no set for atheists and theists. It's all the same data.
Posted by: MartinM | November 13, 2007 12:01 PM
That will only be true if Y has no effect on X. Hence, closed set.
Posted by: Rey Fox | November 13, 2007 12:13 PM
See also Shit, Making Up
Posted by: Kseniya | November 13, 2007 12:46 PM
Exactly. At the expense of meaning. That's dishonest. I emphasized the remainders of the definitions you butchered, to adjust for your dishonesty.
David, you cannot arbitrarily assign values to words and the claim the new values prove your points.
Look up "belief". There are four definitions. Only one mentions religion. You have performed an illicit conversion. Your arguments are specious. And you will never see that, let alone admit it. None are so blind as those who will not see.
Posted by: Stevie_C | November 13, 2007 12:56 PM
I'm not antisocial.
I'm anti fuckwits like yourself Sales Macheen.
You come here from nowhere with your bullshit concern and jockass comments, not knowing any of us and saying you have evidence as to why scientists fail.
You're an ass. I don't have to be nice to you. I have no reason to be. You've shown that you deserve exactly the treatment I gave you.
Fuckoff.
I don't step on my dick. I smack idiots, like you, in the face with it.
Posted by: David | November 13, 2007 1:09 PM
Exactly. At the expense of meaning. That's dishonest.
No, Steve C said that religion was not a belief system, yet every single definition started with "a set of beliefs". My logic is not flawed, nor was I being dishonest.
The 'atheist' is simply a human being. If he can't measure Y then neither can anyone else. Again- no evidence of existence.
Incorrect. Think of a person living in three dimensional space "interacting" with people living in a subset: two dimensional space. The two dimensional beings would only be able to measure a limited subset of three dimensional space: the intersection with their two dimensions. This is perfectly plausible.
That will only be true if Y has no effect on X. Hence, closed set.
I explained it above.
Posted by: David | November 13, 2007 1:16 PM
Again clueless these are not religions.
Religion is "a set of beliefs," therefore if you have multiple religions they are really just one religion to you. Set A union set B = Set C.
Posted by: Jordan | November 13, 2007 1:17 PM
#1000: "1000 and I'm out of here."
Falsified by #1123
#1107: "Though I doubt that those of you still here will admit or even acknowledge to yourself that you've been played."
Also Falsified by #1123
#844: "suck my left tit until the right one gets jealous"
Unfalsifiable, vulgar, but oddly interesting!
Posted by: CJO | November 13, 2007 1:36 PM
It took over a thousand posts before a Hitler comparison?
Of course not. We're dealing with denialists, remember?
The thread got Godwined back in the 300s, iirc.
Though I have not been able to stomach any more than a skim of the last ~500 posts, I will say I've received an education, albeit one of dubious value: GW deniers are actually more dishonest and reprehensible than creationists, most of whom were originally lied to by someone nominally trustworthy, for reasons of perceived spiritual authority.
Apologetics for untrammelled Capitalism, in the face of potentially disastrous consequences to be borne by our descendents and in the absence of persuasive authority figures, just looks like deliberately antisocial behavior with malice aforethought to me.
Posted by: JimC | November 13, 2007 1:43 PM
Man, you are wrong and you simply can't admit it. So much for being humble.
Posted by: Rey Fox | November 13, 2007 1:48 PM
"Think of a person living in three dimensional space "interacting" with people living in a subset: two dimensional space. The two dimensional beings would only be able to measure a limited subset of three dimensional space: the intersection with their two dimensions."
You're still making the whopping great assumption that there's something of "Y" to be measured at all. There isn't.
Posted by: Sales Machine | November 13, 2007 1:48 PM
@1134
I simply came to a public street corner in a neighborhood you happen to frequent to provide feedback on your failings to appeal convincingly to a wider audience.
If you have no need to discuss the matters of this thread, or this blog for that matter, in public than I am sure it would take far less effort to set up a private arena for such, rather than focus your energy consistently conjure malevolent rants at passers by who happen to take exception to your public point of view.
What basic need does it serve within your soul to make such public display of ugliness?
Our society takes place amongst a diverse public, a fact you don't seem to be settled with.
I may be an ass for pointing out your poor attitude so bluntly, but I would argue your efforts here only serve demonstrate that your personality further off the evolutionary track than the average honorable man.
Posted by: CJO | November 13, 2007 1:57 PM
I simply came to a public street corner in a neighborhood you happen to frequent to provide feedback on your failings to appeal convincingly to a wider audience.
This is as good a definition of "concern trolling" as any regular here could supply. Thanks for making plain your motivations: maybe GW deniers have honest individuals within their ranks after all.
Posted by: Stevie_C | November 13, 2007 1:57 PM
Soul? Not sure what that is. Please explain.
We're not in the broader public. We're on a tiny little corner of the internet. And I'm not trying to appeal to anyone.
That you don't fucking get why we're telling very specific people to fuck off just shows how DENSE and totally unaware of the situation you are...
Try checking out other threads. You might learn something. But I doubt it.
Posted by: David | November 13, 2007 2:08 PM
Man, you are wrong and you simply can't admit it. So much for being humble.
Let us assume that your belief system is nowhere near a religion because people have labeled your belief system as somehow different because you can measure things in your belief system (as if a religion can never be based on measured things). You have a creation (big bang, nothing into something), you have saints (Al Gore, Einstein, Hawking), you have things that you strive for (money, pleasure), you have sins (income inequality, being politically incorrect). Either way, it is analogous. Stop being a bigot. Everyone has a religion "per se".
Posted by: Rey Fox | November 13, 2007 2:10 PM
Yes, feedback such as:
Proving that 1) You don't know who any of us are, or what we might really be doing when we're not on this blog, and 2) You're an incredible asshole who has no right lecturing any of us about tact. Bundle all those together with your constant pronouncements of not caring about bettering the world unless you can make a nice profit out of it (gee Wally, maybe global warming has gotten this bad so far because The Market really doesn't deal with externalities like pollution and ecosystem services!), and I'd say that Steve C is giving you exactly the respect that you deserve. So drop the sweet and innocent act and go back to masturbating to the Forbes 500 list.
Posted by: Tunderbar | November 13, 2007 2:14 PM
Anthropgenic global warming is a fraud. Anyonewith scientific training who looks at the IPCC report and its climate modelling nonsense, and Mann's idiotically cherry-picked and fudged data, and Jim Hansens factored and fudged temperature data, and the Profit Gore's reversed use of the temperature vs co2 graph, and comes out stil pretending that agw is real, is a complete fraud. PZ, you are a fraud.
Posted by: Rey Fox | November 13, 2007 2:19 PM
I've wasted too much time on this religion argument. If you'll excuse me, I have to go prostrate myself in the temple of Lunch now.
Posted by: Stevie_C | November 13, 2007 2:20 PM
Fuck off Tunder.
We don't care.
Posted by: MartinM | November 13, 2007 2:21 PM
And any 3D entity which interacted Flatworld would have an observable effect on it. Any which didn't would be irrelevant. You're rendering god a) a physical entity or b) pointless. Pick one.
Posted by: JimC | November 13, 2007 2:23 PM
You really, truly need an education. A religion can be based on measured things. It is clear you simply have no clue about what a religion actually is and as such you keep blathering on and on.
None of which is necessary for a religion. Hence you lack any semblance of a point.
Saints? Are they imagined as being invisible and doing magical things? They are men, no one expects more than that from them. You are so silly.
Thats humanity dipshit not a religion.
You are clueless. Totally so.
Maybe analagous to someone who doesn't understand what a religion actually is and hence deludes themselves into a state that can only be described as stupid.
I have a religion and it's nothing like the twaddle your babbling about above.
Posted by: David | November 13, 2007 2:25 PM
You're still making the whopping great assumption that there's something of "Y" to be measured at all. There isn't.
I've heard of that, it's the many world's theory that has the asterisk by it that says "what can exist does exist, except that one thing that I don't like, because I said so."
Posted by: MartinM | November 13, 2007 2:32 PM
I don't think you have the faintest idea what MWI actually states. Unless you want to claim that god was created by a quantum event, it's utterly irrelevant.
Posted by: David | November 13, 2007 2:59 PM
A religion can be based on measured things.
Hence the sarcastic "as if" in my comment. I won't stoop to your level and call you a Moron.
None of which is necessary for a religion. Hence you lack any semblance of a point.
I was giving an analogy to a specific religion. You've heard of analogy right? If one can map something analogously one-to-one to something else, then what does that say? (Don't answer that, I know the answer.)
Thats humanity dipshit not a religion.
It isn't humanity, it is part of humanity. Religion is too. I'll give a better analogy: You may strive for income equality or having everything be grown organically, or whatever it may be. Something drives you that is part of your belief system that may not be part of someone else's. You may share that similar belief system with your friends. It is not really that different from having a religion.
I don't think you have the faintest idea what MWI actually states
I do, but I take it one step further into the idea that every equation "exists," and there are some powerful enough to provide for what we refer to as "existence". We live in one of those subsets. Since every equation "exists," then an equation would exist for every quantum time advancement.
Posted by: JimC | November 13, 2007 3:01 PM
You really, truly have no idea what your talking about and as such I will end my participation in this discussion.
Posted by: David | November 13, 2007 3:18 PM
You really, truly have no idea what your talking about and as such I will end my participation in this discussion.
JimC, many scientists and atheists subscribe to the many world's theory as a plausible way to explain existence. I probably jumped the gun and assumed that you understood this concept. I should have just answered "because you said so, right?" It isn't like I was calling you a Moron or anything, unlike some of the others here.
Posted by: MartinM | November 13, 2007 3:24 PM
I'm beginning to think you're confusing MWI with multiverse cosmologies.
Posted by: David | November 13, 2007 3:32 PM
I'm beginning to think you're confusing MWI with multiverse cosmologies.
Possibly. The idea came before any formal name.
Posted by: stogoe | November 13, 2007 3:44 PM
Take a rest, truth machine. The skullfucked dipshit trolls will think they've won whether you argue with them or not...
Posted by: Kseniya | November 13, 2007 3:45 PM
Doesn't it? Which means, also, that it looks remarkably like what "The Physicist" used in that "debate" in which he attempted to use quantum physics to "prove" God.
Ok, then. David:
Ok. Ok. Ok. I believe you are sincere. I withdraw the accusation of dishonesty. However, you've still committed a logical fallacy -and- persist in misunderstanding JimC and Steve_C in a way that is consistent with the fallacy. Neither one of them said that religion is not a belief system. They each said, in slightly different ways, that not all belief systems are religions.
JimC said this (#1075)
Steve_C said this (# 1077)
If you still can't see the difference between what they said and what you claim, I really can't help you.
As for this bogus "everyone has a religion" claim, don't forget that there's a difference between metaphor and reality. Again, if you can't already see this, I doubt that I help you.
Posted by: Sales Machine | November 13, 2007 4:40 PM
@ 1145 Rey,
Fair enough. Perhaps a more literal way to a make a point you so elegantly did previously.
"Wading into the morass gets mud on YOU too." (Look at the Sales Monkey, he can use the search function in his browser)
I have to admire your loyalty to Stevie. Forgive my inference, but it would have been more honest to say: "Stevie may be a sod, but he's our sod". Nonethless, I guarantee, you'd rather hang out with me in Vegas.
Cheers!
Stevie, the main difference between you and me is that you seem to take it so personally. You (& TM) conjure up visions of a rabid Scientologist. The Internet is rife with hydra you will inevitably have to suffer in a publicly available forum such as this; no matter how remote it is. Try not to act so shocked when it happens, no matter the intellect of your tormentor, your attitude still weighs on your credibility. Best of luck winning friends and influencing people. (I sincerely mean that brother)
&
CJO..Me...concern troll???...why....naturally..and thank for the compliment. I am sorry I just don't see the usefulness in taking a binary position on any theory. What must really piss you off is that, deep down, you know you need wretches (a-holes, if you prefer) like me.
Vaya Con Dios
Posted by: MartinM | November 13, 2007 5:06 PM
Ah. Hedging your bets on the germ theory of disease, then?
Posted by: Jordan | November 13, 2007 5:08 PM
#1158 "Take a rest, truth machine."
It could bring a tear to a glass eye. A rare display of true leadership ... know when you're beaten, get the guys out of there and limit your losses.
Posted by: David | November 13, 2007 5:09 PM
If you still can't see the difference between what they said and what you claim, I really can't help you.
I did make an error as far as #1077 goes in that I mistakenly read it as "religion is not a belief system."
That said, let's parse the definitions of religion again.
"
A specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects
"
So, by your logic, non-religious people in general do not have a specific fundamental set of beliefs or practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons.
Let's parse another definition:
"
Something one believes in and follows devotedly; a point or matter of ethics or conscience: to make a religion of fighting prejudice.
"
So by your logic, non-religious people do not believe in or follow devotedly anything; no point or matter of ethics or conscience.
Let's parse another:
"The body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices"
So by your logic, non religious people do not make up any body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices.
While it is true that non-religious people do not subscribe to a formal religion, everyone has a religion (per se) of some form or another.
Posted by: Tunderbar | November 13, 2007 5:11 PM
I shall not "fuck off". AGW is a fraud.
Posted by: MartinM | November 13, 2007 5:16 PM
Bugger off, then.
Posted by: Stevie_C | November 13, 2007 5:24 PM
Macheen likes to jump to big conclusions.
Abuse of him and his CA friends, means I abuse everyone. Which is far from the case.
I just abuse the guy who knocks on my door trying to sell me bibles, pees on my stoop or donate to the LaRouche campaign and won't leave.
I didn't ask them to come here with their bullshit. But I can ask them to leave. And I don't have to be nice about it. They were never going to change their mind with debate. They don't know how to debate. They have their beloved psuedoscience and Macheen has his lame ass observations.
Posted by: Rey Fox | November 13, 2007 5:33 PM
"AGW is a fraud."
Okay. But indulge my curiosity for a second. Let's say the whole of AGW is a fraud. A deliberate fraud put on by thousands of professionals around the world. Why do they do it? What do they stand to gain? A modest living? Some tiny amount of influence over some consumers and politicians? A mansion in Tennessee? Al Gore had his wealth a long time before he became the public face of AGW. What's the scam?
Posted by: CJO | November 13, 2007 5:40 PM
OK Jordan, we're beaten. Now gather up your trolling ass (warning: may require both hands and/or deployment of a bell) and your trolling buddies and have a victory party --elsewhere.
Posted by: Stevie_C | November 13, 2007 5:47 PM
Yeah. AGW is a fraud. So was landing on the moon and and there's Aliens housed at Area 51. Yup. It's all true.
Here's some candy. Run along and play.
Posted by: Robin Levett | November 13, 2007 5:53 PM
David
I asked:
and you purported reply was:
which of course was entirely unresponsive to the question.
Want to try again?
Posted by: Sales Machine | November 13, 2007 6:03 PM
@1166
You fail to recognize Stevie, I have not come to your door. You are standing on a virtual street corner Buddy. I'll say it once more, this is the Internet. Only the thickest of skulls would have a hard time understanding that. Sure you did'nt ask anyone here expressly, but if you can't see how PZ's post was a neon sign as an invitation that did, furthermore your attitude as adding wattage to the luminosity, I guess there is no hope for you.
I can't go without acknowledging that this thread, and moreover this blog, is not necessarily a pure democracy, thus not 100% public. It's content and moderation of comment is soley at the benevolent discretion of PZ (BTW plenty of science going here, as far as I can see). To PZ's credit and my deepest respect, despite, the blatant ad homs to him personally, it is clear freedom of speech ranks quite high in his personal values.
Honestly dude, WTF did you expect?
Raise your game brother.
Posted by: Jordan | November 13, 2007 6:15 PM
#1163
David,
At risk of getting snarled in a mangle, maybe the key words are that religin is "specific" or "particular".
It does not seem sensible to generalise - if religion means anything which can be grouped together and called a belief system, it means everything and therefore nothing. It has no common qualities or characteristics. So why use the word?
Although a little circular, it seems more meaningful to interpret "specific" or "particular" as those belief systems that would be commonly recognised as religion. We can then get an inkling of the type and nature of the belief systems that are being referred to.
Posted by: Jordan | November 13, 2007 6:41 PM
CJO
The adults in the room are having a conversation. You can throw your rattle out of the perambulator as often as you like, but there are much better ways to attract attention to yourself little sweetie pops.
Posted by: Stevie_C | November 13, 2007 6:43 PM
Macheen. You don't understand what trolling is do you?
You're clueless and boring. Step up my game? I'm not even interested or trying.
Posted by: CJO | November 13, 2007 6:50 PM
Couldn't find it, I see. Maybe your buddies will lend a hand.
Posted by: Sales Machine | November 13, 2007 6:51 PM
@1174
I understand trollingfar more than you would ever know. But that's a discussion would take on a nature, and be far more boring, than the circular one religion that is taking place on this thread. Pity for you.
All the best!
Posted by: truth machine | November 13, 2007 7:15 PM
@TM 1123, that does not change the fact that you are a social misfit
Non sequitur. Whether I'm a "social misfit" wasn't the claim I was responding to.
you possess neither the skill nor will to be decent
You don't have adequate information to judge what skills I lack.
I am sure your at large appeal is minimal.
Being sure of things without adequate evidence makes your judgments worthless.
Posted by: truth machine | November 13, 2007 7:19 PM
it is clear freedom of speech ranks quite high in his personal values
That, and he has better things to do than police these threads or to care what people say about him.
Posted by: truth machine | November 13, 2007 7:24 PM
Take a rest, truth machine.
Did you fail to notice the gap between #1000 and #1123?
Posted by: truth machine | November 13, 2007 7:27 PM
I do, but I take it one step further into the idea that every equation "exists," and there are some powerful enough to provide for what we refer to as "existence".
That's modal realism, not MWI.
Posted by: truth machine | November 13, 2007 7:33 PM
know when you're beaten
Beaten at what? I said getting to 1000 posts would be an achievement. Not only was it achieved, but I posted #1000, a bit of gravy that netted me a drink offer from Bride of Shrek. Not that I'll collect, but it's the thought that counts -- here's to you, BoS!
Posted by: David | November 13, 2007 7:33 PM
which of course was entirely unresponsive to the question.
Want to try again?
I answered the question a few questions later. If a person has more than one religion (specific set of beliefs), they are like having one religion to that person. Set A Union Set B = Set C.
It does not seem sensible to generalise - if religion means anything which can be grouped together and called a belief system, it means everything and therefore nothing.
Well, words are really just a way humans try to categorize, communicate, and make sense of things (or put people in boxes). We use the word "Coupe" if it was the other guys overthrowing our government, whereas we use "Revolution" if it was us that overthrew the government. We use "Cult" when it isn't an established formal religion that we like, and "Religion" when it is. How we define and categorize words changes how we feel about things. This is why people are trying to change the lexicon to meet their agendas. For instance, did you grow up "privileged"? Well if you didn't grow up "under privileged," doesn't that mean that you grew up "privileged"? Political correctness is all about changing the lexicon to fit an agenda. Control the lexicon, control the society. The phrase "under privileged" is used to make the general populace feel like there is a certain level of income equality that everyone should have (even if the under privileged grew up with cable TV, a car, a computer, and food on the table).
What does this have to do with how Atheists feel about the word "religion"? Well, they don't want to be told that they have a religion because they want to be different from those who they despise. In reality, human nature is human nature. If we removed "religion" from the lexicon and just had the phrase "set of beliefs," then we are all human and imperfect.
Posted by: truth machine | November 13, 2007 7:38 PM
Ok, then. David:
No, Steve C said that religion was not a belief system, yet every single definition started with "a set of beliefs". My logic is not flawed, nor was I being dishonest.
Ok. Ok. Ok. I believe you are sincere. I withdraw the accusation of dishonesty.
Ah, but Kseniya, surely it takes intellectual dishonesty to so radically misinterpret what people say even after it's been pointed out repeatedly. David's process is dishonest, regardless of what his exact mental state is in regard to his claims.
Posted by: Sales Machine | November 13, 2007 7:43 PM
@1177
"You don't have adequate information to judge what skills I lack."
...but do you have will TM??
As to personal judgement, I was only imitating your facade of omniscience which seems to be fair game in this anonymous mud fight if which you so gleefully participate. Hell, for all I know, you could be my neighbor.
@1178
Glad to see you agree, but your additional comments go without saying.
So, I'll ask you, WTF did you honestly expect here?
Posted by: David | November 13, 2007 7:51 PM
h, but Kseniya, surely it takes intellectual dishonesty to so radically misinterpret what people say even after it's been pointed out repeatedly
This started when I said "everyone has a religion, a belief system, a value system." The replies that I got were "religion does not equal a value system" and "belief system!=religion". Who is misinterpreting whom?
But even with the misinterpretation, from dictionary.com:
"
Religion - Something one believes in and follows devotedly; a point or matter of ethics or conscience: to make a religion of fighting prejudice.
"
If you look at my previous posts, I clearly stated that I was using a symbolic analogy anyway.
Posted by: Stevie_C | November 13, 2007 8:04 PM
All belief systems are not religion.
Disbelief in a god is not a religion anymore than NOT stamp collecting is.
Yes religions are belief systems... but that does not translate into all belief systems are religions.
Not hard to comprehend.
Posted by: David | November 13, 2007 8:35 PM
but that does not translate into all belief systems are religions.
They really aren't that different. From wikipedia:
""Religion" is sometimes used interchangeably with "faith" or "belief system,"[3] but is more socially defined than that of personal convictions."
Belief System is also described as basically either a religion or a "world view." In the wikipedia entry for "World View," the meaning of "world view" is basically defined by secularists who wish to separate their belief system from that of the religious.
Posted by: spurge | November 13, 2007 8:49 PM
When are you going to get it through your thick skull that the fact that religion is a belief system does not make every belief system a religion.
It is basic logic.
Are you really that stupid?
Posted by: David | November 13, 2007 9:01 PM
spurge: It is basic logic huh? Please explain the difference.
Posted by: Kseniya | November 13, 2007 10:40 PM
Good God. Holy crap! Yes, it is BASIC LOGIC. Look up "illicit conversion". (Not that you will, or even consider acknowledging your error. Nonononono. Can't have that.)
Oh yeah. Let's see... if a Catholic is an avid Notre Dame football fan - and "everyone" "knows" that "football is a religion" - then he has only one religion, Catholifightingirishism? Oh, and he believes that Eric Clapton is God. Catholifightingirishericism. One person, multiple beliefs, one religion. Got it.
T.M. you may be right on the money, here. I thought it was an honest mistake, and that I mistook his intention, but the sheer intransigence subsequently displayed makes me think otherwise.
I'm done with this. What a waste of time. You can't have a meaningful discussion of any kind with someone who thinks words are just amorphous blobs of Pla-Doh, things to be worked into whatever shape serves the needs of the moment. He has no respect for language, knowledge, the integrity of his own arguments, or his opponents. Christalmighty.
Posted by: David | November 13, 2007 11:27 PM
Kseniya:
1. I am very familiar with basic logic, I have a Master's degree in Computer Science and a Minor in Mathematics. Since you are an expert on Belief Systems, please provide for us a definition of "Belief System" and how it is different from Religion. I seriously would like to know how you (and spurge) define the two.
2. Having more than one religion is no different than having one religion that is called something else. Christianity + Judaism => Messianic Judaism.
3. He has no respect for language, knowledge, the integrity of his own arguments, or his opponents
Please explain why you feel this way. I've been called a lot of disrespectful things on this thread. Respect didn't seem to important to you then, why is it now? I have a lot of respect for language. Do you know what symbolic analogy means? Do you know what "per se" means? I've made efforts to clear up confusion.
Posted by: ildi | November 13, 2007 11:54 PM
David, you're being very naughty, aren't you? Now, don't you think your minister/priest/rabbi/imam would scold you for teasing the atheists so mercilessly? The only truly honest thing you've said so far was:
"What does this have to do with how Atheists feel about the word "religion"? Well, they don't want to be told that they have a religion because they want to be different from those who they despise."
Posted by: David | November 13, 2007 11:58 PM
ildi: :)
Posted by: JohnS | November 14, 2007 12:48 AM
This is great- this could grow thousands, but I fear it is dying . Truffy returns for no apparent reason but that he can, however stevie underscore c, phucked his way through for the truffer return. Noblely done underscore.But the first 1000 was piss easy- truffer and the phucker goons wrote 600 of them and clown goons like Michael X(why is that so funny), and ChemicalBobby under whatever guise wrote a further 100. Responses only 300.(No I didn't count them but I used Mannian PC analyses to get the answer I wanted- same as he did really) Now we get into religion and crawl towards 1200.
Hey PZ, piss poor goony boy lot you got here. No stamina.
JohnS
Posted by: Jordan | November 14, 2007 8:03 AM
Good point David - how can anybody write a post like that and then appeal for respect?
I too feel that this thread is dying. There has been some really good entertainment along the way.
Like the old fable about the sun and the wind, all the guff and bluster failed to cure the trolling.
Man, bit of a downer that PeeZee sold out! Never closed the thread. Obviously happy with the new custom. Have you seen the new neighbours - this joint will never be the same again.
Posted by: Robin Levett | November 14, 2007 9:18 AM
David:
I am assuming that you believe in gravity. That being the case, how do you see the position as between classical gravitational theory and general relativity. Is Saint Einstein a heretic for daring to suggest that Saint Isaac's position was incomplete and inapplicable to high velocity/mass situations?
Posted by: kim | November 14, 2007 9:26 AM
We could aim high. Divergence ought to be worth a couple of hundred comments. Steve is eating the Piltdown Mann alive on divergence. Mann's own methods don't show a late Twentieth Century rise in temperature in the dendro record. So what is up? As someone remarked, 'Divergence is damning'.
Don't make me light my lantern again, Who Cares.
==========================================
Posted by: Stevie_C | November 14, 2007 10:00 AM
So Kim. You're an ID creationist?
Posted by: kim | November 14, 2007 10:05 AM
Steve, #1040 and #1042. You are hopelessly dishonest.
============================
Posted by: Stevie_C | November 14, 2007 10:11 AM
So you believe evolution is fact?
Posted by: Kseniya | November 14, 2007 11:10 AM
Against my better judgement, I will reply. Actually, no - not against my better judgement. David, your reasonable reply to my last (and admittedly impatient) post seems to deserve a response.
1a. If you understand basic logic, then why do you abuse it?
1b. Review my posts.
2. Moving the goalposts, are we?
3a. Once upon a time, you wrote:
My my. How respectful of you.
3b. Your "phrase" is not true by sole virtue of you saying so. You have otherwise failed to prove its veracity.
3c. Religion as analogy for belief is not religion.
3d. Please point out where I called you unpleasant names. Don't pin other people's name-calling on me.
Why do I say you don't respect language, knowledge, or your opponents? Because you're spinning a semantic game and broken logic into an argument that "proves" that !R = R. Comments which point out your errors apparently bounce right off your forehead. What am I to conclude? That you are right? I have already considered that, and concluded otherwise.
Posted by: David | November 14, 2007 12:24 PM
Kseniya: Religion is not an analogy for belief, it is an analogy for a belief system that has certain equivalent aspects. I feel that I've made my point and can move on though. Looking back at your posts, you have been one of the more civilized people on this thread.
Posted by: Tunderbar | November 14, 2007 12:58 PM
Rey Fox said
"Okay. But indulge my curiosity for a second. Let's say the whole of AGW is a fraud. A deliberate fraud put on by thousands of professionals around the world. Why do they do it? What do they stand to gain? A modest living? Some tiny amount of influence over some consumers and politicians? A mansion in Tennessee? Al Gore had his wealth a long time before he became the public face of AGW. What's the scam?"
Simple. $30 billion has been spent on research and climate models in the last 30 years. They want to keep that gravy train going for another 30 years. If there is no AGW, then we can stop that waste of billions right now. Notice that few reserchers ever suggest that their research has found the answer, they always fail to find the answers that makes further research unnecessary. There is always a reason to continue the research and funding. Al Gore too is making millions on the issue. UN employees and activists too. Keep the issue and the funding going. Let's jet off to exotic locations every year for "conferences". Sweet deal they've got going.
Posted by: Sven DiMilo | November 14, 2007 1:29 PM
We use the word "Coupe" if it was the other guys overthrowing our government
...but not if the guys overthrowing our government are driving "Sedans."
Whoever calls humans "rats" as PZ. Myers did, places himself in the category of dubious figures.
Hitler used it upon jews/gypies.
Stalin used it upon his adverseries
Meyers used it upon "denialists"
...and Cagney used it upon the guy who gave it to his fictional brother. Or was it "Cagny"?
My work here is done.
Posted by: Sven DiMilo | November 14, 2007 1:30 PM
p.s.: hi,
=======================================
kim!
===================
============================
Posted by: Wondering Aloud | November 14, 2007 2:54 PM
You brought this big fuss on yourself by attacking CA. I have read Bad Astronomy for years so in theory I would be neutral, but the rhetoric of the GW faithful is not science either.
I have never identified any overlap betweed creationists and those people here call "deniers". These folks labeled Deniers tend to be physicists, astronomers and veteran climate specialists. If you read what they actually say it would be a blow to ignorance and pomposity and not nearly as horrifying as you think.
Meanwhile I am freezing my butt off praying for a little warming.
A one question global warming test... Are you pro nuclear power? If the answer is no you don't really believe anthropogenic global warming is a serious threat.
Posted by: Oil or Nucular or Nothin | November 14, 2007 3:04 PM
Hi, Wondering Aloud. Thanks for dropping by to drop comment #1206. I'll try not to get it on my shoes.
Your li'l test is stoopid.
Which are you, a "physicist," an "astronomer," or a "veteran climate specialist"?
oh...just a comment-dropper. Go away then.
Posted by: Stevie_C | November 14, 2007 3:40 PM
Tunder is a thumbsucking neocon.
Posted by: Rey Fox | November 14, 2007 3:46 PM
30 billion over 30 years over an entire planet. Hmm. Still doesn't sound like it stacks up very well next to oil revenues.
"Notice that few reserchers ever suggest that their research has found the answer, they always fail to find the answers that makes further research unnecessary."
And medical science never seems to find the answers that would make cancer research unnecessary. What a bunch of greedy bastards.
Posted by: kim | November 14, 2007 3:49 PM
The term 'denier' is unnecessarily pejorative. Most of us are just skeptical. The irony is that the rabid AGW proponents deny the validity of any data contrary to their beliefs. The truth is that we just don't know. I probably over rely on that statistically insignificant last five years of the temperature record, but I am sensitized to that signal by the hysteria, and the rhetoric of the AGW proponents.
=====================================
Posted by: kim | November 14, 2007 3:51 PM
Wegman found the climatologists a closed circle, and he was right. You'll see soon enough.
========================
Posted by: Rey Fox | November 14, 2007 3:59 PM
Well, get ready everybody, as soon as we have one cooler-than-normal year, the chorus of toldjasos is going to be deafening.
Posted by: kim | November 14, 2007 4:08 PM
Naw, just cooler than predicted. Then we will jump and shout. Oh, wait.
===================================
Posted by: Sven DiMilo | November 14, 2007 4:14 PM
I believe that ==k==i==m== predicted above someplace that within a year we will all be forced to admit that the planet is actually cooling.
Better than the =F=a=r=m=e=r='=s===== ==A==lman===ac=====!
=
Posted by: Sven DiMilo | November 14, 2007 4:16 PM
Weather.
Climate.
spot the difference?
Posted by: kim | November 14, 2007 4:21 PM
I believe we are cooling. I believe that at the rate the meme of AGW is failing, that by next year there will be a critical mass of skepticism.
It is possible I am wrong.
========================================
Posted by: kim | November 14, 2007 4:23 PM
A tipping point of belief, if you will.
===================
Posted by: Wondering Aloud | November 14, 2007 5:11 PM
Well 1207 in the same spirit as your total non response. You are obviously a troll who had to make up a screen name to post a comment only a child would think was witty.
Astronomy is a hobbie I work in physics. Is my test stupid to you because it's logical? Careful don't get any science on your shoes or thought in your head.
If you were an adult perhaps you could point out a way in which my proposed test is flawed. I have never found anyone who could propose a better solution, meaning biggest reduction in CO2 at and least negative environmental impact. Here there really is consensus It's been over 20 years and no one who has any idea of what they're talking about has ever made a rational counter argument to the statement you so easily dismiss.
Posted by: Sales Machine | November 14, 2007 5:13 PM
@1209 Hey Rey,
Granting the AGW theory full validity, what realistic, i.e. enforceable, geopolitical policy would put a major dent in oil revenues or even profits, given the temporal growth in worldwide demand and diminishing supply?
My point is that I don't see AGW effecting oil companies true business outlook one bit, and perhaps their only motive to meddle in the AGW debate is to assuage collective guilt in an industry where moral turpitude is a prerequisite to for employment.
Hence, I see no substance in your response in 1209 to because the AGW (for lack of a better term) "game" is zero sum for oil and (more or less) win or lose for research thereof.
But I genuinely believe an intelligent and fair man, so please indulge me and share your thoughts.
Posted by: Rey Fox | November 14, 2007 6:06 PM
I'm simply curious about the "scam" or "conspiracy" nature of global warming denial. So often climatologists are accused of maliciously covering up data and making false claims, and I just have to wonder what they think is in it for these scientists. You don't get rich telling people what they don't want to hear, you can get rich telling people what they do want to hear.
It sort of mirrors the great evolution conspiracy we all hear about, you know, that scientists push evolution and deny God because, well, they're evil, and apparently this is enough to convince some people. Look up SaulOhio's first comment on this thread, he seems to think that people push AGW because they're cackling demons.
"perhaps their only motive to meddle in the AGW debate is to assuage collective guilt in an industry where moral turpitude is a prerequisite to for employment."
My heart bleeds for them, truly.
Posted by: Bob Cormack | November 14, 2007 6:43 PM
ChemBob: (Quote)
"I bet none of you have ever done any actual science, e.g., come up with new and testable ideas and concepts to explain reality and then tested them to see if they or the alternative hypotheses are superior. My guess is that if you've ever done any engineering it was while playing with your toy choo choo trains as children."
So -- what you are saying is that you haven't found out how to use Google yet?
Posted by: Sales Machine | November 14, 2007 8:21 PM
As far as I am concerned anyone lazy enough to classify GW as a "scam" or "conspiracy" is a speculator on the whim they will be able to yell to the world at some future point: "I told you so!...A-hole, moron, etc...". These poor souls follow the logic of Mencken's quip: "For every complex problem, there is a solution that is simple, neat, and wrong, except they turn of their brain at neat.
On the other hand labeling genuine skeptics as "deniers" is pure hyperbole, that does nothing to serve the "warmer's" cause; ego perhaps. Come on, look at the public standard bearers for the climate crisis concern. Just check out the formerveeposcarwinningnobellaureate here at TED: http://tedtv.magnify.net/item/X66HFLXJ8B6TX9QB. The guy, first asks for sympathy for no longer having access to Airforce 2, which is fine if you give him benefit if the doubt for injecting levity, but then he can't help boasting that he took a "G5" to Africa. If his motives were not so transparent, he would't have he the trouble in Florida obtaining the prize he really coveted. As you can imagine, my heart bleeds for him, truly.
As for the climate scientists, I can't imagine many are in it for the money, but that does not mean they are humble. Too many trade in a currency of pride and the squeakiest of wheels expect grace from public scrutiny in exchange for their "sacrifice" and respond to such with contempt palpable to even the lowest of mortals.
As for those who perplex you with their fire brimstone castigations of evolutionary science. The Bible expressly tells its believers (I am one in the interest of full disclosure) that God's focus on them as individuals, and judgement is solely the realm of...well,God; and to deviate from that is sin. The trick is to only remind them of that while withholding personal judgement yourself. I suggest you study the Bible, if only from an intellectual point of view; at the very least it will provide plenty of what we salesfolk call objection handling material.
Winning arguments is never purely logical.
I sure wish you would have answered my previous post in a more straight forward manner.
Posted by: Sales Machine | November 14, 2007 8:24 PM
1222=@1220 (My Bud Rey)
Posted by: Andrew Wade | November 14, 2007 8:49 PM
I withdraw my claim; skimming through this thread a significant fraction of your posts do contain argument. My apologies.
Posted by: Kseniya | November 15, 2007 12:36 AM
Yes, David, everyone has some kind of belief system, and a core belief system may be analogous to religion, and anything from a core belief system to something as mundane as American football may sometimes be labeled, metaphorically, as "religion". Who would disagree?
Is that really all this was about?
You weren't conflating religion with "religion" in an attempt to reduce the difference between theism and atheism to nothing, as if a world-view that doesn't include god-belief is the same as a world-view that includes belief in a supernatural father-figure who invisibly meddles in world affairs and sends people to heaven or hell after their deaths?
Kinda seemed that way, but if you say not, then... Ok.
By the way, I disagree that the difference between "coup" and "revolution" is simply a matter of point of view. A coup d'état is typically more of an inside job executed by a relatively small group with sufficient access and influence to effect regime change. A revolution is typically more of an uprising of the governed against its own government. A coup may be a type of revolution, yes, but they are not strictly synonymous. For example, the American Revolution could not by any stretch of the imagination be called a "coup".
That sort of claim of equivalence suggests that you think language is more elastic than it really is. If you're talking about the potential for misuse of such terms, I must agree. Propagandists misuse language all the time - but calling a coup a "revolution" for reasons of public relations doesn't mean the words are truly synonymous. This claim, along with you apparent conflation of the literal and metaphorical usages of "religion", led me to doubt the integrity of your motives.
Oh? If-then? But we already are all human and imperfect. What about If-then-else? If we don't remove "religion" from the lexicon, then... what? We are not all human and imperfect? Do you really wish to erase the difference between belief in the supernatural and disbelief in the supernatural? That's an interesting idea. Removing provocative, divisive, or subversive words from the lexicon. It sounds almost Politically Correct. We are all alike! Nobody is Any Different from Anybody Else! That might solve a few problems. But good luck convincing those vocal thesists who would keenly enjoy watching the infidel minority burn in hell for eternity. If you're talking about freedom of, and freedom from, religion, I'm all for it.
Posted by: Maronan | November 15, 2007 2:22 AM
Re Post #2:
The first word of the second sentence is "why." In this word, the letter "y" is a vowel, yet seems to have been inadvertently passed over during disemvoweling. Is disemvoweling done automatically? Perhaps correction is in order.
Yeah, um...
Carry on, then.
Posted by: Tunderbar | November 15, 2007 12:32 PM
Rey Fox said
***
30 billion over 30 years over an entire planet. Hmm. Still doesn't sound like it stacks up very well next to oil revenues.
"Notice that few reserchers ever suggest that their research has found the answer, they always fail to find the answers that makes further research unnecessary."
And medical science never seems to find the answers that would make cancer research unnecessary. What a bunch of greedy bastards.
***
30 billions is a lot of perks for researchers and activists and the IPCC. And their science still is pathetically skimpy or even entirely made up crap. Jim Hansen fudged temperature data to try to show that the 1990's were the warmer than ever. Mann fudged and cherry-picked two sets of very poor proxy data to come up with the infamously bogus hockey stick graph. Al Gore used outright lies and falsehoods in his movie, all based on extremely tenuous "science". And guess what, oil revenues are completely irrelevant unless you have a leftist agenda to pursue. Do you?
Beware the scientific research industrial complex. The medical research is pharma profit motivated and the climate research is motivated by left wing activists looking to stick it to the oil industry. Neither have anything to do with real science.
AGW is a fraud. The atmosphere has 380 parts per million of co2, onlt 16 parts per million can be ascribed to manmade sources. 16 parts per milion cannot possibly cause any significant changes in the climate. There is no physical (as in physics the science) that proves that CO2 can do that in any concentration.
Posted by: Rey Fox | November 15, 2007 1:51 PM
Yes, I have a leftist agenda to pursue.
Posted by: Rey Fox | November 15, 2007 1:54 PM
Maronan: That post was purposely disemvowelled by the author as a joke. I can't say whether or not the disemvowelling program automatically removes "y"s or if it is smart enough to detect a "y" used as a vowell. I kind of doubt both of those notions, but I'd have to find an actual disemvowelled post to check, and they've been pretty rare lately.
Posted by: reason | November 16, 2007 1:09 AM
@David (re: way too fucking many posts about atheism somehow being a religion)
To repeat a favorite addage, "Calling atheism a religion is like calling bald a hair color."
Posted by: Kseniya | November 16, 2007 1:59 AM
Well, you see, many theists are just so darned uncomfortable with the idea that some people don't believe in their religion, and many of them are even more uncomfortable with the idea that some people don't believe in any religion, that they just have to insist that non-belief is belief and that even a non-theistic belief system is "religion".
At least David (ostensibly) admits it's an analogy. What I don't get is the idea that by offering up such a painfully obvious analogy he is somehow "sticking it" to the atheists on this board. IKYABWAI?
Atheist: I don't have a religion.
David: Yes you do. Everyone does.
A: No, I don't.
D: Do too.
A: Do not.
D: Do too!
A: Do not!
D: Yes you do. All belief systems are religions.
A: No, they're not.
D: Are too.
A: Are not.
D: Are too!
A: Are not!
D: All belief systems are LIKE religions. In a way.
A: Yes, alright, belief systems can be analogous to religions in some instances.
D: Hah! See? You DO have a religion!
He did admit that he misunderstood Jim and Steve's objections to the illicit conversion, and yet the admission yielded nothing at all in terms of any change in his claim or the argument supporting it. "My phrase that everyone worships something is true," he said, then points out that it's an analogy, yet argues for it as if it were a literal equivalence. I have to wonder about that. If it's an analogy, then it's not literally true. Yet he claims it's true. It's a slippery and specious argument.
Furthermore, he never did acknowledge (let alone express any contrition whatsoever for) implying that those who didn't swallow it whole were either retarded or autistic, and yet went on to complain about the manners of his opponents -- and even chided me for... I'm not sure what, I think for not defending his honor hundreds of posts before I even entered the thread -- apparently not realizing that a "Fuck you, you moron" dressed up in a nice suit is still a "Fuck you, you moron."
I dunno. Maybe he really is just another smug hypocrite with an over-inflated opinion of his education and intellect. Or, maybe not. It's kinda hard to tell.
Posted by: David | November 16, 2007 2:45 AM
At the risk of restarting a long thread:
Kseniya: When I said that everyone has a religion, everyone worships something, I was not talking about just Atheists. That said, I've already shown that there is plausibility for a God or Deity using current scientific thought. Atheists must rely on "faith" that there is no God. Therefore, it stands to reason that Atheism is merely the religion of anti-religion.
As far as individual liberty is concerned (fear of vocal theists as you put it), the Constitution of the US attempts to balance the freedom of the individual with that of the local community, state, and Republic (i.e. the people, the majority). This is why the Congress can both have a Chaplain and the First Amendment. If the majority of the community is Christian, then the government will reflect that because the government IS supposed to be "the people." It cannot make laws establishing OR disestablishing a religion NOR should it be able to tell someone, even those in government, that they cannot be vocal about their faith (i.e. free exercise clause, free speech clause). There are a lot of people, even judges and especially Atheists, who really are misinterpreting the First Amendment IMHO. I will leave this for another discussion.
Christians believe that justice ultimately comes from God, whereas Atheists believe that justice ultimately comes from the super friends justice league (i.e. the UN or some secular bureaucratic institution somewhere). That said, one cannot remove the human nature element from either Atheism or Theism. Atheists like to take advantage of this by pointing out how hypocritical Christians are for not being able to follow their own written belief system. Christians answer that it is easy to not be a hypocrite if you follow a value system that has not been written in stone and can change on a whim.
reason: To repeat a favorite addage, "Calling atheism a religion is like calling bald a hair color."
Atheism is akin to having a transparent hair color but saying that you are bald.
Posted by: reason | November 16, 2007 10:48 AM
@David
No, you wise-ass, atheism is a lack of a belief in gods, just as being bald is a lack of having hair. It is you that posits the existence of transparent hair just as you posit the existence of gods, both to try to make your fairy tale work out.
Posted by: David | November 16, 2007 1:38 PM
No, you wise-ass, atheism is a lack of a belief in gods,
Belief is an active thing. Atheism is the belief that there are no gods or that there is no god. That is not to say that Atheists do not have "gods" even though they don't believe in gods. Their "gods" are themselves, science, technology, money, etc. Even with that in mind, religion does not necessarily require a god. One can have a godless religion.
So just because you don't call it a duck, doesn't mean that it doesn't walk and quack like one.
Posted by: Stevie_C | November 16, 2007 1:53 PM
Then what's disbelief?
So not believing in the tooth fairy is a belief?
Ummm. Yeah. OK. Suuuure.
Posted by: David | November 16, 2007 2:14 PM
Stevie_C: Disbelief is the belief that something is not the case, therefore disbelief is in itself a belief.
Posted by: Ken Cope | November 16, 2007 2:42 PM
Disbelief is the belief that something is not the case, therefore disbelief is in itself a belief
Just like abstinence is a sex act, not collecting coins is a hobby, and ignorance is knowledge.
Posted by: truth machine | November 16, 2007 2:58 PM
Maronan: That post was purposely disemvowelled by the author as a joke.
When people have to be told that, I start to wonder if we're members of the same species.
I can't say whether or not the disemvowelling program automatically removes "y"s or if it is smart enough to detect a "y" used as a vowell.
Since the former is trivial and the latter is not, and there would be no point to the added complexity, you should be able to say. (And what's a "vowell"?)
I kind of doubt both of those notions
Why? (NPI)
but I'd have to find an actual disemvowelled post to check, and they've been pretty rare lately.
It's not hard to find such, e.g.,
http://pharyngula.org/index/weblog/comments/you_call_that_design_theory/#c27091
from which at least one "y" (from "certainly") has been removed. But that's the old site; at the new (current site) there's
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/yikes.php#comment-520705
which contains several "y"s.
Posted by: truth machine | November 16, 2007 3:09 PM
Disbelief is the belief that something is not the case
Even if it were, that would be irrelevant -- it would simply mean that atheists aren't necessarily disbelievers in God. It takes a certain level of assholiness to try to win arguments by manipulating definitions in such a way as to define one's position to be correct. But in any case, if you use better dictionaries (than Merriam-Webster) you find that even "disbelief" is broader than that:
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=disbelief
Posted by: Ken Cope | November 16, 2007 3:14 PM
Oh, and David in #1236, if there is any task for which you are perfectly suited, I'm certain that remunerating your efforts with the vast fortune contained in my empty wallet will be an equitable wage. Your arguments are worth every penny it contains.
Posted by: truth machine | November 16, 2007 3:22 PM
It cannot make laws establishing OR disestablishing a religion
That's not what the amendment says: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"
The theocrats love to leave out that word "respecting". http://www.humanismbyjoe.com/meaning_of_establishment.htm
discusses the meaning of the clause; specifically: the word "respecting" meant then, as it does now, concerning, touching upon, in relation to, or with regard to
and
the writings of Madison and other founders show that nonpreferential governmental support was considered "establishment of religion" in the parlance of the time.
The amendment is broad, and implies a complete separation of church and state.
Posted by: truth machine | November 16, 2007 3:26 PM
the climate research is motivated by left wing activists looking to stick it to the oil industry
These sorts of comments are highly revealing of the ideological motivations of deniers and their crackpottedness.
Posted by: Stevie_C | November 16, 2007 3:42 PM
It's really fuckin sad when they just don't get it... or choose not to.
Posted by: Tunderbar | November 16, 2007 3:44 PM
truth machine (yeah, right!) said
***
the climate research is motivated by left wing activists looking to stick it to the oil industry
These sorts of comments are highly revealing of the ideological motivations of deniers and their crackpottedness.
***
Actually it says nothing about my ideological motivations or any such "crackpottedness" (sic).
My politics are left of center. I'm no fan of the oil industry including the oilman in the White House. I am very environmentally minded. I've carefully researched and read all I can on AGW including all the IPCC's reports. My educated opinion is that 16 ppm of co2 cannot impact the globes temperatures, period. The entire fraudulent agw construct is a waste of resources that could be used to tackle real problems like poverty, illiteracy, hunger, war, etc. While we fight trying to take down the oil industry, people are suffering from other more direct problems.
My base motivations is to put an end to the fraud and ensure that all future environmental science is independent and sound. Get the politics out of science and environmentalism. Give it back the respect that it has lost at the hands of the IPCC, climate modellers, Al Gore, Mikey Mann, Jimbo Hansen et al.
These people have a direct vested interest in keeping the agw gravy train going. Their jobs and their financial incomes are directly tied to their giving us all manner of catastrophic climate scenarios that justify their past and future funding.
It's a fraud. Plain and simple.
Posted by: truth machine | November 16, 2007 3:47 PM
You brought this big fuss on yourself by attacking CA.
Are you also one of those who thinks that someone gang raped in prison brought it on, regardless of the crime that put them there?
Anyway, the "big fuss" of hordes of denialist trolls showing up here lends support to PZ's contention that CA is a "junk science blog".
I have read Bad Astronomy for years so in theory I would be neutral
That doesn't follow.
I have never identified any overlap betweed creationists and those people here call "deniers".
Then you're stupid or blind; the vast majority of creationists are also GW deniers, let alone AGW deniers.
Meanwhile I am freezing my butt off praying for a little warming.
Do you know the difference between weather and climate, or what the G stands for, moron?
A one question global warming test... Are you pro nuclear power? If the answer is no you don't really believe anthropogenic global warming is a serious threat.
That doesn't follow, cretin. There are many reasons why someone might not be pro nuclear power while believing that AGW is a serious threat. Some of those reasons might be irrational or uninformed, but having them doesn't establish the lack of other beliefs. Your "test" reveals you to be intellectually dishonest and/or very stupid.
Posted by: truth machine | November 16, 2007 3:50 PM
Actually it says nothing about my ideological motivations or any such "crackpottedness" (sic).
Yes, it clearly does.
My educated opinion
It wouldn't matter how educated you are (but you clearly aren't about either CO2 or the motivations behind climate science) when you are demonstrably stupid.
Posted by: truth machine | November 16, 2007 3:53 PM
These people have a direct vested interest in keeping the agw gravy train going. Their jobs and their financial incomes are directly tied to their giving us all manner of catastrophic climate scenarios that justify their past and future funding.
Gee, and I thought it was about "left wing activists looking to stick it to the oil industry". Not only are you incredibly stupid, but incredibly dishonest as well.
Posted by: Brownian, OM | November 16, 2007 3:57 PM
My educated opinion is that 16 ppm of co2 cannot impact the globes temperatures, period.
Glad you prefaced that as an opinion, since a claim like that could not ever be a scientific one, Period. (I capitalised 'Period' so you'd know my sentence is righter than yours by the force of my conviction.
These people have a direct vested interest in keeping the agw gravy train going. Their jobs and their financial incomes are directly tied to their giving us all manner of catastrophic climate scenarios that justify their past and future funding.
Yeah, I know what that's like. I'm part of the Global Cancer Cure Supression Conspiracy and I have no qualms about letting millions die just so I can keep my GIS-monkey-in-a-cubicle job.
Tunderbar, please stop telling us how you've 'researched the data' and using vague references to 'physics, the science'. Many of us actually are scientists, and can tell by your writing that you haven't a clue as to what 'science' is.
Posted by: Brownian, OM | November 16, 2007 4:01 PM
My base motivations is to put an end to the fraud and ensure that all future environmental science is independent and sound.
Oh, and nice attempt at concern-trolling. Like we've never seen that from your kind before.
It's a fraud. Plain and simple.
As a concern troll, I guess you'd be one to know one.
Posted by: truth machine | November 16, 2007 4:05 PM
This started when I said "everyone has a religion, a belief system, a value system."
No, liar. You said "If that makes the term "religion" meaningless, then IT IS meaningless. That was my point. You are hypocrites and bigots. Everyone has a religion, a value system, a belief system, gods that they worship."
Who is misinterpreting whom?
You, of course. You even intentionally misinterpret your own words.
Posted by: Tunderbar | November 16, 2007 4:44 PM
***
My educated opinion is that 16 ppm of co2 cannot impact the globes temperatures, period.
Glad you prefaced that as an opinion, since a claim like that could not ever be a scientific one, Period. (I capitalised 'Period' so you'd know my sentence is righter than yours by the force of my conviction.
(snip)
Posted by: Brownian, OM | November 16, 2007 3:57 PM
***
Can you give us an indepth explanation of the physics involved in how co2 causes warming? You can't because it does not exist. It is a *physical* impossibility. There is not one scientific paper in the world that explains the physics of exactly how co2 can cause warming or any warming. Nevermind a trifflingly tiny 16 parts per million of co2 in the atmosphere. AGW is a political and scientific fraud.
Posted by: David | November 16, 2007 5:43 PM
Disbelief is the belief that something is not the case, therefore disbelief is in itself a belief
Just like abstinence is a sex act, not collecting coins is a hobby, and ignorance is knowledge.
If Atheism were the lack of belief in a god, then babies would be born Atheist. One has to form a thought one way or the other to believe or disbelieve something.
The theocrats love to leave out that word "respecting".
And you are lacking emphasis on the phrase "Shall make no law". The founders permitted a Congressional Chaplain, permitted Congressional prayer, permitted States to have constitutions with references to God, used God in their own speeches, had plenty of blue laws on the books, allowed for Christian holidays as federal holidays, eventually put "in God we trust" on the money, etc., etc. Eventually, one has to come to the obvious conclusion about their original intent.
Posted by: spurge | November 16, 2007 5:57 PM
Babies are born Atheists.
You clearly don't know anything about the establishment cause.
Par for the course for you.
Posted by: David | November 16, 2007 6:01 PM
Even if it were, that would be irrelevant -- it would simply mean that atheists aren't necessarily disbelievers in God. ...
truth_machine: The original statement was that Atheism was the lack of belief in a god. If this were the case, then babies would be born Atheist. Babies haven't formed an opinion one way or the other. The next statement involved 'disbelief'. Babies don't disbelieve in a god either. They haven't formed an opinion one way or the other. Therefore, it stands to reason that the analogy about baldness vs. having hair doesn't hold. Abstinence vs. having sex and not collecting as a hobby don't hold as analogies either.
Posted by: David | November 16, 2007 6:15 PM
spurge:
Babies are not born Atheist, if anything they worship their Mother.
As far as the establishment/disestablishment clause goes, I've clearly given you evidence of precedence. (It is equally a disestablishment clause, in that one cannot disestablish either.) Please feel free to backup your claims whenever you wish, of course.
If you were saying that there's an establishment clause on babies being born Atheists, then you were just being silly.
Posted by: Ken Cope | November 16, 2007 6:16 PM
If Atheism were the lack of belief in a god, then babies would be born Atheist.
Even by David's tortured apologetics, babies are born without theism. Atheist parents don't subject their children to theism--they raise them in an atheist household, one without religion, in order to emphasize and nurture critical thinking. Without the ability to form a thought, one cannot believe or disbelieve something. To cripple the ability to form a thought requires religion, something to which children who are not born Christian to Christian parents are routinely subjected.
When the word atheist capitalized anywhere other than at the beginning of a sentence, it is done either in error, or malice.
The founders permitted...
I have now seen it all. David employs a descriptivist argument to characterize the founders' intent as Christian prescriptivists. By such logic, since Adam and Eve ate the apple at the urging of the serpent, Wossname must've wanted them to come to the obvious conclusion about his original intent--
Hm. Perhaps I'd better rethink that rebuttal.
Posted by: Sven DiMilo | November 16, 2007 6:28 PM
FSM helkp me, I am about to feed a troll.
AGW is a fraud. The atmosphere has 380 parts per million of co2, onlt 16 parts per million can be ascribed to manmade sources. 16 parts per milion cannot possibly cause any significant changes in the climate. There is no physical (as in physics the science) that proves that CO2 can do that in any concentration.
1. Where do you get your 16 ppm? Here are the data. That's an increase of at least 65 ppm since 1958 (a 20% increase!), and I am unaware of any source of increased atmospheric CO2 other than fossil-fuel burning. If you know of some, please cite your sources. But the source of the CO2 does not change the climate effect.
2. Are you denying that carbon dioxide absorbs long-wave infrared radiation? I was under the impression that the physics (yes, the science) was pretty well worked out here: CO2 absorbs an IR photon and the energy is transformed to intramolecular vibration, i.e. heat. Adding heat to the atmosphere = warming by definition. Please specify the fraud in this rather simple scenario.
Posted by: David | November 16, 2007 6:35 PM
No, liar. You said "If that makes the term "religion" meaningless, then IT IS meaningless.
That was in response to "The religion of non-religion, of worldly possessions, of worldly pleasure, etc." You said that this makes the term meaningless. I said that if this is the case, then the term is meaningless. This was a round about way of saying "DOES NOT!" Do you get it now?
One can create a religion out of just about anything, ask L.Ron Hubbard. Did he make the term meaningless?
Posted by: Ken Cope | November 16, 2007 6:40 PM
Oh, Sven, I was waiting for Thunderpoot to claim that not only is there no mechanism for C02 to be a greenhouse gas, but that water vapor has an even greater effect than C02. Alas, a missed opportunity. In any event, it's time to collect our hugely extravagant pay checks for perpetrating the make-scientists-rich fraud that is AGW, *wink* I think I'll buy some Bay Area real estate with this week's stipend, how about you?
Oh dear, did I just use my outside posting voice?
Posted by: David | November 16, 2007 7:20 PM
Even by David's tortured apologetics, babies are born without theism.
Yes, believe it or not, babies are born without a belief system. They also cannot talk, which makes it difficult to test that theory, but I'm sure that it is correct. If a child were raised by wolves, would that child grow up atheist?
I have now seen it all. David employs a descriptivist argument to characterize the founders' intent as Christian prescriptivists
No. I simply gave you the definition of representative government. If the majority of the people are Christian, than the government will reflect that. One should have the freedom and liberty to raise one's children in a community that shares one's values. Often times these values are religious in origin. This is the very definition of representative government. If the majority were of another religion, such as Mormon or Amish, then the government would reflect that. The US is a Republic. It was not meant to have an overbearing one sized fits all, all powerful federal government.
Posted by: Ken Cope | November 16, 2007 8:32 PM
It really is unfair to tease those who encounter failure and redouble their efforts, but since it amuses me anyway, I'll continue to taunt the David.
If a child were raised by wolves, would that child grow up atheist?
I'm sure this is meant to be a rhetorical question, because on Planet David, the wolves would be unable to teach the religion of atheism to the feral child. Fortunately, any child raised by wolves who dies before being baptized will go to heaven and Limbo no more, according to Pope Ratzi. This may or may not make David happy. Presumably, if the majority of the population turns out to be of another religion, David would be happy for the government to make him wear magic underwear or service two Mennonite, because the government should be reflective, since, as a Republic, its size should not overbearingly fit its powerful federal government boot up all it fits, unless they are in the minority.
David, you're either the stupidest asshat to ever troll, or a pretty good generic fundy Turingbot. Either way, congrats. I predict your words will sway any undecided who read them to a resounding and liberating apostasy.
Posted by: David | November 16, 2007 10:21 PM
Ken, you aren't making much sense, but your insults are pretty good. Keep it up, but next time maybe you should try something called polite coherent interaction.
As for your bit about being in the minority:
Everyone is in the minority in some way or another, just as everyone is in the majority in some way or another. This is called living along side other people. I know that this is a foreign concept to you, but Democracies work funny in that the majority does rule every now and then.
Posted by: Ken Cope | November 16, 2007 10:59 PM
The sound you hear is that of irony meters shattering as David urges "polite coherent interaction." I was regurgitating your senseless argument, fool.
Run along now, little revisionist reality denying Humpty Dumptyist.
Posted by: Kseniya | November 17, 2007 12:15 AM
I nominate David for most egregious abuse of the phrase "it stands to reason."
David, you keep changing your story. Why? As I said earlier, on one hand you claim that the "belief system"="religion" equivalence was made as an analogy, and yet here you are - again - arguing literal equivalence. Try sticking to your original argument (which, I believe, was the analogy) for a while and see what happens. Maybe that respect to which you feel you are entitled will start to flow your way, even if people disagree with you.
Even Jordan tried to tell you that you were over-reaching with the everybody-has-a-religion "analogy" (if that's what it was) but you ignored him completely. Why? Surely you respect Jordan enough to address his concerns about your argument. Am I wrong?
Moving right along, tell me why do you think conflating "Plausibility" with "There is evidence in support of" is going to pass muster here and convince anyone of the validity of your atheism=religion claim?
It is plausible that a race from Alpha Centauri will drop by to say hello in 2022, but due to the complete lack of evidence suggesting this will happen (and of evidence that the Alphans even exist) I will not give this entirely plausible idea any creedence until the evidentiary picture changes a bit.
Most, if not virtually all, atheists would tell you that their disbelief is provisional, based on lack of evidence. It doesn't take faith to question, to doubt, and to provisionally dismiss claim for which there is no evidence whatsoever. That's just good sense.
You seem like a decent fellow, David, educated and intelligent, but... man... you are the King of the specious argument.
Posted by: Ken Cope | November 17, 2007 2:11 AM
Kseniya, how can you accuse such a revisionist WRT the US Constitution of being educated and intelligent? David couldn't pass an eighth grade civics test, let alone construct an argument that didn't throttle itself midway through.
Posted by: Kseniya | November 17, 2007 2:41 AM
Mr. Cope,
Ehh... yeah. Whatever. I kinda skipped over that stuff. I don't have no energy for Constitutional arguments tonight.
I got lazy. *shrug*
It won't happen again.
[*whistles tunelessly*]
That's a hot issue for me, though. (I'm a David Barton anti-fan.) I'll look it over... some other time. Maybe. If the comment count hits 1300.
o.O
Posted by: Kseniya | November 17, 2007 3:05 AM
Seriously, though, whether I agree with David or not is only relevant to the topics we're discussing. His rhetorical tactics can be aggravating, but so what? It's my prerogative to allow myself a moment of grace and a time-out for an observation or two. Or three.
Honest civility is not without value. Neither is a three-digit IQ. Lastly, David (like most people here) undoubtedly has more credit-hours than I do. There. I said it! The original comments reads like a back-handed compliment anyways. Do I have to turn in my Molly now? :-p
Posted by: Ken Cope | November 17, 2007 11:34 AM
Dear Kseniya,
My brain still hurts from the argument that the Constitution justifies the aims of those who think this is already a theocracy.
Now that I've reread your post, I can see why the two compliments stood out so, in contrast to the rest. Perhaps you had given yourself a special challenge to see if there was some way to practice the rhetorical tactic of "honest concession" amidst of the rest of your honesty. And yet...
I did try to slog up-thread and review how consistently dishonest David has been with his shoe pounding, and I can now see how pointing out his education (in more of a Salem hypothesis manner than on the internet it's always September), in contrast with his employment of it, was more likely ironic.
I also got to read more of your posts in this exchange. No worries, your Molly is well-earned. I have less patience, and less subtlety in the mockery and derision departments, figuring in the occasional troll-engagement mosh pit my role is to make sure the troll can recognize a bit of it while so much of the high quality work has been whizzing overhead unacknowledged.
Posted by: David | November 17, 2007 2:21 PM
My brain still hurts from the argument that the Constitution justifies the aims of those who think this is already a theocracy.
Who argued that? I was arguing representative government, last time I checked. I was also arguing that the Congress could not make a law one way or the other. I believe that the first Amendment clearly states that. How can one form a theocracy if one cannot make law one way or the other? If laws were made based on the values of the majority, then that is one thing, even if that value system stems from their religion. If all the atheists moved to New Hampshire and took over and became the majority, then that would also be legit. I believe in local government, because I understand that one size does not fit all. As far as eighth grade civics class goes, our failing socialist public school system has produced jokers like you who cannot see that we've had prayer in Congress since the beginning, then proceed to argue about how similar things are unconstitutional.
One should not be so quick to call others dishonest when your own contortions of my argument would make a circus draw a crowd.
yet here you are - again - arguing literal equivalence.
Maybe if I had used the phrase "tantamount to a religion," you would have felt more comfortable? I was using a figure of speech, not arguing literal equivalence. I just was lazy and didn't quote "religion."
Most, if not virtually all, atheists would tell you that their disbelief is provisional, based on lack of evidence.
Many atheists believe that life exists on other planets, even without any evidence. A bit hypocritical don't you think? Atheists, like other "religions," want to make things fit their value system. An atheist would think "if I can convince people that life exists elsewhere and is easily created from a mix of chemicals, then it will be a statement about how God doesn't exist. Then I can win converts." Etc.
Posted by: Ken Cope | November 17, 2007 4:40 PM
David dishonestly conflates our democratically elected republic with what he instead advocates, majority rule. He claims that what the Founders could not successfully prohibit, i. e. tax payer funded Congressional chaplains, etc., should "lead us to the obvious conclusion about their original intent." He commits something of a post hoc, propter hoc fallacy, that what was not successfully prohibited amounts to endorsement by the founders. Revisionist twaddle.
Here is James Madison (who might be said to know something about the Constitution) on the issue of paying chaplains, explaining his (unsustained) presidential veto:
His point was recently dramatically illustrated by the reception of the first Hindu opening prayer in Congress.
For atheists to impose a regime in New Hampshire (apart from the laughable notion that any two atheists would be able to agree politically, solely on the basis of their absence of theism) informed by ideological homogeneity could be no more constitutional than Christians imposing religious principles like xenophobia and heterosexism wherever majorities clot.
We've had prayer in Congress since the beginning because even though oaths are sworn to uphold the Constitution, few have even read it, and fewer still take seriously their charge to defend it against its enemies (one of the reasons Congress has ratings below "fourth branch of government" Dick Cheney's). When the judiciary is at its best, it manages to infuriate both sides.
David should not be so hasty to attack education while flaunting his claims of advanced degrees. Attacks on public schools are usually from those who want public schools to be dismantled, either from randroidian libertarian brainrot, or because they want public schools displaced by state subsidized religious institutions.
More dishonest up is downism from the David:
Enough with the straw-atheists and how everything is a belief! Such po-mo humanities department drivel. Instead, let us discuss scientists (who may or may not be atheists) and the prevailing consensus on the possibility of life on other planets. If life somehow arose on this planet, then how is it unlikely that in similar environments it would not do so again? Nobody believes that life exists on any other planets we have been able to investigate; it has yet to be found anywhere we have looked for it, nor is it suprising, as they all have such dramatically different environments. Still, extremophiles on this planet don't eliminate the possibility in some other parts of the solar system. The question of life and the likelihood of its origin on other planets remains an open one.
Posted by: Stevie_C | November 17, 2007 4:41 PM
It's a statistical likelyhoood. Life on other planets. Once you have a concept of how many stars and how many planets there are... Life on other planets is virtually unavoidable.
Statistically god isn't even likely... considering there's no evidence for even one godlike being or even one metaphysical act.
It's called logic. Something you seem to not be too familiar with.
Posted by: Tunderbar | November 17, 2007 6:21 PM
***
FSM helkp me, I am about to feed a troll.
AGW is a fraud. The atmosphere has 380 parts per million of co2, onlt 16 parts per million can be ascribed to manmade sources. 16 parts per milion cannot possibly cause any significant changes in the climate. There is no physical (as in physics the science) that proves that CO2 can do that in any concentration.
1. Where do you get your 16 ppm? Here are the data. That's an increase of at least 65 ppm since 1958 (a 20% increase!), and I am unaware of any source of increased atmospheric CO2 other than fossil-fuel burning. If you know of some, please cite your sources. But the source of the CO2 does not change the climate effect.
2. Are you denying that carbon dioxide absorbs long-wave infrared radiation? I was under the impression that the physics (yes, the science) was pretty well worked out here: CO2 absorbs an IR photon and the energy is transformed to intramolecular vibration, i.e. heat. Adding heat to the atmosphere = warming by definition. Please specify the fraud in this rather simple scenario.
Posted by: Sven DiMilo
***
Check the IPCC reports and its references with regards to the amounts of anthropogenic co2 in the atmposphere. And as for your grade one level oversimplification of the science, can you cite the peer reviewed study or the researcher whose findings show exactly what you said?
Posted by: David | November 17, 2007 9:13 PM
explaining his (unsustained) presidential veto:
Yes, Democracy is a funny thing... And how did the Supreme Court rule on that? Marsh v. Chambers (1983). Of course, you also ignore the many other examples I gave, which also have been there since the beginning.
For atheists to impose a regime in New Hampshire
They would need to compete against the Ron Paul supporters, but they could implement their version of "strict separation of representative government from its own core values."
l. Instead, let us discuss scientists (who may or may not be atheists) and the prevailing consensus on the possibility of life on other planets.
Why not hold out judgment until one can prove it? By the same token, aren't there scientists who believe in the possibility of a God? I've already given you plausibility.
It's a statistical likelyhoood. Life on other planets. Once you have a concept of how many stars and how many planets there are... Life on other planets is virtually unavoidable.
Those statistics are based on whether or not certain conditions are earth-like in other areas of the Universe. It has not been proven that earth like conditions = life. Therefore it is wishful thinking at this point.
Statistically god isn't even likely... considering there's no evidence for even one godlike being or even one metaphysical act.
God is all around you. If anything, I'd reserve judgment about the Universe being formed any other way. You will never be able to measure what is outside your sandbox anyway.
Posted by: Kseniya | November 17, 2007 10:00 PM
David:
Ok, I think I understand now. Atheists have "faith" which isn't faith in the religious sense, and they have "religion" which isn't religion in the religious sense. Got it. Uh, your point is... what? That everyone has a religion? Or that everyone has a "religion"? Y'know, like football?
I commend you for avoiding the tired old saw that atheists believe in "nothing".
Still, I have to second the "straw athiest" objection. To build on what Stevie said, it's plausible that the likelihood of there being life on other planets is high. Do you realize that even if the odds against a star being host to a life-bearing planet are vanishingly small - say, a billion-billion to one against - there will still be in the neighborhood of 500,000 to one million inhabited planets in the known universe? It's not unreasonable, then, to believe that the likelihood of life existing on other planets is high, though again I point out that "Plausible" isn't synonymous with "There is evidence to support it." It's hard to extrapolate from a single data point. Still, we have one data point for "life-bearing planet" and zero for "god", so insisting that the two beliefs require identical amounts of "faith" is baseless.
Posted by: Ken Cope | November 17, 2007 11:46 PM
The Roberts Court will make even more stupid decisions than that one. The Supreme Court is famous for incredibly bad decisions, including Dred Scott, Plessy v. Ferguson, for starters. I suppose next you're going to argue that Roe v. Wade is settled law... But what has a 1983 decision to do with your specious claims about the Founders' intent? The author of the first amendment, James Madison, who as President of the United States refused to sign a bill authorizing pay for Congressional Chaplains, had this to say in 1833:
Myself, I'm holding out for the day when a Pirate can give praise before Congress to the Flying Spaghetti Monster for stripper factories and beer volcanoes, while Capitol police bear shrieking protesters away. No god is less absurd than any other.
Science doesn't do proof, or were you not present in classes where science was discussed? Judgement dictates that one investigate reasonable, fruitful hypotheses which can be investigated, for which evidence can be found. There are scientists who are theists, but their occupation doesn't make that belief scientific, nor the object of their belief plausible. You have provided no plausibility, merely claimed it. You want stories about supernatural origins to be the null hypothesis. As far as science is concerned, gods are otiose.
Since 1995, nearly 200 stars have been found with planets orbiting them. Techniques are improving such that it will be easier to detect earth sized planets in the goldilocks zone of type G stars, as the ease of detecting hot jupiters wobbling their stars skews the statistics. The rough guess these days is that one out of two stars are orbited by planets. For a universe the size of this one to have spawned life exactly once strains credulity.
Speaking of strained credulity, you should be applauded for confining your revisionist assertions, and your contentions that descriptivist definitions should be prescriptive, to threads designated for addressing the ridiculous claims of Kooks.
Posted by: Rey Fox | November 18, 2007 12:02 AM
What in Bob's name are you talking about?
"I've already given you plausibility."
Fairies are also plausible, if you just all clap your hands
really hard and say you do believe in them, you DO!
Posted by: David | November 18, 2007 12:58 PM
To build on what Stevie said, it's plausible that the likelihood of there being life on other planets is high.
Based on what? If you don't know how life started, you cannot come up with statistical likelihood. Even if all the chemicals were present, same number of planets, same orbits, etc., you are basing your assumptions on your own biases as to how life formed. This particular argument wasn't about plausibility, it was about hypocrisy. In this case, you believe until proven otherwise, in the other you don't believe until proven otherwise. I have greater respect for an agnostic, at least they know that they don't know.
The Roberts Court will make even more stupid decisions than that one. ... The author of the first amendment, James Madison, who as President of the United States refused to sign a bill authorizing pay for Congressional Chaplains, had this to say in 1833:
No one person authored the first Amendment. Others would have had to agree to the wording. James Madison would not have been able to pass the Constitution without consensus. It stands to reason that others interpreted the first amendment different than James Madison, because they: 1) agreed with the wording, 2) passed the constitution, then 3) later overrode his veto. This established precedence from this point on as to what the first amendment meant to the representative majority. Skip 200 years later, and people want to change the meaning to what James Madison wanted it to mean. I respect James Madison, but that doesn't mean that he got it right. The 1983 court got closer to right, more so than the 1971 Lemon test court who thought it within their power to pass legislation called the lemon test. I hope the Roberts court gets it right.
Speaking of strained credulity, you should be applauded for confining your revisionist assertions
I've given you actual court cases and actual examples of precedence. You seem to be the revisionist.
Posted by: Ken Cope | November 18, 2007 1:55 PM
It stands to reason
You keep using that phrase. I do not think it means what you think it means.
As Patrick Moynihan famously said, "Everybody's entitled to their own opinions, but the are not entitled to their own facts."
So much for your Pee Wee Herman debating style, "I know you are but what am I..."
Posted by: Peter Hunter | November 18, 2007 4:45 PM
It is hard to say, but the comments here are proof of the decline of the USA and of the us-american education system...Looks like the good times are over.
Posted by: Owlmirror | November 18, 2007 7:10 PM
You're a pantheist?
Posted by: David | November 18, 2007 8:06 PM
You keep using that phrase. I do not think it means what you think it means.
No, my conclusions were very reasonable:
1) Majority agreed with the wording of the first amendment.
2) Shortly thereafter, the majority passed the Constitution into being.
3) Not long after that, the majority overrode veto of Madison because they didn't agree with his interpretation.
4) The supreme court didn't overturn for 200 years.
5) Therefore, it stands to reason that his interpretation was incorrect and theirs was correct.
It is hard to say, but the comments here are proof of the decline of the USA and of the us-american education system...Looks like the good times are over.
It has been happening for a long time now, but people have turned a blind eye.
Posted by: Sven DiMilo | November 18, 2007 8:17 PM
Phys. Rev. 41, 291 - 303 (1932) P. E. Martin and E. F. Barker "The Infrared Absorption Spectrum of Carbon Dioxide"
Posted by: Ken Cope | November 18, 2007 10:21 PM
David disputes that James Madison is the author of the First Amendment, and takes issue with the substance of the First Amendment, calling me a revisionist.
From findlaw:
From footnote 2:
David's position is as indefensible as any of his other claims in this forum.
Posted by: Ken Cope | November 18, 2007 10:35 PM
When it comes to issues of abiogenesis and the possibility of life on other planets, I'll take science's biases for observation, evidence, falsifiability and peer review over David's own demonstrable hypocrisy.
Posted by: Kseniya | November 19, 2007 12:11 AM
David, I love you you pick on one statement from my post and ignore the rest. No, actually, I'm sick of it. Contrary to the bitter end, eh? You really don't get it, do you? Pity.
"God is all around you" - absolute certainty extrapolated from zero data points.
Well, whatever. Bye!
Posted by: David | November 19, 2007 12:53 AM
David disputes that James Madison is the author of the First Amendment
I do not dispute that he wrote the words that were eventually accepted. My point was that it had to go through committee, who clearly viewed the meaning differently. Marsh vs. Chambers had the same opinion:
"
Clearly the men who wrote the First Amendment Religion Clauses did not view paid legislative chaplains and opening prayers as a violation of that Amendment, for the practice of opening sessions with prayer has continued without interruption ever since that early session of Congress."
David's position is as indefensible as any of his other claims in this forum.
Further "indefensible" evidence:
The chaplaincy was challenged in the 1850's by "sundry petitions praying Congress to abolish the office of chaplain," S. Rep. No. 376, 32d Cong., 2d Sess., 1 (1853). After consideration by the Senate Committee on the [463 U.S. 783, 789] Judiciary, the Senate decided that the practice did not violate the Establishment Clause, reasoning that a rule permitting Congress to elect chaplains is not a law establishing a national church and that the chaplaincy was no different from Sunday Closing Laws, which the Senate thought clearly constitutional. In addition, the Senate reasoned that since prayer was said by the very Congress that adopted the Bill of Rights, the Founding Fathers could not have intended the First Amendment to forbid legislative prayer or viewed prayer as a step toward an established church. Id., at 2-4. In any event, the 35th Congress abandoned the practice of electing chaplains in favor of inviting local clergy to officiate, see Cong. Globe, 35th Cong., 1st Sess., 14, 27-28 (1857). Elected chaplains were reinstituted by the 36th Congress, Cong. Globe, 36th Cong., 1st Sess., 162 (1859); id., at 1016 (1860).
(Marsh vs. Chambers)
When it comes to issues of abiogenesis and the possibility of life on other planets, I'll take science's biases for observation, evidence, falsifiability and peer review over David's own demonstrable hypocrisy.
Science has no bias towards there being life on other planets, people do. Science is just a process for systematically acquiring knowledge about the physical world. I am not against science. I am for finding out as much as possible about the physical world. However, the Universe is most likely such that there is a limit to what science can measure. For instance:
1. Imagine a line intersecting a circle on a piece of paper.
2. Now imagine that the equation of the line represents your physical "process." In other words, what you are capable of seeing and doing.
3. It would be impossible for you to measure the circle, even though your "line" or "process" runs right through it. You would "see" two points of intersection on your line and not know what they were. You would never know what they were.
Posted by: Owlmirror | November 19, 2007 1:12 AM
That has to be the stupidest argument ever. Draw a circle, then draw a line through the circle. Therefore, there can be no life on other planets.
Dude, what are you smoking? I want to make sure I never try it myself.
Posted by: David | November 19, 2007 1:12 AM
Kseniya, I did not mean to cherry pick. You have to understand that it is three or so against one here. Looking back, your data point argument is a good one, worthy of a reply:
Still, we have one data point for "life-bearing planet" and zero for "god", so insisting that the two beliefs require identical amounts of "faith" is baseless.
"Life exists" is not a data point for "how it was created." If it were, it would be a data point for all the many theories.
Posted by: David | November 19, 2007 1:26 AM
That has to be the stupidest argument ever. Draw a circle, then draw a line through the circle. Therefore, there can be no life on other planets.
That was not an argument about life on other planets. It was an overly simplistic analogy about the possible limits of physical measurement in a multidimensional Universe. Substitute "line" with the laws and processes that govern our physical world, and the "circle" with that of the greater Universe superset.
Posted by: Owlmirror | November 19, 2007 1:32 AM
A theory would be completely insane if it doesn't even take into account that which it is supposed to explain.
Posted by: Owlmirror | November 19, 2007 1:40 AM
Then why'd you bring it up when the topic was abiogenesis?Which means what, exactly? How is this even germane?
Posted by: David | November 19, 2007 1:53 AM
A theory would be completely insane if it doesn't even take into account that which it is supposed to explain.
Rephrased: "The fact that life exists here on earth is not an explanation for how it was created."
Posted by: David | November 19, 2007 2:00 AM
Then why'd you bring it up when the topic was abiogenesis?
Follow the thread. The topic has been several things.
Which means what, exactly? How is this even germane?
That science may not be able to explain everything. I was answering a post regarding putting all of one's faith in science and peer review to explain everything about existence.
Posted by: Owlmirror | November 19, 2007 3:07 AM
We may not know how life arose, yet we can examine life, and determine that, among other things, life is a complex self-reproducing organic chemical reaction, taking place in liquid water and largely driven by energy from the sun, with some interesting exceptions driven by energy from the earth itself.
Given what we can observe, it is indeed plausible that the precursors of life were also organic chemical reactions. Various chemical reactions can be tested to see whether they give rise to further self-sustaining and self-reproducing chemical reactions, and if so, whether these reactions become more and more complex.
And so on and so forth.
Shrug. Science and peer-review may not explain everything about existence, but they are the best tools we have to explain anything at all about those parts of existence that can be examined at all.Those parts of existence that cannot be examined at all cannot be explained at all. But even there, the guesses of science are better than the guesses of ignorance.
Posted by: Peter Hunter | November 19, 2007 11:36 AM
Well, that looks remarkably like reheated Hugh Ross material.
Tell me, Peter, do you actually understand the material you're using, or are you just a mindless parrot?
Posted by: MartinM | November 13, 2007 8:58 AM
Probably you don't understand it due to your limited abilty to think this matter through, but my statement is only pure applied logic. Hawkings is obviously able to think consequentually, so he applied imaginative time to his personal big-bang theory formulas because without this imaginated time he suffers a big problem. Just try to think deeper and you will understand, Martin.
By the way, until somebody here posted the name of Hugh Ross I have never heard of him here in good old europe. I guess he is one of this typical us-american preachers who nerve the world on TV.
At last I guess that this kind of weird people discussing here are the neccesary collateral damage created by some guys in the US who run around and claim that the world is just 5000 years old.
Posted by: JimV | November 19, 2007 11:40 AM
I doubt that I am the only one who wants to hug Kseniya at times. (Whoops, did I just say that out loud?)
Posted by: Rey Fox | November 19, 2007 11:49 AM
"That science may not be able to explain everything. "
Thank goodness we still have other ways of knowing, such as making shit up.
Posted by: Peter Hunter | November 19, 2007 1:15 PM
I wonder what type of car all these global warming "scientists" here drive when they go for work: a gas sucking SUV or some of the other US cars wasting gas in an exorbitant way? What's about your house? Well heat insulated or one of the typical american houses crashing each time when a little hurricane passes by? I guess it would be better instead of wasting time here in this senseless discussion to do some senseful work like driving bicycle instead of Ford, improve the public transportation, isolating your home, wear a pullover at home in winter and lower the heater. May be this way you will reduce your 20 tons/person CO2-load. If you really do that, we probably won't have to quarrel about global warming, but - I guess - this is too hard, it's much easier just to talk rubbish and do it the old way.
Most of you sound like the european luxury communists of former times who preached revolution and lived in opulence, like Gore who asks everybody to act responsible but for himself he applies another standard. Shame on you hypocrites!
Posted by: David | November 19, 2007 1:31 PM
We may not know how life arose, yet we can examine life, and determine that, among other things, life is a complex self-reproducing organic chemical reaction, taking place in liquid water and largely driven by energy from the sun, with some interesting exceptions driven by energy from the earth itself.
Given what we can observe, it is indeed plausible that the precursors of life were also organic chemical reactions. Various chemical reactions can be tested to see whether they give rise to further self-sustaining and self-reproducing chemical reactions, and if so, whether these reactions become more and more complex.
And so on and so forth.
I agree. Let me know how that works out.
Thank goodness we still have other ways of knowing, such as making shit up.
Yes, String theory is a wonderful thing.
I doubt that I am the only one who wants to hug Kseniya at times.
The belief in life on other planets, because of some high "plausibility" based on the fact that life exists here on earth, is a form of "faith" until one can explain how life was created here in the first place. Everyone has a "religion." Some "worship" technology as their savior. It is the only thing that can give them everlasting life, for instance. Instead of going to church, they visit Gizmodo and Physorg. Trusting only what your eyes can see is great and all, but one should recognize that it could have its limits.
Posted by: Ken Cope | November 19, 2007 2:19 PM
David doesn't like the first amendment, thinks Madison was wrong, and that he was corrected by the Burger Court. Citing nothing more than its historical abuses to claim that the First Amendment not only does not mean what it says, but that in 1983, Marsh v. Chambers, a SCOTUS decision based entirely on extra-Constitutional considerations that overturned numerous legal precedents, repaired the First Amendment, bringing things more in line with "...the obvious conclusion about their [the Founders] original intent." (#1252) Citing historical abuses of the establishment clause as justification for its further erosion in Marsh v. Chambers is what Madison lamented early on, citing the Chaplains' pay as precisely the sort of "...danger of encroachment by Ecclesiastical Bodies [that] may be illustrated by precedents already furnished in their short history." Marsh v. Chambers, by grandfathering and endorsing abuses of the first amendment, employs a rationalization no better than those used for the perpetuation of slavery, against "miscegenation" and against universal suffrage.
When it was pointed out that there was no way that Madison, author of the first amendment, would countenance Marsh v. Chambers, David disputed Madison's authorship. "No one person authored the first Amendment. Others would have had to agree to the wording. James Madison would not have been able to pass the Constitution without consensus."
When even David could see his position on Madison's authorship was indefensible, he denied he'd disputed it, giving himself whiplash on the 180 turn he makes here:
So, instead of reflecting a consensus with wording adopted in committee, David was always saying they adopted Madison's wording exactly as written, while viewing its meaning differently, presumably crossing their fingers while signing their names.
You're right Rey, the "making shit up" approach, no matter how self-contradictory, is all he's got. I feel like Costello trying to make sense of Abbott in their Who's on First? routine.
With the Rehnquist Court lurching more theocratically into the Roberts era, we see David shiver in antici...pation. Fortunately, the Consitution is a living document, and may yet survive the depradations of those, like David, who'd rather shred than defend it.
Now, as for David's Platonist drivel about paper and lines... (it explains so much! An idealized David utters inalterable eternal verities in an unseen dimension, while this mere instantiation of David in our lowly shadow realm can only spew nonsense in competition for the title of net.kook du jour) I'd like to ask him to visualize an extended index finger, perpendicular to, and aiming at, and repeatedly inserted through a circle formed by the thumb and index finger of the opposite hand.
Posted by: Rey Fox | November 19, 2007 2:34 PM
String theory: made up. Ancient myths of a desert tribe: totally real! I think that's all that needs to be said about David.
Peter Hunter: When I'm not engaging in senseless discussions with well-poisoning cretins, I ride my bicycle to work and other places and limit my heating/air conditioning as much as I can.
Posted by: Ken Cope | November 19, 2007 2:36 PM
PZ, if only there was a way for commenters to use your creationist tag in blockquotes so that a Gumby and comic sans could be used to highlight little turd gems like these:
It will take more than David's dishonest contortions to Humpty Dumpty up the dictionary to append "working hypothesis and subject of research spanning multiple disciplines," to definitions of the word "faith."
Posted by: PZ Myers | November 19, 2007 2:40 PM
That's supposed to work. Let's see:
Posted by: Ken Cope | November 19, 2007 2:44 PM
I doubt that I am the only one who wants to hug Kseniya at times.
Certainly not. However, it is her opponents who typically find themselves in need of metaphorical medical attention, whether they realize it or not.
Posted by: PZ Myers | November 19, 2007 2:49 PM
Strange. I had this all worked out a while back, and it was working fine. Some other day when I've got a little more free time I'll track down why Gumby doesn't show up in the comments any more.
Posted by: Ken Cope | November 19, 2007 2:59 PM
Ah, there you are then. It was working fine, until there was a miraculous supernatural intervention. Any notion that chasing the well-hidden bug would fix the problem would clearly be an act of faith.
Posted by: Owlmirror | November 19, 2007 3:59 PM
Hm. So you, posting here, are performing an act of faith? After all, you can't explain all how all of the layers of technology involved work.
Are you worshipping this thread? Are you sacrificing your words for the holy and powerful god "hello_stan_palmer.php"?
If all belief systems are the exact same thing as religion, then you're an idolator.
Like Christians, for instance.
Posted by: David | November 19, 2007 5:55 PM
David doesn't like the first amendment
A distortion. I love the first amendment. It says that government cannot make laws that limit the free exercise of religion. It also cannot make laws that respect the establishment of religion (i.e. do what the church tells them to do). What part of that do you not understand?
Citing nothing more than its historical abuses
You call them abuses, I call them correct interpretations of the first Amendment. If James Madison would have stood up and said: "Guess what my friends, I am writing an Amendment to the Constitution that says Congress cannot open with a prayer, and that any mention of one's faith in public service will be a violation. Oh, and by the way, no public display of religious symbols, including the 10 commandments." How do you think it would have went over? It wouldn't have passed. Your view of the first Amendment is dead wrong.
When it was pointed out that there was no way that Madison, author of the first amendment, would countenance Marsh v. Chambers, David disputed Madison's authorship
"No one person authored the first Amendment. Others would have had to agree to the wording"
My point was that even if he technically came up with the original wording, it was not his decision alone to make. Others quite obviously had a different idea about what those words meant. In that sense, multiple people were behind the first Amendment. Do you disagree with this or are you just trying to play gotcha?
So, instead of reflecting a consensus with wording adopted in committee, David was always saying they adopted Madison's wording exactly as written, while viewing its meaning differently, presumably crossing their fingers while signing their names.
No, the other way around: James Madison crossed his fingers and signed his name.
I feel like Costello trying to make sense of Abbott in their Who's on First? routine.
Yes, your distortions about my positions take a lot of work and probably make you dizzy.
Fortunately, the Consitution is a living document, and may yet survive the depradations of those, like David, who'd rather shred than defend it.
I do not look at the Constitution as a living document in the broad sense. Human nature is human nature and does not change much. It is an oxymoron to call a "Constitution" something that changes out from under you. It is also dangerous.
String theory: made up. Ancient myths of a desert tribe: totally real! I think that's all that needs to be said about David.
That was a joke, show some humor. Geesh.
It will take more than David's dishonest contortions to Humpty Dumpty up the dictionary to append "working hypothesis and subject of research spanning multiple disciplines," to definitions of the word "faith."
From dictionary.com:
Faith: belief that is not based on proof: He had faith that the hypothesis would be substantiated by fact.
Hm. So you, posting here, are performing an act of faith? After all, you can't explain all how all of the layers of technology involved work.
Some do, yes. I happen to understand how it all works, right down to the transistors and nand gates.
Posted by: Ken Cope | November 19, 2007 7:23 PM
What part of that do you not understand?
How you can be such a deceitful sociopath.
You call them abuses, I call them correct interpretations of the first Amendment.
your distortions about my positions take a lot of work and probably make you dizzy
Your positions (multiple and self-contradictory) are nothing but distortion.
Your distortions Constitutional
Are revis'nist, categorical
Mangling Webter's wordy book
Another theocratic crook
You are the very model of
a modern minor net dot kook
From dictionary.com:
What's the matter, was conservapedia.com down?
Faith: belief that is not based on proof: He had faith that the hypothesis would be substantiated by fact.
Point the first: working hypothesis != belief
Point the second: science is not based on proof.
Posted by: Owlmirror | November 19, 2007 8:28 PM
The belief that you understand, because of some high "plausibility" based on the fact that you know some electronics and boolean logic, is a form of "faith" until you can explain exactly what all of the components are and how they interact in the first place.
Posted by: Andrew Wade | November 19, 2007 9:13 PM
Air-conditioning is my vice; I can't stand heat. Now cold I don't mind; and I do wear fleece. I take a diesel-electric train to work, which I don't doubt spews large quantities of CO2 into the atmosphere, but then I do share the train with well over a thousand other riders. Just what are the admission requirements for environmental advocacy anyway?
Posted by: Andrew Wade | November 19, 2007 10:50 PM
Please be careful about your generalizations here. I'm careful generalizing about Christians. In fact I don't much mind if you call my atheism a religion. It seems a bit odd to call a mere belief in the non-existence of Gods a religion, but then scarcely more dogma is at the core of the Christian religion. (God created the universe, and most Christians believe Jeshua son of Joseph and Mary was God incarnate and was resurrected.). Now if you call my enjoyment of computer programming worship, and my computer a god, you're really missing the mark. Religious epiphanies are a bafflement to me, but it sure seems clear that they're not really the same thing as enjoying a good hack. And my computer is far less anthropomorphic than the average god.
Here I also disagree. Religion has little to do with it, but there are different types of personalities. Some of us are narcissistic psychopaths like Pat Robertson. Some of us are concerned with the welfare of the people, like Jesus. Some of us are obsessed with any hint of the carnal, and with sin, like the apostle Paul. Some of us like varity. Me, I like regularity and sameness. And just as there are different types of people, there are different types of belief systems, something you don't want to acknowledge.
Posted by: Peter Hunter | November 20, 2007 6:54 AM
Atheism - Religion?
The most senseless discussions are discussions about definitions of words when there is no mutual understanding about. Obviously you haven't something better to do but to waste a lot of precious time on this matter.
Posted by: MartinM | November 20, 2007 8:09 AM
Well, I'll be the first to admit that there are things I don't know. Perhaps you could help me out. You could start by describing this 'space-time theorem,' maybe. That one's new to me.
Posted by: Peter Hunter | November 20, 2007 11:47 AM
Dear Martin,
the physics of Newton consider time as completely independent from space (three dimensional space). But Einstein's theory of relativity joined time and space to a four dimensional space-time-continuum (the latest physical theories don't restrict this time-space-continuum to four dimensions but higher-dimensional geometries = number of dimensions > 4.
The hypothesis that time and space exist in a time-space-continuum is the time-space-theorem (in German: Raum-Zeit-Theorem).
Hawkings states that "before" the big bang happened and the space-time-continuum expanded there was something with a volume (capacitiy) of Zero, hence there were neither time nor space before the big bang.
Logically any cause for any action inside a time-space-continuum needs the existence of time for to proceed. Because - that "something" "before" the big bang was neither time nor space Hawkings needs - for to argue still logically - an anchor to let the cause of the big bang happen and proceed. This anchor is Hawkings "imaginary time" which should exist 10 to 40 seconds "before" the big bang. But this imaginary time is only a crutch to save his faith in a self-creating universe, because - cited by his own words - "If I wouldn't claim this imaginary time as real the big bang theory indicates a divine creation".
To claim the existence of time before time and space ever existed and to call it "imaginary" reveals, that this time only exists in the Hawings brain as an imagination, belief, faith, notion, perfection... choose the word you like, I won't argue about definitions.
It's not easy for me to describe this matter in a foreign language but I hope you will get the point nevertheless.
Posted by: Rey Fox | November 20, 2007 12:06 PM
"Obviously you haven't something better to do but to waste a lot of precious time on this matter. "
People, we must all now pledge only to discuss things that are approved by the Grand Arbiter, Peter Hunter. We don't want to waste our time on things unapproved by him, nor do we want to waste his time by making him point out that we're wasting our time. Time is money!
By the way, it's "HAWKING". No 's'.
Posted by: peter hunter | November 20, 2007 12:40 PM
:-)
thanks for correction!
Posted by: David | November 20, 2007 1:11 PM
Ken, your post is that of "cover ears and say marry had a little lamb, la la la la la lots of times," then distract with clever allusions.
Peter, I am just teasing them. In my experience, many atheists look down on others and are simply bigots. Their strong reaction to saying that they have a religion is just funny.
Everyone has something that is believed especially with strong conviction. Most have at least one firm belief in something for which there is no proof. These are just definitions of the word "faith" in Webster's dictionary.
Almost everyone has a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith. This is a definition of religion in the Webster's dictionary.
Some of us are concerned with the welfare of the people, like Jesus
The physical welfare, but what does that matter if one is still left naked, blind, miserable, and poor.
Posted by: Ken Cope | November 20, 2007 3:13 PM
I am just teasing them
The rest of us are conversing with each other by mocking and laughing at any kook so pathetic and unoriginal as to ply repetitive, clueless assertion via dictionary (one cut up by William S. Burroughs at that) as if it were an argument.
Posted by: David | November 20, 2007 3:23 PM
The rest of us are conversing with each other by mocking and laughing
Ah yes, the "Well, you have no friends!" line thrown out after one has lost an argument. Nice.
Well, at least you aren't losing your religion over it.
Posted by: Ken Cope | November 20, 2007 3:38 PM
Ah, declaring victory eh? You'd have just as much success employing the same strategy you have here, by swanking into a bar habituated by dykes on bikes here in San Francisco, to tell them that they're all really heterosexuals and you've got what they've been secretly yearning for.
Posted by: peter hunter | November 20, 2007 4:23 PM
David, at last there is no proof at all. Each theory, even if its results were tested for thousands of times, is only an approach to the "truth" of the Universe. May be for 200 million times the test shows the same result, that is no proof, that it shows up the same result at the 200 million and one test. Inductiv deduction is limited because its only a comparative generality.
Some hundred years ago Emmanuel Kant already knew, that there is a surface we can examine and calculate but we never really can penetrate the "curtain" for to recognize the "real thing" (das Ding an sich) behind the curtain. Even mathematics at last is not without immanent contradictions. As Goedel mathematically demonstrated is any sufficient mighty formal system either contradictory or incomplete. Hence at last we all walk on sand and not on firm soil when we show up with theories.
But to compare convictions and religion as you do is not acceptable, I guess. If one states that there is no God and he believes only in mathematics and physics then possibly this convictions helps him to stand the problems of life because it makes the world rational and manageable. You probably will say that he makes mathematics to his God, but when you, David, believe in God, you should know the difference between convition and religion. Conviction always is internal laily but religion is always transcendent. Each religion regards the world as foreground, while the secret of Nirwana, or God, or many Gods form the basis of the universe which is accessible only to the believer. Religion comes from religio, a latin word. The ancient Romans found that to be religious means: to carefully consider the things related to the worship of gods".
Posted by: David | November 20, 2007 6:21 PM
But to compare convictions and religion as you do is not acceptable, I guess.
I am doing no such thing. Belief systems are made up of convictions. They are not one in the same.
but religion is always transcendent. Each religion regards the world as foreground, while the secret of Nirwana, or God, or many Gods form the basis of the universe which is accessible only to the believer.
Atheism isn't really a stand alone thing, but just one part of a larger belief system. This belief system usually involves striving to create a utopia here on earth using technology, environmentalism, and socialism. Technology is the savior because it will provide everlasting life. A one world socialist government provides justice, most importantly income equality and social justice, and also works as the provider and protector. It is responsible for raising your children and educating them towards secular world view. Science is the method to transcend the Universe by discovering its secrets. Environmentalism provides the spiritual and sacred experience. If we cannot call this a religion, then we need to redefine religion.
Posted by: Ken Cope | November 20, 2007 7:10 PM
If we cannot call this a religion, then we need to redefine religion.
Why not redefine all the words?
In regard to your giddy little hallucination, the phrase that comes to mind is "demented fuckwit fever dream."
Posted by: David | November 20, 2007 9:33 PM
Why not redefine all the words?
Well, different cultures define words according to the way they view the world. We are no different.
In regard to your giddy little hallucination, the phrase that comes to mind is "demented fuckwit fever dream."
Thank you Stewey. So now tell me what part of that religion do you not subscribe to? It was easy to come up with, I simply described your favorite TV show: "Star Trek: The next generation." You know, the one where everyone works for Star Fleet Command even though they have replicators and ended poverty years ago.
Posted by: Ken Cope | November 20, 2007 9:51 PM
David, I'm afraid you aren't going to reach enough people here. You may have better luck finding the audience that needs to know the truth (with multiple exclamation marks) by obtaining a box of crayons (red is a very good color) and distributing your deathless prose on bus benches and subways everywhere.
With your sophisticated knowledge of nand gates, I don't doubt that you'll be invited into the special room deep in the bowels of the Pentagon any day now, so your Beautiful Mind can be consulted properly, on, say, whether or not the aluminum foil deflector beanies should be worn shiny side out, or shiny side in.
Good luck, Culture Warrior!
Posted by: David | November 20, 2007 10:29 PM
Ken, keeper of the lexicon, please look up the word 'deflection.'
Posted by: Ken Cope | November 20, 2007 11:51 PM
OK, lessee, ah, got it! deflection... Wow! No wonder they'll want to your expertise in the secret room inside the Pentagon, you're already ahead of the curve on the shiny side in or out problem!
Posted by: David | November 21, 2007 12:21 AM
There's no conspiracy theory behind it, just logic:
1. If you don't believe in a god and you want everlasting life, then you turn to technology as your savior.
2. If you don't believe in a god and you want social justice and equality, then you turn to government as your savior. You know, the super friends justice league type, something like the UN. You have high priests who sit around a big table and dictate policy for the rest of us sheep and warn the flock of any impending doom (similar to the IPCC).
3. If you don't believe in a god and you are a spiritual person, then you turn to the Creation, the environment. You follow rituals such as eating granola, wearing hemp, and riding bicycles.
4. The high priests come up with the cardinal sins, such as using the word 'poor' instead of 'underprivileged,' driving an SUV, and shopping at Wal-Mart.
5. You safeguard the failing socialist public education system at all costs, write books about how it "takes a village to raise a child," and push for socialized health care, etc.
Let me know where I'm wrong...
Posted by: reason | November 21, 2007 1:27 AM
Let me know where I'm wrong...
Sure thing, David, you present a false polychotomy.
Translation of your blather:
"If not A, well then C or D or E or F or G or H, but not B - never B! It can never be B! My superior logic turns B into not-B! I win - God must be real!"
(B = a total absence of belief, FWIW)
You are hell-bent on classifying non-believers as somehow "religious". Whatever it takes to divert attention from the silliness of your fairy tales, I suppose...
Posted by: BGT | November 21, 2007 1:41 AM
@ David
I think reason has you there. Your last posting doesn't really address anything about whether or not (a) god(s) exist(s).
Remember, please cite your references, and preferably they must be within the last decade or so. Us agnostics are tired of hearing hoary old arguments.
Posted by: brandon | November 21, 2007 1:47 AM
What fantastic voyage did you just disembark?
1. If you don't believe in a god and you want everlasting life, then you turn to technology as your savior.
A savior? A savior of what? From what? How do you define a savior? Why is it necessary that people desire one? Much less project one into reified concepts? Do people necessarily want everlasting life? How is technology construed as a savior?
2. If you don't believe in a god and you want social justice and equality, then you turn to government as your savior. You know, the super friends justice league type, something like the UN. You have high priests who sit around a big table and dictate policy for the rest of us sheep and warn the flock of any impending doom (similar to the IPCC).
If you don't believe in a god and you want social justice and equality, why is it necessary htat you must turn to government? Why can't you go volunteer or donate to a charity? Or do pro bono work, or organize your community in ways that help alleviate problems for families in distress? I've yet in my entire lifetime to meet anyone left, right, or center who fulfills this obsequious caricature of the liberal mesmerized by the U.N., most people are extremely skeptical, as they should be, of the U.N. and it's dealings. Yet, would you please direct our attention to the other international body currently engaged mediating to any degree disputes between nations?
Again, how is a U.N. a savior? What is a savior? Why is it necessary that the U.N. behave as a savior? Why is it necessary for people to worship the U.N.? The U.N. has priests? Wow! Really? Can you name some and some of their priestly duties! Oh, while you're at it, would you please names some of these sacerdotal diktats from this unnamed portion of the U.N. that has the force of law in the U.S. supplanting constitutional rule?
3. If you don't believe in a god and you are a spiritual person, then you turn to the Creation, the environment. You follow rituals such as eating granola, wearing hemp, and riding bicycles.
Wow. What? I ride a bike to work. I ride a couple of hundred miles a week - not bragging - I just do, something has to counteract my awful diet. I sometimes find myself praying while I ride "please don't let that rig drag me under it's wheels?" or "please let that trixie get distracted from her phonecall to notice that she's about to slam into me." Other than that, it's more about the exercise counteracting my desk-job and aforementioned diet. When I bought my ride at Cozy's, no one invited me to a pyramid power seminar. I don't wear hemp, though, it's not very attractive. I saw some hemp shoes that I almost bought once, but, the weren't really quality for the price. I also own a car that I try to use in moderation. And a motorcycle that I should use in moderation. But enough about me, or rather, those facts have about as much relevance to the discussion at hand as your decrying the eating of granola and the riding of bikes as some kind of ritualistic pancretism. I... don't really know what questions to ask you about your reasoning in this particular example, because your reasoning is so, obscure that it's nearly unrecognizable as such. In fact, open question: please demonstrate how bicycle riding is pagan.
4. The high priests come up with the cardinal sins, such as using the word 'poor' instead of 'underprivileged,' driving an SUV, and shopping at Wal-Mart.
Now are these the high priests from the U.N. or is this a different college of priests? What group of people are you referring to here? I think you've got it the other way around, I think we're supposed to use underpriviledged instead of poor when we refer to those damn Greasers from East end across the tracks. As far as I can tell, if there's a cardinal sin of secular, civic life it's this:
"Don't be a dick when it's not necessary, and when it's necessary, don't be a cruel dick." I do all kinds of non-P.C. things all the time and no one's sent me letters of summoning requesting my presence at an inquest and excommunicating me from liberalia. Anybody else experienced this? Does anyone else know which paper it is I should be reading? A listserv? A subscription? Because I'm getting kind of nervous here, I'd really like to know what our atheist high-priests are labeling as halaal and haraam these days.
5. You safeguard the failing socialist public education system at all costs, write books about how it "takes a village to raise a child," and push for socialized health care, etc.
The socialist public education system. Would you care to explain exactly how the public education system is a socialist one? Because I read this, and I'm thinking is it the means of producing children that the state controls? Or is it that show-and-tell really pisses this guy off? Maybe a bad experience in 6th grade, when you had to invite everyone to your birthday party, even those dirty kids? Or is it the distributing of degrees to all those kids that gets you? Maybe it's integration, the fact that all kinds of people mingle their kids with all kinds of other people's kids? Is that threatening to you? Going back to this idea of "it takes a village" how is this different from education received at church schools, or sunday schools, or just from allowing your kids to interact with other kids around your neighborhood? Are you suggesting that it is right and proper that children should be taught at home, only by their parents, and kept insulated from all other influences until it's time to pair them off? Are you insinuating that children should be segregated and taught only in schools only with the children of parents who are economic peers capable of meeting tuition requirements? Or are you suggesting that children should have no right to education whatsoever, that a child's future should be determined by his parent's ability to pay for private schooling, or their own ability as homeschoolers? This seems to me a very foolhardy proposition, given the phenomenally bad track record countries that do not mandate education for their children or provide thereof have, well, operating and existing in the long run. Can you provide us some good solid reasoning why public education is not preferrably to no education, or, education only for the wealthy?
So, to answer your question, I would suggest that you began to be wrong, or, at least incredibly difficult to understand with the words "There's no..." Otherwise, and I really hate to say this to you, you come off kind of crankish, and, well, not making too much sense! I look forward to your reply, cheers.
Posted by: Kseniya | November 21, 2007 1:52 AM
Ok, the 1300 mark has been shattered, so here I am.
David:
Well, thanks for that. Sorry if some of my posts were a bit edgy. I'm not sure what all this "hugging" talk was about earlier, but I'm not really much of a fighter... maybe people sense that.
True. Where did I say it was? I said "it's hard to extrapolate from a single data point" the likelihood of life existing on other planets.
Ah, but I didn't say the plausibility is high. I said a high likelihood is plausible. I'm not trying to split hairs, here - I think the difference is significant and reveals that our points of view, though disparate, are closer together than you think.
Consider plausibility as a purely qualitative, not quantitative, concept: A thing is either plausible, or it is not. You claimed earlier that you have "proven" the plausibility of God - without saying how plausible. I'm ok with that. I think it is plausible that there's a high likelihood that life exists on other planets. That's not the same as saying, "I know with absolute certainty that there is life on other planets," or even "I believe there is a high likelihood that life exists on other planets." I stand by my earlier statement - it's not unreasonable to believe the latter - but I personally feel it's more prudent to take a more, umm, agnostic stance on the probabilities.
Regardless, the point is this: we know for sure that life does, without a doubt, exist on at least one planet.
Given the fact that we have life here, given the astronomical number of stars in the known universe, and given that even vanishingly small odds of finding a life-bearing planet orbiting any given star still suggest there may be hundreds of thousands of inhabited planets in the known universe, the idea that there might be more than one is not implausible.
As I said earlier, that doesn't require any faith at all - just good sense.
Compare and contrast with unquestioning belief in a deity for which there is no evidence whatsoever.
The two are in no meaningful way equivalent.
You say "God is all around" - well I say, "Life is all around you." The evidence for THAT is undeniable (unless it turns out that It's A Small World After All...*shudder*)
Where we agree is here: The bottom line is that we really don't know. I keep going back to this quote, even though it is getting a little long in the tooth:
Oh, by the way, nice job back there (in #1323) conflating atheism with other elements of the things-you-despise array. Not impressive. I imagine you and Christopher Hitchens could have an invigorating debate, one in which you convince him that he is a Socialist. You seem to excel at erecting straw men. Tell me, how do you sleep?
One last thing: My personal beliefs have no bearing whatsoever on whatever the truth of these matters might be, but I feel it's only fair to disclose that I'm not an atheist.
(Hmmm, it's almost 2 a.m., I must be getting cranky. I know I'll regret this in the morning. Oh well!)
*click*
Posted by: Owlmirror | November 21, 2007 2:25 AM
It looks like your strongest conviction is that everyone has something that is believed.
Yup, you believe it strongly, and have no proof. So your belief without proof that everyone has a belief without proof is your religion.
You're making less sense than usual, here. You seem to be saying that Jesus wants people to be naked, blind, miserable, and poor.
I suppose that's another of your strong convictions; one of your firm beliefs without proof. I simply hope that you have declared yourself in opposition to Jesus. If you think that you ought to be as nasty as Jesus, well, you obviously have a firm belief and strong conviction in being evil.
Imprimis, many people who do believe in a god would agree with almost everything on the list (minus the smarminess, of course, but we know that you just put that in there for the sake of being evil), so atheism is unnecessary, et secundus, some atheists would reject most or all of the items on the list, so atheism is insufficient.
Quod Erat Demonstrandum.
And of course I note that (unlike wishing real hard and talking to imaginary beings), everything on the list is at least capable of being carried out in the real world.
Posted by: David | November 21, 2007 2:59 AM
Reason: The example that I gave was not proof of a god, merely an example of the "religion" that many atheists hold. In fact, I've never even attempted to prove the existence of a god anywhere on this thread.
Although atheist technically means "not theist," it is used mostly to mean "follows atheism." It would be silly to spell it "Atheistist," and like environmentalism is to environmentalist, atheism is to atheist. It is an active belief in no god.
Posted by: Owlmirror | November 21, 2007 3:40 AM
Of course not. You don't believe in a god, you believe in believing (and in increasing the length of this thread).
Where atheists claim that god is nothing but a conspiracy of theologians, you're busy trying to show that everyone is a theologian, and is therefore a conspirator.
"I've frequently not believed in gods."
"No, no... What you've believed is not in gods."
Posted by: Owlmirror | November 21, 2007 3:48 AM
Alternatively, you're trying to show that everyone is a conspirator, and is therefore a theologian. You don't really seem to care one way or the other.
Posted by: Grand Arbiter :-)) | November 21, 2007 4:44 AM
I herewith promise to try to avoid to become a smart ass and to spare this blog from nerving comments. I hopy you guys will hail this with standing ovations :-))
Posted by: David | November 21, 2007 1:09 PM
brandon: I was giving an example, it isn't like atheists have a book that they follow or anything. I know an atheist who is Libertarian. He spends a lot of his time reading science fiction and living some imaginary person's life. Can believers also believe in some of these things? Yes, particularly when they are misguided. To answer your questions: 1. savior from death, 2. justice doesn't happen in a vacuum, 3. There is an environment junkie stereotype for a reason, and yes they do follow rituals, 4. Yes, universities contain high priests too: the elite scholars, 5. Freedom of choice is a good thing, competition leads to excellence, associate the money with the child instead of the school, and since the parent is making a free choice, the government isn't respecting the establishment of anything.
Kseniya: Welcome back. The "likely plausibility" of life on other planets highly depends on how one thinks life came into being in the first place. It could have taken 1000 improbable events in a row to happen, scientists just don't know.
Oh, by the way, nice job back there (in #1323) conflating atheism with other elements of the things-you-despise array. Not impressive
Thanks, but I was giving an example of how atheism is part of a larger belief system, just as theism is part of a larger belief system. Atheist belief systems would be in the things-I-despise array by default because mankind's ego is generally at their center.
Owlmirror:
You're making less sense than usual, here. You seem to be saying that Jesus wants people to be naked, blind, miserable, and poor.
Nope, I was alluding to spiritual bankruptcy and Revelation 3:17.
Where atheists claim that god is nothing but a conspiracy of theologians, you're busy trying to show that everyone is a theologian, and is therefore a conspirator.
Everyone is human, and humans have human traits. We aren't that different, despite trying to be different. One can say "well I believe in this and therefore I am different than you," but in reality that person probably has a similar belief system, just disguised as something else.
I herewith promise to try to avoid to become a smart ass and to spare this blog from nerving comments. I hopy you guys will hail this with standing ovations :-))
:-)
Posted by: Grand Arbiter | November 21, 2007 3:20 PM
just this moment I'm listening to a piano concert of Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart, the divine. It's just my opinion, may be it's wrong, but how can somebody believe this is just the result of accident in a senseless evolution? What's about poetry, what's about the feeling when you love unselfish, what's about compassion? Just an advantange in the struggle for life? What's about long lasting love at all? For about 50 years my friends and me claimed to be atheists and consider ourselves as little dust particles in the endless senseless space and "believe" that human rationality, science, Hegel's "Weltgeist" and Karl Marx's analysis of capitalism leep manhood on the tracks to paradise on earth. But now, after those hecatombs of shed blood all over the world, we become humble and when we visit the gothic cathedral of Cologne, we now and then light a light before Mother Mary's image and pray for the fortune of our children. I'm 75 in between and have seen a lot that let me doubt the reliability of human rationality.
Sorry, I'm long winded and probably this is the wrong place for this posting. I'll go for bed now, wish you all a good night and close with the last lines of the "Evening Song" of Matthias Claudius (1773):
So then, my brothers,
Lie down in the name of God -
The evening breeze is cold.
Spare us punishment, God,
and grant us peaceful sleep
and also to our sick neighbour
Posted by: Rey Fox | November 21, 2007 3:49 PM
"but how can somebody believe this is just the result of accident in a senseless evolution? "
It's not that hard once you get the hang of it.
Posted by: Andrew Wade | November 21, 2007 7:44 PM
Logic is all well and good, but it's easy to go off into the weeds if you get your premises wrong.
I want everlasting life sure. I don't expect everlasting life. I'd be surprised to make it to 100. Immortality isn't really an atheistic preoccupation, blather about the "singularity" notwithstanding.
I don't expect much from the UN. I am in favour of democratic governments shaped by the desires of the populace. It is parliaments where policy should be formed. And governments can and are doing a great deal of good. Something like the IPCC I see as an advisory body; the "high priests" with experience are the ones who can best tell us the likely consequences of our policies, but when it comes to choosing the policies, it should be democratically-elected parliaments.
I guess I'm not spiritual then.
Here's the thing; not all social structures run along authoritarian lines. The "high priests" can say shopping at Wal-Mart is a sin all they want; I'll only pay heed if they provide good reasons for what they say. There are good reasons to avoid driving SUVs and not to shop at Wal-Mart. So far I don't think I've heard any reason not to use the word 'poor'.
Yeah, pretty much. And I vote. Reducing funding to poorly performing schools doesn't seem like a good idea to me somehow... My quirk is that I am very strongly in favour of quality early childhood education and good daycares. There is some evidence that early enrichment makes an enormous difference in eventual life outcomes, even though the difference doesn't really show up until high school.
My guess is that you're getting your information about atheists from people who don't know many of us. As a "lefty" atheist I actually fit some of your caricature, but very few atheists will fit it very well.
Posted by: Makesense | May 12, 2008 5:11 PM
LOL PZ,
Rats live longer are truly smarter...
Posted by: aliunde | April 26, 2009 12:16 AM
I had been here several months ago as I was checking out the web awards site, and was somewhat bemused. But I must admit that with every response by PZ to those who disagreed with him, I went from chuckles to some good belly laughs.
Sorry, but your vitriol sounded exactly like my 4 year old arguing with his sister when he knew he could make no progess on the merits of the argument otherwise. It was just the visual of a "real scientist" the size of a 4 year old with his oversized white lab coat dragging on the ground and arms invisible within the almost empty sleeves as the hand waving proceeded undeterred with the "but I am a REAL scientist" just barely echoing past the stomping up and down that made the reading worth it.
Someone so emotionally invested in a particular outcome is incapable of producing good science.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | April 26, 2009 12:25 AM
Wow. That was great.
Posted by: aliunde | April 26, 2009 1:43 AM
I'm surprised anyone was listening. =)