…and this is a 
We're learning more about what Obama is actually going to do in office, and while there are some negatives, right now the positives outweigh them.
Let's get the bad decisions out of the way first.
Rick Warren, professional homophobe, bigot, and smirking airhead, will be prominently promoted in the invocation at the inauguration. This is a symbolic slap to the face of rationalists and GLBT citizens of our country, and is not a good sign.
The man who will be the Interior Secretary, a position which should be concerned about conservation of the country's natural resources and which has been typically filled with vultures and exploiters from industry by Republican presidents, is going to be more of the same: Ken Salazar, who will almost certainly promote mining and ranching interests.
Both of those are real disgraces, and it's not as if Obama was boxed in or lacking alternatives. They're also incomprehensible. Warren is a sneaky little creep who already got more respect than he deserves by hosting one of the presidential debates, and he's also a guy who is anti-Democratic policies — you know he did not vote for Obama. So why throw him another bone? Salazar just sounds like a lazy choice, somebody who was picked to appease industry…but he's not a steward of the environment.
The bads are awful, but I've got to say that his good decisions are very, very good.
The director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy will be John Holdren of Harvard University, a professor of environmental policy who takes a hard line on global climate change — he was an advisor to Al Gore on the movie, An Inconvenient Truth.
Jane Lubchenko is a professor of marine biology at Oregon State University. She'll be in charge of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, another key appointment in climate change policy.
Co-chairs of the Council of Advisers on Science and Technology will be Harold Varmus, who won a Nobel for his work on viral oncogenes, and Eric Lander, a very big name in genomics research.
Another Nobel laureate, Steven Chu, will be the Secretary of Energy. Chu has also been outspoken about climate change and is a strong promoter of alternative energy sources.
If these good people are actually listened to by the president, expect to see major improvements in energy policy and biology research, and some serious attention paid to carbon. This is, overall, a net plus for science and a real strike against anti-science in the White House, a huge change from the last 8 years. Salazar is troubling, some people are concerned that NASA will suffer, and sucking up to the odious Rick Warren still makes me wonder what atavistic social policies might be nestled in Obama's mind, but there is some hope on the horizon, at least. Now if only he could do even better.
Politics
Comments
Posted by: Kel | December 20, 2008 10:50 PM
The science appointments are excellent, here's hoping he listens to them.
Posted by: 10channel | December 20, 2008 10:54 PM
Do we know why Obama chose each of them? Presumably Obama would not have chose the bad decisions because he thought that they were bad, but rather because he (erroneously) thought that they were good.
Posted by: The Science Pundit | December 20, 2008 11:02 PM
I'm not happy about Salazar, but overall I'm quite content.
Posted by: Longtime Lurker | December 20, 2008 11:04 PM
I have made peace with Obama's invitation to Rick Warren by convincing myself that it could be the equivalent of a Roman general parading a captured barbarian chieftain through the city during a triumphal procession. Yeah, Baracus Obamacus shows the barbarian Warrenix the might of the assemble liberal masses.
In this case, it's up to the assembled populi to show their scorn. I think a big LGBT kiss-in would be the best response to this bigot.
Big ups to Obama for the science staff choices.
Posted by: Zeno | December 20, 2008 11:04 PM
Warren doesn't matter. I wouldn't have chosen him and I'm sorry that Obama's inauguration committee did, but all Warren gets to do is mumble some meaningless words on January 20. He's not a member of the administration and he's not a policy advisor. I hope his selection for the inauguration ceremony is just a sop to the Christians, but I doubt they can be bought off that easily.
The science appointments, on the other hand, those are of cosmic importance. And they're stellar. (And I have no opinion yet on the selection of Salazar.)
Posted by: Von Krieger | December 20, 2008 11:06 PM
I thought that it was Congress that decided on Warren for the inaugeration, rather than Obama?
Posted by: Global Warming Is A Scam | December 20, 2008 11:08 PM
You mean he's the one responsible for the lies in that "documentary"?
Posted by: 10channel | December 20, 2008 11:10 PM
Well, there is this question: did Obama pick Salazar based on his own opinion that he was good, based on the idea that the public will see it as good (which, of course, is false, since the public does not see it as good), or based on the persuasion of the mining and ranching interests?
When there is a strange choice like Salazar, I would think that either Obama was mis-informed, or that he was convinced by the mining/ranching interests.
Posted by: scooter | December 20, 2008 11:11 PM
Michael Bérubé's letter to Barack Obama about Rick "The Evangelical Jimmy Buffet" Warren is so good from start to finish that I don't want to blockquote any of it.
http://www.michaelberube.com/index.php/weblog/comments/1207/
Posted by: Trent1492 | December 20, 2008 11:12 PM
What "lie" do you find the most egregious? What is your source for this "lie"?
Posted by: Ken from Oregon | December 20, 2008 11:14 PM
The Rick Warren choice is just Obama's reminder to the left that he's everyone's president. He is throwing a bone to the religious right to make them feel a bit warm and fuzzy. It's meaningless and they won't buy into it.
Posted by: Quiet_Desperation | December 20, 2008 11:18 PM
Am I the only atheist/agnostic who simply does not give a crap about Rick Warren being there? Who cares? He'll give his little mystical speech and then be gone. Honestly, folks, it comes across as raving when you go on and on about the little stuff. There's much bigger battles to fight, probably right in you own backyards. How do your local schools handle evolution, for example? From what century are the science books?
As for Salazar. meh. The League of Conservation Voters seems OK with him. Good gravy, give the man a chance. Remeber this is the guy that debunked Bush's claim that the oil shales could somehow magically save the day whe gas was over $4 a gallon. The shales may be exploitable some day, but that breakthrough hasn't occurred yet. Interesting technical problem, though.
Posted by: SHV | December 20, 2008 11:22 PM
I'm not happy about Salazar, but overall I'm quite content.
**********
Ray La Hood..the person who led the Clinton impeachment debate? La Hood with the progressive punch score of 13%? Even the reactionary Dem Gene Taylor has a score of 53%. And Mr Ethanol Vilsack for Ag sec. With a strong Dem Senate he could have done much better. Larry Summers??? etc.
Posted by: Rox | December 20, 2008 11:22 PM
PZ, I believe the USFS and the BLM are tasked with managing our public lands, not conserving them.
I feel obligated to also point out that we as a nation would not be so rich and powerful without the presence and exploitation of our abundant natural resources. As someone who has worked in the mining industry most of his life, I find it frustrating that people decry the exploitation of our natural resources while using computers, living in houses, driving cars, riding bikes, and driving on roads that would not be possible without mining or oil and gas production.
Our minerals come from the earth, if they don't come from our own resources, then they come from other countries -- other countries that may not have the environmental regulations that we do, other countries that do not pass on earned riches to their own citizens, and other countries whose own citizens are willing to murder each other in order to control those resources.
Mining is not about raping the earth. It's about providing you and I with a good quality of life and providing our country with the strategic minerals it requires to keep us safe. Stop mining and you stop development. Who really wants to go back to living in caves?
I voted for Obama against the advice of a good portion of my colleagues in the mining industry, knowing full well I may lose my livelihood -- and as of last month, I did. But to me, the future of my country was far more important than my job. Today, though, I am a little more optimistic about my future.
Posted by: mus | December 20, 2008 11:23 PM
Being gay myself, I must say I hate Rick Warren. However, I'm willing to give Obama the benefit of the doubt. First off, I'm not entirely sure whether or not it was Obama himself who chose him. Secondly, giving the invocation is frankly irrelevant. and finally, he might benefit politically. Sure, I hate Warren and his anti-gay and anti-abortion views, but this IS politics we're talking about. You cannot get very far in politics without appealing to as many people as possible, without getting people to agree to do what you want, etc.
I think electoral-vote.com said it well:
"It was a brilliant move on Obama's part. By reaching out to a relatively moderate evangelical who has focused on AIDS and world poverty and getting liberals to react angrily (because Warren is antichoice and antigay) Obama has accomplished two things. First, a lot of evangelicals will come to regard Obama as not so bad after all, which will surely help him when he actually starts to govern. Second, by getting liberals visibly furious with him before he is even inaugurated, he will be much better able to defend himself against right-wing cries that he is a "liberal" (a pejorative in some circles). The move costs him no political capital at all. Warren gets a few minutes to speak on national TV. He's not going to use it to bash gays if he has any expectation of becoming the new Billy Graham. But later when Obama does controversial things--like pushing for some kind of national health insurance--he can claim to be balanced by saying: "I am a centrist, look, I let Warren speak and I support national health insurance, something for everyone." That is hardly an even trade but it will get him a lot of mileage in the media. Despite what some people may think, Obama is a very clever politician and fully understands that making small gestures to the right, however meaningless, generate good will he will need later. The incident brings to mind the comment of John Mitchell (Richard Nixon's attorney general): "Watch what we do, not what we say."
[in a later post...]
Gay and lesbian groups fiercely denounced Obama for letting Warren play a role in his inauguration, but Obama emphasized yesterday his support for equality for gays and lesbians. He also said he wants diverse voices to be present at his inauguration and that includes Warren. Finally, he noted that Rev. Joseph Lowery, a civil rights icon who found the Southern Christian Leadership Conference, will give the closing benediction. Warren and Lowery don't agree on much and Obama pointed out that the magic of America is that it is a diverse country where multiple opinions are tolerated. The choice of Warren was no accident. Obama knew exactly what he was doing: trying to get evangelicals who voted against him to take a fresh look. Unlike many evangelical preachers who talk only about the hot-button issues, Warren is well known for saying that Christians have a duty to address world poverty and social injustice. By picking Warren, he is giving Warren (and his expanded agenda) a huge amount of credibility in the evangelical community. If Obama can get the evangelical leadership to stop focusing entirely on abortion and gay marriage and start addressing AIDS and poverty as issues, he will ultimately benefit immensely from giving Warren valuable exposure."
(emphasis mine. Sorry for the long post, but I couldn't link to the posts directly)
Posted by: H.H. | December 20, 2008 11:23 PM
More and more, his picks makes it looks like Obama's a man of one issue: stemming global climate change. That's the thing he has set his sights on to tackle in his administration, and every other issue has become a potential sacrificial pawn in the drive to make that happen. Not that that's entirely a bad thing. Maybe the realities of politics does mean you can't fix everything, so you have to pick the most important, more pressing issue, and be willing to make concessions on everything else. Let's just hope we can look back and say it was all worth it.
Posted by: noahpoah | December 20, 2008 11:24 PM
Both of those are real disgraces, and it's not as if Obama was boxed in or lacking alternatives. They're also incomprehensible.
Obama knows that people like you will vote for him as long as he's a better choice (in your eyes) than his opponent. If he wanted to, he could probably push a lot harder courting rightwing votes and still count on the vast majority of leftwing loyalists. In any case, he doesn't even need to worry about votes for another four years, so a single 'bad' cabinet appointment today are likely pretty low risk.
some people are concerned that NASA will suffer
Manned space flight programs should suffer. And then die.
Hooray for central planning!
Posted by: Global Warming Is A Scam | December 20, 2008 11:26 PM
Take your pick. My personal favorite is the suggestion that Hurricane Katrina was caused by "global warming". Sure it was, Al. Just like all of the snow we've gotten this week. Or was that "global cooling"?
Posted by: Mike from Ottawa | December 20, 2008 11:27 PM
Re: Rick Warren
From The Nation:
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20081229/posner?rel=hp_picks
Posted by: Jason A. | December 20, 2008 11:29 PM
'Global Warming Is A Scam' links to a site I'm sure he thinks supports his premise. The very first paragraph on the very first post there states "There will undoubtedly also be a number of claims made that aren't true; ...global warming hasn't 'stopped', CO2 continues to be a greenhouse gas"
I love it.
Posted by: 10channel | December 20, 2008 11:30 PM
Well, seeing how Rick Warren does not have much to do with science policy, I think it would also be appropriate to comment on non-science policy.
The thing about Obama is that in this day and age, foreign policy is perhaps the most important thing, especially with all the bad things that have happened ever since 9/11. In the foreign policy aspect, although Obama is faintly better than Bush in certain aspects, I do not see that much of a difference. He seems to eschew the same idea of "military might can solve all international problems" (which, in this day and age where 90% of war casualties are civilians, is always a bad idea), as did Bush.
So, although his science appointments are good, are his foreign policy appointments any better?
Posted by: John Morales | December 20, 2008 11:30 PM
Trent1492, you might want to hover your mouse on GWIAS before further responding.
Posted by: SHV | December 20, 2008 11:34 PM
Posted by: Ken from Oregon | December 20, 2008 11:14 PM
The Rick Warren choice is just Obama's reminder to the left that he's everyone's president. He is throwing a bone to the religious right to make them feel a bit warm and fuzzy. It's meaningless and they won't buy into it.
******
It fits into a possible pattern beginning with the SC "Gospel" tour: Donnnie McClurkin, Kirbyjon Caldwell, Mary-Mary....Obama statement that as a "Christian he is against Gay marriage but that he could afford to give them some rights"...Doug Kmiec, a strong prop 8 supporter, leading the Obama "Values" tour. I don't think any politician should be cut any "slack" for pandering to the worst instincts of some voters.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | December 20, 2008 11:43 PM
obviously someone who understands the whole climate warming thing.....
dummy
Posted by: 10channel | December 20, 2008 11:44 PM
@#23 SHV
Presidents are politicians. Like Lincoln, for example. I don't think it is good to expect anything "purely good" from them, since they got there by being elected, and they got elected by pandering for votes. Indeed, I do not think that presidents can be any good "agents of action" other than the fact that the entire nation is focused on a single person, listening to a single voice, which might mobilize the masses to do something - but that depends on the mood of the people. I think of presidents mostly as a measure of the times - after all, that is what they are. Politics is not moral, after all - Machiavelli's principles of "what is successful for politics" holds everywhere in politics - and there is no escaping it.
Posted by: CW | December 20, 2008 11:45 PM
That's weather not climate.(Said for the thousandth time, and to no discernable effect.)
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | December 20, 2008 11:46 PM
F- on evolution for 300 alex
Posted by: John C. Randolph | December 20, 2008 11:49 PM
I'm not at all surprised by Obama's choice of Rick Warren for the appearance at the inauguration. Watch one of Obama's speeches, and watch Warren's TED talk. They're both very good at emotional manipulation, and when you boil down what they've said, there's very little of substance remaining.
-jcr
Posted by: SHV | December 20, 2008 11:52 PM
Posted by: 10channel | December 20, 2008 11:44 PM
@#23 SHV
Presidents are politicians. Like Lincoln, for example. I don't think it is good to expect anything "purely good" from them, since they got there by being elected, and they got elected by pandering for votes.
**********
I agree and that is why politicians shouldn't be excused or cut any slack for trying to appeal to some of the worst instincts of voters. To remain silent is equivalent of approval of this kind of despicable behavior.
Posted by: Global Warming Is A Scam | December 20, 2008 11:53 PM
How typical of a Warmista. Nothing substantive, just kindergarten-level insults.
Yes. Now perhaps you could tell your fellow alarmists that the next time the temperature's over 100 degrees and they start to shriek "The sky is falling!!!"
Posted by: Rich Lawler | December 20, 2008 11:55 PM
Global Warming is a Scam,
Your not-so-subtle moniker doesn't jive with the content of the website to which it is linked. Have you even bothered to read the content of the website you're linked to? Maybe next time, homework first, naysaying second.
Posted by: Epikt | December 20, 2008 11:57 PM
Global Warming Is A Scam:
Why on earth would you provide a link to RealClimate? That's a site maintained by real climate scientists, and its position has consistently been one hundred eighty degrees from "Global Warming is a Scam."
For instance, one of the principals writes, in a review of Gore's movie:
"How well does the film handle the science? Admirably, I thought. It is remarkably up to date, with reference to some of the very latest research"
And, directly contradicting your claim, this:
"He also does a very good job in talking about the relationship between sea surface temperature and hurricane intensity. As one might expect, he uses the Katrina disaster to underscore the point that climate change may have serious impacts on society, but he doesn't highlight the connection any more than is appropriate."
The reviewer does discuss some minor errors in the movie, but adds,
"The small errors don't detract from Gore's main point, which is that we in the United States have the technological and institutional ability to have a significant impact on the future trajectory of climate change."
So--you fail Again.
Posted by: 10channel | December 20, 2008 11:58 PM
@30 Global Warming Is A Scam
It is not like anything you have said merits anything more than an insult. After all, if someone walked up to you and said, "the world is flat," surely that is not something one would take and answer seriously.
Moreover, there are few alarmists when the temperature is over 100 degrees. People are not ignorant of the difference between weather and climate, and when the temperature is hot, you will find that people are not so quick to attribute it to climate change, which, by the way, is undoubtedly happening.
Posted by: Kel | December 20, 2008 11:59 PM
lol @ Global Warming is a Scam. I'm sure he's a climatologist who is familiar on the latest scientific consensus, otherwise he'd just be a misinformed fool who thinks he knows better than almost the entire scientific community.
Posted by: 10channel | December 21, 2008 12:04 AM
@34 Kel
Given the fact that he has linked to that RealClimate website without having read it, I would say that he is not a climatologist; otherwise, he would not have been so careless as to post a link to a website like that without even knowing what it is. Besides, scientists (like climatologists) have to have at least some intelligence in order to be scientists.
Posted by: I believe in God | December 21, 2008 12:04 AM
Hey, look at me, I'm "global warming is a scam."
Posted by: Michael Hawkins | December 21, 2008 12:05 AM
I wrote about this earlier in the day. It's nice to see that the Obama administration is appointing people who are actually qualified for authoritative positions, especially on science. It will be such a relief to be rid of this current anti-science administration.
Posted by: Ben | December 21, 2008 12:06 AM
@36
Well done
Posted by: Joel | December 21, 2008 12:08 AM
I think the simplest explanation is usually the correct explanation. There is not grand political scheme going on here. This is Obama paying off a political debt. Rick Warren helped deliver the evangelical vote and this is his reward.
It is well known that Obama does not personally believe that gay men and women should be allowed to marry, so why would it bother him in the least if he pals around with someone who shares his belief? Obama is certainly not going to try to convince Rick Warren that gay men and women should be allowed to marry, if Obama himself is not convinced of it.
But hey, there's a gay band!!!
Posted by: 10channel | December 21, 2008 12:08 AM
@37 Michael Hawkins
Well, you know, the American people have always (starting with Andrew Jackson) been afraid of people who are smarter than them, and want someone who is like a "common person" so that the common person can feel good about themselves - which, of course, shows how careless the common person the American people (up till now) have been, for not wanting to choose someone better than themselves. After all, Obama has been accused of being "elitist" many times.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp, | December 21, 2008 12:09 AM
Dummy
Posted by: Ichthyic | December 21, 2008 12:09 AM
I've been waiting for Lubchenco to get a post like that for 20 years now.
she is one of the leading conservation biologists in the world.
has one of the best publication records in marine ecology of anyone in the country.
it goes way beyond issues relating to global warming.
seriously, take a look at what she's done over the last couple of decades:
http://lucile.science.oregonstate.edu/lubchenco/
awesome.
Posted by: Global Warming Is A Scam | December 21, 2008 12:13 AM
So linking to a site = endorsing it? Whatever it is you're smoking (inaling the fumes from the exhaust of Algore's private jet?), give me some.
I wanted to give an example of Officially Santctioned IPCC PropagandaTM, just to give the Warm-mongers equal time.
But worry not, I have linked to a legitimate site this time, just to keep you Warmistas happy!
Obviously you're not, since I am an atheist. I most certainly DO NOT believe in God, or Allah, or Christianity, or any other religion, including Global Warmism. Please purchase a clue at your earliest opportunity.
Posted by: Fedaykin | December 21, 2008 12:13 AM
As a resident of Colorado:
I don't understand the disappointment with Salazar. My experience (limited I admit) is that he's a decent level headed center-left guy with a pragmatic approach to conservation in Colorado. In Colorado environmental rapist don't get elected. Responsible use and conservation of natural resources in Colorado is a huge deal. Our economy is based on natural resources and tourism. Seems like a decent choice of SoI as far as political position stands.
On the issues confirms my opinion:
http://www.ontheissues.org/Senate/Ken_Salazar.htm
Is there something I am missing?
Posted by: Ichthyic | December 21, 2008 12:14 AM
I wanted to give an example of Officially Santctioned IPCC PropagandaTM, just to give the Warm-mongers equal time.
1. you're lying.
2. you're trolling.
EOS.
bugger off, pissant.
Posted by: Ben | December 21, 2008 12:16 AM
"So linking to a site = endorsing it?"
Well...yeah. Is that difficult for you to follow?
Posted by: John Morales | December 21, 2008 12:18 AM
Thank you, GWIAS, for confirming you're trolling. I thought at first it was troll-bait.
Bah.
Posted by: Global Warming Is A Scam | December 21, 2008 12:19 AM
Yes, I would say that pretty much describes the web site to which you linked. But then again, it was put together by the IPCC, a division of the Useless NationsTM.
Posted by: Diane G | December 21, 2008 12:19 AM
mus @ #15: may I copy your post to another forum I'm on (Great Lakes Humanists/MI Humanists & Freethinkers) where we've been discussing the same topic? Thank you for copying the electoral-vote.com comments, btw!
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | December 21, 2008 12:20 AM
I'm curious, what is your take on scientific consensus?
Posted by: Michael Hawkins | December 21, 2008 12:22 AM
@#40 10channel
I know. It's absurd that people would think it a good idea to put stupid mooks in charge. We don't want our children to have average teachers; why do we want to have average leaders?
By the way, were you responding to the post on Obama (to which I linked) or did you happen to read my earlier post about the public's aversion to education?
Posted by: Kel | December 21, 2008 12:23 AM
Global Warming is a Scam, can you confirm your Climatology credentials? If not, what makes you think you know better than the overwhelming majority of the scientific community?
Posted by: Trent1492 | December 21, 2008 12:24 AM
@Global Warming is a Scam
I got the following quote from a site that has the transcript for an Inconvenient Truth
"Now I'm going to show you, recently released, the actual ocean temperature. Of course when the oceans get warmer, that causes stronger storms. We have seen in the last couple of years, a lot of big hurricanes. Hurricanes Jean, Francis and Ivan were among them. In the same year we had that string of big hurricanes; we also set an all time record for tornadoes in the United States. Japan again didn't get as much attention in our news media, but they set an all time record for typhoons. The previous record was seven. Here are all ten of the ones they had in 2004. The science textbooks that have to be re-written because they say it is impossible to have a hurricane in the South Atlantic. It was the same year that the first one that ever hit Brazil. The summer of 2005 is one for the books. The first one was Emily that socked into Yucatan. Then Hurricane Dennis came along and it did a lot of damage, including to the oil industry. This is the largest oil platform in the world after Dennis went through. This one was driven into the bridge at Mobile. And then of course came Katrina. It is worth remembering that when it hit Florida it was a Category 1, but it killed a lot of people and caused billions of dollars worth of damage. And then, what happened? Before it hit New Orleans, it went over warmer water. As the water temperature increases, the wind velocity increases and the moisture content increases. And you'll see Hurricane Katrina form over Florida. And then as it comes into the Gulf over warm water it becomes stronger and stronger and stronger. Look at that Hurricane's eye. And of course the consequences were so horrendous; there are no words to describe it."
Please go learn the difference between climate and weather.
Posted by: Brownian, OM | December 21, 2008 12:26 AM
Oh, it's GWIAS again, here to warn us about the Freemasons, or Proctor & Gamble's Satanic link, or mind control chemicals in Twinkie filling...
The fact that he's got no evidence only proves the conspiracy! Run for it!
Posted by: Ben | December 21, 2008 12:26 AM
GWIAS, you are very lame. Most trolls come up with answers much more quickly than you. Even as a troll, you fail. Put the bottle down and go to bed.
Posted by: Global Warming Is A Scam | December 21, 2008 12:30 AM
Ichthyic's definition of "lying":
"Disagreeing with me in any way, shape or form."
Ichthyic's definition of "trolling":
"Failure to march in lock-step with the drumbeat of my far-left warmista agenda."
Wow, I haven't heard that one since the third grade. Were you playing with the older children this week, or are you just projecting?
John Morales's definition of "troll":
"Anyone who does not march in lock-step with the drumbeat of my far-left Warmista agenda."
Posted by: John Morales | December 21, 2008 12:33 AM
GWIAS, predicable.
Yawn.
---
To get back to the post, though I'm not American I'm hopeful for you guys. Things are looking up! ;)
Posted by: Kel | December 21, 2008 12:33 AM
Global Warming is a Scam, can you confirm your Climatology credentials? If not, what makes you think you know better than the overwhelming majority of the scientific community?
Posted by: Global Warming Is A Scam | December 21, 2008 12:34 AM
Another Warmista trots out the conspiracy strawman.
Yawn.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | December 21, 2008 12:35 AM
Someone needs to up their tin foil supply.
Lots of blah blah little substance.
Scientific consensus, deny it please.
Posted by: Kel | December 21, 2008 12:35 AM
Global Warming is a Scam, can you confirm your Climatology credentials? If not, what makes you think you know better than the overwhelming majority of the scientific community?
Posted by: Brownian, OM | December 21, 2008 12:35 AM
Unlike us Kel, GWIAS hasn't been hoodwinked by the Liberal-Feminist-Grey Alien Cabal (which, incidentally, also cooked the tobacco-cancer data to cover up the fact that cancer doesn't really exist--tumours are actually live tissue experiments conducted as part of the plan to genetically engineer humans to live on the moon for when the planet is given to the Scottish, who are actually scouts for an alien race in need of a new homeland).
For a conspiracy theorist, that's all the credentials one needs to know the Truth™!
Posted by: 10channel | December 21, 2008 12:37 AM
@#56 GWAIS
Okay, now you're just wasting our time. The total substance in that post was 0.
@#51 Michael Hawkins
Actually, I would not need to read that post to know about the public's aversion to education in the United States. In fact, it is quite obvious, isn't it? Even a simple look into popular culture reveals as such - an anti-intellectual culture.
Posted by: Ben | December 21, 2008 12:37 AM
GWIAS, I'd call you a dim-witted sloth, but that wouldn't be fair to sloths.
Do you not have friends? Why are you here?
Posted by: John Squire | December 21, 2008 12:38 AM
I don't know if anyone has mentioned it here yet, but Steven Chu is one of the signatories on NSCE's "Project Steve" list.
http://ncseweb.org/taking-action/list-steves
Posted by: Brownian, OM | December 21, 2008 12:39 AM
It would only be a strawman if I haven't already seen your schtick here enough times, stupid.
You're like the Beatles White Album: so overplayed one could recite your track listing in one's sleep.
Talk about yawn.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | December 21, 2008 12:40 AM
typical idiot Portmanteau without substance.
LABEL THEM!!!!!
Posted by: Michael Hawkins | December 21, 2008 12:40 AM
@63 10channel
I do suppose that is true. It's such a shame, really.
Posted by: Global Warming Is A Scam | December 21, 2008 12:43 AM
Strawman much?
And that someone would be admitted liar "Dr." James Hansen.
A pretty accurate description of the IPCC, if you ask me.
Define "scientific". Define "consensus".
Posted by: Wowbagger | December 21, 2008 12:45 AM
Brownian wrote:
I'll see your yawn and raise you a zzzzz. The tinfoil hat brigade's fear-mongering blather is a sure cure for insomnia.
Now, back to the cricket.
Posted by: John Morales | December 21, 2008 12:46 AM
Ignoring the troll, I'm not sure what's with AGW deniers. Jerry Pournelle's site (that I've followed from its inception*) is a platform for his denial, and he is not keen on Obama's appointments.
I found this recent entry interesting:
* What can I say? It's a window into the conservative view, and I admire much of what he says, though saddened by his denialism on this topic and on evolution.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | December 21, 2008 12:47 AM
Don't be an idiot. You know what scientific consensus means.
Posted by: Brownian, OM | December 21, 2008 12:48 AM
Please. Anyone who talks about 'far-left warmistas' is so used to running with strawmen his friends all call him Dorothy.
Have I missed the 9:00 showing of 'Mann's Hockey Stick is Flawed' and the 9:15 showing of 'Why Dendochronologists are Ether Huffers', or should I just put your "Best Of GWIAS" CD on repeat?
Posted by: Global Warming Is A Scam | December 21, 2008 12:54 AM
Whoosh!
You know you've won the argument when all the other side has is insults not worthy of a below-average middle school student.
You might want to ask yourself the same questions.
Yes, it was. To anyone lacking in reading comprehension skills, that is.
Can you confirm your climatology credentials, or are you making a long-winded, long-running argument from authority.
Posted by: Kel | December 21, 2008 12:54 AM
Why are you evading my question GWIAS?
Global Warming is a Scam, can you confirm your Climatology credentials? If not, what makes you think you know better than the overwhelming majority of the scientific community?
Posted by: 10channel | December 21, 2008 12:58 AM
Indeed, I think that one thing to keep in mind, though, is that although the appointments are good, the American psyche (which, of course, includes anti-intellectualism) has not changed at all. Whether Obama chooses good people or bad people has no impact on whether the common person in the United States is ignorant or not on issues that matter. However, it may be a sign that this anti-intellectualism may be decreasing just a little bit... who knows?
Well, unlike religion, there is, of course, no easy way to poll this, which is why I have not seen many polls on this.
Posted by: Epikt | December 21, 2008 12:59 AM
Global Warming Is A Scam:
You know, you pretty much fit the classic definition of "crank."
Guffaw. And just how many people do, in fact, ask you?
Posted by: Brownian, OM | December 21, 2008 1:00 AM
What a creationist thing to say.
Have fun with him guys, but GWIAS is such a waste of time he'll bore you retroactively. I'm outta here while I've still had a productive day to look back on.
Posted by: Bourgeois Nerd | December 21, 2008 1:01 AM
I don't get why Salazar is so dreadfully disappointing. Everything I've read and heard indicates he actually has a decent record on the issues.
Posted by: Kel | December 21, 2008 1:04 AM
I'm not a climatologist, but the overwhelming majority of climatologists are saying that the climate is changing and we are having an effect on it. This isn't some post-modern issue where one person's opinion is as good as another's. This is an area that takes decades of research, where thousands and thousands of people have delicately and intricately studied the evidence.I'm on a climatologist and I have not studied the environmental effects. Like the issue of particle physics, I'll listen to those who are experts on the matter because while they may be wrong at least they have put the time into researching it. So I ask again, what makes you think you know better than the overwhelming majority of climate scientists over the last 50 years?
Posted by: Rey Fox | December 21, 2008 1:06 AM
I see that the link in GWIAS's name suddenly changed after his first post. How embarrassing, he can't even keep his propaganda straight. Typical of a Denialista, and such third grade...I'm getting bored just parodying him.
Posted by: Global Warming Is A Scam | December 21, 2008 1:08 AM
But obviously you don't, since you can't define either term.
How dare I tell the truth about your religion like that! Why, next thing you know, I'll be insulting all the other religions too!
Did I miss the midnight episode of "Global Warming Caused Hurricane Katrina", immediately followed by "Snow Melt on Kilimanjaro Is Caused By Global Warming" at 12:15? Should I just put "The Best Lies of "Dr." James Hansen" on repeat?
Just like Pat Robertson "isn't sure what's with Christianity deniers" (aka atheists).
Posted by: Kel | December 21, 2008 1:09 AM
I ask again, what credentials or evidence do you have that the current consensus on global warming is wrong?
Posted by: LisaJ | December 21, 2008 1:11 AM
Eric Lander - that's fantastic!
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | December 21, 2008 1:12 AM
dodge
Posted by: Epikt | December 21, 2008 1:13 AM
Brownian, OM:
Ah, the voice of reason. Global Warming Is A Scam is a Crank isn't even a very creative or clever troll; he's at best a cheap veneer of snottiness duct-taped over the rotting particle board of ignorance. Snoozing is far more worthwhile than paying him any attention.
Posted by: Kel | December 21, 2008 1:14 AM
GWIAS, there is a consensus among climatologists that the climate is changing and it's due to human activities. It's no more a religion than believing in the 4 fundamental forces because there is a consensus among physicists. So I ask again, what makes you think you know better than all those climatologists who have studied the problem extensively?
Posted by: Kel | December 21, 2008 1:17 AM
Creationists say that evolution is a religion too. They say that those who believe are Darwinists, and anyone who defends evolution is simply defending their religion. Shit, all we'd have to do is change Global Warming is a Scam to Evolution is a Scam, and your rhetoric would apply the same.
So again I ask, what are you credentials and what makes you think you know better than almost the entire scientific community?
Posted by: Wowbagger | December 21, 2008 1:18 AM
Obviously because he really, really, really believes he does. And his mum always tells him he's smart when he asks her.
Posted by: RickrOll | December 21, 2008 1:18 AM
"You know you've won the argument when all the other side has is insults not worthy of a below-average middle school student."- current troll.
This is an admission of our increasing intelligence apparently. 1st it was 2nd grade, then 3rd grade, now middle school.
It must flush a lot of unpleasant memories out when you get to watch in real time as a group of your peers completely outstrip you in intelligence.
But your intellectual dishonesty continues to lend to the projection- as it surely will if you respond to this comment.
So...what, are a few measly idiots like Rey Fox and Micheal Chrichton your "Experts." Well, color me impressed then *roll*
Posted by: Global Warming Is A Scam | December 21, 2008 1:20 AM
So you are making an argument from authority; i.e., parroting the IPCC (which, by the way, is most certainly not a scientific organization, but rather a political one, being a division of the Useless Nations).
Please learn to read for comprehension. I have already explained this.
Brownian's definition of "productive":
"Praying at least six times per day to the Goracle."
And I call bullshit on the "I'm outta here" part.
Try climateaudit.org.
Posted by: Kel | December 21, 2008 1:23 AM
No, I'm not. I'm making an argument from the scientific method, arguing from those who actually study the evidence that's presented. Which is why I'm asking you what evidence do you have that makes you think you know better than the scientific community?If you think the scientists are wrong, why don't you show it? What evidence do you have that makes you think you know better than the scientific community?
Posted by: Kel | December 21, 2008 1:27 AM
GWIAS, you are the one who is going against the scientific consensus on the issue, why aren't you providing evidence to support your position? Why instead are you insulting anyone here as being members of the global warming religion then complaining that people are insulting you back? Why can't you back up your assertions that show you know better than those people who actually study climate change?
Posted by: Global Warming Is A Scam | December 21, 2008 1:27 AM
You're forgetting one minor detail: there actually exists legitimate scientific evidence for evolution. All the warm-mongers have is pseudo-science and a documentary made by a failed US presidential candidate.
Posted by: 10channel | December 21, 2008 1:28 AM
@#91 GWAIS
When you make extraordinary claims, you have to back it up with extraordinary evidence. You think we need to present this evidence right here, right now, but in reality, it is well-established, that if you wanted any evidence, you could find it. As such, we need not provide the evidence here, so much as to say, "it exists." You, however, have no such luxury, since you are the one making the extraordinary claim.
Posted by: Kel | December 21, 2008 1:31 AM
The climatologists say there is legitimate scientific evidence for human-induced climate change. Is the evidence for evolution legitimate because you say it is? The climatologists who work on the problem of climate change would say their evidence is legitimate. Why are they wrong?You are simply denying that evidence exists, on what grounds do you do this? What are your credentials?
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | December 21, 2008 1:32 AM
I'm pretty sure WND has a editorial spot reserved for you and your fun little names.
Posted by: sangfroid | December 21, 2008 1:33 AM
GWIAS:
lol. C'mon guys, stop feeding the trolls.
GWIAS, if you're honestly here for something besides starting a flame war, maybe you could try explaining to us Warm-mongers where we went wrong instead of just asking hilarious rhetorical questions.
Posted by: Kel | December 21, 2008 1:34 AM
Are you actually going to show us how the scientific community is wrong on global warming, or use the Kirk Cameron approach?
Posted by: RickrOll | December 21, 2008 1:36 AM
Well, if Kel's arguing from authority, what the Fuck are you doing then dumbass?
Seriously GWIAS, what are you even saying? Or do you have a point other than concern trolling (i.e. "I'm an atheist, but I'm fully capable of being stupid!")? There IS no case for you here. Get lost.
Posted by: Global Warming Is A Scam | December 21, 2008 1:37 AM
The "climatologists" are far from unanimous on "climate change". When did science become a democracy anyway?
Posted by: 10channel | December 21, 2008 1:38 AM
I think that GWAIS will stop posting nonsense as soon as (s)he realizes that (s)he is being ignored and nobody is listening to him/her. GWAIS, so far, has proven to be nothing more than a waste of our time.
Posted by: John Morales | December 21, 2008 1:38 AM
sangfroid, it's an unoriginal troll - dime-a-dozen around here. First, the contentious assertion, then the quibbling. It wants food, it will get indigestible non-nutriment.
See, that's your problem. We do. We comprehend you made an assertion at the beginning, and since then have merely tried to get responses to satisfy your need. Luckily, it also satisfies our need to diss some fool. You mean, like we're saying climate scientists are authoritative regarding climate science? D'oh. Hint - Who're collectively the authority on physics? Mathematics? History? Climate?Since the troll linked to realclimate.org in its first post, its clear all it wants is dissension and not explanation - it will damn well know there's no scientific controversy.
Heh.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | December 21, 2008 1:43 AM
Following that line of logic, what's your take on evolution?
Posted by: Kel | December 21, 2008 1:46 AM
There's an overwhelming majority who agree that humans are having an effect on the climate. And when was it a majority? It's always been that way. Ideas fight for acceptance amongst those in the know, those who have studied in that field. It's the way of all science.If we have to throw out Global Warming on the grounds that science is not democracy, we have to do the same for all science. You are in effect casting doubt on the scientific method, but pretending otherwise by just targeting the one field you don't agree with the conclusions on. Creationists do the same thing, I've heard so many times "I like science, and evolution is not science - it's a religion." You are doing the exact same thing with global warming.
But I'm being conciliatory here, so I'm giving you a chance to explain why you think you know better than the vast majority of climatologists. I'm asking you how you know they are wrong, and asking for the evidence that supports you being right. I've asked this several times and all you've done is played the rhetoric game. Like creationists, you have no substance, nothing to validate your position. You don't like the conclusions of the scientists who actually study this field so you play a game of outright dismissal.
Climatologists have put forward a plethora of evidence to support their theories on global warming, there is a staggering amount of peer-reviewed research done on global warming. Why is all of that wrong? Just how do you know better? And why are you focusing on rhetoric when all science is about evidence?
Posted by: BobC | December 21, 2008 1:46 AM
President Obama will never make idiotic statements about science education like Bush did. Obama, has far as I know, has never used any religious word (god, etc.) in the same sentence with the word "science". Bush and McCain can't seem to talk about science education without invoking their magic fairy.
What a radical change this is going to be. From one of the most stupid presidents in American history to perhaps the most intelligent president in history.
Posted by: Global Warming Is A Scam | December 21, 2008 1:47 AM
So why are you dodging my questions, Rev? Is there nothing in the Official Handbook of Warmista Talking PointsTM to cover this situation?
That's funny. I'm pretty sure WND hires only religionists such as yourself. Projecting again, are we?
sangfroid's defintion of "troll":
"Anyone who does not march in lock-step with the drumbeat of my far-left Warmista agenda."
Posted by: llewelly | December 21, 2008 1:48 AM
GWIAS:
Micheal Crichton wrote State Of Fear , which describes a conspiracy different in detail but every bit as ridiculous in character. He marketed it as fiction, but stuffed it with delusion-filled footnotes which insist it's based on facts. His admirers (notably Inhofe and Gray) have upheld it as if it were truth.
Posted by: Zeno | December 21, 2008 1:49 AM
Pretty intense troll infestation here tonight. It's probably not a useful exercise to try to debate with someone whose pants are down around his ankles while he types. (They're called wankers for a reason.) They're best ignored, so resist the temptation to "debate" them. It's futile. I'll say no more (despite the temptation).
Posted by: Global Warming Is A Scam | December 21, 2008 1:54 AM
So why are you dodging my questions, Rev? Is there nothing in the Official Handbook of Warmista Talking PointsTM to cover this situation?
That's funny. I'm pretty sure WND hires only religionists such as yourself. Projecting again, are we?
sangfroid's defintion of "troll":
"Anyone who does not march in lock-step with the drumbeat of my far-left Warmista agenda."
Posted by: llewelly | December 21, 2008 1:54 AM
Read it regularly for years.It's been right twice.
What was that joke about the clock?
Posted by: RickrOll | December 21, 2008 1:55 AM
Zeno- agreed. No "helping hands" to smack the fucktards' brainless heads. it only pleases them.
Posted by: sangfroid | December 21, 2008 1:56 AM
Show's over people, move it along, nothing to see here.
Posted by: Kel | December 21, 2008 1:56 AM
GWIAS is useless as a debater. If he thinks he knows better than the scientific community, I echo NoR's challenge for Stimpy and ask him to submit his idea for peer review. Maybe that way he'll drop the "global warming is a religion" rhetoric and focus on the evidence - which is what all good science is about.
Posted by: Ichthyic | December 21, 2008 2:02 AM
GWIAS is useless as a debater
please tell me that line is a set up.
..because I'd have to disagree.
he's a masturdebator.
gees, are you guys that desperate to chomp on such old and stinky bait?
might i suggest a nice chianti to go with that 10 year old fruit cake?
seriously, it's like chewing on old shoe leather.
Posted by: Global Warming Is A Scam | December 21, 2008 2:03 AM
Even if this was true (it's not, by the way), that would still be twice more than the International Profligate Climate Crazies.
Projecting again, are we? Seriously, you warmista trolls need to get some new material. The masturbation bit is getting rather old. Oh, I get it...You can't stop talking about it because you can't stop doing it.
Posted by: Kel | December 21, 2008 2:05 AM
Are you going to step away from rhetoric and actually provide some evidence for your assertions here Stimpy? I mean GWIAS
Posted by: 10channel | December 21, 2008 2:06 AM
@BobC 106
One thing about Bush was that much of his idiocy was, in fact, fake idiocy, pandering to the people who want a "common person" as president. Bush, indeed, did some things a "common person" would do as president, even if he was pretending. Well, we will see how Obama fares - you cannot well predict it. It is important to note: that although a president may say intelligent-sounding things, what a president does is, in the end, more important - so it is a little rash right now to pass a judgement like so. Hopefully, though, it will be this radical change as you have said.
Posted by: RickrOll | December 21, 2008 2:06 AM
Ummm Kel, Nerd's challenge was completely ignored. As was the evidence.
What makes you think a troll 3 times as bad as the resident IDiot would take the high road? I hate to dash your faith in humanity, bud.
Posted by: clinteas | December 21, 2008 2:07 AM
Posted by: sangfroid | December 21, 2008 2:08 AM
Let's change the subject!
New study on the Last Universal Common Ancestor
Posted by: Global Warming Is A Scam | December 21, 2008 2:08 AM
Posted by: John Morales | December 21, 2008 2:10 AM
:) A real coward, this troll.
Posted by: RickrOll | December 21, 2008 2:10 AM
By the by, could this not be a poe?
He seems to readily adopt any word or phrase we drop almost immediately. Maybe KC is back?
Just sayin'.
Posted by: clinteas | December 21, 2008 2:12 AM
oops,blockquote fail in my 120.....
Posted by: RickrOll | December 21, 2008 2:12 AM
Ah well, one more for the dungeon i suppose. Tis the Season!
Posted by: RickrOll | December 21, 2008 2:14 AM
GWIASP: Fapmonkey.
case and point:
blah blah blah=fap fap fap
Posted by: tomh | December 21, 2008 2:16 AM
Salazar was a very puzzling choice. Politically, it removes a Democratic Senator, and even though the Colo gov'r will appoint a Democrat, there is no guarantee that the person appointed will win the next election in 2010, whereas Salazar apparently would have been easily reelected. That seems like too big of a risk when there was another Hispanic, Grijalva from Arizona, available.
About all I can see is that Salazar and Obama came to the Senate together in 2004 and live in the same apt building, so maybe Obama picked him because they are friends. Every other explanation makes even less sense.
Posted by: Global Warming Is A Scam | December 21, 2008 2:16 AM
I'm still waiting for you Warm-mongers to provide legitimate scientific evidence to support your "The sky is falling, it's the end of the world as we know it" rhetoric. And no, propaganda from political organizations like the IPCC doesn't count, nor does work done by people who receive funding from left-wing foundations or the Useless Nations or left-wing governments, since their conclusions are pre-ordained. I won't be holding my breath.
The consensus y'all keep referring to is political, not scientific.
Posted by: Kel | December 21, 2008 2:17 AM
I am aware of that. I'm also aware that I've asked Mr. Scammy several times what reasons he thinks he knows better than the climatologists on this issue and all I've gotten in reply was an attack on my credentials (despite me not going against the scientific community) and evasion after evasion. It's a simple question, it at least deserves some sort of answer.Posted by: clinteas | December 21, 2008 2:17 AM
Back to thread topic before derailment by fringe loon:
Even if Obama means the appointment of this Warren fella as a way of saying,"everyone's included in my new America" blabla,I would have wished he'd have the guts to leave the homophobic fringe weirdos out.Wouldnt that have sent a nice clear message.But pandering to all sides of the fringe spectrum is apparently a conditio sine qua non for anyone who wants to stay in power over there.
Posted by: Kel | December 21, 2008 2:24 AM
You could always search the peer reviewed articles on Pub Med, you'll need to do that if you want to break the climatologists. But here's a summary for you done by the fine people at skeptic magazine. The Weathermakers by Tim Flannery is also a must read.Posted by: Global Warming Is A Scam | December 21, 2008 2:27 AM
Yes, because anyone who opposes our agenda must be silenced immediately.
It's "case in point", genius. But you'll learn that next year in the first grade, hopefully.
Posted by: Kel | December 21, 2008 2:27 AM
You know that arguing from ignorance is not a valid argument right? Why aren't you out there researching what climatologists have to say before asserting they have no evidence?
Posted by: clinteas | December 21, 2008 2:29 AM
No,because all the fringe loons spouting garbled non-scientific nonsense without evidence on this blog bore us to death.
Posted by: Kel | December 21, 2008 2:37 AM
He's avoiding questions, flaming people, not providing anything more than rhetoric, now he's claiming persecution? He is a creationist, just one wearing a climate change denial hat.
Posted by: John Morales | December 21, 2008 2:45 AM
Kel, not a creationist. Just your ordinary troll.
Note how it picked up on the first nit it found. So keen to find disputable points from others, whilst offering absolutely nothing itself.
Like a typical idiot troll, it picks on the idiom and evades the message. Of course, it doesn't realise it talks about silencing it's agenda, though its posts remain for posterity as an example of attention-seeking.
Heh. Run of the mill, yet still an amusing specimen.
Posted by: RickrOll | December 21, 2008 2:53 AM
"He's avoiding questions, flaming people, not providing anything more than rhetoric, now he's claiming persecution? He is a creationist, just one wearing a climate change denial hat."
Ah, you see the light at last Kel. Come join us as we laugh at the little troll yapping up at us from down in his intellectual hole. And soon to be his prison in the dungeon.
Squeak your last inanities, GWIAS.
Posted by: craig | December 21, 2008 2:55 AM
Don't feed the trolls.
I'm starting to have the opinion that pointless interaction with such blatantly obvious trolls is a similar phenomenon to trolling itself. Both examples of just not knowing when to step away from the keyboard. Commenting for the sake of commenting. Compulsive behavior and possibly evidence of a form of dissociation.
Posted by: RickrOll | December 21, 2008 2:59 AM
John, is this a sign that trolls are evolving to keep pace with society? Will we not be rid of the trolls without religion? Oh horror of horrors!
Note, i think Kel was merely drawing parallels, not stating fact. And i agree. All symptoms, but a different strain of troll. Verily, this is an ominous portent for the interwebs.
/hyperbole
Posted by: Scott Hatfield, OM | December 21, 2008 3:00 AM
I've blogged extensively about these recent developments here. I've included lots of links to right-wing dismay at the appointments, as well as videos of recent policy speeches by some of Obama's appointees. Enjoy!
Posted by: clinteas | December 21, 2008 3:00 AM
SIWOTI !!!!!!!!!!!!!
Posted by: Annie M | December 21, 2008 3:09 AM
Perhaps a case of keeping your friends close and your enemy closer?
Posted by: RickrOll | December 21, 2008 3:14 AM
SIWOTI !!!!!!!!!!!!!
'Tis a double-edged sword, to be so keenly tuned to the howls of the trolls. are we pleasured in their slaying, or are they- like the Hydra- sustained by the poison of our wit?
Are we doomed to our mutual destiny- ignorance contra intellect?
/alagory (?)
Posted by: craig | December 21, 2008 3:14 AM
"I've blogged extensively about these recent developments here. I've included lots of links to right-wing dismay at the appointments, as well as videos of recent policy speeches by some of Obama's appointees. Enjoy!"
Just an FYI, the link in your name has a typo and takes you to a site with ads for Christian singles. :D
Posted by: Feynmaniac | December 21, 2008 3:16 AM
GWIAS,
FALSE . 97% of climate scientist believe ""global average temperatures have increased" during the past century.
84% believe humans are responsible.
Now, you're claiming that most these scientist are either outright lying or are incredibly incompetent. The burden of proof is on YOU. Where is your evidence?
Posted by: clinteas | December 21, 2008 3:16 AM
Oh Scott,I never knew.......
Posted by: RickrOll | December 21, 2008 3:19 AM
errors, errors galore.
Must sleep. And dream of a tomorrow free of mistakes.
Like always.
Posted by: Diane G | December 21, 2008 3:24 AM
Annie, that's brilliant. Perfect use of the old saying, which I had yet to dredge up...
Posted by: Kel | December 21, 2008 3:29 AM
You get it!Posted by: Rey Fox | December 21, 2008 3:40 AM
"Please learn to read for comprehension. I have already explained this."
Yeah, I read your embarrassed backpedaling after you realized you posted the wrong link.
But never mind that. Perhaps instead I'll just throw out some acronyms, and you can give us your hilarious nicknames for them, since you seem to think that's a legitimate way to make a point. How about...ACLU?
Posted by: Feynmaniac | December 21, 2008 3:56 AM
The global warming deniers and the creationists have much in common. They both are creating a "controversy" where none exist. Both their adherent use rationalization to avoid changing, whether it be their world view or their lifestyle. Both use the anti-scientific method; assume you are right and make the facts fit.
In fact, you'll frequently find people who are both creationist and GW deniers. In their minds it doesn't matter what we do to the planet since Jesus is gonna come soon anyways.
Posted by: RickrOll | December 21, 2008 4:05 AM
Yep Kel i get it (condescending? *Shrugs*). I think a little more understanding about how writing is constructed is necessary to really have decent dialogue in the interwebs. A lot of it is more subtle than people are willing to admit, and you give an example. It isn't just an endless string of factiods and logical inferances, with liberal amounts of god-smacking to lighten the tone.
There is something to be said about making comparisons and stating perspective. IMHO shouldn't be mandatory after every line.
But i'm tired and therefore slightly cross, so i'll just shut up and go to sleep.
Posted by: John Morales | December 21, 2008 4:07 AM
craig @139,
They're not being fed - they're being baited.Perspicacious of you, and your concern is noted.
In most fora, trolls are dreaded. Here, they're fair game, and a source of amusement (we like to see how much punishment they can absorb). And they contribute to PZ's coffers. Also, some of us are afflicted with SIWOTI syndrome.
The only other place I recall where such was routine was alt.tasteless - though the M.O. was (ahem) slightly different.
Once in a blue moon PZ says "enough" and bans the troll. The rest of the time, we get to dish it out and feel virtuous about it! ;)
Posted by: Quiet_Desperation | December 21, 2008 4:09 AM
That's ideology for you. The world is composed of angels and demons and nothing in between. Or anyone that has anything to do with Evil Big Business is sullied for all time, or something like that. *shrug* Don't quite understand it myself, nor the attraction of it.
I just can't believe the whole skeptical blogosphere is still keening over Rick Warren. Jesus Tap Dancing Christ, no wonder the general populous never takes us seriously. The economy is falling apart, and we're foaming at the mouth over some dumbass pastor giving a prayer. If it wasn't Warren it'd be someone other mythology peddler. As they said back in the old neighborhood, whaddya gonna do?
Well, they certainly aren't intelligently designed!
(rimshot)
Hey-yo!
Posted by: Kel | December 21, 2008 4:16 AM
Nope, not condescension just relief.Posted by: Benjamin Geiger | December 21, 2008 4:48 AM
Y'know, I see a dozen commenters baiting GWIAS, and I envision a dozen housecats playing with the same mouse. It's about as evenly matched. (Of course, it doesn't hurt matters that the truth is on the side of the housecats... that is, the commenters.)
Posted by: Benjamin Geiger | December 21, 2008 4:53 AM
Quiet_Desperation @ #155:
Excuse my pedantry, but the term you're looking for is "general populace".
"Populous" means 'densely populated'. "Populace" is 'the people of an area'. ("Populous" is a noun only if you're referring to the work of Peter Molyneux.)
Posted by: mirroreyes | December 21, 2008 5:10 AM
A bigot like Warren at the inauguration? Sounds like a good thing - reminds me of Godfather II, when Corleone told the Senator "...and I would appreciate if you put up the fees yourself". Don't let the bigot just watch progress in action ... make him participate in it!
Posted by: Brian Coughlan | December 21, 2008 5:18 AM
I actually found the whole GWIAS episode quite comforting.
I still remember the days when a global warming reference would unleash hordes of denier zombies, and not the your classic zombie either, more the "28 days later" type. Rabid, relentless and single minded fallacy generation machines. Consuming healthy brains at a truly terrifying rate. Well those days are clearly over.
Today we got one little zombie denier, a "Day of the Dead" class shuffler. Ambling along at a snails pace, while making the occasional inarticulate moan. It's a clear cut example of progress people:-)
Posted by: SoMG | December 21, 2008 5:20 AM
Eric Lander is hot. That guy is smarter than anyone. Well almost anyone. Trained as a mathematician and forward-looking. In fact he's the most qualified person for the mission of maximizing the benefits we get from having sequenced the human genome. Short, medium, and long-term.
I'm as pro-gay as anyone and I see Obama hooking up with Rick Warren as a good sign. It causes fissures in the Right and will make it easier to do more meaningful pro-gay things.
Posted by: AnotherPedant | December 21, 2008 5:23 AM
Benjamin Geiger, # 158: he was trying to say "pop u, loser"!
Posted by: SoMG | December 21, 2008 5:39 AM
I have also heard Steve Chu speak. Very clearheaded.
One could argue that his Nobel work--laser cooling and trapping--was a little right-place-at-right-time-y, and the real credit should go to the people who developed tunable lasers. Of course that's always true to some extent.
His suitability for the position seems mostly based on his work after getting the Nobel. I can see how it would lead in though--climate science is essentially atmospheric chemistry, and that depends on being able to probe for information about short-lived molecular entities (ions, radicals) in the gas phase in a highly illuminated setting, which is what he did. Applying it to the Earth came afterwards.
Posted by: Quiet_Desperation | December 21, 2008 5:42 AM
"Populous" is a noun only if you're referring to the work of Peter Molyneux.
I loved that game. :-)
And give a guy posting a 1:30AM a break, huh? :-P
Posted by: John Morales | December 21, 2008 5:52 AM
Quiet_Desperation, near-homophones are a bugger.
No worries, Benjamin is probably upset he missed out on the troll-bashing ;)
Relax, you made a good post. And kudos for Benjamin for true pointless pedantry. To be sure, commenting here is fraught with danger - and 'tis a fine tradition he upholds.
Posted by: Matt Heath | December 21, 2008 6:19 AM
B. Hussein Obama picked Salazar because they are both members of the Americans with the Name of a Dictator community and he owed favours to the AwtNoaD lobby groups who funded him at the start of his career. ;)
I've a question. Is Steven Chu a religious man? I did a quick Google search and nothing says either way. Since religion in science Nobelists is treated as an interested quirk, my guess is he has none. If he is irreligious is it good for the godless?
Posted by: Brian Coughlan | December 21, 2008 6:38 AM
some people are concerned that NASA will suffer
Manned space flight programs should suffer. And then die.
I have to reluctantly agree with this. It seems odd to spend 99% of your cash on systems to keep the most obviously redundant part of the spacecraft alive.
That money would be better spent on space elevator tech, or research into some kind of quantum "spooky action at a distance" comms that would make human space flight finally, and eternally spurious.
HSF may have made some kind of limited sense in the 1950's Werner von Braun vision of space exploration. Today, it's just an anachronism.
Posted by: SoMG | December 21, 2008 6:43 AM
I actually knew someone who was head of LBL before Steve Chu--one David Shirley. This guy argued for funding for the Advanced Light Source on the floor of Congress and brought in eleven million which was more then than it is now. (He was astonishingly skilled at lecturing in a way that made the listener feel good.) I can tell you if you can run LBL and not run it into a ditch, you're a multi-talented genius. Traps are everywhere AND you have to know where you're going. Radiation safety alone requires outstanding organization and charisma--you have to inspire self-policing. Appoint the wrong person and you're done. You have to know all the stuff you supposedly learn about in business school, how to subdivide, prioritize, and delegate, plus be literate in every scientific speciality from intrastellar nuclear chemistry to marine agriculture.
Another very forward-looking chemist to be aware of, whose ideas apply to just about everything, is Peter G. Schultz. I doubt he'd want to leave his lab though. Does this sound familiar: random variation plus functional selection replaces intelligent design? That's his career. In more ways than you can think of. Stuff that increases the RATE at which we make discoveries. Plus, expanding the genetic code to make ribosomes in living organisms incorporate unnatural, lab-synthesized amino acids into growing proteins at genetically-specified sites. To everyone else a Nobel worthy idea; to Schultz just one project (or class of projects) of many.
Posted by: GBM | December 21, 2008 6:50 AM
I for for one am actually very happy the Obama chose warren. Before you crucify me (lol) I should say that it isn't because i agree with anything that idiot has to say. The reason is this; one of the scariest things about the xians is how hermetically sealed their world is. Incidentally this is not so much a comment on their immunity to contrary evidence (few truly are immune, most are just resistant in my experience) as much as their insularity. They can go to xian schools, xian colleges, get employed at xian businesses of various sorts while getting their information from xian bookstores, xian radio, xian TV, all while living in xian only towns. the viability of this lifestyle is incredibly dangerous for democracy as a whole, because that is how totalitarian movements get started and more importantly achieve viability. So as much as i despise rick warren, his presence means that Obama will be better able to talk to those people, maybe with a mind towards folding their dialogue back into our national dialogue, i think this is a worthy goal and it entirely excuses the presence of one so odious.
Posted by: SoMG | December 21, 2008 6:58 AM
Matt Heath, I don't know about Chu's religion, but if you are interested in great scientists who are Jesus freaks you should google Henry Fritz Schaeffer who gave out Jesus-freak literature to people interviewing for positions in his lab, led his group in daily prayers, and left the greatest chemistry department in the world to live in the Bible Belt. (He was also known for badgering visiting academics to nominate him for the Nobel Prize.)
Posted by: Svetogorsk | December 21, 2008 7:02 AM
The mere fact that GWIAS has pointedly ignored all the posts asking him to do anything challenging (such as refuting reams of evidence in peer-reviewed detail) in favour of responding to ones that merely insult him tells us everything we want to know.
Someone who GENUINELY believed that global warming was a scam, and who has amassed copious amounts of scientific evidence to support his case, would do the exact opposite - he'd ignore the insults and focus on the science. After all, how else is he going to get his message across?
Ergo, GWIAS = troll. Or Poe. But not worth taking seriously.
Posted by: Nick Gotts | December 21, 2008 7:09 AM
The liar GWIAS is, as his "far-left Warmista" crap indicates, politically motivated; he's probably a "libertarian" or similar. The fact of anthropogenic global warming shows quite clearly that "free markets" cannot deal with certain environmental problems. The nearest to a possible "free market" solution to AGW is an internationally agreed "carbon trading" system, whereby a wholly artificial market in permits to emit greenhouse gases would be established. Fortunately, the debate among scientists and policy-makers has moved on from "Is it happening?" to "What should we do about it", leaving the liars and morons behind.
While the details of AGW theory and evidence are complex, the basic points are fairly simple:
1) CO2, CH4, N2O, CFCs and certain other gases are greenhouse gases. In the case of CO2, this has been known for around 150 years.
2) The concentration of these gases in the atmosphere has increased considerably over the past century, particuarly the past 30 years.
3) Both isotopic evidence, and satellite imaging, show that human activities are the main source of these excess greenhouse gases.
4) Surface, ocean and tropospheric temperatures have increased over the past 30 years, to an extent which cannot be accounted for without taking increases in greenhouse gas concentrations into account. (Energy reaching Earth from the sun has not increased significantly over that period although it did increase in the early part of the twentieth century and was probably responsible for most of the warming in the period 1900-1950.)
5) Moreover, the stratosphere has cooled over the past 30 years. This is exactly as expected if the cause of the warming is increased greenhouse gas emissions, but inexplicable otherwise. Other facts about the spatio-temporal distribution of temperature change also fit the AGW theory.
6) Study of longer-term changes in temperature (the ice ages) also confirm that CO2 concentrations affect surface temperature. While the trigger for such changes are thought to be changes in Earth's orbit, these cannot account for the magnitude of swings between stadials and interstadials without feedback from CO2: the initial warming at the end of an ice age causes CO2 to be emitted from the ocean (warmer water holds less CO2), and this (along with changes in albedo) causes further warming.
AGW denialism is indeed, as has been noted, closely parallel to creationism. Both claim that the scientific consensus is ideologically motivated (classic projection of course), and that the scientists supporting it are corrupt liars who care only for their funding. Both are almost entirely devoid of ideas that can actually generate research, the proponents of both hop from one talking point to another without the slightest concern for consistency, both ignore refutations of their talking points, both are funded by far right foundations.
IPCC reports, of course, are drawn up by relevant scientific experts, based on the peer-reviewed literature. If anything they tend to be over-conservative (in a scientific sense) in their projections and recommendations, since these must command the broadest possible range of scientific opinion. In addition to the IPCC, the theory of anthropogenic global warming has been explicitly supported in statements issued by the national scientific associations of the G8, plus China, India and Brazil, the editors of Science and Nature, practically every relevant scientific association in the USA (even the Association of Petroleum Geologists has dropped its opposition in the face of the overwhelming evidence), politicians from across the political spectrum - even George Bush has recently admitted its reality, and many representatives of Big Business. But of course liar GWIAS will tell you that all these bodies and individuals are "far-left Warmistas", or at best, dupes and fools. Contemptible is far too weak a word for such as GWIAS.
Posted by: mayhempix | December 21, 2008 7:10 AM
I'll put my money on the bet that Salazar is an astute choice. He knows the players in the industry and the public won't be immediately inundated with a "destroy him at all costs" industry PR campaign. Just as Hillary was hawkish and Gates pursued W's agenda on the war, they are both working for Obama now and will support and carry out his agenda. Gates has already announced he is starting the process to close Gitmo. As another poster already pointed out, Salazar's job is management of federal lands and resources. As manager he does not set policy, he executes it.
Warren's choice is an attempt to blunt the religious right's monolithic power. While it won't change many minds it is a signal that idiots like Dobson aren't the only Christian game in town. A least Warren is making an effort to refocus priorities more towards charitable actions and some sense of responsibility towards the environment. Don't get me wrong. I abhor his views on homosexuality, abortion, etc. But better a tentative relationship based on common goals looking for solutions for poverty, disease and climate change than the all out war on reason championed by the far wingnut religious right that Republicans and amoral supercapitialists have effectively stoked for the past 30 years.
Obama has made it explicitly clear he is about effective solutions based on facts and science, not ideologies. That should be music to the ears of all people of education and reason.
GWIAS is a wingnut ass's ass and probably a Libertarian who worships the Free Market God. He blows out enormous amounts of methane while claiming he is representing substance and fact. And like methane, as hs failed illusion of substance rapidly dissipates into the atmosphere, there is nothing left but a slightly annoying malingering odor as a reminder of the damage already done.
Posted by: andyo | December 21, 2008 7:26 AM
Hey guys, did you hear? Apparently, Global Warming is a scam.
Posted by: 'Tis Himself | December 21, 2008 7:28 AM
Obama seems to be appointing people on the basis of competence. The Bushite criteria was ideology (which is how Michael "Brownie, you're doing a heck of a job" Brown became FEMA Führer).
I don't really care about Warren's role in the inauguration. He's going to say "Oh Lord, bless Obama and our country, amen," only not in so few words. Unless he says something really outrageous, by the next day who's going to remember what he said? People will think of him as Warren the fundie homophobe, not Warren the fundie homophobe who gave the invocation at Obama's first inauguration. This is a tempest in Russell's tea pot.
Posted by: Nick Gotts | December 21, 2008 7:29 AM
That money would be better spent on space elevator tech, or research into some kind of quantum "spooky action at a distance" comms that would make human space flight finally, and eternally spurious. - Brian Coughlan
Brian, I agree with you about manned space flight, but I read recently that "space elevators" are physically pretty near impossible. While it would be premature to write off the possibility completely, we should not base any plans for the future use of space on this dream. As for "Spooky action at a distance" - if FTL communication ever turns out to be possible, I'll go back in time and eat my grandfather! Robotics is the way to go, with the mining of near-Earth asteroids and the moon, and perhaps satellite solar power and/or production of hydrogen for use on Earth the most likely industrial applications.
Posted by: andyo | December 21, 2008 7:40 AM
Nick #176,
Dude, you forgot to href your a.
Posted by: Brian Coughlan | December 21, 2008 7:45 AM
As for "Spooky action at a distance" - if FTL communication ever turns out to be possible, I'll go back in time and eat my grandfather!
I agree about the robotics, but that will only get you so far. The "spooky action at a distance" has got to have some comms potential, it's just a question of working out the details. Seperate the entangled particles, get one to Mars and measure the local one for changes. Haven't you ever heard of Heisenberg Compensators? Although I'll grant you, I'm far from an expert. Still I think there are enough unknowns in quantum physics to allow for some wide ranging speculation:-)
As for space elevators ... damn you Gotts ... must you ruin everything?
Posted by: Moses | December 21, 2008 7:50 AM
It's because you don't get it. Billy Graham, who is every bit as bad, and anti-Semitic to-boot, is a cultural icon and his ideas, odious and disgusting as they are, are mainstreamed and he's held up as a paragon of virtue, despite the fact he's a fucking hateful troll.
The economy will recover faster from this crap than society will from the mainstreaming of Warren's hate through legitimizing Warren. Which Obama has done twice. First, by going to him to answer his ambush questions. Second, after getting ill-treated by an intolerant religious zealot, to invite him to give the invocation at his Inauguration.
What's next, the KKK sitting at his right hand in the "spirit of inclusion?" Because Warren is the fundy equivalent of a Grand High Wizard.
Posted by: Brian Coughlan | December 21, 2008 8:03 AM
What's next, the KKK sitting at his right hand in the "spirit of inclusion?" Because Warren is the fundy equivalent of a Grand High Wizard.
Yet roughly 30% of the American electorate are on the exact same page as Warren. So, your concern for this drivel being part of the mainstream is a little overdue. About 30 years too late.
Obama has made a good move with some potential to expand his base, by splitting the religious right. Even if he just manages to shave off a few percentage points, perhaps transfer the right wing focus from gay rights, abortion and sex education to something productive like poverty eradication, it will be a massive win.
This move should reassure us that an intelligent and capable politician is in charge, not unleash a torrent of whining.
God ... I'm so incredibly rational.
Posted by: andyo | December 21, 2008 8:14 AM
That's exactly what can't be done in principle, isn't it?
Although not for communication, Brian Greene explains in The Fabric of the Cosmos (IIRC), how physicists have "teleported" one particle by "riding" on entangled ones. Long time since I read it, but that's a wonderful read, if you haven't. Looking at your interests, that's the first book I'd recommend (Maybe do a double-feature with The Elegant Universe).
Posted by: silkworm | December 21, 2008 8:17 AM
Obama's choice of Arne Duncan as Secretary of Education is disastrous for America. Duncan's plan to corporatize public education will destroy it.
Posted by: Twin-Skies | December 21, 2008 8:20 AM
@Global Warming Is A Scam
I live in a country that has been hit with four times the normal amount of typhoons that we normally expected in a year for the last three years.
So please, stop pretending not to be aware just because global warming's effects have not hit your home yet.
Posted by: Brian Coughlan | December 21, 2008 8:20 AM
That's exactly what can't be done in principle, isn't it?
Well. Yes. But a fellow can dream can't he? Especially when the discussion concerns an area where we only have a vague notion of what is actually going on.
Thanks for the book recommendations:-)
Posted by: Twin-Skies | December 21, 2008 8:24 AM
@Nick Gotts
IIRC, the recent UN Poznan convention regarding the Kyoto Protocol showed that several of the Protocol's Annex 1 countries were vying for a unified Cap-and-Trade system.
Posted by: Brian Coughlan | December 21, 2008 8:30 AM
IIRC, the recent UN Poznan convention regarding the Kyoto Protocol showed that several of the Protocol's Annex 1 countries were vying for a unified Cap-and-Trade system.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Union_Emission_Trading_SchemeThe EU already has this on the road, the US just needs to join.
Posted by: NewEnglandBob | December 21, 2008 8:38 AM
I have to laugh and laugh at the troll named "Global Warming Is A Scam".
He/she/it has not given one fact yet in many posts. Not one bit of evidence to support its claim.
Just bashing of others.
He/she/it wants attention, like a two-year old child.
Ok, we gave you attention, so go take your nap now.
Posted by: Marc Abian | December 21, 2008 8:38 AM
One of the most annoying things is the disingenuous groups funded by oil companies to manufacture controversy. My hope for humanity took a bit of a blow after finding that out.
Posted by: Anonymouse | December 21, 2008 8:50 AM
Brian Coughlan @ #178
Sadly, real life is more complicated than Star Trek.In real life, you'll have to phone back to the other guys at Earth, asking them what they got from their measurement, to interpret the result you got from the entangled particle at Mars. So no FTL there. Cf. "No communication theorem", it's not a small detail to work around.
Posted by: WCG | December 21, 2008 8:58 AM
I don't see the point about going around and around with a global warming denier - again! - but more importantly, I still haven't heard why Salazar is so bad.
I'm serious. Could we get a few more details here? I don't know much about the guy, but the little I've heard seems to be favorable. So what's the big problem with Ken Salazar?
I've been very impressed with the rest of Obama's cabinet (especially since, you know, he did promise to bring the country together, to avoid intense partisanship,... and to put Republicans into his cabinet). Yeah, I don't like the Warren thing. I wish he'd skipped the religious mumbo jumbo at the inauguration altogether. But come on! This is like getting the best meal of your life, then bitching because you don't like the parsley garnish on the appetizer.
Posted by: mayhempix | December 21, 2008 9:01 AM
@silkworm
While I can appreciate and understand your concerns about Duncan, he is not a corporate shill, has no agenda to privatize and is a strong supporter of a public school system. He does worry some union members, although he has many who support him, because he believes that tenure should not be an impenetrable shield for incompetent teachers. He would prefer the unions take the lead in a producing a solution. He is definitely not a teacher's union buster.
The essay at Truthout which you seem to have read IMO is a bit alarmist while presenting some interesting observations.
http://www.truthout.org/121708R
For a more measured opinion I suggest you read:
http://educationpolicyblog.blogspot.com/2008/12/what-arne-duncan-means-for-educational.html
At any rate, Duncan and Obama will not destroy public education.
Posted by: Nick Gotts | December 21, 2008 9:30 AM
andyo@177,
Thanks, so I did. Here's the URL:
http://science.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/05/26/2251258
Posted by: Epikt | December 21, 2008 9:30 AM
SoMG:
Steve Chu's brother Gil was my physics TA sophomore year. He was bright, an excellent teacher, and committed to seeing that we all understood the material; a fundamentally decent human, and probably the best TA I had. This is perhaps a meaningless statement, but if Steven is anything like Gil, it could be a very good appointment indeed.
It's been argued that he may not have the political experience to be effective, but, as you say, I don't think you can get to be the head of a national lab without being politically savvy. So, again, I'm optimistic.
Posted by: Nick Gotts | December 21, 2008 9:40 AM
Twin-Skies@185, Brian Coughlan@186,
Unfortunately the EU experience suggests cap-and-trade (which is a carbon-trading scheme) is very vulnerable to corporate capture: the current scheme has ended up handing out windfall profits to the main polluters, because permits were given away. It's possible such a scheme can be made to work, and I understand US experience with a scheme to tackle acid rain has been successful; but I'm sure it won't be enough. We also need to direct investment on a huge scale into energy conservation, low-emission energy production, forest conservation, low-till agriculture... - and this needs to be internationally planned and coordinated, as the infrastructure requirements for different approaches would compete for resources.
Posted by: Global Warming Is A Scam | December 21, 2008 10:46 AM
At least I am upfront about my political leanings, unlike you Warmistas. I'm willing to bet that you are a big-government socialist who sees more government as the answer to every problem, as your "denialist" crap indicates.
"Anthropogenic global warming" is NOT a "fact"; it is a wet dream of far-left liberals such as yourself to justify more government intrusion into people's lives. Tell me, Nicky, what have governments accomplished in terms of dealing with environmental problems.
That's what I thought.
Yes, they are. Points such as the Medieval warming period and the fact that there has been no warming for the past decade. Inconvenient truths to a fully-indoctrinated Warmista, I suppose.
Wrong. Since Global Warmism is a religion, it is what most closely parallels creationism. And, of course, you just had to deal the "denialism" card, with its association with Holocaust denial (which you will very disingenuously deny doing), from the bottom of the deck.
Since the IPCC is a division of the UN, and the UN consists mostly of anti-American partisan political hacks, yes of course they are ideologically motivated. Duh! As to liars, your hero "Dr." James Hansen has already admitted to being one.
Interesting. First you claim that we have no research, then you claim that we are "funded by far right foundations". Funded for what? Why, research, of course! Naturally, you make no mention of far left foundations like those operated by the likes of George Soros which, along with governments, spend billions on "climate change" "research". But why let a few small details like facts get in the way of a good Warmista rant?
Experts chosen by the far-left Useless Nations, of course, whose conclusions have been pre-ordained by the Oracles of Global Warmism. As for "peer review", I have just one word: SOKAL.
I love it!!! George Bush says something; therefore it absolutely, positively MUST be true. I guess you also believe that WMD were found in Iraq, that Saddam Hussein was behind 9/11, that Iraq attempted to buy yellowcake uranium from Niger and that waterboarding is not torture! Talk about deluded!
Nicky's definition of "liar":
"Anyone who does not march in lock-step with the drumbeat of my far-left Warmista agenda."
I do have one question for all of you Warm-mongers, however. What is the "ideal" global temperature for our planet? Within 3 degrees Celsius will be fine. Justify your answer.
PZ Myers has in the past linked to the Discovery Institute and WorldNet Daily. I guess, in your world, that means that he endorses the views expressed by said organizations.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead | December 21, 2008 10:51 AM
Gee whiz, no links to any data to back up your illogical assertions. You cannot be a scientist, since if you were, you would understand that that would absolutely be required. Just another know-nothing quack in the wind.
Posted by: Global Warming Is A Scam | December 21, 2008 10:54 AM
No links? You mean, like you just did? I guess you aren't a scientist either.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead | December 21, 2008 10:59 AM
Ok, answer Kel's repeated question as to your credentials. Mine are Ph.D. in ChemIstry with 30+ years experience in academia and industry.
By the way, I made no factual claims other to your previously exposed quackery. Ergo, no references were needed. You made claims. Either back them up or shut up.
Posted by: Global Warming Is A Scam | December 21, 2008 11:02 AM
Finally, some honesty for a Warmista. Thank-you for your candor, Red!
Posted by: Feynmaniac | December 21, 2008 11:05 AM
GWIAS,
You moron, Sokal published his infamous paper in a journal that had NO peer review.
Sokal Affair
Posted by: Svetogorsk | December 21, 2008 11:11 AM
Sadly, Melanie Phillips hasn't (yet) blown a gasket about Obama's appointments (she's one of the shrillest opponents of the climate change consensus on my side of the Atlantic), but I thought you'd be glad to hear that she's just been voted the fifth most ludicrous person in Britain by readers of the Independent on Sunday.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead | December 21, 2008 11:14 AM
Ah, the candor of denialist, lie, lie lie, quote mine (lie), lie. When are you going to tell any truth and show evidence to back you up?
And you still haven't answered Kel's question as to your background. PZ, please ban this troll if he doesn't present his credentials.
Posted by: Global Warming Is A Scam | December 21, 2008 11:18 AM
Yes, because we cannot tolerate dissent from our Officially Sanctioned Talking PointsTM
Please answer my question about the "ideal" temperature of the planet.
Posted by: mus | December 21, 2008 11:20 AM
Diane G @ #49: mus @ #15: may I copy your post to another forum I'm on
Of course! most of it actually isn't my own writing anyway :P
BTW, if you want to see the posts I took the quotes from, see here: http://tinyurl.com/9snemw and here: http://tinyurl.com/9xly8p. They're both at the bottom of the page.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | December 21, 2008 11:21 AM
Grow up. Seriously. The use of your cute little names exposes not only you intellect but your maturity.
You know good damn well what scientific consensus means.
Do you deny evolution as well?
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | December 21, 2008 11:23 AM
you = your
typos for the win
Posted by: Enshoku | December 21, 2008 11:24 AM
overly silly labels for people...
link to real climate...
more bite and less actual response in each post...
passive aggressive behavior...
invoking something to do with Hitler or Nazism...
putting "blah blah blah" in place of some peoples post...
guys, leave the little troll alone pl0x, and by troll I of course mean:"people who use the phrase 'Failure to march in lock-step with the drumbeat of my far-left warmista agenda' without laughing"
...then again, he probably is.
Posted by: Global Warming Is A Scam | December 21, 2008 11:24 AM
Yes, because we cannot tolerate dissent from our Officially Sanctioned Talking PointsTM
Please answer my question about the "ideal" temperature of the planet.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead | December 21, 2008 11:26 AM
Poor GSIAS, must not be anything more than an ignorant RW sockpuppet. Otherwise, he would be able to handle simple things like giving us his background. Must not be on their official denial answer sheet.
Posted by: Global Warming Is A Scam | December 21, 2008 11:40 AM
I have grown up. As such, I have left childish concepts like religion (including global warmism) behind. You might want to try doing the same. I certainly have exposed my intellect (wrt its superiority to that of the average warmista), and my maturity is evidenced by the fact that I don't go around screeching "The sky is falling!" 24X7.
But you keep dodging my request to provide a definition of the term, indicating that you DO NOT KNOW what it means.
As I've already said, I don't "deny" evolution because there exists a wealth of scientific evidence to support it. Not so with faith-based beliefs like Christianity, Islam and Global Warmism.
Red's definition of "sockpuppet":
"Anyone who does not march in lock-step with the drumbeat of my far-left Warmista agenda."
I have the same background as this rather shrill individual but, since he is on your side, I don't expect you to whine about it in his case. Typical.
Posted by: Svetogorsk | December 21, 2008 11:47 AM
As I've already said, I don't "deny" evolution because there exists a wealth of scientific evidence to support it. Not so with faith-based beliefs like Christianity, Islam and Global Warmism.
In which case you'll have no problem taking comment #172 apart, sentence by sentence, and providing peer-reviewed evidence in support of your forensic demolition job.
And he's insulted you into the bargain, so you have every motivation for hammering him into the ground with your superior scientific knowledge - frankly, I don't know what's stopping you.
Posted by: Nick Gotts | December 21, 2008 11:48 AM
At least I am upfront about my political leanings, unlike you Warmistas. I'm willing to bet that you are a big-government socialist - GWIAS the halfwit
Where have you been "upfront"? Even now you do not identify your political views. Yes, I'm a socialist, but the great majority of those acknowledging the reality of AGW are not. Nor do I see government action as the solution to every problem.
Tell me, Nicky, what have governments accomplished in terms of dealing with environmental problems. - GWIAS the liar
You're really making it too easy for me here, it's like refuting creobots:
1)Clean Air Acts (before the first of these in the UK, in 1952 IIRC, thousands of people died every year from the effects of smog in cities.
2) Cleaning up rivers. We now have salmon back in the Thames (and many other rivers) due to regulations preventing industrial waste and raw sewage being pumped into them.
3) Controlling acid rain. In the US, this was done by introducing a cap-and-trade system.
4) Forcing the removal of lead from petrol, thus preventing childhood brain-damage.
5) Systems of national parks in many countries, protecting natural environments from destruction.
6) The Montreal Protocol, phasing out the production of CFCs and other stratospheric-ozone depleting chemicals. Since which, the ozone hole has stopped getting larger, on the timescale predicted by scientists at the time.
I could go on pretty much indefinitely, but that'll do for now.
there has been no warming for the past decade - GWIAS the halfwit
False. Measured as running averages over a number of years - the scientifically valid approach - warming has continued. See for example 2008 temperature summaries and spin. Only an ignoramus (such as yourself) would expect every year's surface temperatures to be hotter than the last.
Experts chosen by the far-left Useless Nations, of course, whose conclusions have been pre-ordained by the Oracles of Global Warmism. As for "peer review", I have just one word: SOKAL. - GWIAS the liar
Good grief what a moron. The experts are not chosen by the UN (which is of course not "far-left" - your paranoia is showing) but by the relevant working group of the IPCC, these groups themselves being composed of experts nominated by governments and other organisations. Where are these alleged "Oracles of Global Warmism?" Maybe they are in the appendices to the Protocols of the Elders of Zion?
Sokal's hoax was played on Social Text, a non-peer reviewed journal of postmodernist blether, with as much relation to science as your burblings, you dimwit. Apparently, however, you reject peer-review, and therefore, science as a whole.
First you claim that we have no research, then you claim that we are "funded by far right foundations". Funded for what? - GWIAS the halfwit
Spreading lies and confusion of course. Point me to some of the research, if it's so extensive.
I love it!!! George Bush says something; therefore it absolutely, positively MUST be true. - GWIAS the liar
My point was simply that even you surely cannot identify George Bush as "far-left" - but maybe I've underestimated your lunacy, since you identify the billionaire financier George Soros as such. How about dealing with the other supporters of the scientific consensus I identified?
What is the "ideal" global temperature for our planet? - GWIAS the halfwit
What a stunningly stupid question. There is, of course, no such temperature. What is dangerous is rapid temperature change because human societies (and other lifeforms) are adapted to the current temperature. Anyhow, since, according to you, global warming isn't happening, what possible relevance has this question? That you ask it is clear evidence that you know damn well it is happening, and that human activities are responsible, and you're preparing the ground for a shift to the next reason to do nothing about it.
My definition of liar: one who lies habitually. Prototype example: GWIAS.
Finally - don't go out without your tinfoil hat, and look out for black helicopters. Once Obama's in office, they will surely be given free rein!
Posted by: Enshoku | December 21, 2008 11:50 AM
aww...don't be sad little troll...you could always head over to 4chan if the comments here dry up... or you could troll a climatologist forum that doesn't have very zealous mods...keep your options open, m'kay?
Posted by: CSue | December 21, 2008 11:54 AM
- ...Tell me, Nicky, what have governments accomplished in terms of dealing with environmental problems. -
Our government banned the use of lead in gasoline. There is now much less lead in our atmosphere, and therefore less in our bloodstreams, since we are inhaling less of it. Higher IQs for everybody! Government-mandated lead-free gasoline FTW.
Posted by: mayhempix | December 21, 2008 11:54 AM
GWIAS said "Interesting. First you claim that we have no research, then you claim that we are "funded by far right foundations". Funded for what? Why, research, of course! "
Still blowing odorous methane I see. You know they are funding propagandists who toe the wingnut line... paid shills like "Junk Science" liar Steven Mallloy. Even you aren't that stupid.
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Junk_science
But then again you are a fundie capitalist denialist Libertarian just as I predicted and worship the Free Market God so maybe I shouldn't give you that much credit.
And don't bother excreting one of your non-answers to me because it will be void of any facts or substance and a waste of my time to even consider contemplating.
Posted by: 'Tis Himself | December 21, 2008 11:55 AM
Right wing troll who objects to global warming for political rather than scientific reasons but pretends otherwise.
BTW, GWIAS, if your objections to global warming wasn't political, you wouldn't keep whining about "far left Warmistas" and making libertarian statements about government.
Posted by: Brian Coughlan | December 21, 2008 11:56 AM
Damn ... just when my outrageous claims were getting some attention.
Posted by: aratina | December 21, 2008 12:01 PM
I see too much apathy about Rick Warren in the threads. What happens if this invocation is more than just two minutes of gibberish? What if it is the stepping stone to Rick Warren's appointment to head Obama's cabinet level position for the Council for Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships which he promised to create to save our planet and end poverty? (What a coincidence! Rick Warren stands for exactly those issues.) I don't think anyone expected Obama to give Rick Warren any part in the inauguration, especially not the very first word. Obama took full responsibility for placing Warren first at the inauguration. We need to act now to make certain that Obama never slips Warren into any seat of power ever again in the new administration.
Posted by: aratina | December 21, 2008 12:07 PM
Another thing, it amazes me that the same people who deny there is such a thing as global warming believe weather forecasts. Why believe the data from the same model in one instance but not in another? Sounds a lot like pick and choose biblical fundamentalism to me and quite ignorant.
Posted by: Nick Gotts | December 21, 2008 12:15 PM
aratina,
Point of information: weather models and climate models are entirely distinct, and work in different ways.
Posted by: Svetogorsk | December 21, 2008 12:21 PM
It's also well worth noting that the British Clean Air Act of 1956 was passed by a Conservative administration - hardly a cabal of extreme leftism.
Posted by: Global Warming Is A Scam | December 21, 2008 12:25 PM
And your evidence for this claim is:
[crickets]
Nick the liar: please show us where you have advocated for anything other than a government solution to a problem.
The "scientifically valid approach" according to those who have already reached the pre-determined conclusion that global warming will mean the end of the world as we know it, of course. You know, you really need to be more creative with your lies. Even Larry what's-his-name does a better job of lying than you do.
These "other organizations" being far-left foundations and groups of far left academics, of course.
No, I reject pseudo-science of the sort peddled by the IPCC. Way to entirely miss the point (not the first time, I'm sure).
Shorter Nicky:
Logic: UR doin it rong.
Then again, if, as you claim "there is no such temperature", then global warming is irrelevant, since by definition the temperature wouldn't matter. This is clear evidence that your ilk is preparing the ground for a shift to the next great scare / hoax.
Bush is a big-government tax-and-spend liberal who gave us trillions in debt, two costly wars, no child left behind,... Soros founded the far far left Daily Kos, which speaks for itself.
And of course, no evidence is presented to support this assertion. Why am I not surprised? Oh, right, you are a religionist.
The tinfoil hat store is sold out...too many visits by Warmista alarmists.
Posted by: brokensoldier, OM | December 21, 2008 12:26 PM
Again? Excatly what seat of power has Obama already placed Warren in? If you're saying that his slot delivering the invocation is a position of power, I think you're way over-inflating the significance of this pick, and looking at it in the wrong light.
And I agree on the bad choices, but I'm waiting until the team kicks into action to level judgement. Obama has said again and again that it is not the individuals he appoints that set the agenda, but rather they are responsible for carrying out his agenda, and will be held accountable for doing so. As a military man, I understand his method here. It is always better to bring the leaders of your opposition close to you in an effort to work with them and foster an environment of cooperation. As for the suggestion that he should have brought in a different conservative-leaning pastor that aligns more with his stance on LGBT issues, even if they are lesser known, I believe that would defeat the purpose of his intention in picking Warren. He wanted to reach out to that constituency, and he knows that the best way to do so is to extend an olive branch of sorts to one of their prominent leaders in the hopes of bringing him, along with those who follow him, a little closer to being amenable to change and compromise. The one lynchpin that holds it all together is the fact that he is making the case that he expects his vision to be implemented, regardless of his subordinates' individual leanings.
He may prove me wrong, but I believe he has the capability to channel even the bad choices into the avenues that support his own agenda, especially with Rahm Emanuel as his CoS. And on top of that, providing he can successfully keep them in his lane of intent, the choices that seem bad now could very possibly turn out to be regarded as very politically smart, because if he succeeds with these choices, he will have brought the two parties that much closer together, and will have done it through his own force of will. He set out to prove that ideology and political party lines do not define our nation, and this is the perfect way to prove that point. All in all, I think people need to simply give it a little time and see how he and his team perform once they take office. It is fine to comment now on the potential efficacy of his choices, but until we see how he manages them and what directions he takes them in, it is all merely speculation. And since speculation is based heavily on past experience, it is particularly inapplicable here, because we are - in more ways than one - in uncharted political waters right now. Not only do we have the first African-American President-elect, but he is assembling a team so diverse, in more ways than one, in comparison to recent administrations that there really is nothing to compare it to looking back over the past 20+ years.
So in keeping with the campaign theme that won him the election, I'm holding out hope - albeit quite justified in my mind, in light of his intelligence and political savvy - that Obama will show us all that his way of assembling such a politically diverse team is light years better than the ideologically driven and homogenous ways of the administrations in the recent past.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead | December 21, 2008 12:33 PM
brokensoldier, OM
Amen brother. I could only say that in a much less elegant manner.Posted by: Feynmaniac | December 21, 2008 12:36 PM
GWIAS has got to be one of the dumbest trolls we've gotten here in awhile, and that's saying something.
- He/she/it argues against the idea of global warming while having his/her/its name linked to a site supporting the idea.
- To argue against the peer review system GWIAS invokes the Sokal affair, in which a physicist published a ridiculous paper in a journal which had NO peer review process.
- Comment #210 shows GWIAS doesn't know how to link properly
- He/She/It actually wrote this:
Posted by: Svetogorsk | December 21, 2008 12:38 PM
GWIAS, we've all spotted the way you pre-emptively strip all substantive content from the posts you're pretending to fisk, and we've all noticed the lack of substantive content in your own posts, so I don't know why you're bothering - who are you trying to impress?
But do free to prove me wrong by fisking Nick's actual scientific assertions, once you've picked them up from your electronic cutting-room floor.
Posted by: Global Warming Is A Scam | December 21, 2008 12:42 PM
Posted by: CJ | December 21, 2008 12:44 PM
Giving Obama the benefit of the doubt on Salazar (which, not being a fan of Obama, I am somewhat hesitant to do), I'd like to think it was a mechanism for getting him out of the Senate as he clearly can be better controlled in a cabinet position.
Posted by: Sven DiMilo | December 21, 2008 12:46 PM
Rox @#14 sez:
True in the same sense that shooting wolves from airplanes is not "about" causing extinction. The concern is for the consequences of the means, not for the intention of the ends. The BLM and USFS are indeed "tasked" with management of public lands, but the point is that these lands are public, and that the task is management for multiple use, including the conservation of endangered species and notable ecological communities. The perennial problem is that these agencies traditionally and nearly without exception give priority to extractive use for private profit, despite the expressed wishes of the public that owns the land in question. The concern about Salazar is that he will continue this tradition.
Mining is not intrinsically evil, but IMO (and the O of many others), ridiculous sops to private industry like the archaic 1872 mining law need to be abandoned in favor of a more fair balancing of extractive (and, sorry, often destructive) uses with longer-sighted considerations, including conservation of what little is left of natural-ish ecosystems.
Posted by: Nightshadequeen | December 21, 2008 12:46 PM
Dear Global Warming is a Scam:
Try La Nina. It tends to bring down the temp in the Americas a bit.
On the other hand, I live in Texas, and so far the forecast is 73 degree F on 25 Dec 2008.
And as for global warming evidence/problems:
Coral reef bleaching. Polar bear drowning. Increased storms. Melting permafrost releases methane, which contributes to even more global warming.
http://topics.nytimes.com/topics/news/science/topics/globalwarming/index.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming_controversy#Existence_of_a_scientific_consensus
http://www.ghgonline.org/evidence.htm
http://climate.jpl.nasa.gov/evidence/
http://www.bbc.co.uk/climate/evidence/
http://www.earthscape.org/p1/sdv01/sdv01e.html
Dear Feynmaniac:
One of the things I've noticed is that richer people tend to discount global warming. (Disclaimer: This is ancedote, not fact). I'm guessing it's because they don't want to change their lifestyle. Also, I've noticed even scientists deny the vality of science when it comes to their personal beliefs. My father, who was born and raised in China, can't handle the slightest critism against acupuncture. The moment I say anything against it, he accuses me of being with Big Pharm.
Personally, I think this is evident among denialists of any sort. They typically know little to nothing in the field they wish to debunk. They rant on and on about conspircies in the other court. Finally, they never seem to offer up evidence.
Posted by: brokensoldier, OM | December 21, 2008 12:48 PM
There is no longer any wiggle room in which one can intelligently deny that the planet is warming. The only such wiggle room that exists lies solely in the cause of said warming - which conservatives like Palin have already latched onto by saying that we either don't need to know what caused it, or that "liberal" assertions about it being caused by human activity are utterly misguided. (Though I wonder from where in her education she draws the requisite knowledge to accurately refute established planetary scientists in statements like that.)
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4495463.stm
And for an even more detailed explanation as to how this proves the Earth is warming...
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=more-proof-of-global-warm
It is simple. To deny that our planet's temperature is increasing - and that further increases could adversely affect life on Earth - is to deny proven science. No more, no less.
Posted by: Joel | December 21, 2008 1:02 PM
Message to heterosexual supporters of Barack Obama
Telling us you don't think it's a big deal that a homophobic bigot has been invited to give the invocation at Barack Obama's inaugeration?
Because Barack Obama has got to reach out to those homophobic, sexist, racist evangelical Christians. And it's not a big deal when in doing so he insults LGBT people.
What else are we good for, if not to be the group that people of all religions can insult? It's not as if Obama needs to treat LGBT people with any respect: the sane ones know he's better than any Republican alternative, the insane ones suck John Hagee's dick in airport restrooms and thank him for the privilege.
http://jesurgislac.wordpress.com/2008/12/19/message-to-heterosexual-supporters-of-barack-obama/
Posted by: mayhempix | December 21, 2008 1:08 PM
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead | December 21, 2008 12:33 PM
brokensoldier, OM
-"So in keeping with the campaign theme that won him the election, I'm holding out hope - albeit quite justified in my mind, in light of his intelligence and political savvy - that Obama will show us all that his way of assembling such a politically diverse team is light years better than the ideologically driven and homogenous ways of the administrations in the recent past."
--"Amen brother. I could only say that in a much less elegant manner."
My position exactly.
Posted by: Nick Gotts | December 21, 2008 1:10 PM
And your evidence for this claim [that the vast majority of those recognising AGW are not socialists] is - GWIAS the liar
Socialism is, as I'm all too aware, a minority political view. I've already given you a list of organisations and people who have issued statements in support of the scientific consensus, which you have not challenged. Is the AAAS stuffed with socialists? The American Association of Geographers? The national scientific associations of Japan, France, Italy, Germany etc? These representatives of big business?
Nick the liar: please show us where you have advocated for anything other than a government solution to a problem. - GWIAS the liar
I couldn't give a damn whether a liar like you believes me or not.
The "scientifically valid approach" according to those who have already reached the pre-determined conclusion that global warming will mean the end of the world as we know it, of course. - GWIAS the liar
No, it's a simple matter of statistics. When you have a noisy time-series, you can't identify trends from too few items in the series. The scientific consensus is that in climatic time-series, you need to look at periods of about 30 years to identify a trend reliably. The last decade, as it happens, includes 7 or 8 of the 10 warmest years ever recorded.
These "other organizations" being far-left foundations and groups of far left academics, of course. GWIAS the liar
You clearly regard anyone who accepts the scientific consensus on AGW as "far-left". This is what's called an "armoured dogmatism".
No, I reject pseudo-science of the sort peddled by the IPCC. - GWIAS the liar
All the science referenced in IPCC reports is peer-reviewed. In a previous piece of garbage, you said: 'As for "peer review", I have just one word: SOKAL.' Of course you were too ignorant to know that Sokal's hoax was perpetrated on a non-peer-reviewed journal, but the clear implication is that you reject peer review and hence, as I said, science as a whole - which you are now pretending you do not. This, of course, will do as just one of the many pieces of evidence that you are, indeed, a barefaced liar.
Then again, if, as you claim "there is no such temperature", then global warming is irrelevant, since by definition the temperature wouldn't matter. - GWIAS the liar
Even you're not quite this stupid. As I said, the problem is rapid temperature change. Got that?
Bush is a big-government tax-and-spend liberal
Bwaw-haw-haaaaw! So I did underestimate your lunacy. What a fruitcake!
The tinfoil hat store is sold out - GWIAS the liar
So you did go looking for one, evidently. I suggest you make your own. The black helicopters are coming for you!
Posted by: mayhempix | December 21, 2008 1:17 PM
@Joel
Ummm Joel...
You are aware that Obama nominated openly lesbian Nancy Sutley as the chair of the White House Council on Environmental Quality. That makes her the President's top advisor on all environmental issues facing the country.
If that doesn't give you a clue to his bigger agenda and strategies then I don't know what to tell you. Please read some perceptions on my post #173 as to why Obama asked Warren.
Posted by: 'Tis Himself | December 21, 2008 1:19 PM
Joel,
None of us are happy about Warren giving a five minute prayer at the inauguration. The guy's a right-wing, anti-abortion, homophobic christard. Many of us at this particular website are annoyed and even angered that there's an invocation at all, no matter who would be giving it.
However, after Warren gives his invocation, then what? He hangs around in the background until the ceremony's over. He gets a free meal and a dance with the missus. Next morning he gets on a plane and goes back to Bumfuck, Mississippi or wherever his home is. He's not setting GLBT national policy, he's not camped out in Obama's front office, he's not whispering in Obama's ear about those nasty queers. In short, he's not a big deal.
Posted by: 'Tis Himself | December 21, 2008 1:21 PM
Joel,
None of us are happy about Warren giving a five minute prayer at the inauguration. The guy's a right-wing, anti-abortion, homophobic christard. Many of us at this particular website are annoyed and even angered that there's an invocation at all, no matter who would be giving it.
However, after Warren gives his invocation, then what? He hangs around in the background until the ceremony's over. He gets a free meal and a dance with the missus. Next morning he gets on a plane and goes back to Bumfuck, Mississippi or wherever his home is. He's not setting GLBT national policy, he's not camped out in Obama's front office, he's not whispering in Obama's ear about those nasty queers. In short, he's not a big deal.
Posted by: Joel | December 21, 2008 1:33 PM
Obama personally opposes equality for gay men and women, Obama will not repeal don't ask don't tell, Obama considers a gay band marching at his inauguration a fitting symbol of his support of gay rights and Rick Warren a fitting symbol of his support of fundamental Christianity.
Hmmm...fine.
Posted by: Global Warming Is A Scam | December 21, 2008 1:33 PM
Nice cop-out, Nick the Liar.
There's that "scientific consensus" nonsense again. Please define this term and then prove that one exists with respect to "global warming".
30 years is the chosen time frame because it supports your pre-determined conclusions.
The last decade most certainly does not contain "7 or 8 of the 10 warmest years ever on record", since the world has been cooling since 1998.
Define "scientific". Define "consensus". I regard as far-left anyone who advocates ever-increasing government intrusion into my private life based on long-ago-debunked pseudo-science as being far-left. This is what's called "realism". I explicitly reject all dogma of the Church of Climate Change.
A remedial course in logic is required for Nick.
But if what it is changing to is irrelevant, then why worry about the change at all? Oh, that's right. We've got research grants to maintain. Wouldn't want to actually do anything productive with all of that funding. Besides, unemployment sucks.
No, I called the store. They said some guy named Nick came and bought out their entire supply for all of his buddies at the IPCC.
Posted by: mayhempix | December 21, 2008 1:40 PM
Posted by: Global Warming Is A Scam anytime
Blah blah blah blah blah pthllllllTTTTttttttppppPPPPPTTTTTTHHHHHH!!!!! blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah pthllllllTTTTttttttppppPPPPPTTTTTTHHHHHH!!!!blah blah blah blah blahpthllllllTTTTttttttppppPPPPPTTTTTTHHHHHH!!!! blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah pthllllllTTTTttttttppppPPPPPTTTTTTHHHHHH!!!!blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah pthllllllTTTTttttttppppPPPPPTTTTTTHHHHHH!!!!blah blah blah blah blah blah blah pthllllllTTTTttttttppppPPPPPTTTTTTHHHHHH!!!!blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah pthllllllTTTTttttttppppPPPPPTTTTTTHHHHHH!!!!blah pthllllllTTTTttttttppppPPPPPTTTTTTHHHHHH!!!!blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah pthllllllTTTTttttttppppPPPPPTTTTTTHHHHHH!!!!blah blah blah blah blah blahpthllllllTTTTttttttppppPPPPPTTTTTTHHHHHH!!!! blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blahpthllllllTTTTttttttppppPPPPPTTTTTTHHHHHH!!!
A perpetual methane machine.
Posted by: Nick Gotts | December 21, 2008 1:45 PM
'Tis Himself
I disagree: I think the deliberate insult to the LGBT community, and indeed to atheists and non-fundie Christians, is important; and there should be as much fuss as possible made about it. If people don't tell Obama when they disapprove of something he's done, there is no pressure on him not to do similar things, or worse, again. And while it's true he knows sane atheists/libruls/LGBTs aren't going to vote Rethuglican in 2012, he doesn't know they won't vote for a third party, stay at home, or just not donate and volunteer. Given the economic situation, he's likely to be looking at a tough contest then, and he'll need the active support of those who came out for him this year.
BTW: what's Matt Nisbet's take on this? I haven't checked his blog, but I think I can guess.
Posted by: Nick Gotts | December 21, 2008 1:48 PM
As a practical suggestion, how about chucking some shoes at Warren during his invocation? Or would the chuckers be too likely to be shot?
Posted by: Global Warming Is A Scam | December 21, 2008 1:49 PM
Posted by: Nick Gotts | December 21, 2008 1:51 PM
Sorry, mayhempix@239, that's way too rational and coherent to pass as anything GWIAS might produce.
Posted by: Svetogorsk | December 21, 2008 1:52 PM
Define "scientific". Define "consensus". I regard as far-left anyone who advocates ever-increasing government intrusion into my private life based on long-ago-debunked pseudo-science as being far-left.
When exactly was this "pseudo-science" debunked, and by whom?
Posted by: mayhempix | December 21, 2008 1:57 PM
"Obama personally opposes equality for gay men and women."
-Not true. Obama supports complete civil equalities for gay men and women. You must be referring to what some term as "traditional marriage". He does not support that as an issue that should be addressed at this time. He is a pragmatist and picks and chooses his battles. Not all frontline issues can be what you feel is paramount.
"Obama will not repeal don't ask don't tell."
-Again not true. Please show proof of your statement. Again, just because it is not currently a frontline issue does not mean he will not work to repeal it.
"Obama considers a gay band marching at his inauguration a fitting symbol of his support of gay rights."
Is there someting wrong or derogatory about a gay band marching at the inauguration? As I pointed out earlier he appointed a lesbian to a major position in his administration. Don't you consider that "a fitting symbol of his support of gay rights?"
"...and Rick Warren a fitting symbol of his support of fundamental Christianity."
Please explain how that means he supports fundamental Christianity. He has consistently said he disagrees with Warren's positions on homosexuality and abortion.
Posted by: 'Tis Himself | December 21, 2008 1:57 PM
Nick,
Atheists 30% of the American population. Given the choice of not pissing off one of these groups, which one will a savvy politician cater to?
Posted by: Global Warming Is A Scam | December 21, 2008 1:57 PM
So Nicky ol' girl, what's the optimal temperature of the planet? Or are you going to cop out on me again?
Posted by: brokensoldier, OM | December 21, 2008 1:59 PM
Posted by: Joel | December 21, 2008 1:33 PM
If appointing an openly lesbian woman to a top post and openly stating his support for the LBGT community (check his response to these criticisms over his Warren pick, if you don't believe it - which, might I add, is an enormously progressive step considering that no recent President has ever even come close to announcing such open support) doesn't show you that he is far more motivated to achieve increased equality for gay men and women than any President before him, then your mind will apparently never be changed on this matter unless Obama simply aligns his policy decisions completely with your views and the views of your community. You should be warned, though, that kind of submission to individual interests is what got our country in the situation we're in now. To simply switch the monopoly on influence and governmental action from the right to the left, while repeating the Republicans' mistake of shutting out and/ or marginalizing dissident voices would only swing the nation right along the same pendulum of division and polarization. Obama's whole point is that all viewpoints - right, left, or otherwise - are necessarily going to have to come towards each other in compromise if we are ever going to truly unite the country, in the lasting sense of the word.
In short, Obama presents you with a fantastic opportunity for advancing the needs and concerns of your community, no matter which community or group that may be, because he is attempting to govern on a principle of universal equality for all Americans. Pragmatism will tell you that he likely will not be 100% successful in achieving this in his one or possibly two terms, but he is making an overt and obvious attempt at doing so, which is much more than anyone can say for most our Presidents in the past. What that means is that previously ignored groups will certainly have a larger voice. What that does not mean is that the previously dominant conservative constituency will have their voice taken away. And in my humble opinion, that is exactly the way it should be.
Posted by: 'Tis Himself | December 21, 2008 2:01 PM
Damn, my post #246 got hammered because I used the less than sign. Let me try it again:
Atheists less than 10% of the American population. GLBT less than 10% of the American population. The total doesn't even come close to less than 20% because the two groups overlap. Fundamentalists greater than 30% of the American population. Given the choice of not pissing off one of these groups, which one will a savvy politician cater to?
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead | December 21, 2008 2:01 PM
Why do you keep copping out on giving us your credentials? Oh, that right, you don't have any, just like your not having a point.Posted by: mayhempix | December 21, 2008 2:01 PM
@Nick Gotts
"Sorry, mayhempix@239, that's way too rational and coherent to pass as anything GWIAS might produce."
Yeah, you're right.
But he took the troll bait. It's something he clearly understands and can relate to...
Posted by: Global Warming Is A Scam | December 21, 2008 2:04 PM
I already answered that one. Please make an effort to keep up. Also work on your reading comprehension. Remedial courses are available at your local elementary school.
Posted by: mayhempix | December 21, 2008 2:06 PM
"...how about chucking some shoes at Warren during his invocation?"
We can start a shoe throwing collection drive and call it:
Saving Soles For Rick Warren
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead | December 21, 2008 2:10 PM
Oh, thats right, they are so small nobody can find them. Just like your science, or lack thereof. Still waiting for you to show scientific evidence backing up your position. Oh, yes, there is none, so you have to make it up as you go along.Posted by: Global Warming Is A Scam | December 21, 2008 2:21 PM
Talking about your genitalia, are you?
So tell me, why is it that when some blowhard like computer scientist Tim Lambert or college drop-out / failed comedian Ed Brayton prattles on about "global warming", no one ever questions him about his "qualifications"? Is it because qualifications don't matter as long as you toe the Warmista party line?
Posted by: Arnosium Upinarum | December 21, 2008 2:31 PM
The Salazar pick bugs me. A lot. The "symbolic pick" of the other schmuck is orders of magnitude more trivial and not worth the symbolic spit required to read to one's self about it.
The science picks are all very good...but it will still take an awful lot of doing in many cases to dig out from under a stinking heap of evangelistism-spiked bureaucratic dysfunction.
They're going to need some major heavy equipment to pry science loose from many of the bean-counter types that are still employed.
Posted by: roadrider | December 21, 2008 2:38 PM
NickGotts@240
Well said.
I find the "dear leader" syndrome (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kim_Jong-il) displayed by the Obama-trons in this incident to be quite disturbing. Their thinking seems to be:
Rule #1: Obama is so much smarter than everyone and he's incapable of making mistakes or using poor judgment.
Rule #2: If Obama ever DOES make a mistake or use poor judgment see Rule #1.
As for us non-believers, we should be using this issue to point out that a religious "invocation" and a "benediction" have about as much place in the Presidential inaugural as an appearance by a soothsayer or an astrologer and both should be banned as a violation of church/state separation. I sent such a message to Obama's change.gov site.
To those claiming that this is no big deal since Warren is not being given an official position in the new administration (sorry, I'm too lazy to look up the numbers of your posts) - I would say 'you mean not yet'.
I voted for Obama (reluctantly) mostly because he was not McCain. He's never been my idea of a progressive and I think this whole vacuous past-partisan stance of his is pure drivel that he will have to abandon (I fervently hope) the moment he tries to do something substantive that the right-wingers are opposed to. I don't trust him any more than I trusted Bush (especially after his FISA flip-flop and his announcement that he will continue Bush's faith-based social initiatives).
One point I agree with the Obama-trons on is that we don't want a Democratic version of Bush administration. However, I interpret that to mean that Obama and the spineless Democratic Congressional leaders will have to watched carefully and held accountable by the people. "Dear leader is always right" is not a helpful approach.
Posted by: Svetogorsk | December 21, 2008 2:41 PM
I repeat: when was this "pseudo-science" debunked, and by whom?
Come on, GWIAS - you've got loads of people hanging on your every word, so why are you missing every opportunity to rub our faces in our credulous ignorance? Insults don't work. Peer-reviewed evidence demolishing the consensus most certainly does - so why so coy?
Posted by: NewEnglandBob | December 21, 2008 2:51 PM
I am still laughing and laughing at the troll named "Global Warming Is A Scam".
He/she/it has still not given one fact yet in many posts. Not one bit of evidence to support its claim.
Just bashing of others. A real low life.
He/she/it still craves attention, like a two-year old child.
So pathetic. Time to grow up.
Ok, we gave you attention, so go take your nap now.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead | December 21, 2008 2:53 PM
GWIAS has no science to back him up and he knows it. He has no ability to use any argument from authority as he has none. So his sole recourse is to try to mock us. After all the creobots and theobots, this AAGWbot is just pathetic. GWIAS, until you cite the peer reviewed literature to back up your arguments, the only scam being run here is being run by you. We will listen, but you have to present peer reviewed evidence.
Posted by: Nick Gotts | December 21, 2008 2:58 PM
The last decade most certainly does not contain "7 or 8 of the 10 warmest years ever on record", since the world has been cooling since 1998. - GWIAS the Liar
Yes it does. GISTEMP, HadCRU and NCDC all show this. 1998 was an exceptional year because of an unusually intense ENSO event, but all the years since then have been very warm by historical standards.
Define "scientific". Define "consensus". GWIAS the weaseler
When someone resorts to demanding definitions of well-understood terms, you know they've lost the argument. "Scientific" describes the procedures and institutions used by science to detect error and allow research to build on what has gone before: peer-reviewed journals and grant applications, scientific conferences, scientific societies, university departments and research institutes. In this context, a "consensus" exists when the vast majority of scientists in a particular field of study, such as climate science, agree that a question has been settled to a degree that means scientific debate can and should move on, or concentrate on refinement of the generally accepted findings. In the case of AGW, not only does the vast bulk of peer-reviewed papers accept its reality, but because of the politically-inspired denialism you exemplify, it is unusually clear that such a consensus exists, because the national scientific societies of all the main countries producing scientific work, the editors of the most important journals, and the major scientific associations of the USA - the pre-eminent scientific country - have all declared that the evidence for AGW is clear.
But if what it is changing to is irrelevant, then why worry about the change at all? GWIAS the moron
OK, I was wrong - you really are that stupid. Look you moron, if temperatures change rapidly, in either direction, crops will not grow well where they grew before, new pests and diseases will attack them, buildings, transport infrastructure etc. will not be well-adapted to the new temperatures, species will die out because they can't live in the new conditions. Additionally, patterns of rainfall will change, so that fresh water will not be available where people have been used to it being available. In the case of significant warming, glaciers will melt (as is already happening), and the billions of people dependent on glacier-fed rivers will not have water. Rising sea-levels will make large coastal areas - where people are concentrated - uninhabitable. Of course if all these changes were to happen over thousands of years, adaptation would be feasible, which is why it is absurd to say that there is an optimum global temperature. When such changes happen over decades, adaptation will be incredibly expensive if possible at all, billions of people will be displaced, and governments are likely to try to seize land from neighbours to replace what is no longer usable, and to seek to divert the anger of their populations against domestic or foreign scapegoats.
long-ago-debunked pseudo-science - GWIAS the Liar
So when did this debunking happen and why has no-one but far-right fruitcakes like you (who think George Bush is a liberal - I'mn still chuckling over that one!) noticed? Where are all the peer-reviewed publications that have debunked AGW? Where are the scientific associations saying it's nonsense? You really are exactly like the creobots: lie, lie and lie again. I guess you think that if you tell the same lie enough times, it becomes true. Wrong. It just becomes more obvious what a barefaced liar you are.
Posted by: Global Warming Is A Scam | December 21, 2008 3:00 PM
Wow, Bob, no facts, no evidence, just bashiing of me, like a two-year old child.
Oh, I get it: you're projecting.
And, as I explained earlier, and as you are apparently too lazy to read, I did grow up, and in so doing, left religion, including "global warming", behind.
You're using that word again. I do not think you know what it means.
Posted by: Svetogorsk | December 21, 2008 3:06 PM
You're using that word again. I do not think you know what it means.
Assuming you're referring to the word "consensus", I'm very happy to go along with Nick's definition.
And in any case you know perfectly well what I mean, and I know perfectly well why you've dodged every single question asking you to back up your assertions with independently-checkable evidence - because you have no case whatsoever.
I repeat: you're welcome to prove me wrong, but the longer you continue to split trivial hairs, the more you reveal about how much you're worth listening to.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead | December 21, 2008 3:07 PM
As a 30+ year working scientist who has been on both ends of peer review, I know exactly what it means, unlike a doofus with no scientific background. Peer reviewed or nothing. Put up or shut up.
Posted by: brokensoldier, OM | December 21, 2008 3:08 PM
I'm afraid you've inflated the sense of importance I and a lot of others here hold concerning Obama. If you'll carefully go back and read just what I wrote, you'll see that my main reason for holding out on going for his jugular for his every step that I perceive to be outside my or my community's wishes is not that he is a "Dear Leader" or that I am an "Obama-tron" as you so derisively put it, but rather my restraint is based on one thing. He hasn't taken office yet. You can speculate on what this pick means or what that person may do under him, but until his administration kicks off and we see first-hand exactly how he manages those he has been appointing, then the speculation will be almost entirely without substance. And I also already explained why such speculation is far less effective in our current situation than it has been for other matters in the past.
And on another note, the conflation of agreement with Obama or restraint in critiquing his decisions prematurely with being obsessively infatuated with him and comparing him to Kim Jong-Il and his supporters to Jong-Il's oppressed populace fawning over his every move is simply a political tactic of stereotypical characterization of an entire opposition group using a caricature of only the most extreme elements of that opposition in order to marginalize them unjustifiably. It is a tactic that Karl Rove has honed to an art in recent history, and continuing the practice while simply switching targets doesn't move us forward at all.
And for you to call the concept of post-partisan politics vacuous astounds me. Unless you think this country is better off mired in the partisanship of the last few decades, post-partisan politics is an inevitable stop along the path of political progress. And the only way to get from one point to another is to simply take the first step. You can't wait for it to become popular before trying it out, or it will turn from a goal into a horizon we will never reach. I mean, would you have him simply be a partisan as opposed to trying to offer an example of what a post-partisan politician should be?
I do not fawn over Obama's every word. I don't believe him to be infallible, omnipotent, or any other of the wildly exaggerated characteristics his opponents accuse his supporters of believing. What I do see him as is a politician who is trying to move government in the direction we need to go in order to remain the most prosperous nation in the world. What I do see him as is a man who will try to do these things, and will inevitably be imperfect along the way. The question is whether or not his mistakes will be made in pursuit of the nation's interest, or in pursuit of his own. From all that we have seen so far, there isn't any behavior or pattern of such that suggests he will resort to latter over the former. But should that time come to pass when he does, he will receive no sympathy from me, just like any other politician. This is because I am not devoted to the improvement of a party or particular group of society. I am interested in those things that make our nation stand out in the world, and restoring and preserving those institutions and that benevolent global image. Though we have taken steps down the immoral and dark path of human rights and prisoner abuses, personal privacy and individual liberty invasions, and feeble federal responses to help those in need during disasters, our nation is not forever changed. If we completely cease to be a nation of open, tolerant debate, a nation of non-negotiable human freedom, and a nation who leads the world in the important issues of the day - all of them - then we will go through exactly the same thing every previous dominant civilization in the world has gone through before us. If we cease to be these things, our children and grandchildren will see a very different, and much less bright America than we live in now.
Posted by: Joel | December 21, 2008 3:44 PM
@ Brokensoldier, No, I don't see Obama as the most progressive President ever on the issue of gay rights.
I'm not sure who you are, I assume your name means that you are a veteran and possibly heterosexual. I was discharged from the Army almost 30 years ago for being gay and ineligible for re-enlistment, ever, basically for my immorality.
Why should I listen to yet one more person who enjoys rights I am currently denied tell me I need to be open to compromise and be willing to wait even one more minute? Why should I believe one more politician who supports my rights, but personally doesn't believe in them, and his opinion is informed by some God? Just what the eff does that mean anyway?
Obama is a master of doublespeak and gay rights is one issue where he plays both sides of the fence. Obama doesn't offer me a thing.
Posted by: Brian Coughlan | December 21, 2008 3:45 PM
"Dear leader is always right" is not a helpful approach.
True, but as it happens, Obama is almost certainly right in this instance, and for reasons that are rather obvious to anyone with a little political savvy.
If Obama doesn't withdraw the US from Iraq, doesn't close down Gitmo, doesn't convincingly invest in alternate energy and stem cell research ... well ... THEN, you'll have a case, and I'll be bitching and moaning right along with you.
However, for the next year or two, I'm just going to have to go with the judgement of the guy who has spent the last 2 years beating the most powerful political machines on the planet.
This was a good call, maybe even a great call. Not least because skeptics like yourself should be better equipped to see through the fluff than the constituency Obama is trying to influence through this decision.
Posted by: Rey Fox | December 21, 2008 3:48 PM
"ever-increasing government intrusion into my private life"
Exactly what intrusion are you referring to here? Higher standards for fuel economy in the car you drive? Or do you really think Gore et al. are breaking into your house and thumbing through your magazines? Surely this paranoia has some basis to it.
Posted by: Joel | December 21, 2008 3:54 PM
Brokensoldier, the fact that you don't recognize that there has been no partisianship politics the past few decades leads me to wonder just where the hell you've been.
Since the Reagan era we've been living under conservative administrations whose opposition caves at every available opportunity. Even when we've had Democratic administrations, they've had to out conservative the conservatives.
Obama's post-partisian politics is just another word for triangulation.
Posted by: William Mattsson | December 21, 2008 4:02 PM
PZ: One other appointment which should trouble you considerably is Obama's choice to be Sect. of Ed., one Arne Duncan. This guy is currently operating the Chicago Public School District as if it was a for-profit corporation, where the bottom line - student proficiency - can be improved by standardized testing and curriculum imposed by the superintendent's office with no interference by parents, teachers and other distractions. He is also a firm believer in "Zero Tolerance," a scheme which treats children like third-time criminal offenders - for their first misstep. Truthout has an excellent overview of this latest assault on public education by the neoliberals and their ilk: the religious right, the Republican right wing, and all the privatization schemers who want to cash in on public funds - and who absolutely abhor teacher's unions. The article is by Henry A. Giroux and Kenneth Saltman, posted in the Perspective section on Wednesday, Dec. 17, 2008.
Will. M.
Posted by: Louis | December 21, 2008 4:03 PM
Hmmm GWAIS strikes me as very Bobby O'Brian-esque.
I'm guessing we have a familiar chum on our hands here.
Louis
Posted by: GaryB | December 21, 2008 4:08 PM
Global Warming Is A Scam
It means the majority. Simple numbers. There are more scientists engaged in research and publishing papers that accept AGW than doubt it. The consensus is real, despite your desires.
30 years was chosen as a time that successfully accounts for noise. It was chosen out of necessity. Just because every decision you make is based on your emotional state does not mean everyone else does likewise.
Aside from your poor logic - it is very easy to have 7 or 8 of the last 10 be among the warmest despite a downward trend - the information can be easily looked up.
Here you go, from warmest to coolest, the top 10 years.
# 1998 0.52
# 2005 0.48
# 2003 0.46
# 2002 0.46
# 2004 0.43
# 2006 0.42
# 2007(Jan-Nov) 0.41
# 2001 0.40
# 1997 0.36
# 1995 0.28
I count 7. How about you?
If you have to ask for definitions for science and consensus you have come here completely unprepared to debate the issue.
I take it you so value your freedom from government that you are willing to delude yourself into ignoring a solid science. You sound pretty much like every creationist I've encountered who doesn't want science intruding on his/her bit of pseudo-reality.
Posted by: Nigel | December 21, 2008 4:08 PM
Perhaps more importantly, in more recent times Varmus has been a leading advocate of open access online science publishing, and the prime mover behind PloS. I like this appointment a lot!
Posted by: Kel | December 21, 2008 4:09 PM
Where did you do that? When I asked you, all you did was turn it back on me. You are an intellectually-dishonest evasive liar. You've barely answered any question that anyone has presented, shown no evidence for your side, engaged in a rhetorical discussion and engaged in ad hominem attacks on anyone who disagrees with your point of view.Again I ask, what are your credentials, and what makes you think you know better than the vast majority of climatologists who have spent decades studying the data?
Posted by: Kel | December 21, 2008 4:16 PM
GWIAS, if you go to PubMed and do a search for "Climate Change" there are 7470 peer reviewed articles on there. For "Global Warming", there are 4626 articles. That is the peer reviewed science on the matter, those are the articles you have do show are wrong.
http://www.pubmed.gov
Posted by: GaryB | December 21, 2008 4:18 PM
Nick Gotts:
Hit him again Nick, I think I saw him move.
Posted by: Nick Gotts | December 21, 2008 4:19 PM
Atheists less than 10% of the American population. GLBT less than 10% of the American population. The total doesn't even come close to less than 20% because the two groups overlap. Fundamentalists greater than 30% of the American population. Given the choice of not pissing off one of these groups, which one will a savvy politician cater to? - 'Tis Himself
That depends on what (s)he can hope to get - or has to lose - from each group. Obama is unlikely to get much support from fundies, under any circumstances. He received an extraordinary degree of support from those who passionately wanted him to win. He could lose that passionate support, converting it into lukewarm preference or indifference - and one of the best ways of doing that is to symbolically give them the finger, as he has done by choosing Warren. OK, as brokenSoldier says, he's not been inaugurated yet, and the real test will come once he is - but I don't think pissing off your core supporters is a good move politically. "New Labour" have consistently done that in the UK - and now the Tory party has finally found a leader with broad appeal, and stopped tearing itself apart over the EU, they have nothing to fall back on: the party is a rotting shell. Appealing to the persuadable centre ground (and for the most part the fundies are not part of it) is only one part of politics; mobilising your support is at least as vital.
I find the "dear leader" syndrome (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kim_Jong-il) displayed by the Obama-trons in this incident to be quite disturbing. - roadrider
Roadrider, you approved my #240, but I can't return the compliment, at least as far as this quote is concerned. I have actually seen little if any unconditional support for Obama among the liberal or further left (admittedly I'm viewing the whole thing from Britain); and I've seen this kind of sneering almost exclusively from the right. However I do agree with you about "post-partisan" politics: politics is always partisan, and the left in the USA (and Europe) has over the past thirty years repeatedly compromised with the right, to be rewarded with a series of kicks in the teeth. Time to shift that Overton window - and that cannot be done by sucking up to homophobic fundie shits like Warren.
Posted by: I'll second that | December 21, 2008 4:23 PM
Don't feed the trolls.
I'm starting to have the opinion that pointless interaction with such blatantly obvious trolls is a similar phenomenon to trolling itself. Both examples of just not knowing when to step away from the keyboard. Commenting for the sake of commenting. Compulsive behavior and possibly evidence of a form of dissociation.
Yes.
Posted by: brokensoldier, OM | December 21, 2008 4:24 PM
Posted by: Joel | December 21, 2008 3:44 PM
Number one, he hasn't even had one day in office, so you have no idea how his administration will perform concerning the advancement of gay and lesbian rights. Number two, I'd like you to name a few out of our long list of Presidents that have openly supported gay and lesbian rights. Just because he invited Warren to deliver a five minute (at most) invocation does not mean that he shares in Warren's bigotry and disdain for the LBGT community.
No, you most certainly do not know who I am, who I am close to, who I identify with, or anything else about me. Yet your assumptions are somewhat correct. I was in the military, and I am heterosexual. What I have a problem with is you conflating me with the bigots in the system three decades ago that wronged you. If you can't differentiate between a 28-year old soldier disillusioned with our recent and current national leadership and a military bureaucracy tilted against gay and lesbian rights, then that is your problem. You have no idea where my sentiments lie, and assuming I am part of the problem based on a military pseudonym and all the pursuant stereotypes that go along with that is a very closed-minded thing to do.
And if the fact that I enjoy rights that you do not currently enjoy somehow makes my points or assertions not worth considering, then you're going to have a very hard time getting any traction in improving your rights. Just because I was allowed to serve in the military does not make me a bigot by association.
And as for why you should listen to politicians who don't agree with your lifestyle, though still supporting your right to have it, the reason for that is simple common sense. If you expect to make everyone in the world agree with your opinion on gay and lesbian rights, you're fighting an impossibly quixotic battle, because that will simply never happen. The aim is to change the law of the land to reflect a society where all are equal - not where all agree.
Except the opportunity to make gains in the fight for equality. But by all means, if you still want to think that Obama somehow offers an equal or lesser chance for making those gains than did Carter, Reagan, Bush I, Clinton, or Bush II, then please help yourself. But wallowing in self-pity because he's not perfect will get you just as far as you've gotten in the past 30 years under those former Presidents.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead | December 21, 2008 4:26 PM
I know what you mean, but I can't put a finger on it either. I've been trying to keep track of the regulars including the trolls, but not the occasional obnoxious troll.Kel, reading between the lines, I suspect a libercontrarian type who doesn't want anybody tellin' him nothin', especially anythin' that might cause him to change his habits.
Posted by: Kel | December 21, 2008 4:28 PM
So he's not a post-modernist then?Posted by: Nick Gotts | December 21, 2008 4:30 PM
Gary B@276,
Actually I'm done with him. At least, I'll wait until he comes up with at least a pretence of putting forward some argument based on facts, rather than invincible ignorance and batshit-crazy paranoia of a kind that would shame a creobot. He knocked himself out of the ring when he declared George Bush to be a liberal!
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead | December 21, 2008 4:37 PM
Could be. Lots of room between the lines. I threw out my two cents worth of opinion. If everybody contributes we might get a profile good enough we can send the black helicopters after him. ;)Posted by: I'll second that | December 21, 2008 4:42 PM
[what brokensoldier, OM said]
Yes.
[what mayhempix said]
Yes.
Posted by: Joel | December 21, 2008 4:50 PM
Brokensoldier,
The problem here is the bigots are still at work three decades later, and no end in sight. Me questioning whether someone who enjoys a right denied to someone else, should be telling the people who are denied the right to be open to compromise and wait, isn't associating that person with the bigots.
It's simply, you don't have anything to tell me about what I should expect and when I should expect it. I've spent a good part of my life patiently waiting for the rest of the world to come to their senses and I don't see any point in continuing to go down that road, it just doesn't work.
Oh, and you can talk to me about not wallowing in self pity once you change your name from brokensoldier.
Posted by: Kel | December 21, 2008 4:51 PM
Though I guess Post-modernist doesn't work because he's not taking the view that one opinion is as good as another. He believes he is right and others are wrong, and he does so with no credentials - and that makes him a creationist.Posted by: GK4 | December 21, 2008 5:08 PM
GWIAS,
You identify the far left as a problem. But what makes someone far left, as you see it?
Where do you find yourself on the Political Compass?
http://www.politicalcompass.org
Posted by: BMS | December 21, 2008 5:11 PM
OK, let me be 100% clear here: BEING LGBT IS NOT A LIFESTYLE.
WE ARE NOT A "SOCIAL ISSUE."
When we (and by "we" I mean LGBT people) tell you that we are saddened / angered / insulted / whathaveyou by Obama's selection and approval of Warren the homobigot as the one to deliver the inaugural invocation, I for one do not appreciate being told, overtly or otherwise, to "get over it."
Fuck.
Posted by: BMS | December 21, 2008 5:17 PM
Rick Warren, in his own words #1, conflating a state of being (LGBTQI) with urges toward promiscuity:
OK, so we are (1) immature and (2) we lack character. Cool.
Posted by: BMS | December 21, 2008 5:22 PM
Rick Warren in his own words #2:
So, great - now my marriage is the equivalent of child rape, incest, and polygamy. Triple cool.
Posted by: Carlin | December 21, 2008 5:24 PM
Obama's positive message of hope and change will forever be tarnished by the image of Rick Warren next to him at the inaugeration. It is sad and disgusting that Obama is giving such an honor to a homophobic bigot who teaches hate and intolerance at his "church." This is just a craven vote grab by Obama who hopes to gain evengelical votes with this stunt. Obama is banking on the fact that gay americans have no where else to go in a reelection campaign.
Posted by: Carlin | December 21, 2008 5:26 PM
Obama's positive message of hope and change will forever be tarnished by the image of Rick Warren next to him at the inaugeration. It is sad and disgusting that Obama is giving such an honor to a homophobic bigot who teaches hate and intolerance at his "church." This is just a craven vote grab by Obama who hopes to gain evengelical votes with this stunt. Obama is banking on the fact that gay americans have no where else to go in a reelection campaign.
Posted by: BMS | December 21, 2008 5:30 PM
Rick Warren in his own words #3, later in that same interview with Steven Waldman, lying about the effect of his ability to preach in California if Proposition 8 had failed:
Lie, lie, lie, lie, lie, and -o- lie again.
(1) Telling lies about me and about us is decidedly NOT civil. And can we agree on that?
(2) We have this little document in the United States called the Constitution, which then has this littler thing in it called the 1st Amendment. Rick can spew all the hate and lies about us he wishes to (as long as he is not inciting violence) - but doing so should absolutely 100% DQ him from delivering the inaugural invocation.
Posted by: BMS | December 21, 2008 5:45 PM
And finally, the Saddleback Church position on homosexuals as members:
Posted on Steven Waldman's blog today, December 21, 2008.
I am unable to find the quoted passage on Saddleback's webpage. Has it, perhaps, been scrubbed?
Now, as an atheist, I don't give a flying fuck what sky fairy babble Rick believes. But again, as I stated above, he, and anyone else espousing such lies about us, should absolutely 100% be disqualified from delivering the invocation. Just as a matter of ethics.
Posted by: BMS | December 21, 2008 6:06 PM
OK, really finally this time.
brokensoldier:
See above in re: we are not a lifestyle.
Clearly, Joel who was discharged over 30 years ago, before you were born, has listened and listened and listened - for longer than you have been alive. I have listened for longer than you have been alive. Nothing new is being said about us now that was not said in the '60s, the '70s, the '80s, the '90s, and at present by these ignorant, assholish, holier-than-thou, homophobic nimrods.
Why on earth must we continue to listen to the same old lies and bullshit that's been said for decades about us? Why?
No shit.
But we do not need to waste our time with Warren and those of his ilk who are so clearly entrenched in their regurgitated bullshit, and who continue to spew the same tired lies as were spewed in the '60s, when there are actually people out there who can be reached.
Now I suggest you take a great big step back and examine your heterosexual privilege a little bit more deeply before you deliver another lecture to the uppity queers about how we should behave and think and feel when we are verbally shit on. Or beaten. Or killed. Merely for being LGBT and for standing up for ourselves, for explaining ourselves.
Posted by: Enshoku | December 21, 2008 6:06 PM
*comes back to the topic after several hours*
you guys are STILL feeding the trolls? Give it up guys, the more you respond, the more lulz he gets. If you attempt to make an actual point he will "blah blah blah" you, and if you insult him he gets both an ego boost and plenty of lulz. He isn't here for a real debate guys, the only people who attempt to start long and winding debates at pharyngula are either stupid enough to not know that forums are much better discussion tables(ie; your average creationist), or they are smart enough to know that message boards work well for using poes or trolling. Give it up ladies and gents, trolls only die from starvation.
Posted by: Joel | December 21, 2008 6:17 PM
Well said BMS!
Posted by: brokensoldier, OM | December 21, 2008 6:18 PM
Posted by: Joel | December 21, 2008 4:50 PM
No argument here about the system, but saying that I have no insight into the struggle you're fighting is an incorrect assumption. Nowhere did I tell you you should have to wait. Nowhere did I say it was right that it will take so much to get the equality you deserve. But I am saying that since the institutions of government have been stacked against you for so long with opinions fairly well entrenched, it is not possible to simply push the government into alignment with the progressive movement in one term, or even two. That is not condescension from the comfortable inside - it is pure pragmatism. And while I would rather have someone else besides Warren at the inauguration, all I said earlier was that involving Warren seemed to be an outreach to a certain portion - and a sizeable one at that - of our country in order to do exactly what he promised in his campaign, which was not to govern from an ideological edge, but rather to attempt to bring the different groups and people in our country a little closer together after decades of political division and demonization of the opposition.
Those who supported Obama were furious at the allegations that said simply because Obama was associated with the likes of Rev. Wright and William Ayers (two individuals whose personal histories were seriously and maliciously misrepresented), he necessarily shared their political and/ or personal beliefs. And I realize that by selecting Warren, Obama made the connection himself, but it is still just as specious. He invited a progressive pastor for the benediction, and a conservative one for the invocation - and whatever your disagreements with Warren, of which I personally have a great deal, Obama chose a conservative pastor who has a considerably more moderate tone than the majority of mainstream conservative religious leaders. His presence at the inauguration, while justifiably repugnant to some, holds no real significance other than to show that Obama will not shut out any voice. Immediately assuming he will proffer political dividends to those of Warren's ilk simply derived from his invitation to Warren to give a prayer is a major jump to a very improbable conclusion. And he has repeatedly stated that he will ensure that his administration - the ones he has actually appointed to governmental positions, as opposed to a ceremonial prayer slot - effectively carries out his directives. I just hope that if/ when one of his subordinates makes a mistake in that execution, he will take the responsibility upon himself to the degree necessitated by the specific situation.
And again, you don't have any idea how much I do or do not know about the difficulties and prejudices faced by gay and lesbian men and women in their fight for equality. In light of that, you have no idea whether or not I have any informed input to offer on this topic. You seem to be prone to taking my observations - incorrectly, I might add - as commands for you to wait for your share of the table scraps, and I doubt anything I say to you, substantive or not, would budge your perception of my comments.
As for not seeing any point in "continuing down that road" of "waiting for the world to come to their senses," (I would argue that no motivated group of people have found it effective to follow such a strategy, including the gay and lesbian community, which is why they haven't been simply waiting patiently) what exactly do you propose to do? If the course we're taking now - working to correct injustices in the law of the land to ensure equality is a legally protected institution - "just doesn't work," what exactly would be your alternative? If you cannot realize that we are now in a much better position politically to effect some real changes in how our nation views both the entire breadth of its citizenry and the rights they are entitled to, then I doubt you'll ever be able to be satisfied with any sort of progress except that sort which brings you everything you want, all at one time. And before you try to sling some more "you don't get an opinion" mud, you might need to realize that there are plenty of groups, both ethnic and otherwise, that have gone through the very same marginalization, oppression, and dismissal that you have experienced, and in some cases it was much worse. I will not go to the trouble of explaining how I identify with one such group or which group that is - I doubt it would make much difference in your opinion.
And here's another of your assumptions that is way off base. Yes, I am a wounded soldier, but the pseudonym brokensoldier is in no way a display of self-pity. Quite the contrary, I have a great deal of pride in what I have done and what happened to us overseas. Just because someone has lost a portion of their physical abilities does not mean they automatically see that loss as a situation deserving of pity. (And before you ask, this is not the group I was referring to identifying myself with in the above paragraph.) For you to assume that I was somehow soliciting pity from anyone here shows your inexperience with this board, not to mention the fact that it shows even further the extent to which you do not know who you are assuming all of these things about.
Posted by: amphiox | December 21, 2008 6:34 PM
The free market solution to anthropogenic global warming is simply this: business as usual until the climate collapses. With the ecological support mechanisms thus removed, humans will no longer be able to engage in the activities that contribute to climate change. Natural cycles will then come into play to restore the climate balance. The surviving humans (being originally a subtropical species, some of us will most likely survive even the worst warming trends) will then be poised for another 10000 year interval of civilization building and prosperity, followed by another collapse, and the cycle will repeat itself.
If all you care about is the environment of planet earth, you need not care one whit about climate change. In fact you should encourage it, in order to bring about the collapse and recovery all the sooner. Earth has been far warmer than present many times in the past, and as far as we know, the biosphere did just fine during those times, and may have been even more productive than it is now or has been in the recent past. The only hitch is that human beings and human civilizations were not around during those times.
Only those who care about human beings (and human temperate climate dependent civilization in particular) need care about global warming.
I'd also like to advance the hypothesis that GWIAS is a climate poe.
Posted by: Joel | December 21, 2008 6:37 PM
Brokensoldier,
My view, my individual interest and my position, simply put, is this. There is no compromise, no separate but equal, there is no more waiting for the nitwits to get used to me, there is equality.
When it comes to assuming, you need to check yourself.
Posted by: Global Warming Is A Scam | December 21, 2008 6:46 PM
Sorry guys I've been bullshitting all along. I really do believe in Anthropogenic Global Warming and fully support the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. I'm sorry for having wasted everyone's time and for being such a dirty, filthy liar.
It may interest you to know that in real life I am a 40 year old male virgin and I live in my Mummy's basement. Sometimes she let's me stay up past 9pm. But only if I've been a good boy.
Oh... it looks like while I was getting so excited over my e-masturbatory skills, I soiled myself. Mmm I'm all wet and sticky down there, mmm... oh god....
Posted by: brokensoldier, OM | December 21, 2008 6:47 PM
Posted by: BMS | December 21, 2008 6:06 PM
If you want to take that as an insult, go right ahead. Don't bother yourself with the fact that it wasn't meant in a derogatory manner. Don't bother yourself with considering that I might be simply arguing for practical progress rather than arguing against your interests. If you still want to think that I'm a naive, ill-informed, privileged heterosexual, that's completely fine with me. It takes no extra effort to be so wrong, though it would take a bit of work for you to read through the things I have written and see for yourself where I fall on the ideological scale.
And by the way, being homosexual most certainly is a lifestyle unique from others, just like heterosexuality is a lifestyle. If you want to take that one word and perceive it as some sort of insult, that's on you. It's not meant that way, and I gave no other indications that it was intended to be taken that way. The problem enters when people try to claim that it is a chosen lifestyle rather than an intrinsic part of who a person truly is.
In a perfect world, I totally agree. But considering the fact that a great majority of this country would much rather toss science, reason, and humanism out the window in favor of clinging to traditional and bigoted beliefs, it is a necessary step tpo involve a leader from that ideological area. If you do not, you risk retribution from shutting them totally out of the system. And given that this country is already prone to religious fervor, I for one do not want to give the fundamentalists any valid excuse for trying to use their influence with our populace to mount a return in four or eight years, bent on even more power and influence than they have had for the past two decades.
I get what you're saying, I really do. All I am saying is that it would be counterproductive to our goals to shut out that section of the population, no matter how many hundreds of times over they may deserve it. It would only give them more ammunition to make a push to send this nation even farther into intolerance and fanaticism.
And again, nowhere did I presume to lecture anybody, and nowhere did I even hint at calling anyone uppity or queer. While I do recognize that there is an anger and frustration there that I'll probably never fully understand, I do have someone in my life that knows those things firsthand, and I have been by her side more times than I could count, with her crying and asking me why people were they way they are. Every time, I just wish I could give her a good answer, or go force the change of opinion we need down those people's throats, but I can't do either.
And as a former Catholic who grew up largely in the south, I have seen my fair share of extreme, irrational, and utterly ignorant prejudice. I even caught two beatings at my middle school during my time living in southern Alabama purely because my family went to the one Catholic Church in town. In my case, though for other reasons unrelated to the prejudice, I separated myself from the church. So even though I know what it is like to be irrationally targeted, I can't imagine what it would be like to be targeted for something over which I had no control, such as my sexuality. In that, I absolutely concede to your experience, but my observations remain - I still think that Obama is on the right track, even though I don't agree with the Warren choice. I don't like it, but I'm choosing to view it as an inauguration of doing away with the old, homogenous, fundamentalist administration while ringing in a new, more open one with the ceremony being wrapped up by Warren's polar opposite. I don't know if that symbolism was intended, but it is something I noticed.
Posted by: BMS | December 21, 2008 6:48 PM
Joel #297
My pleasure. Had to be addressed, IMO.
Posted by: Kel | December 21, 2008 6:57 PM
Apology accepted, now go and clean yourself. Stop wasting other people's time.Posted by: Joel | December 21, 2008 6:58 PM
Brokensoldier,
If you were aware of us, as you have said, you would understand that lifestyle, when used in conjunction with gay men and women means being gay is a matter of choice, one of the arguments against equality.
Actually, you presume to lecture, a lot. And even though you claim to understand the anger and frustration you choose to label it as wallowing in self pity. I bet she appreciates your understanding.
Jeez.
Posted by: brokensoldier, OM | December 21, 2008 7:01 PM
Joel:
You're confusing my views of what should be with my views of how our system works. I agree that there is no compromise when it comes to individual freedoms and rights, but unfortunately it takes compromise for anything to get done in our political system. This is exactly the reason George Washington tried to warn us off of political parties, but his advice was not heeded. In my mind, everyone is already equal, regardless of the opinions of those who administer and legislate our nation. But the sad fact is that - barring an outright coup - compromise is a necessary part of political practice in our government. There are things that should not be open to compromise, and I believe Obama has a good grasp of what those things are and how they should be handled to get the desired results. Warren is saying a five minute prayer, and is not even a stand-alone entity, because he is not giving the benediction. Far more important are those that he has chosen for his cabinet that will actually set and implement policies. For me, Warren is disgusting, but irrelevant. I don't pray, so his appearance holds absolutely no significance to me, because I don't believe that Obama is willing to concede anything in the area of social equality to Warren in exchange for this appearance. I believe it was simply a gesture of good faith to those who have long forgotten to extend them to us while they were in power. And should Obama offer more to Warren, my view of him will nosedive, but I seriously do not see that happening. For now, I am waiting until January 20th to see how he actually handles himself in office.
Actually, I have made no assumptions that I have left unexplained. And despite your suggestions otherwise, I have insulted or denigrated no one here, and don't intend to do so. Projecting bigotry onto me simply because I'm willing to give Obama the benefit of the doubt over his selection for a ceremonial, meaningless appearance is a faulty assumption in and of itself.
Posted by: BMS | December 21, 2008 7:05 PM
You might wish to re-read your responses and consider why they are assessed as such.
A really really long post or a really really long reply to someone reads exactly like a lecture (and yes, my own posts are a lecture series).
Posted by: BMS | December 21, 2008 7:11 PM
And what Joel said:
Posted by: brokensoldier, OM | December 21, 2008 7:21 PM
Posted by: Joel | December 21, 2008 6:58 PM
You simply take it as lecturing. If you show me where I talked down to you and told you when and how you should get your rights, as you have suggested, then I'd agree that I was lecturing. But I was not, so you won't find those things. I surmise that you'll find certain statements and conflate them with prior buzz words of intolerance, and then call me guilty by association for using such 'bad' words.
If you would actually read what I'm writing, instead of skimming for points to try to take offense from, you'd see that I did not label you as wallowing in self-pity because you are oppressed or because of the injustice you face. The self-pity remark was directed at your absolute rejection of Obama over one choice for one prayer at one inaugural event. But you're obviously going to take things the way you choose to, without trying to actually understand what I'm writing, so further conversation is probably unnecessary.
And you keep showing that you don't have a single clue about me or my situation. I don't know what the difference between you is, but my friend is capable of understanding the fact that insults are intentional speech acts - not particular words or phrases. And she fully understands my opinions and somehow thinks that I'm one of her best friends. I guess she must not be smart enough to catch the insults hidden in my words like you seemingly are.
If it suits you to think that I am somehow demeaning you with typical anti-homosexual tag words, then go right ahead. That is far easier than actually having a substantive conversation.
Just to wrap it up, the only point I was trying to make here was that while Obama pissed a lot of people off with this pick, I believe that once his agenda is set in motion, we'll realize that this invitation to Warren was nothing more than a political olive branch - a symbol of his willingness to engage all comers. And engaging all voices of input does not equate to the validation of all the invited viewpoints.
Goodnight - I was not intending to get pulled into an argument or be called condescending, but I guess that's what they mean about the "best-laid plans," so I'll just bow out now before it gets any worse.
Posted by: Joel | December 21, 2008 7:22 PM
Compromise does not work when applied to equality. Separate but equal was a compromise to desegration of the school systems. It did not create equality in education and civil unions will not create equality in marriage.
As to Rick Warren. Relationships with the President of the United States are extremely valuable. Rick Warren given the opportunity of this very visible honor says clearly that he is a respected and valued friend of the President of the United States in spite of your attempts to trivialize the honor.
Posted by: brokensoldier, OM | December 21, 2008 7:26 PM
BMS:
But just because something structurally resembles a lecture does not mean that it is a diatribe bent on telling you how you should think or feel, which is what was meant by the assertion that I was lecturing Joel or you. Those are two very different usages of the word, and such a conflation is misleading. And long posts are something I'm hopelessly prone to - for some reason, my comments start out short most of the time, but end up as borderline dissertations.
But in the interest of conversation, I apologize if I came across that way. It's the last thing I would have intended.
Posted by: brokensoldier, OM | December 21, 2008 7:33 PM
Posted by: Joel | December 21, 2008 7:22 PM
I have already said the exact same thing. And that is what I meant by saying that I believe - from what he has said - that Obama knows what can be compromised and what is not open to it. Just because compromise is a necessity of American politics does not mean that your rights will be the entity compromised. It is simply a tool that must be used in order to achieve the rights that must be recognized for everyone.
Here is where you're assuming - you're asserting that by virtue of his invitation to Warren, he is necessarily a "respected and valued" friend to the pastor. That is what I disagree with, and only time will tell which situation will be shown to be true. (Though I don't think Obama is that close to Warren personally, even if that was the case, I believe Obama is intelligent and politically savvy enough to differentiate between those he maintains friendships with and those he takes policy advice from, especially concerning issues as important as individual rights across the spectrum.
Posted by: BMS | December 21, 2008 7:34 PM
It did come across that way. We know what our issues are - we don't need them explained to us by you or anyone else. And thank you for the apology.
I would suggest that, if you are interested in learning more about the LGBT community beyond what you've experienced with your friend, you spend some time (as in, over the course of months at least) reading LGBT blogs and websites from our advocacy groups.
You might then be able to understand why using the word "lifestyle" to describe our state of being is an insult.
Because regardless of your intent (and regardless of Obama's intent with his invitation to Warren) it is an insult.
Posted by: Quiet_Desperation | December 21, 2008 7:35 PM
Yes, that actually was the premise of my post. And I get the existence of a protest. It's the *level* that I don't get. The invocation (provocation?) is set, we protested, let's move on to more important issues. You savvy?
Well, at least you didn't invoke Hitler.
Posted by: pray away the gay | December 21, 2008 7:48 PM
Yes, it has been scrubbed. Archives:
http://web.archive.org/web/20071026063007/www.saddlebackfamily.com/smallgroups/saddleback_church_faq.html
Posted by: pray away the gay | December 21, 2008 7:51 PM
http://www.webcitation.org/5dEzhdI4w
http://74.125.45.132/search?q=cache:PXTZQFA_15kJ:www.saddlebackfamily.com/membership/group_finder/faqs_saddleb/unack.asp?id=7509
Posted by: brokensoldier, OM | December 21, 2008 7:52 PM
BMS:
And that's where you're wrong. You can keep insisting upon it, but it doesn't change the fact that there was no insult present aside from the one you perceived. There was no insult intended on my end, no derogatory language (aside from the word lifestyle, apparently) in my responses, and no indication that I do not support individual rights for every human, regardless of who the person may be. The fact that you won't recognize that is telling, because not only do the gay and lesbian men and women in my life not see the word lifestyle as an insult (unless of course it is connected to the concept of choice in sexuality), but they also have no qualms about discussing with me their experiences and feelings, and feel no qualms referring to their way of life as their lifestyle.
But if you're set on being insulted, I guess I can't do much more in the way of conversing. And if you perceive long posts that don't line up 100% with your opinions as lectures, I'd suggest that you not pay attention to 90% of the posts here, because the discussions and comments get quite long, if you haven't found that out by now. And despite my repeated insistence to the contrary, your tendency is still to go right to the defensive - no matter what I say - in response to the supposed insults my comments contain. Honestly, considering that you think I come across as condescending and lecturing, you come across as someone who does not accept input from anyone who doesn't pass your own litmus test of understanding.
Posted by: pray away the gay | December 21, 2008 7:54 PM
Because you're straight and not an ally, so it's not an important issue to you. We get the point. Feel free to repeat yourself ad nauseum.
Thank you, your concern trolling has been noted.
Posted by: pray away the gay | December 21, 2008 7:58 PM
Most unintentionally funny comment of the thread.
Once more into the breach! Never apologize! If those faggots refuse to understand that they're not allowed to be offended by anything you say, just say it again and again until they fucking well understand.
Posted by: brokensoldier, OM | December 21, 2008 8:04 PM
Differentiate that statement from "It's because you're gay and don't understand family values." They both employ the exact same kind of stereotypical, bigoted, us vs. them mentality, and they assume that a person's individual identity both defines and limits the reach of their political interests.
I am straight, but that does not mean that individual liberty and human rights are not gravely important issues to me. This kind of statement is an exemplar of group-think, and is exactly what will destroy any progress we might make in advancing the causes of those groups that have been ignored in the recent past. Because if you want to get into a homogenous fight for rights where a person's ability to fight alongside you is wholly dependent on whether or not they share in your identity, you'll quickly find that there are more bigots in this country than there are those of us who still see this country as the bastion of tolerance that it was designed to be, and you'll be severely outnumbered.
Prop 8 was a perfect example of this, and a perfect example of why individual rights, especially those for groups in the minority of the population, should never be left up to the majority to vote on.
Posted by: BMS | December 21, 2008 8:04 PM
Oh good grief, brokensoldier. I don't think you could miss the point any farther if you tried.
Posted by: Global Warming Is A Scam | December 21, 2008 8:05 PM
Define "vast majority". Prove that this majority of "climate scientists" agree that the "question has been settled" by linking to the on-the-record comments of every person currently studying climate science, and show that this "vast majority" scenario is happening. I'm not holding my breath.
And large swaths of land could also become arable. Greenland could live up to its name. Deaths from cold weather (which now greatly outnumber deaths from heat) could be greatly reduced. Heart attacks caused by shoveling snow could be minimized. The roads could be much safer in the winter. Now that I think of it, I could get to like this "global warming".
Projecting again, are we? How pathetic.
But par for the course with a warmista troll.
Posted by: I'll second that | December 21, 2008 8:06 PM
[more of what brokensoldier, OM said]
Yes. Some people are determined to treat their friends and allies as enemies. Fortunately for them in this case, this will not become a self-fulfilling prophesy, no matter how hard they work at making it one.
Posted by: brokensoldier, OM | December 21, 2008 8:09 PM
Posted by: pray away the gay | December 21, 2008 7:58 PM
I use the word lifestyle in a sentence, and you put the word 'faggot' into my mouth. That's rational and open conversation if I ever saw it. And just in case you couldn't bother yourself to read what's being talked about, you'll find that I actually did apologize for coming across as condescending, because it truly wasn't my intent. But go ahead and put all the words in my mouth you want - it still won't mean that I insulted you.
Posted by: pray away the gay | December 21, 2008 8:12 PM
Okay, asshole.
Because Quiet_Desperation is straight (not to mention a previously noted concern troll), he cannot understand what it is like to be gay and so he cannot understand Rick Warren's invocation as a personal insult the way a gay person can.
If you dispute this, you are a liar and an idiot.
Posted by: Kel | December 21, 2008 8:13 PM
GWIAS, are you actually going to answer any of the questions posed to you in this thread, or just continue a rhetoric game that will ensure that everybody here will oppose you purely because you have no substance to your ramblings?
Posted by: brokensoldier, OM | December 21, 2008 8:15 PM
Posted by: BMS | December 21, 2008 8:04 PM
No, I got that you take the Warren invitation as an insult, and I don't presume to tell you it shouldn't be taken as such - I simply said, to say it again, that people should reserve judgement on Obama's dedication to LGBT concerns until he actually starts making his policy positions clear with initiatives and legislation, and not rush to judgement over a ceremonial prayer invitation. I never said you shouldn't take the invitation as an insult - just that I believe it isn't the huge departure from his expressed convictions that it is being made out to be. The only thing that I told you was certainly not an insult was my comment.
Posted by: pray away the gay | December 21, 2008 8:16 PM
And then you went on and on and on about how it should not have been taken as an insult. Because gay people are too stupid to decide for themselves what is and is not insulting to them. Because only your intentions matter, not the actual effects that your words have.
And if you say "hey, my nigger" to your good black friend, it's his fault if he takes it the wrong way, and by no means can it mean that you insulted him.
Am I raising the stakes? Yes, as an argumentum ad absurdem. Your logic is fatally flawed and you've already demonstrated that you can't see that at a lower level of insult.
Posted by: Global Warming Is A Scam | December 21, 2008 8:17 PM
I have already answered every question asked of me. You really need to work on your reading comprehension.
By the way, what are your credentials? Besides the amazing ability to parrot IPCC talking points, I mean.
Posted by: pray away the gay | December 21, 2008 8:20 PM
A real apology is when you say "I'm sorry" and then you shut the fuck up. When you go on to tell the insulted party what they are and are not allowed to feel insulted about, you void the apology, because you've once again brought yourself and your privilege to the center stage.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead | December 21, 2008 8:22 PM
GWIAS, you are the one running the scam. Answers Kel's question or be shown to be a liar and bullshitter, even bigger than you already are. You still haven't put up any refereed scientific data, like the liar you are.
Posted by: brokensoldier, OM | December 21, 2008 8:22 PM
Posted by: pray away the gay | December 21, 2008 8:12 PM
I referred in no way to that commenter, but rather to the response his comment drew out, which was just as illogical as his original comment. And while not being gay necessarily means that one cannot feel the insult such a thing projects, that definitely does not mean that a straight person cannot see why you would be insulted. Again you're basing your opinion of me and my positions on my sexuality and my lack of common ground in that area with you. I just posted that the selection of Warren as an insult is something I can't and won't dispute, because I'm not in the required position to make that judgement. But go ahead and jump on the wagon to try to cry insult from my comments, even as you're the one calling people assholes.
Posted by: I'll second that | December 21, 2008 8:23 PM
I believe Obama is intelligent and politically savvy enough to differentiate between those he maintains friendships with and those he takes policy advice from, especially concerning issues as important as individual rights across the spectrum.
Yes. Biden and McCain are friends, as are Ginsberg and Scalia. One of my closest friends has a horrible attitude toward Palestinians, and yet I would gladly put him in a place of honor -- but that would not be an endorsement or validation of his views about Palestinians.
Posted by: BMS | December 21, 2008 8:25 PM
brokensoldier,
I would ask that you re-read my cut-n-pastes of Rick Warren's statements as well as his church's reasoning for refusing membership to unrepentant homosexuals, and I would ask also that you have your LGBT friends read them with you, too.
I am curious what your LGBT friends' thoughts are on Rick's statements.
Also, if I'm reading you correctly you want us to understand what you are saying. Trust me when I say I understand why you think Obama is extending an olive branch to evangelicals, and also that I understand why you think doing so is a good idea. You are not the first person to advance these ideas in the past few days. I'm sure you won't be the last.
I ask in return for you to understand our perceptions of it, to understand why we do not like it. (With full knowledge that I know some, a very very small some, LGBTs feel as you do about it.)
Posted by: brokensoldier, OM | December 21, 2008 8:25 PM
pray away the gay,
You're going to keep playing the insulted card no matter what I offer as opinion, so I won't be answering you anymore. Just know that you'll find that your pool of allies in this fight is only going to get smaller and smaller if absolute submission to your viewpoint is your criteria for success.
Posted by: Kel | December 21, 2008 8:25 PM
Liar.can you confirm your Climatology credentials?
what makes you think you know better than the overwhelming majority of the scientific community?
I ask again, what credentials or evidence do you have that the current consensus on global warming is wrong?
why aren't you providing evidence to support your position?
Why instead are you insulting anyone here as being members of the global warming religion then complaining that people are insulting you back?
Why can't you back up your assertions that show you know better than those people who actually study climate change?
The climatologists who work on the problem of climate change would say their evidence is legitimate. Why are they wrong?
Are you actually going to show us how the scientific community is wrong on global warming, or use the Kirk Cameron approach?
But I'm being conciliatory here, so I'm giving you a chance to explain why you think you know better than the vast majority of climatologists. I'm asking you how you know they are wrong, and asking for the evidence that supports you being right. I've asked this several times and all you've done is played the rhetoric game.
Climatologists have put forward a plethora of evidence to support their theories on global warming, there is a staggering amount of peer-reviewed research done on global warming. Why is all of that wrong? Just how do you know better? And why are you focusing on rhetoric when all science is about evidence?
GWIAS, if you go to PubMed and do a search for "Climate Change" there are 7470 peer reviewed articles on there. For "Global Warming", there are 4626 articles. That is the peer reviewed science on the matter, those are the articles you have do show are wrong.
Can you show me where you answered all these questions? I can't find it at all.
Posted by: Global Warming Is A Scam | December 21, 2008 8:26 PM
Which question is that, Red?
It wouldn't be hard to be a bigger liar than I already am, since I'm not one yet.
(That's called a tautology, by the way.)
Posted by: pray away the gay | December 21, 2008 8:27 PM
You're imagining shit. I said nothing of the sort. I said it's not up to straight people to decide for gay people what is and is not important to gay people, or how important any particular issue should be.
Quiet_Desperation has repeatedly said that this issue isn't as important as it's being taken to be. That isn't for him to decide. That's his privilege talking, and it's particularly sad that you're more interested in what a straight man (who is not a progressive, by the way, look up his previous posts here) has to say about gay rights than what gay people have to say about what matters day to day in their own lives.
Posted by: Kel | December 21, 2008 8:28 PM
Really if you answer anything off that list, please answer the questions to do with evidence. "I'm asking you how you know they are wrong, and asking for the evidence that supports you being right."
Posted by: pray away the gay | December 21, 2008 8:30 PM
No, motherfucker, I am basing my opinion of you on your unwillingness to listen to the gay folks here about the effect of your own words.
Posted by: I'll second that | December 21, 2008 8:35 PM
To brokenSoldier, OM: again, yes to craig@139 -- your exchange has reached and exceeded the point of diminishing returns.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead | December 21, 2008 8:37 PM
We always knew GWIAS was running a scam. His failure to answer direct questions and back up his inane assertions with peer reviewed evidence tells us he is less than a stupid troll, which is very hard to be. He will not engage in real discussion. PZ, plonking time for this pest. My guess is that he is a repeat offender. If the almighty cephalopod lord is feeling benevolent though, disemvowelment would be a lesser punishment.
Posted by: pray away the gay | December 21, 2008 8:38 PM
Look at the context, you self-assured shit.
Quiet_Desperation said "let's move on to more important issues" and I replied that he definitionally cannot know what is or should be more important to gay people because he is not gay. You responded that this was bigoted of me to say, and now illogical.
You are now doing the same thing he did. You're a straight man lecturing gay people on how to understand gay issues. Your complete blindness to your own privilege is tragic, but unsurprising.
Posted by: I'll second that | December 21, 2008 8:38 PM
You're going to keep playing the insulted card no matter what I offer as opinion, so I won't be answering you anymore. Just know that you'll find that your pool of allies in this fight is only going to get smaller and smaller if absolute submission to your viewpoint is your criteria for success.
Yes.
Posted by: Global Warming Is A Scam | December 21, 2008 8:38 PM
Yes, I can.
Prove that the "overwhelming majority" of the "scientific community" (whatever that is) disagrees with me. And show me how this is relevant. Prove that science functions as a democracy.
I'm simply following the lead of you warm-mongers, who do nothing but parrot IPCC talking points.
Instead of what? I didn't insult "anyone here", just those who actually belong to said faith-based belief system. I'm not complaining that people are insulting me. Quite the contraray. I love it!!! For it only goes to show the absolute paucity of their position.
Non-sequitir.
Objection, your honor. Asked and answered. Sustained.
Objection, your honor. Asked and answered. Sustained.
Is there a question in there somewhere?
There. Done. Happy now? No? Oh well, there's no pleasing a Warmista, I guess.
Posted by: Global Warming Is A Scam | December 21, 2008 8:40 PM
Yes, I can.
Prove that the "overwhelming majority" of the "scientific community" (whatever that is) disagrees with me. And show me how this is relevant. Prove that science functions as a democracy.
I'm simply following the lead of you warm-mongers, who do nothing but parrot IPCC talking points.
Instead of what? I didn't insult "anyone here", just those who actually belong to said faith-based belief system. I'm not complaining that people are insulting me. Quite the contraray. I love it!!! For it only goes to show the absolute paucity of their position.
Non-sequitir.
Objection, your honor. Asked and answered. Sustained.
Objection, your honor. Asked and answered. Sustained.
Is there a question in there somewhere?
There. Done. Happy now? No? Oh well, there's no pleasing a Warmista, I guess.
Posted by: Patricia, OM | December 21, 2008 8:40 PM
My goodness, you gents have hooked a big one this time. Without seeing all the spots, I'm guessing, a Large-Mouthed Sucker?
Posted by: pray away the gay | December 21, 2008 8:41 PM
Oh of course, it's just a "card," because no one here could honestly be insulted, nor does anyone have the right to be.
Posted by: pray away the gay | December 21, 2008 8:43 PM
Nobody, not even brokensoldier, thinks that you aren't a right-wing troll here to divide and conquer.
Posted by: brokensoldier, OM | December 21, 2008 8:44 PM
Posted by: BMS | December 21, 2008 8:25 PM
While I find those statements to be more in line with the Dark Ages than modern America, I also fully recognize that the entirety of my disgust with him is small compared to the level of personal insult you must feel when Warren or his church says those things you've cited. I do get that now, and while I knew I was in no place to doubt someone's feelings of being insulted, I did not understand fully the difference between my disgust and my lacking estimation of what you must feel. (Which is why I never purported to deny Warren's invitation as an insult, only to explain why I think it might work out in the end.) And though I don't view his invitation of Warren as a legitimization of Warren's views, I can tell (tell me if I'm off-base in this) that even the prospect of such is enough of a reason to voice fervent objection and let Obama know how you - and the entire LGBT community - feel right up front.
Only one of my roommates is here right now, but the second I mentioned Rick Warren, she scoffed and turned around and walked down the hall. That message was received loud and clear.
A big mistake I make occasionally is to superimpose my friends' feelings and opinions on the entire LGBT community, and that is where I get the insensitivity you saw when I used the word lifestyle as a descriptive. Because it doesn't offend them, I assumed it shouldn't offend you - my mistake, and I'm sorry.
I appreciate your being willing to discuss it with me, and I really didn't mean to offend. you or anyone else.
Posted by: Global Warming Is A Scam | December 21, 2008 8:46 PM
We simply cannot tolerate this constant dissent from official Warm-monger dogma!!! Off with his head!!!111one!!!11
Posted by: pray away the gay | December 21, 2008 8:47 PM
I know you're not talking to me anymore, but thanks for that.
Posted by: BMS | December 21, 2008 8:47 PM
Re: "Insulted card"
I posted 4 direct quotes from Rick and his church and haven't gotten any good engagement on those at all.
All I received was accusations that I'm (faux?) insulted, time and time and time again even when I didn't even respond to them.
Sheesh can't a girl even pick her battles anymore?
Posted by: brokensoldier, OM | December 21, 2008 8:49 PM
Posted by: pray away the gay | December 21, 2008 8:47 PM
Ah, hell, nothing's permanent. That was directed at whomever I offended, which I know includes you. I will say I'm sorry, but I can't make any promises on the "shut the fuck up" part...
Posted by: brokensoldier, OM | December 21, 2008 8:53 PM
Posted by: BMS | December 21, 2008 8:47 PM
I meant that "insulted card" reference to be directed not towards Warren's invitation, but the fact that I wasn't meaning to insult anyone yet kept doing it anyway, apparently. I doubt you'll hear that one out of me again on this thread now that I see where you were coming from on both the Warren invitation and my comments.
Posted by: BMS | December 21, 2008 8:53 PM
Ha! Posted too quick on that one (#353), eh? Sorry for that!
brokensoldier,
Thank you for that insightful response. I was hoping I might get through to you. You're not an OM recipient for naught.
I sent an email to his team the other day expressing my sadness over the decision and expressing why it saddens me.
Thanks once again.
Posted by: Kel | December 21, 2008 8:53 PM
You aren't answering the question, what are your credentials? 97% of climate scientists support the theory of global warming, and 84% attribute it to humans. Did you read post #146? Liar, you've been provided with suitable evidence. Hell, I even gave you a link to PubMed where you can look at the actual arguments yourself. Stop deceiving yourself, people here have given a strong case. Just read Nick Gotts at #172.You are throwing out the faith insult as a dismissal of the concept of global warming. That's despite there being over 10,000 peer reviewed articles involving the phenomenon on PubMed. That's despite the scores of scientists who work on it and study the evidence. By calling it a faith-based system you are trying to paint anyone who accepts global warming as irrational and thus using it as an insult. Again, stop with the rhetoric! No it's not, you are going out of your way to avoid providing any evidence for your assertions. You are implicitly claiming that those who work on climate change are wrong, so I want to know how and why you've come to that conclusion. If you know something greater than all these scientists combined, why are you avoiding telling us?Where did you show how they are wrong? All you've done is say that's it's not a legitimate science without saying why it's not legitimate. Yes, why are those ~11,000 articles all talking about the science behind climate change not legitimate? Given that you've continued the rhetoric game and not provided any real answers, no I'm not pleased. Stop being evasive and provide some fucking evidence that you know better than the scientific community. (and $10 says you are going to focus on me using the words "scientific community" instead of providing evidence)Posted by: BMS | December 21, 2008 8:56 PM
Phew.
OK, I have to go engage in my LGBT lifestyle now and prepare dinner for my wife.
Ta!
:P
Posted by: Global Warming Is A Scam | December 21, 2008 8:58 PM
Hey Kel! Define "scientific community". Do you like to use terms you are incapable of defining?
Posted by: CSue | December 21, 2008 8:58 PM
Boring troll is boring.
Talk about a one-trick pony... *yawn*
Re: Rick Warren quotes and lack of response thereto - I think basically nobody here is surprised by anything that guy says on that subject any more, so it hardly requires a response. He strikes me as slightly less likeable on a personal basis than Mike Huckabee, but no less Dark-Ages-insane.
Posted by: brokensoldier, OM | December 21, 2008 9:01 PM
Posted by: BMS | December 21, 2008 8:53 PM
Thanks to you for the compliment - and I'd be lying if I didn't admit that my hope for Obama's success in turning the country around didn't, in small part at least, inform my perception of this situation with the invocation and Warren. Being completely honest, I'm eagerly looking for positives in our national political scene, which - in concert with the fact that my friends weren't too up in arms about it - probably allowed me to wrongly believe it wasn't all that deeply insulting to the LGBT community.
Posted by: Global Warming Is A Scam | December 21, 2008 9:01 PM
Oh and Kel...what are your credentials? And what is the "optimal" temperature of the planet. Inquiring minds wanna know!
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead | December 21, 2008 9:02 PM
Lets see, GWIAS is up to five crimes against Pharyngula, working on more. Insipidity, slagging, stupidity, trolling, and wanking. And still no peer reviewed evidence to back up any allegations. Gross stupidity can be the only answer, because normal stupidity would have quit by now.
Posted by: I'll second that | December 21, 2008 9:03 PM
And though I don't view his invitation of Warren as a legitimization of Warren's views, I can tell (tell me if I'm off-base in this) that even the prospect of such is enough of a reason to voice fervent objection and let Obama know how you - and the entire LGBT community - feel right up front.
Yes. It is right and appropriate that people express their outrage at Warren's views and their strong disapproval of his selection to give the invocation. It is sad though that some go so far beyond that and reach all sorts of conclusions about Obama or others who don't feel the same or as strongly as they do or who defend Obama or rationalize his actions; such defenses and rationalizations do not make people enemies of the LGBTQ community -- in fact, quite a few of those people are members of that community.
Posted by: Alex Deam | December 21, 2008 9:04 PM
Calm down everyone!
FIrstly, I shall quote a comment I just made on Greg Laden's blog (http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/2008/12/rick_warren_at_the_inaugural_w.php) about the Warren issue since I don't think people have people have picked up on this point.
Posted by: Global Warming Is A Scam | December 21, 2008 9:06 PM
Hey Red..how about some peer-reviewed evidence for what the planet's "optimal" temperature is. It should be in those thousands of "peer-reviewed" publications.
Posted by: brokensoldier, OM | December 21, 2008 9:09 PM
GWIAS:
scientific community = scientists confident enough in the logic and comprehensibility of their work that they are willing to offer up their findings to other scientists and encourage them to check their work
To this point, the only ones who fit that description are those scientists who have demonstrated the plain fact that the planet is retaining more of the sun's energy than it is releasing, not to mention gaining heat and energy from sources other than the sun (geothermal, heat expelled from organisms, etc...) And if we're taking in more heat than we're letting off, common sense tells you we're getting warmer.
Well, maybe not you, but certainly anyone with a discerning mind and a lack of idiocy about them.
P.S.: No need to rebut this - it'll go pleasantly unanswered.
Posted by: brokensoldier, OM | December 21, 2008 9:15 PM
GWIAS:
The planet does not, and will never have, an optimal temperature. There is an optimal temperature for certain individual life forms or ecosystems, but the entire planet has no "optimal" thermostat setting. As a matter of fact, the planet can survive any temperature range that has been thrown at it - it's us that won't be able to survive the coming changes if we don't start doing something. But then again, anyone who was truly informed on the subject of climate change would know that such a question is just idiotic.
Posted by: I'll second that | December 21, 2008 9:25 PM
Firstly, Warren isn't the only religious figure involved at the ceremony. Joseph Lowery also is, and according to Wikipedia, he has "advocated for LGBT civil rights and supports same-sex marriage".
Yes. (But no way no how does Lowery "cancel" Warren.)
Obama said, "It is no secret that I am a fierce advocate for equality for gay and lesbian Americans."
Yes that he is, although it does seem to be somewhat of a secret. Obama has previously said "I oppose the divisive and discriminatory efforts to amend the California Constitution, and similar efforts to amend the U.S. Constitution or those of other states". He also favors repeal of DOMA, elimination of "don't ask, don't tell", passage of ENDA, and more: http://erlc.com/article/clinton-obama-other-dems-favor-repealing-part-of-doma
That, as Keith Olbermann said, is just about a first for an American President.
Yes, although not a first for (non-Republican) Presidential candidates.
Posted by: Wowbagger | December 21, 2008 9:29 PM
Alex Deam, #365
Excellent work. Now GWIAS has two options - go away and read the articles you've posted, or comment here without doing so, opening himself up to another tidal wave of scorn.
Posted by: Alex Deam | December 21, 2008 9:41 PM
Sure he does. Lowery basically has the opposite views to Warren (aside from the whole Christian thing, but then that part is required). Isn't this how people maths works? Gandhi+Hitler=0?
I guess, but it matters not what they say as candidates, only what they do in the White House. Obama seems to be the first to say something like that as the incoming president. As much as I respect people like PZ and Greg being angry about the Warren issue, the fact that Warren is going to do the invocation at the ceremony is not going to make one iota of difference to Obama's policies over the next 4 years. In fact so far, looking at his appointments, his continued use of the internet after the election, and other things over the last few weeks, it looks like the next 4 years could be a liberal party where everyone's invited. And by that I mean he might actually do a good job. Here's hoping anyway!
Posted by: Kel | December 21, 2008 9:46 PM
I told you, I'm not a climatologist. (I'm a computer scientist for the record) This is why I'm not arguing against the findings of climatologists, because they have studied this problem extensively and I have not. The same goes for biology, for chemistry, for physics, for history and for whatever other discipline out there I'm not qualified in. All I can ever really do is echo the sentiments of experts, those who actually are qualified.Posted by: Kel | December 21, 2008 9:56 PM
I wrote
Then GWIAS wroteB