Pharyngula

Posted by: Emmet, OM | January 13, 2009 8:52 AM

I want my commenters to be uncivil.

No problem, ya beardy git.

Posted by: clinteas | January 13, 2009 8:57 AM

Not only are some of them very concerned about manners,they are also pretty dense.

Posted by: scatheist | January 13, 2009 9:01 AM

This is why I keep coming back PZ. I am a recent convert from the world of pseudoscience. I thank you and others for opening my eyes to the fact that "sawgrass" isn't going to help my enlarged prostate!

Posted by: Janine, Bitter Friend | January 13, 2009 9:04 AM

Beard fight! Beard fight!

I am going to get some hot chocolate and enjoy the hostilities. It gets me warm and tingly all over.

Posted by: araujo | January 13, 2009 9:08 AM

See it and spread the news: MAJERUS, M. E. N. Industrial Melanism in the Peppered Moth, Biston betularia: An Excellent Teaching Example of Darwinian Evolution in Action. Evolution: Education and Outreach. In: ://www.springerlink.com/content/h7n4r6h026q1u6hk/fulltext.html>

Posted by: clinteas | January 13, 2009 9:11 AM

Then again PZ,

you have had a few hot topics in the last few days,it wasnt only the weblog thingy,the rabbi thread brought out some fine specimens as well !

Oh,and Janine,its 32degrees Celsius here at 1am,im sweating like a bearded scientist,and hot chocolate would just about kill me ! LOL

Posted by: SC, OM | January 13, 2009 9:17 AM

Who's this Emmett person, Mr. Meyer?

Posted by: Janine, Bitter Friend | January 13, 2009 9:18 AM

Clinteas, that is because you are in Oppositeland and it is summer there. Here in the real world of the mid continental North America, we are hunkering down for a few days of sub zero weather. I desire anything that could warm me up. A beard fight between PZ and Emmet helps.

Let the hot and angry words fly!

Clineas, you are bearded? You want to join in the battle? No need to take sides. I wanted a bearded battle royale.

Posted by: Paconious | January 13, 2009 9:23 AM

Right on Prof Myerz.

I reserve the right to call a church a waste of real state whenever i feel like it.

Posted by: E.V. | January 13, 2009 9:25 AM

Those who proliferate the Noble Lie™ don't truck with such coarseness and vulgarity -they're consumed with being noble after all and deny the lying part. They think their protestations against crude language and hostile tones are actually valid debating points that garner rational credibility when their main arguments have little merit.

"I didn't cuss and call everyone a f**ktard, so I win," says the archly smug religiobabbler.
*sigh*

Posted by: SEF | January 13, 2009 9:26 AM

I wanted a bearded battle royale.

Posted by: Kobra | January 13, 2009 9:28 AM

Hear hear! I will do my damnedest to be as uncivil as is warranted (as determined by myself and PZ if necessary) when confronted with ignorance, stupidity, and delusion.

Posted by: Janine, Bitter Friend | January 13, 2009 9:29 AM

Clinteas, are you saying that I need an different flimsy excuse to get you, Emmet, PZ and others trying to lay the smackdown on each other?

Alright, who is the most rude commentator here?

GO!

Posted by: Eamon Knight | January 13, 2009 9:32 AM

I have no idea how these blog awards things are run, but in the recent Canadian equivalent no less than *two* of D'Oh!Leary's founts of drivel were in the running in the Sci & Tech category, so that tells you how much credibility the process has.

Posted by: Emmet, OM | January 13, 2009 9:32 AM

if the cartoon on your website has any pictorial accuracy at all, a guy with the scraggly wisps on his chin that you've got doesn't get to slander anyone else's beard

I'm sorry to disappoint those expecting a beardfight, but I'm afraid I must concede that our host does, indeed, have the superior beard — my goatee is, as my South Park caricature suggests, a puny ginger affair. I not only lack the concentration of testosterone in my watery Celtic blood to grow a proper science beard or go bald, but also the melanin in my skin to do anything other than turn bright pink and get cancer when exposed to sunlight.

<offtopic>I'll be in the SF Bay Area in Feb/Mar and (maybe) Boston in late March for a week or so; if any friendly local Pharyngulites want to meet up for a beer, contact me.</offtopic>

Posted by: Tom K. | January 13, 2009 9:34 AM

It is every free person's right to be rude, but we should set the bar a little higher and be rude and funny. The Dutch-speaking crowds here can check out the example set by Hans Teeuwen: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JcCOktdsz-0

Posted by: Evolving Squid | January 13, 2009 9:35 AM

I want my commenters to be uncivil.

Agreed. I loathe insincere politeness. It doesn't fool anyone except the person using it... sort of like breast implants.

Posted by: AnthonyK | January 13, 2009 9:37 AM

I kept wondering why frisbees got bigger and bigger.
Then it hit me.

Posted by: clinteas | January 13, 2009 9:40 AM

and (maybe) Boston in late March for a week or so;

Boston eh....Wonder who you would go and see there LOL
Gee those ministers,not only fail in the beard contest,but also no shame at all !

Posted by: The Count | January 13, 2009 9:41 AM

PZ speaks like a true professor, asking you to open your mind and come to the truth yourself.

Which may be why so many folks simply cannot make a successful transition from the spoon-fed primary and secondary education systems in the US of A.

---------

Totally off-topic, but I was reading Greta's post regarding Gary Marcus' book Kludge: The Haphazard Construction of the Human Mind. Now, brains and ideas cannot fossilize (except in a church, temple or a certain political party) so what work has been done in the evolution of the brain? What I'm referring to more specifically is the turning on or off the genes of animals in utero to attempt to devolve the brain and compare against various baseline responses. Would such a thing even have any value?

Posted by: AJ Milne | January 13, 2009 9:45 AM

Isn't it odd how these calls for "unity" and "nonpartisanship" from the right only occur after the Republicans lose?

Indeed. This Modern World had a comment on this just last week, I believe.

What's especially precious and comical about certain denialist types insisting on 'civility' is many of these are the very same people who endlessly ascribe all manner of deliberately devious evil and/or rampant stupidity to their opponents pretty much every time they open their mouths. Y'know... global warming's all a commie plot by radical eco-freaks hellbent on destroying civilization and they're all buying into it because their either with them or useful idiots who've never looked at the numbers or read the science themselves and thought it over, and hey, stupid, you've swallowed the Kool-Aid, too, ya brainwashed moron... But be civil to me, dammit!

Right on it, ya poor dear. Oh, did my calling you deluded and pointing out in detail how you fail at basic logic at such a level it's a wonder you can feed yourself--why, did my saying that upset your precious digestion?

My sincerest apologies. You poor thing.

Posted by: Emmet, OM | January 13, 2009 9:47 AM

Thus spake SC, OM:

Who's this Emmett person, Mr. Meyer?

Well spotted! My spelling (or rather, my parents') with one “t” seems to be the less popular alternative in the US for some reason, so people getting the number of t's right on the Internet is the exception rather than the rule. I'm well used to it and have long since stopped expecting people to spell my name right.

Posted by: ImprobableJoe | January 13, 2009 9:56 AM

I have come here to post comments in an uncivil manner! Besides which, it is more unciviler to be a liar than a con artist than it is to point out the liars and con artists.

BTW... what perpetuates the "left/right" divide isn't rudeness from the left, but the dishonesty and official corruption of the right. Right-wingers and scumbags of all stripes expect YOU to be civil, while they take advantage to steamroll right over you.

Posted by: Emmet, OM | January 13, 2009 9:59 AM

Thus spake Clinteas:

Boston eh....Wonder who you would go and see there

I've family and friends in the Greater Boston area. There are probably many more, of course, but the only Pharyngulites I know (or I'm pretty sure) are in that area are SC and MAJeff (who I haven't seen in a while), either or both of whom it'd be fun to actually meet in person.

Posted by: Allen N | January 13, 2009 10:08 AM

Johnny B:
I just love it when some dolt like JB@19 comes up with the "can't we just get along?" tripe. After all, the differences are just trivial. Reality vs. complete divorce from this universe. Yep - barely a point of divergence.

Posted by: speedwell | January 13, 2009 10:14 AM

Well-intentioned, intelligent commenters who disagree with the majority opinions here will do well to remember that the rest of the commenters here are extremely intelligent and respond well to evidence that you're trying to learn and understand. You have to be thick-skinned enough to get past the rancor and frustration that's often their first reaction. You can't afford the luxury of taking offense in here.

Just remember the lawyer's saying: "When the facts are on your side, pound the facts. When the theory is on your side, pound the theory. If neither is on your side, pound the table." (Kidding!)

Posted by: smijer | January 13, 2009 10:15 AM

From my perspective, the lack of civility directed toward contrarian or ignorant commenters is an artifact of the oppositional nature of the discourse here among the proletariat.

I normally lurk rather than participate, because only so much entertainment can be got by mocking the incorrigibly self-deluded. I do long for a society where disagreements and misunderstanding can be dealt with through persuasion and education. But, I understand we are realists here.

And, yes, of course this is a science blog... though certainly not exclusively so.

Posted by: Ida Know | January 13, 2009 10:17 AM

In case you want to vote for PZ more than once, just delete the cookie. The site uses macromedia cookies. Just find the macromedia directory and delete the cookie to this site in it. Do this two or three thousand times. Right now. Go.

Posted by: ennui | January 13, 2009 10:20 AM

Asking Llaauurraa about her magic underwear is not uncivil. OK, maybe a little, but it's funny too.

The big problem that I see is that of some people being personally attached to their conclusions, and not their processes. So any attack on their ideas is interpreted as an attack on their person, and then the whinging starts about "respect" and "atheists are mean," etc. Then someone actually does call them an asshat douchebag. It gets frustrating.

My vote for most uncivil is Holbach, followed by BobC.
Best uncivil content? truthmachine (please come back)

Posted by: shane | January 13, 2009 10:22 AM

I haven't seen anyone called an ignorant slut in these here parts for some time. I miss that.

Posted by: Alyson | January 13, 2009 10:25 AM

Hear, hear.

I, for one, think that saying, "You're making no sense and you're deluded if you think this is going to change our minds" is no ruder than saying, "You have no morals, you must be miserable, and you're going to suffer an eternity of hellfire after you die." The primary difference on this blog isn't manners, it's that suddenly the godless freethinkers rule the roost while the theists are in the minority.

Posted by: Vaseline Baseline | January 13, 2009 10:26 AM

Shane, you ignorant slut.

Posted by: Alyson | January 13, 2009 10:29 AM

Also, I'm giving my notice here of volunteering to have Cuttlefish's babies.

Posted by: Cory Albrecht | January 13, 2009 10:30 AM

I disagree.

You can shred the creationists, conspiracy theorists, global warming deniers and general wackaloons to bits and it can be done with civility.

Take quote mining, for example. If they've used a particular mine previously, it's totally possible to call them a liar in a civil manner when you point out how they've educated on the mine in the past.

There's no need for a response like "You're fucking liar, dipshit" - it only shows that you're as much of a jerk as the quote miner.

Posted by: Emmet, OM | January 13, 2009 10:33 AM

Thus spake clinteas:

I was of course referring to our favourite anarchist.

I surmised as much. My avatar on RD.net is a little generic graphic I created based on the RD.net banner and Dawkins's 7-point scale of religiosity, rather than a picture of me. Photos do seem to be very popular over there, as do distracting animated avatars.

Posted by: Shaden Freud | January 13, 2009 10:34 AM

Janine #10

Beard fight! Beard fight!

What? Katie Holmes is fighting Nicole Kidman?

Oh, I kid Tom Cruise!

Posted by: Benjamin Geiger | January 13, 2009 10:38 AM

shane @ #62:

People got offended by that shit, you pompous ass. :-P

Posted by: Johnnyb | January 13, 2009 10:40 AM

Benjamin Geigar,

I believe that you are confused, the right would have been perfectly delighted if the left had been civil towards President Bush. I admit that I do not recall precisely, but after the 2000 election did my side not ask for a show of national unity? Did we not ask you to support President Bush? I thought that your side was invited to support your President, but I could be wrong.

Was the right playing nice with Clinton? Were we trying to make nice back then? I seem to recall being fairly mean to Clinton, calling him a rapist and a drug dealer. Then after Waco calling him a babykiller, and having him impeached for Whitewater. I thought that was my side playing hardball, but again, I might be wrong.

Now could be a new time, if we allow it to be, of course, that would require people to behave in a civilized fashion to each other. My side lost this election, and they deserved to, so be it. Barack Obama is now my President against my wishes, so be it. In different times, under different circumstances, I would react differently to this fact, but truth be known, what the country needs now is leadership and whether I like it or not, I realize that we are all in this together. My fate is tied to the success or failure of this country, if Obama fails the country fails, and my personal prosperity is threatened. So, what shall I do? Sow the seeds of discontent, wish Mr. Obama malice because I disagree with him on some issues, or shall I wish Obama the best and hope that he proves me wrong. The choice should be obvious.

What is the intent of leftwing bloggers? To gloat? To insult and an inflame the right? You do know that we are all armed, right?

Please understand, that our two sides living together in the same country is exactly like an unhappy arranged marriage. If it were possible to get a no fault divorce, it would be in our mutual best interest, but there is no such thing as a no fault divorce here. Divorce will mean a civil war, where our own friends, families and fortunes will be destroyed. Shall you continue to stoke the flames that make life so unbearable together that it justifies such a cost?

Complaining about other people being civil to you, ha! This place is like Bizarro World.

Posted by: mayhempix | January 13, 2009 10:40 AM

Thanks PZ
I'm still having fun with the whackos on the other thread.

I would take you and Emmet up on that beard war though...

Posted by: Janine, Bitter Friend | January 13, 2009 10:41 AM

Shaden Freud, I was waiting for someone to move the meaning there. Thank you. And TC deserves all the ridicule he gets.

Posted by: E.V. | January 13, 2009 10:41 AM

Alyson:
I'm thinking Cuttlefish will be flattered, and Mrs. Cuttlefish -not so much.

Posted by: James F | January 13, 2009 10:44 AM

#50

Actually, the last Boston Pharyngufest run by MAJeff was quite well-attended. Rebecca Watson, Blake Stacey, and many others were there. PixelFish's photos are in this group.

Posted by: Brian Coughlan | January 13, 2009 10:48 AM

Please understand, that our two sides living together in the same country is exactly like an unhappy arranged marriage. If it were possible to get a no fault divorce, it would be in our mutual best interest, but there is no such thing as a no fault divorce here. Divorce will mean a civil war, where our own friends, families and fortunes will be destroyed. Shall you continue to stoke the flames that make life so unbearable together that it justifies such a cost?

Did this guy just threaten a civil war if people don't pander to his drivel? That crazy russian economist may have been on to something ...

Posted by: recovering catholic | January 13, 2009 10:50 AM

Ooh, ooh! This is a fabulous yet incredibly civil (I'm not implying there's anything wrong with lack thereof) explanation of the difficulties so many people have in even listening to scientific information...here's an excerpt:

"Arguing against a field of science you've not understood is like muscling in on a card game you've never learned. Without an understanding of the rules, you have no valid basis for adopting a strategy, or even trying to mount a convincing bluff. The person who declares evolution to be nonsense because noone's ever seen an ape mutate into a man is a conspicuously uninformed as a person who shouts "Snap" at a poker game, though of course their own lack of comprehension prevents them from seeing it."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-h9XntsSEro

If I sent this link to my siblings who are cretinists, that would sever the family ties forever...

Posted by: mayhempix | January 13, 2009 10:51 AM

@Bill Dauphin

I used to comment at HuffPo until I tired of their woo support of Chopra and the anti-vaccine crowd. It's nice to see that isn't the case with AGW.

Posted by: Bill Dauphin | January 13, 2009 10:52 AM

BTW, Emmet... IIRC Kseniya is somewhere in MA... though these days I'm wondering if she wasn't just a mirage.

FWIW, I'm in the Hartford, CT, area, so Boston isn't a ridiculous drive. I was hoping to come to MAJeff's Pharyngufest, but was, at the last moment, Overcome by Events™.

Posted by: KnockGoats | January 13, 2009 11:01 AM

That crazy russian economist may have been on to something - Brian Coughlan

Which particular C.R.E. would that be?

Posted by: Bill Green | January 13, 2009 11:02 AM

Unfortunately, lack of civility and plain nastiness seem to characterize many left-leaning outlets. I see it as a weakness. Greater strength would be demonstrated by strong arguments presented with honor. There is a difference between fighting hard and fighting dishonorably.

I see no value in vulgarity and ad hominem approaches. This is the greatest weakness of the new atheist movement. Ad hominem always has been, and still is, a lazy and morally flawed substitute for good arguments and honest interaction. I find that when I am uncivil or nasty, I usually feel the worse for it.

If meaning and fulfillment were to be found only in survival and physical comfort, then it may not matter how the race is run or the battle fought, but this is not the case. For whatever reason, human nature is such that the highest meaning and fulfillment in life are found in the method of the running and fighting.

I suppose that, in the former case, shooting an unarmed man is acceptable. But higher fulfillment cannot be found in fighting with dishonor. It is unfortunate that many secularists do not seem to understand this, they view themselves as smart beasts, whose only goal is to gather food, mates, and knowlege.

Posted by: mayhempix | January 13, 2009 11:03 AM

JonnyB
"Was the right playing nice with Clinton? Were we trying to make nice back then? I seem to recall being fairly mean to Clinton, calling him a rapist and a drug dealer. Then after Waco calling him a babykiller, and having him impeached for Whitewater. I thought that was my side playing hardball, but again, I might be wrong."

Wingnuts never cease to amaze me...

Posted by: TSC | January 13, 2009 11:05 AM

GODDAMN MOTHERFUCKER! I hope this helps.

Posted by: Tom Gray | January 13, 2009 11:10 AM

From the post:

To claim that because I sometimes laugh and sometimes get angry and am a concerned citizen of a screwed-up country and have interests outside of journals and academia and am a father and husband and am willing to express myself on any topic that strikes my fancy means that there can't possibly be any science here implies that you are a freaking idiot with a bizarrely narrow view of who scientists are, and a peculiarly close-minded vision of how this medium actually works.

================================

This is an admission that this is not a science blog. it is something but it is not a science blog

Posted by: Angel Kaida | January 13, 2009 11:11 AM

I agree with PZ, pretty much. I'd say that when it gets to the point where people are making baseless personal accusations* unrelated to the argument and meant to do damage, that's when being uncivil has gone too far. But I've rarely seen that here - sometimes, yeah, the arguments are interlaced with insults, but usually they have some basis in what the person has said, and usually the argument is at the fore. If the commenters' usual behavior counts as uncivility, then fuck civility.

*Saying "you're ignorant and anti-science" based on someone's views about, for instance, GW is not a baseless personal accusation. Taking the same post about GW and responding "you would clearly stomp puppies given the chance" probably is.

@smijet,
I'm confused. Are we the proletariat?

Posted by: Blake Stacey | January 13, 2009 11:12 AM

I've family and friends in the Greater Boston area. There are probably many more, of course, but the only Pharyngulites I know (or I'm pretty sure) are in that area are SC and MAJeff (who I haven't seen in a while), either or both of whom it'd be fun to actually meet in person.

I live and work in Greater Boston, too. In fact, I'm looking out over the semi-frozen Charles, right now. Mmmm, slushy.

Posted by: Brian Coughlan | January 13, 2009 11:13 AM

Seriously though, and I don't mean to harp, isn't threatening civil war Treason or something? Are american right wingers really thinking about secession? Really?

Sort of makes the Palin pick a bit less insane. Still insane of course, but an internally consistent kind of insanity.

Seriously, am I the only one that reacted to post #80? Am I?

Well?

Posted by: MattE | January 13, 2009 11:14 AM

I am a regular whatsupwiththat (WUWT) visitor. We've all been tagged as "conspiracy theorists." Nearly every reader there believes that man's presence has warmed the earth to some degree. The disagreement is over how much, how good or skewed the data is, and how good the models have and will predict the future. Call me a denier, but on the flip side there are many scientists and politicians pushing an agenda based on poorly controlled data and statistics.
Lastly, I would think that an apparently atheist-leaning blog would find a kindred spirit in those at WUWT; both are deniers of a sort

Posted by: nichole | January 13, 2009 11:15 AM

hindsight kind of tells us that for next year's award, perhaps we should discourage voting for phyrangula? since it's a piece of shit poll and serves nothing but to galvanize the stupid and attract trolls.

i guess it's been a slow news week and we have nothing better to do than beat up on the weak of mind...

::dunno::

Posted by: mayhempix | January 13, 2009 11:16 AM

"you can vote oce every 24 hours "

That's how the voting process has always been for the Weblogs so make sure you vote evry 24 hours to cancel out the wingnuts who do.

Posted by: Calladus | January 13, 2009 11:19 AM

'cause they're idgits. Fuck the fucking fucking fuckers. We are so mean when we question their fairy tales, and point to reality.

The fuckers don't want you to say "fuck". Especially when they are the ones doing the fucking - and fucking up while doing so.

Posted by: Glen Davidson | January 13, 2009 11:20 AM

I've always wondered how lying about science and scientists, no matter how politely framed, could ever be considered anything but extremely rude.

Any name-calling in response to such extreme rudeness is generally polite by comparison. To any just person, that is.

Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/6mb592

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead | January 13, 2009 11:21 AM

MattE, if the data for AGW isn't good, then fight the argument in the scientific literature, not on blogs. Oh, but that would mean you would have to actually have some valid data to supply to the argument, and preconceived ideologies would have to be placed on hold in order for the paper to be accepted. Since this is the truth on how science works, what is impolite about saying this?

Posted by: Ben | January 13, 2009 11:23 AM

@114 "Lastly, I would think that an apparently atheist-leaning blog would find a kindred spirit in those at WUWT; both are deniers of a sort"

Does this mean we atheists should also find a kindred spirit with people who deny that evolution is a valid theory?

Wait. That doesn't make sense.

Okay, now you're getting it.

Posted by: Steve_C | January 13, 2009 11:28 AM

Concern noted. zzzzzz.

Posted by: MattE | January 13, 2009 11:30 AM

OK, Steve_C, since you mention the ice caps melting, maybe you should know that only the northern icecap is in decline. The antarctic icecap has been growing at the same time the northern icecap has been in decline. See these charts:

http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/current.anom.jpg

http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/current.anom.south.jpg

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead | January 13, 2009 11:36 AM

MattE, publish your ideas in the primary scientific literature. That is the only way to convince us.

Posted by: 10ch.org | January 13, 2009 11:37 AM

Can there seriously be that many climate change denialists right now? I thought that most people agreed with the real science by now.

Posted by: Angel Kaida | January 13, 2009 11:38 AM

@Brian Coughlan, I'm not sure it's a totally crazy idea. I mean, I'm not planning on starting one myself, since I'm a moderate pacifist, but he's right about this being an unhappy marriage. It's beyond disagreement on the principles of government; it's a culture war. Maybe we'd all be better off if the right seceded. *shrug* But then all of us kids trapped in the middle who want evolution and guns and an end to the war and stem cell research and marriage rights for everyone and less taxation would probably be a little screwed, eh? It's not like we're getting our way anyway, though. I don't know. Probably we'd be better off. All the ignorant creos would go over there, the kids in the middle would stay over here, and we'd have intranational variation, instead of all having to focus our energies on this kind of fundamentally irresolvable culture conflict.

@MattE, if you don't see the difference between atheism and global warming denial, you may fuck off. By the same token, communists, creationists, and gay people should be kindred spirits, as they're all in a minority of some kind.

Posted by: mayhempix | January 13, 2009 11:38 AM

Bill Green's blog says it all.

He's another John Galt, Ayn Rand, Ron Paul worshipping utopian redbaiting wingnut.

Posted by: James F | January 13, 2009 11:41 AM

Anyone want to bet that the people complaining that this is not a science blog, expecting it to be all science, all the time, have never once read a scientific research paper? Or, at best, they've opened a journal before but couldn't understand it?

Otto: Don't call me stupid.

Wanda: Oh, right! To call you stupid would be an insult to stupid people! I've known sheep that could outwit you. I've worn dresses with higher IQs. But you think you're an intellectual, don't you, ape?

Otto: Apes don't read philosophy.

Wanda: Yes they do, Otto. They just don't understand it. Now let me correct you on a couple things, OK? Aristotle was not Belgian. The central message of Buddhism is not "Every man for himself." And the London Underground is not a political movement. Those are all mistakes, Otto. I looked 'em up.

Posted by: TigerHunter | January 13, 2009 11:41 AM

On the Weblog Awards: the HP's announcement is having a noticeable effect. We're now only 200 votes behind.

Posted by: marilove | January 13, 2009 11:45 AM

I LOVE this blog, PZ. It is my favorite blog. And that's saying a lot, considering how many damn blogs I read. The best part of this blog is the discussions!

I want my commenters to be uncivil. There is no virtue in politeness when confronted with ignorance, dishonesty, and delusion. I want them to charge in to the heart of the issue and shred the frauds, without hesitation and without faltering over manners. These demands for a false front of civility are one of the strategies used by charlatans who want to mask their lack of substance — oh, yes, it would be so goddamned rude to point out that a huckster is lying to you. I am quite happy that we have a culture of being rude to frauds here.

THIS THIS THIS! I don't comment much, as I'm still new and a little intimidated, but I feel ... at home here. People always want everyone to be so fucking nice all the time. "Oh, oh, but you're not going to get anywhere if you're not NICE!" Fuck that, truth is not always "nice."

Seriously. Whenever I'm called out for not being "nice enough" (whatever the fuck that means!) I just remember that the great PZ feels exactly as I do about being "polite".

Posted by: MattE | January 13, 2009 11:50 AM

Nerd of Redhead, I don't actually do climate science for a living. If your minimum level of acceptance is for people who publish, there is minimal room for conversation here. There is a lot to know out there and I don't hear you making a reasonable response to the clear undisputed fact that the antarctic icecap has grown in area (and increased in thickness I might add) in an almost equal amount that the northern icecap has shrunk. This is a clear case where Steve_C's common "knowledge" was not correct.

Posted by: Glen Davidson | January 13, 2009 11:52 AM

There was a good piece in Skeptic magazine about debating with creationists, and how a lack of civility can slam their minds shut.

It's not just a matter of finding an open-minded creationist with whom to debate, unlikely in the extreme. It's that the real concern are the many who know little about science and need both to see that we have answers, and that the dishonesty of the creationists/IDists really does provoke a reaction.

I think that's what's flawed in most calls for treating pseudoscientists with politeness--people actually judge honesty by emotions to a considerable extent. If we weren't offended by lies, people would seriously wonder if they were lies. Any competent and honest scientist or supporter of science would be offended by the constant barrage of defamatory statements made by various liars.

How bizarre would it be if we did not counterattack with respect to Expelled?

"We wanted to generate anger," Ruloff said.

communities.canada.com/vancouversun/blogs/thesearch/archive/2009/01/03/no-apologies-allowed-producer-defends-anti-darwin-movie.aspx

So there it is, he finally admits that he was just trolling, that the "dialog" they claimed to want to facilitate was only a matter of lies.

There would be something wrong with people who aren't offended by being called virtual Nazis. Indeed, I think that only neo-Nazis would not be offended.

I'd add that while it's true that Ruloff wanted to generate anger in order to play the victim, and that this does work with his captive audience, the fact is that our response of calling them the liars they are appears to have worked fairly well with the rest of the populace.

Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/6mb592

Posted by: Janine, Bitter Friend | January 13, 2009 11:54 AM

Bye Cortillaen.

I too will forget you in five minutes.

I feel better already.

Posted by: Brian D | January 13, 2009 11:57 AM

MattE, you fall victim to DailyTech's stupidity if you think global data doesn't show a decline. The fact that it's mostly concentrated in the north was predicted by climate models as far back as 1979 (Polar amplification showed up then, though it took a few years to properly represent the hemispheric differences). It's safe to say that if science predicted it, it doesn't contradict the science.

Posted by: Dave X | January 13, 2009 11:57 AM

Once the deniers ignore a civil "You are wrong, and here's why...." they begin to earn their uncivil responses. The longer they persist in dishonest argument, the less respect and civility they deserve.

And to #80:

The Rovian policy of aiming for 50% plus one might be what the Republicans needed to win a few elections, but it is an uncivil and rude way to govern. Bush's "some say" strawman and Coulter's "Treason" are much more dishonest and rude than the open schoolyard taunts like Franken's "Lies and the lying liars that tell them" or Moore's "Stupid White Men".

Posted by: Cuttlefish, OM | January 13, 2009 12:00 PM

Cortillaen @#145--

Thank you!!! As I said back at post 59, I needed someone to aim at!

Posted by: Ben | January 13, 2009 12:03 PM

PFolkens, can you spot the grammatical error in your own post?

Posted by: bushy | January 13, 2009 12:04 PM

Hey you-all. Consider the possibility that you-all maybe wrong! Huh?

Posted by: Scott from Oregon | January 13, 2009 12:06 PM

PZ is the clown who wants his government to spend a fortune it doesn't have on a rail system that will lose money and cost the government more money it doesn't have, ridiculing those who point out that basic fact of life to him, and he thinks being uncivil to those who want to wake his liberal ass up is some sort of profound calling...

His politics, and those of his closest minions, are full of odd beliefs and religio-fruitcake tendencies, all protected from examination by an unspoken tacit blog-policy that name calling and ridicule are wonderful methods of political discourse.

Long since, have I been disabused of the notion that if you are an athiest (and maybe a scientist) you are by default rational and reasonable. There is ample evidence here that that is not even close to the truth.

Group think and monkey antics resides here in a large pile of liberal woo too, and it saddens me to report...

"Fecal flingers are everywhere!!!"

Lordy lordy lordy...

Posted by: Fred | January 13, 2009 12:07 PM

Well uncivil it is then. You are science bigoted asshole of the first order. A most significant waste of good oxygen.

Just another university professor, over paid, under worked and self impressed with your own useless opinion.

Here's a hint . . . buy long underwear and get ready for really long, really cold period of your "global warming".

And remember - Al Gore lied and still lies and the Hockey Stick was fraud.

Posted by: PH | January 13, 2009 12:08 PM

This site has taken on a classic Stalinist mentality. Mob rule, hatred and cheating in the voting over the last few hours.

Posted by: africangenesis | January 13, 2009 12:10 PM

P.Z., Your invective post already showed you bore responsibility for the contemptuous, uncivil culture. But I learned of the science blog poll here, and based on most of the posts, would not have assumed that this was a science rather than political blog at all.

Do you really think discourse is improved when the personal attacks obscure and outweight the dicussions of the evidence? Even the ancient greeks recognized the problems with ad hominem arguments.

Posted by: Bill Green | January 13, 2009 12:11 PM

@135

I agree with your definition and think, as I said, that it is very common at left-leaning outlets.

My post was not directed at this blog specifically, since I know little about. Rather, it was a record of thoughts triggered by the Myers' immediate post. I grant that lack of civility and ad hominem are not equal, and I don't think I indicated that in my post.

Bill

Posted by: Brian D | January 13, 2009 12:12 PM

MattE, if you wouldn't mind, please inform us as to where it's flimsy. Obviously, you must have perfect vision uncluttered with an understanding of climatology, so you must be unique in your ability to spot holes in the science. Care to teach us lowly atheists how we're wrong?

Fred appears stuck in 2006, before the National Academy of Sciences exonerated the hockey stick, before the IPCC drew attention to the dozen other studies corroborating it, and before the Wegman report that the denialists love to cite said that it wasn't important and was time to move on from the stick. It's almost like how creationists would have us stay stuck a few hundred years ago, except somewhat more pathetic.

Posted by: africangenesis | January 13, 2009 12:14 PM

James F@140, I'll take that bet.

Posted by: E.V. | January 13, 2009 12:15 PM

Pfolkens: All that was missing from your missive was a harrumph - oh, and your inability to understand that reasoning with creationist idiots is futile no matter how civil or grammatically correct the rebuttals are, you smug pedant.

Posted by: Smrt Newfie | January 13, 2009 12:16 PM

MattE, I think Nerd of Redhead, or anyone else here, would settle for a reference to a published article. You don't have to have authored it yourself.

Nerd of Redhead, you need to elaborate more with people like this. I don't think they fully understand how scientific debate works. I think MattE is still trying to graduate from the Crayon Crew.

Posted by: Bill Green | January 13, 2009 12:17 PM

#138

I am delighted that you almost characterized me correctly!

I'm not sure where you got the "worshipping" idea, though.

Posted by: Janine, Bitter Friend | January 13, 2009 12:18 PM

Posted by: Steve B | January 13, 2009

A true atheist would question everything, particularly something that is taken on faith!

I do wish you would meet our cute little house troll by the name of Facilus. He also knows better than any atheist what the true meaning of atheism is. I would so enjoy watching a battle between these two definitions of true atheism. It would be more fun than a beard fight.

Posted by: JPBrowning | January 13, 2009 12:19 PM

@ #80

Yes, the right is not being hate filled towards Obama at all. They're not trying everything in their power to tie a string between him and Blago, even after the DA said there was nothing to tie that string with. O'Reilly hasn't been spewing his "I'm so afraid of what this country is about to become" bullshit for the last 2 months. Rush Dumbass has not been pouring his hate for Obama and anyone who even looks left over his ignorant hate filled radio show. So you can take your mock civility and claims of "playing nice" and stick them exactly where you'd tell me to stick them, were the roles reversed. It's worthless, and so is trying to reason and play nice with you overly-religious, hypocritical, moronic fucks who make up the "base" of the GOP.

@ 145

Faith is not required when you base your arguments on science & fact, instead of doing everythign in your power to discredit science and scientists because your religion can't stand up to facts. And if you aren't religious, that's fine. You've still bought into their bullshit. Congratulations for being an idiot without any cause whatsoever.

And yes, being an Educator does not always mean you're correct. You have that one right. However, you need to reread that and not take it out of context and shove your own words into PZ's mouth. He's saying that there are multiple sides to him, and being an educator is one and being a scientist is another. And then there is more to it than even that. If you are one dimensional and have no secondary interests outside of your professional life (if you even have one of those), that's too bad for you.

Good Day (see, I left a little good will at the end too... I'm civilized now!)

Posted by: marilove | January 13, 2009 12:19 PM

not unlike the liberal use of "fuck" that exposes a shallow verbal tool chest of adjectives from which to express oneself.

FUCK! It seems to me that you're pretty fucking ignorant on how fucking amazing the world "fuck" is! It is the single most useful word in the fucking English language! You can use it for so many fucking different ways, it is fucking astounding! I want to fuck, I want to get fuck, fuck that's awesome!, fuck! I just stubbed my toe, oh I can't fucking believe I just got fucking fired for looking up fucking porn at work!, fuck do I love a good hamburger, man I can't believe that fucktard just got elected, oh fuck we're crashing!, oh fuck me harder!

etc. and so on.

"FUCK" is a great word. THE fucking greatest, perhaps.

Posted by: Brian Coughlan | January 13, 2009 12:20 PM

I question climate change because, if you actaully take a look, you'll find the science supporting a man made cause is actually rather flimsy.

What do you base this on? All the actual climatologists, the relevant experts, disagree with you. Why not tell us about Quantum Physics and how the LHC will kill us all? You're about as qualified on that subject as you are on climatology, by your own admission.

I could go on about why, but you don't actually seem to care, you're committed to a belief.

This is not true. I mean half of it is, we don't care, that's true, but your analysis is wrong. Big surprise there. We don't care enough to engage in a serious debate, because you're just some random kook who disagrees with mountains of established science. What on earth would be the point? We'd by crazy to care. Life is too short.

Posted by: Emmet, OM | January 13, 2009 12:23 PM

Thus spake Bill Dauphin:

…Kseniya is somewhere in MA… I'm in the Hartford, CT, area.

Kseniya posted a few times about a month ago, AFAIR, but beyond that I haven't seen her much at all, which is a pity.

I also see Teh Merkin, NewEnglandBob, and Blake Stacey are in or around Boston, so there's more people than I thought (at least 7 if I'm counting straight) who can recommend a suitable embibing emporium for the 20th/21st of March. Most likely, I'll be in Boston that weekend, staying a few days into the following week to have a look around a bit before flying back to CA to fly back to Sweden (yes, I know it's crazy, but it's the cheapest way for me to do it). My only regret is not getting to spend St. Patrick's Day in Boston, where I'm led to believe there are bars where there's a bottomless pint glass for any genuine Paddy for as long as he can belt out ballads in a sufficiently broad brogue, which I can do for far longer than it takes me to fall off my bar-stool ;o)

Posted by: Blake Stacey | January 13, 2009 12:27 PM

Bush's war time civil rights measures pale in comparison to FDR's and Wilson's. You can start a conscription, censorship, wage and price controls, internment camps, sedition laws and proceed from there.

One of these things is not like the others.

Posted by: Janine, Bitter Friend | January 13, 2009 12:28 PM

Marilove,

Fuckity fuck fuck!

Posted by: marilove | January 13, 2009 12:30 PM

not unlike the liberal use of "fuck" that exposes a shallow verbal tool chest of adjectives from which to express oneself.

FUCK! It seems to me that you're pretty fucking ignorant on how fucking amazing the world "fuck" is! It is the single most useful word in the fucking English language! You can use it for so many fucking different ways, it is fucking astounding! I want to fuck, I want to get fuck, fuck that's awesome!, fuck! I just stubbed my toe, oh I can't fucking believe I just got fucking fired for looking up fucking porn at work!, fuck do I love a good hamburger, man I can't believe that fucktard just got elected, oh fuck we're crashing!, oh fuck me harder!

etc. and so on.

"FUCK" is a great word. THE fucking greatest, perhaps.

Posted by: abb3w | January 13, 2009 12:34 PM

Using incivility insures that the object of it will not think about the rest of your message; they will obsessively focus on attacking you due to the incivility. Civility insures that if there is any chance they are capable of thought, they will consider it.

Often, there isn't any such chance. At which point, yes, it's pleasant to be able to vent, especially on some nice relatively private place. You just shouldn't delude yourself that you're going to convince anyone on the brink (or already off into la-la land) with such remarks.

Of course, psychology and neurology aren't my shtick; perhaps someone with expertise in those fields can explain this phenomenon... or explain to me why I'm a horse's ass for believing it is one. More useful would be to explain what is generally involved from a neuropsychological framework perspective with "someone changing their mind" (or at least, point me towards a book or paper in the right direction).

Posted by: WRMartin | January 13, 2009 12:36 PM

Tom The New Here Gray @106:

blah, blah, blah... This is an admission that this is not a science blog.

Evolution, development, and random biological ejaculations from a godless liberal

Who threw the concern troll smoke bomb in here? The smell of concern farts is getting overwhelming. Phew.

P.S. Reality is that obnoxious, confusing, and downright unrespectable stuff going on all around you.

Posted by: Janine, Bitter Friend | January 13, 2009 12:37 PM

Bill Green,

I, too, regret the time you lost posting here.

Posted by: Joan | January 13, 2009 12:39 PM

Mr Meyers, you are an idiot having no clue about climate change, but ready to describe everyone who have opinion different from your as "pseudo-scientific". This sort of stupid arrogance of uniformed people is the main reason why you, left-wing fanatics, lose every open debate with "deniers".

Posted by: Steve B | January 13, 2009 12:40 PM

"AJ Milne: Heh. 'In the next few years'. Ya don't mind if I call that out, now, do ya?"

Not at all, meet you at http://www.longbets.org/

Posted by: Sara | January 13, 2009 12:40 PM

"I am again remined (sic) why I generally don't visit places like this. I regret the time I have lost posting here."

You regretted posting here so much that you decided to waste time posting here, AGAIN, to point out how much you regretted wasting your time posting here?

Wait, I'm confuzzled....

Posted by: JonathanL | January 13, 2009 12:44 PM

This sort of stupid arrogance of uniformed people is the main reason why you, left-wing fanatics, lose every open debate with "deniers".

Why yes Joan, we all wear uniforms. How ever did you know?

Twit.

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead | January 13, 2009 12:45 PM

Mayhempix

"If your minimum level of acceptance is for people who publish, there is minimal room for conversation here."

It's right under his nose and MattE still doesn't get it.

Posted by: mayhempix | January 13, 2009 12:46 PM

Posted by: Bill Green | January 13, 2009 12:11 PM
@135
"I agree with your definition and think, as I said, that it is very common at left-leaning outlets."

As opposed to rightwingnuts like Bill O'Reilly who thinks liberals come to the conclusions they do because they are "pinheads".

You are a fucking idiot because you have convinced yourself that the left somehow uses ad-hominem attacks more than the right and the likes of Limbaugh, Hannity, Coulter, Little Green Footballs, Free Republic, et all.

Posted by: melatonin | January 13, 2009 12:46 PM

So, only a few hours until the tedious cuntrags and dickwads slither back under their rocks.

*waves at the morons*

Posted by: Watchman | January 13, 2009 12:47 PM

The Internet is not an inherently civil place. There are several hypotheses about why. Shitcock.

The notion that the Right invited the Left to be civil and to unite behind Bush, and that the Left ungraciously refused, is pure bullshit. When is polarization ever a unilateral problem? Some of the most acidic and divisive voices in the history of acidic and divisive voices have been coming from the Right, and continue to.

Fuck. [murmer] You know, it’s easy. Starts with a nice soft sound fuh ends with a kuh. Right? [laughter] A little something for everyone. Fuck. [laughter] Good word. Kind of a proud word, too. Who are you? I am FUCK. [laughter] FUCK OF THE MOUNTAIN. [laughter] Tune in again next week to FUCK OF THE MOUNTAIN.

(OT, but I have seen traces of Kseniya within the past week or two, over on the "Another Shooting" thread, and the "Brockman Asks" thread.)

Posted by: AnthonyK | January 13, 2009 12:48 PM

We can't help it if you find our posts, and attitude generally, uncivil. If so, why don't you, and I say this politely, just fuck off?

Posted by: marilove | January 13, 2009 12:48 PM

Commenting seems to be b0rked after the upgrade or whatever, because I am certain I did not hit submit twice!

But fuck it, the word fuck is so great it deserves to be there twice.

Posted by: jharp | January 13, 2009 12:49 PM

Great post. Thank you.

You are my kind of person. I have you bookmarked and will visit often.

Posted by: Steverino | January 13, 2009 12:52 PM

africangenesis,

If JohnnyB had mentioned FDR or Wilson, then I would have referenced both, but he did not. I was posting in the context of his statement and the “apples and oranges” comparison he was trying to make.

Posted by: Tabby Lavalamp | January 13, 2009 12:59 PM

Bill Green wrote:

I am again remined why I generally don't visit places like this. I regret the time I have lost posting here.

Unfortunately, lack of civility and plain nastiness seem to characterize many left-leaning outlets. I see it as a weakness. Greater strength would be demonstrated by strong arguments presented with honor. There is a difference between fighting hard and fighting dishonorably. ... Ad hominem always has been, and still is, a lazy and morally flawed substitute for good arguments and honest interaction. I find that when I am uncivil or nasty, I usually feel the worse for it.

Posted by: AJ Milne | January 13, 2009 1:01 PM

Not at all, meet you at http://www.longbets.org/

Hmm. You make an interesting proposition. Actually profiting from the deliberate dishonesty of others is attractive, now that you mention it. I might think of it as payment, really... Seems to me I am due a few bucks at least for putting up with the ranting of a certain troofer who polluted an office environment I was working in a while ago...

Don't suppose you have a specific bet in mind? I see there's a few up there already from climate skeptics and those apparently unimpressed by their antics. Got a fave already?

Posted by: AnthonyK | January 13, 2009 1:01 PM

Oooh PZ, you're so masterful. Kissy kissy.

Posted by: Janine, Bitter Friend | January 13, 2009 1:02 PM

Fixed!

Posted by: Ben | January 13, 2009 1:03 PM

@213 AG said: "Discussions of AGW here remind me of debates with the Seventh Day Adventists that appear at our doors. When they can't answer they assume that if they brought back the "experts" they could answer."

Come on, AG, use something new. You've already used that analogy about four times on this blog. In your words, I challenge you to challenge yourself!

(Yeah, yeah, tell me this is an ad hominem attack.)

Posted by: Patricia, OM | January 13, 2009 1:06 PM

Mmmmm... Sashay passed me big boy, and I'll give you a gratuitous twist on the behind.

Posted by: Pat Cahalan | January 13, 2009 1:09 PM

@ PZ

> And when one side harrumphs off and leaves the
> fight because you haven't shown the proper amount
> of obligate respect for their cherished delusions,
> it gives you a free hand in ripping them apart.

This is great if you're just arguing with the one side, I grant you.

The problem I have with incivility as a default position is that it assumes a closed context between you and the idiot you're arguing with. This isn't a classroom, where one disgruntled moron will leave and let you continue your lecture and educate the remaining undergraduates.

It's an open symposium, where the large majority of people who are unconvinced either way are drifting in and out of different talks, some offered by smart people and some by idiots. Many of these people aren't bad people, they're just undereducated. They lack the ability to differentiate between the quality of one speaker and another. More to the point, some of the speakers are actively attempting to proselytize the view that a class of speakers (in which you are included) are in fact of low quality, by introducing false standards.

The context of the argument now is not who is right and who is wrong, but instead who is actually capable of presenting quality information in the first place. This isn't a battle of truth or facts, it's a battle of trust.

And if you're being a generic ass, when one of those undereducated people drifts by your talk, they have little reason to trust you, so they walk on. This is a lost educational opportunity.

Posted by: SEF | January 13, 2009 1:11 PM

@ Bill Green #100:

This is the greatest weakness of the new atheist movement. Ad hominem

But you can confirm or deny that by being precise about who exactly is a "new atheist" and showing us copious examples of them doing what you claim - especially in contrast to non-new ones or non-atheists not doing it (ie what the population probabilities are). Otherwise you are merely trying (incorrectly*) to get away with defaming atheists via the vagueness of your "new atheist" term; and aren't even succeeding in distinguishing them by the thing you claim to be a distinctive feature.

* The legal situation (in the UK at any rate) is that you can be sued by more people for being vague, in that you are potentially including a greater number of innocent wounded parties, than if you were specific. Again, as with ad hominem, the bulk of ill-educated cargo-cultish followers tend not to know the truth on this.

Posted by: Steve_C | January 13, 2009 1:11 PM

My favorite kind of creo/winger posts are the ones where they post something so transparent and false but seem to think it's a valid argument we've never heard.

It's like dropping a seal into a shark tank.

Sometimes its fun to coax them and string them along and then devour them, sometimes the waters have been still for too long and they get torn apart immediately.

Rarely do any of the creowingers have an open mind or an original thought, and that's usually because they've been linked to PZ from some cesspool of ignorance.

Posted by: africangenesis | January 13, 2009 1:15 PM

Ben@238, Give me a break, I think I've only used it twice before, and most of the people here are obviously unfamiliar with the climate dicussions we've had. I don't see you complaining about the f-bomb, troll, denialist, whining and twit arguments, and they each have been used more than 7 times. Be consistent.

Posted by: mayhempix | January 13, 2009 1:16 PM

"I'm not a "denialist", that offensive term that seeks to link to anti-semitic revisionists."

"Denialist", it is a descriptive used to explain a certain type of behavior. It is not specific to Holocaust Denialists but AGW Denialists love to play the victim and claim that it is to avoid discussing real peer reviewed facts and studies.

denial |diˈnīəl|
noun
the action of declaring something to be untrue : she shook her head in denial.
a statement that something is not true : official denials | his denial that he was having an affair.
Psychology failure to acknowledge an unacceptable truth or emotion or to admit it into consciousness, used as a defense mechanism : you're living in denial.

AGW Denialists ignore, distort, parse and/or make up facts to support their emotional, ignorant, religious, bigoted, political and/or business points of view. In the case of man-made climate change, denying insurmountable scientific evidence is Denialism.

Posted by: bsk | January 13, 2009 1:17 PM

Surely there should be some scientific criteria for nominating a "science blog"...

I know, I know, IT'S THE INTERNET.

Posted by: pvrugg | January 13, 2009 1:21 PM

"oh, yes, it would be so goddamned rude to point out that a huckster is lying to you."

You sexy, hairy, sexy beast...

Posted by: Janine, Bitter Friend | January 13, 2009 1:23 PM

Posted by: Emmet Caulfield, OM | January 13, 2009

Hmmm… What about PIXIES?

Do pixies in Discworld have beards?

Posted by: PlaydoPlato | January 13, 2009 1:25 PM

OK. After reviewing all the troll posts so far, I've come to the following conclusion: incivility is like kryptonite to a right-wing, creotard!

fucktastic!

Posted by: Steve B | January 13, 2009 1:28 PM

"AJ Milne: Don't suppose you have a specific bet in mind? I see there's a few up there already from climate skeptics and those apparently unimpressed by their antics. Got a fave already?"

Keep an eye on http://www.longbets.org/

My prediction will be made under the user name yamahaeleven. It will post in the next couple of days, they don't put them up immediately. As it costs $50 to post a prediction, I've already put some money where my mouth is. Be glad if some of you would do the same for your side. Hopefully, we'll come up with a mutually satisfactory recipient for the bets.

Posted by: mayhempix | January 13, 2009 1:30 PM

Posted by: Joan | January 13, 2009 12:39 PM
"This sort of stupid arrogance of uniformed people is the main reason why you, left-wing fanatics, lose every open debate with "deniers"."

Oh really? What "open debates" were they and who decided the outcome?

Also, if I recall correctly, the majority in the US voted for Obama and likewise the GOP for McCain, both whom recognized the real science of AGW.

Your stupid arrogance is showing...

Posted by: Emmet, OM | January 13, 2009 1:32 PM

Thus spake Janine, BF:

Do pixies in Discworld have beards?

I've no idea, I was just hoping you'd be able to finally answer the long-standing question: What about PIXIES and DWARFS?

Posted by: Janine, Bitter Friend | January 13, 2009 1:35 PM

Posted by: Emmet Caulfield, OM | January 13, 2009

I've no idea, I was just hoping you'd be able to finally answer the long-standing question: What about PIXIES and DWARFS?

We will have to get the ants running and ask Hex.

Posted by: Emmet, OM | January 13, 2009 1:37 PM

Thus spake Patricia, OM:

Emmet, you indelicate slut, everyone knows pixies don't have beards.

I didn't know pixies were Brazilian — you learn a new thing every day.

Posted by: Ben | January 13, 2009 1:38 PM

@247 AG, those aren't worn-out, inaccurate analogies.

Posted by: Steve B | January 13, 2009 1:40 PM

AJ Milne,

My prediction is as follows:

I predict that the global average temperature increase will be below the IPCC 3rd Assessment report, chapter 9, figure 9.14 1S92C low prediction by 2012.

You should agree that my prediction is easily falsified by January 13, 2012.

Posted by: Naked Bunny with a Whip | January 13, 2009 1:46 PM

This site has taken on a classic Stalinist mentality. Mob rule, hatred and cheating in the voting over the last few hours.

Erm, you're more describing the Republican Party than anything here, dipshit. In fact, one of the bigger Republican cheaters, Ken Blackwell, might become the new head Republican. Shocker.

Posted by: Janine, Bitter Friend | January 13, 2009 1:50 PM

Naked Bunny, was that quote by AG? It seems to be a habit of his to call the lot of us Nazis, commies and Stalinists. Dumbass fucktard.

Posted by: dean | January 13, 2009 1:50 PM

Beard fight?
PZ, I've had my beard and mustache since Thanksgiving week 1974. Is yours of similar vintage or is it merely a Johnny-come-lately? :)=

Posted by: africangenesis | January 13, 2009 1:55 PM

SteveM@277, Can you point to such examples? I suspect that you didn't hit close to their religions.

Posted by: Steve_C | January 13, 2009 1:55 PM

Pat, does this look familiar?

Evolution, development, and random biological ejaculations from a godless liberal.

Your whiney ass judgmental bullshit is boring.

Posted by: Janine, Bitter Friend | January 13, 2009 1:59 PM

It took a few hours but it seems that the weird beard are now spoiling for a fight.

LET'S GET READY TO RUMBLE!

Posted by: Emmet, OM | January 13, 2009 2:02 PM

Thus spake E.V.:

Take that Emmet OM and your puny ginger goatee!

Puny, perhaps, but from your description, my coppery chin ornament is much sexier than your snowy old soup-catcher.

Posted by: Gobaskof | January 13, 2009 2:03 PM

Damn, I can't believe I am late for the beard fight. What exactly are the rules in beard fighting?

Posted by: Patricia, OM | January 13, 2009 2:08 PM

Oh goody! Nude male servants. With wine.
But do they have beards?

Posted by: Luis Dias | January 13, 2009 2:10 PM

Ahah! From the moment I saw the post, I knew this would be a laughing stock thread. People just love to vent their everyday frustrations into something, and nothing better than to do it with creationists. Well, today we have denialists to hit, so why not?

But I did expect better from PZ. He's a fucking moron with arrogance abounding, and I love him for it, and now he's being offensive at a site that I also like pretty much, Climate Audit. It was expected. I also read WUWT, but in a more curiosity-driven state, as if it were a UFO blog or something. It does make preposterous claims, and I laugh a bit out of it. Sometimes, RealClimate or Open Mind make a good laugh out of them too.

Climate Audit, though, is a different beast. McIntyre does publish in the literature, and some commenters over there also do, the posts are technical and comprehensive, so its clear what they are doing, and the real discussions unfold in a much clearer (and readable) thread than this one, for instance. They have shown how miserable the "Hockey Stick Team" is, and apart from the fact that they *might* give more fuel into denialist territories, I also think that this kind of cutting through the crap is a scientific endeavour. I just happen to pity the idiots that think otherwise.

Don't think that being a "skeptic" or a "denialist" is a bad thing per se. As some many people pointed out in here, great, just publish a paper, and it's true that there have been more papers pointing out a catastrophe than not. Mind though that we're mostly non-scientists over here, so all we have are clues. And if I trust PZ on biology clues, I won't exactly trust him on things concerned with Climate, for he's as clueless as I am with that.

Personally I smile at the hubris of some scientists who go at great statistical lenghts to try to model what I see as a stochastic non-linear, full of variables and spatial differences event, to predict the consequences of the rising of a constant in the climate. But that's the only thing I can do. I just hope that the powers that be won't make many mistakes in this first half of the 21st century.

Posted by: Patricia, OM | January 13, 2009 2:11 PM

E.V.'s beard has more tickle power Emmet...

Posted by: Pat Cahalan | January 13, 2009 2:17 PM

@ Helfrick #291

A single anecdotal case has huge generalization issues. Bad social scientist! No biscuit!

If you read my #275, above, you'll note that I did in fact acknowledge that there can be positive outcomes to being deliberately offensive. Now, can you perhaps provide me the courtesy (how apropos!) of acknowledging that there can be negative outcomes from being deliberately offensive?

Posted by: Lord Zero | January 13, 2009 2:20 PM

Gee, thats really nice. PZ inspires me to be a better scientist. Its make understand which not apply our way
of thinking, curiosity, excepticism, logic and reason in
all aspects of our lives, its useless.
Being a free thinker its the only way worth living.

Posted by: Patricia, OM | January 13, 2009 2:22 PM

Janine, Yeah I know, but we're having it here. I think it's very kind of PZ to provide nude male servants with wine, during the beard match. Now that's what I call a generous host!
Windy has dibs on first in line.

Posted by: Ward S. Denker | January 13, 2009 2:24 PM

Mayhempix,

There are a thousand hacking at the branches of evil to one who is striking at the root.

Peace.

Posted by: Gobaskof | January 13, 2009 2:25 PM

#275 Pat Cahalan:

Notice... not a blog by a scientist. An educator, and a scientist. Someone whose stated purpose is to educate.
I'm just pointing out to PZ that the consequences of encouraging incivility is that he's losing out on the opportunity to educate some people.

The kind of people who are being insulted, climate deniers and creationists, normally do not want to learn, and if someone was to try to teach them science they would probably have to start from the beginning. The educating parts of this blog are normally on more advanced scientific issues (e.g. the chemical replicators post a couple of days ago).

You can't expect every blog by a scientist to be a respectful and polite blog that constantly teaches basic science for the wilfully ignorant. Instead we have a blog that teaches those who want to learn, and insults those who are wilfully ignorant.

Posted by: Janine, Bitter Friend | January 13, 2009 2:26 PM

Patricia, I found a hidey hole for us. Just go down to the second photo.

Posted by: Patricia, OM | January 13, 2009 2:28 PM

Janine, What! Are you wanting to play show & tell in the midst of a beard fight? Why you saucy minx!

Posted by: melatonin | January 13, 2009 2:29 PM

Posted by: Luis Dias | January 13, 2009 2:10 PM
"I also think that this kind of cutting through the crap is a scientific endeavour. I just happen to pity the idiots that think otherwise."

lol, McIntyre is no more than a common pseudosceptic. Read the deltoid thread on his efforts to defend Pat Michaels misrepresentation of Hansen. It illustrates how the climate fraudit's 'cut through the crap', producing a concentrated shit-sandwich.

And Watt's blog is laughable. Leif pulling him up on posting that BS temp data (with the 6th order polynomial)was great. The dude's a dope.

Posted by: Breakfast | January 13, 2009 2:32 PM

Also, I think ginger goatees are getting an inappropriately harsh treatment in this thread...

Posted by: Luis Dias | January 13, 2009 2:37 PM

@melatonin,

Don't know about that Hansen affair, but in my book, Hansen is a "real life Big Fucking Troll", independently of GW being a real threat or not, so I won't complaint if McIntyre dissed him.

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead | January 13, 2009 2:40 PM

Ahh, the concern trolls are out in force. OK trolls, tell me how to politely make you go away, with you understanding that I consider you to be an absolute fool for what you are saying.

I'll get the popcorn.

Posted by: Patricia, OM | January 13, 2009 2:43 PM

Janine, Haw! That is perfect. I wish I had a tee shirt from there.
Believe it or not I've actually been to Humptulips, WA and Bucksnort, TN.

Posted by: ThirtyFiveUp | January 13, 2009 2:44 PM

DarkSyde at Daily Kos has posted his take on this kerfluffle.

http://darksyde.dailykos.com/

Posted by: Brownian | January 13, 2009 2:52 PM

Nobody has ever been called a fuckwit so many times by people they disagreed with that they eventually went "Gee, maybe I'm stupid and they're right".

No, but sometimes they get the hint and fuck off to go be fuckwits somewhere else. I'm not here because I have nothing better to do with my time than to spoonfeed knowledge to individuals whose intent is not to learn at all but to beat me about the head as soon as I've leaned far enough forward with the spoon. The fundies don't come here to learn; calling 'em a fuckwit or giving 'em a handjob won't make a difference either way. They're going to go back to their churches where their meth-smoking, pole-smoking, altar-boy stroking preachers tell 'em that homosexuality and materialism are the downfall of man, can I get a witness (and a donation in the collection plate)? If they were interested in biology, they wouldn't only accept the biology that they got from Cornfed, local moonshine-swilling squatter turned preacher and faith healer. They want answers to their questions? They want a basic education in evolution?

Then they can get the marks to go to a decent school and shell out the hundreds of bucks for good quality textbooks and magazines, and journal articles and so on like the rest of us here did.

Similarly, you want to run in the Boston marathon? Then quit complaining about how rude the other runners are for refusing to pull you in your wagon, put the twinkie down, and start fucking training, fatass. Otherwise, get the fuck of the course.

To RyanG @ #33:

Amen. I'm glad this blog has people like you around.

Posted by: Luboš Motl | January 13, 2009 2:58 PM

Well, I think that this is a decent competition and people should naturally be polite, and the bloggers whom I know actually are.

On the other hand, in a broader context, I agree that nasty hacks and charlatans, such as the self-described fu-cking ejaculating liberal extremist running this blog, should be derided and pissed upon.

Decently, of course.

Posted by: dinkum | January 13, 2009 2:59 PM

Brownian:

I'm not here because I have nothing better to do with my time than to spoonfeed knowledge to individuals whose intent is not to learn at all but to beat me about the head as soon as I've leaned far enough forward with the spoon.

Very nice. May I use that with impunity?

Posted by: E.V. | January 13, 2009 3:01 PM

Puny, perhaps, but from your description, my coppery chin ornament is much sexier than your snowy old soup-catcher.

But, unlike the resplendent efflorescence below my lip, his crude faceful of wan yard-brush bristles might chafe a lady's thighs.

I keep a well trimmed beard, thank you, and a little conditioner after shampooing does wonders for any thigh chafing that might arise and leads to the reason why I don't need chapstick™.

Posted by: melatonin | January 13, 2009 3:03 PM

Posted by: Luis Dias | January 13, 2009 2:37 PM

"Don't know about that Hansen affair, but in my book, Hansen is a "real life Big Fucking Troll", independently of GW being a real threat or not, so I won't complaint if McIntyre dissed him."

lol, perhaps. But independently of Hansen being a troll, McIntryre's behaviour in defending Michaels was not that of an honest auditor. It showed his sloppiness and tendency for misrepresentation. I wouldn't trust him audit to my daily turd. His aim is to obfuscate the science, and he does it well enough - sometimes he even finds a nugget, which is then paraded around the deniosphere like a head on stick. But he has become some sort of NASA conspiracy phreak.

Posted by: Brownian | January 13, 2009 3:04 PM

Be my guest, Dinkum.

Posted by: Brownian | January 13, 2009 3:06 PM

On the other hand, in a broader context, I agree that nasty hacks and charlatans, such as the self-described fu-cking ejaculating liberal extremist running this blog, should be derided and pissed upon.

Decently, of course.

Bring it.

Posted by: E.V. | January 13, 2009 3:11 PM

Luboš Motl:
What the fuck is a conservative physicist?

Posted by: Michael X | January 13, 2009 3:15 PM

No, Tony. We LOVE when people question science. It gives us a larger pool of people to laugh at.

Posted by: dinkum | January 13, 2009 3:16 PM

The problem with concern trolls is that they can't be bothered to do their fucking research. Whining about civility is simply the same 'framing' bullshit that has been discussed, dissected, and roundly rejected here a long time ago. A little back-reading or simply lurking for awhile really isn't all that fucking difficult, and when you don't do it, it's obvious.

Instead, snorting hand-wringers drop in, pass sanctimonious judgment, and start preaching. Blah blah fucken blah. Concern is noted. Heard it before. Still not interested.

Posted by: Patricia, OM | January 13, 2009 3:22 PM

E.V. - I think that's someone that only takes half their dose of laxative.

Posted by: E.V. | January 13, 2009 3:23 PM

Steve C.
I have to dissent on your branding Pat as a concern troll. I tend to side with Brownian on the matter, but feel Pat's POV is well reasoned and sincere, and entitled to his opinion. Whether you feel this is worthy of a flame war is your prerogative, but reread Pat again, he's not a raving ideologue issuing ultimatums over false dichotomies.
As far as I'm concerned, Pat and I will just agree to disagree on this issue. (Notice how I'm not attacking you, just disagreeing with you; I'm saving that for Luboš )

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead | January 13, 2009 3:23 PM

but how do most atheists become atheists?

Posted by: Emmet, OM | January 13, 2009 3:29 PM

As an aside, the term 'concern troll' pisses me off -- this group shouldn't need a label with which to dismiss anyone who disagrees with its consensus.

Concern troll is concerned about “concern troll”?

Just kidding. Couldn't resist.

The people who get accused of being concern trolls, but aren't really according to the true definition of the term, are usually infrequent or very new posters who post a condescending screed against everyone on some triviality, which is not simply dismissing someone who disagrees with the consensus. At one time or another, pretty well every regular poster here (including me) has gone against the consensus and/or upbraided, or been upbraided by, individuals for their choice of terminology, their opinion, or for being nasty. I don't know about you, but I see a distinct difference.

Posted by: Pat Cahalan | January 13, 2009 3:30 PM

@ Steve C

> You've proven you're a boring concern troll.

This is laughable. You don't know anything about me, Steve, and yet you have decided to place me in a nice little container that conveniently allows you to ignore everything I say. You've done this, I might add, without actually acknowledging *anything* I've said.

> How long have you been posting here? How many
> topics have you posted on?

Excuse me, but how is this germane to the rightness or wrongness of my observation? If this is the barrier to evaluation, how can anyone new ever offer anything of import?

> You don't know anything about what goes on
> here other than the language gets spicy and
> that we don't suffer fools.

This presupposes many things (for example, that one is required to comment in order to actually read the blog). It also ignores the fact that I already mentioned the fact that I don't read this blog often, and that my point may already have been addressed.

Lots of blogs have spicy language. Lots of blogs don't "suffer" fools. What you (specifically, in this thread, I don't know about your general demeanor elsewhere on this blog) are doing here is tagging people immediately as a "fool".

Shit, Steve, I'm not even asking you to outright *agree* with me (as I pointed out in 275, above)... just actually nod your head and acknowledge that being an asshole can occasionally have negative side effects. Other people have done it (Denker, E.V. for two examples), it doesn't cause their entire position to crumble into nothingness.

Posted by: Janine, Bitter Friend | January 13, 2009 3:33 PM

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead | January 13, 2009

but how do most atheists become atheists?

There seem to be three main ways. 1) No indoctrination a children. 2) Reading the bible cover to cover and realizing what a horrible book it is (my discovery). 3) Realizing at some point you are being lied to about god and the bible.

I am afraid I was not so intellectual about this. I remember allowing Jesus to enter my heart. But I never felt anything. So I decided not to lie to myself about this.

Posted by: Steve B | January 13, 2009 3:37 PM

"" but how do most atheists become atheists?"

There seem to be three main ways. 1) No indoctrination a children. 2) Reading the bible cover to cover and realizing what a horrible book it is (my discovery). 3) Realizing at some point you are being lied to about god and the bible."

Now use a similar frame of mind, methods 2 and 3, and apply it to other forms of dogma!

Posted by: Alyson | January 13, 2009 3:39 PM

Shouldn't we/they use similar skepticism when confronted with dogma of any kind?

Dogma is defined, IIRC, as: an idea held to be incontrovertible as declared by an authority.

If we're talking about climate change science, the only "authority" is the reality of information. The climate is changing, and in ways that can be directly traced to human beings' behavior. It would be convenient to ignore that, or find ways around it, or to look down our noses at the slavish adherents to the mindless dogma of biology and meteorology, or to "open our eyes" to the wondrous possibilities inherent in sticking our fingers in our ears and shouting, "I can't hear you!" But it takes a lot more intellectual effort to accept that if we continue to behave in the same way, the Earth will be fried and life as we know it will be untenable.

Posted by: E.V. | January 13, 2009 3:41 PM

Tony B @337 is the Global Warming Denialist version of the creationists who spout,"So if we're descended from monkeys, how come there are still monkeys?"

(How can there be global warming if it still gets cold?) Idiot.

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead | January 13, 2009 3:42 PM

I am afraid I was not so intellectual about this. I remember allowing Jesus to enter my heart. But I never felt anything. So I decided not to lie to myself about this.

I just pulled the list from my memory banks of the threads where PZ asked people to tell about their deconversions. It isn't a complete list by any means, and the order may be off--even way off. Everyone's journey is their own, but a lot of paths overlap.

Posted by: mayhempix | January 13, 2009 3:44 PM

"" but how do most atheists become atheists?"

In my case I was born that way, but I have many friends who once they realized it was OK and safe not to believe in a god(s), dropped the chains of programmed religious ignorance.

Posted by: Brownian | January 13, 2009 3:44 PM

Breakfast, I agree with much of what you've been writing, and I don't think you're being a concern troll (yes, that term bothers me too, as do the professional whiners who that term is supposed to be applied to.) Pat has also made a few good points. There are a few I'd like to add my two cents to (No, I'm not wearing my fedora Patricia, and I've just shaved my beard, so I'm feeling a little vulnerable and thus uncharacteristically nice today. Sort of.)

About being called a fuckwit: yes, it sometimes works, or at least it's worked on me, both directly and indirectly. As a rather brash and opinionated individual, I've been called out more than a few times for talking out of my ass. It wasn't always in a manner as rude as being called a fuckwit and nor was it always as polite as 'hush, the adults are talking now', but it always stung. And if you're the type who thinks, it can make you stop and consider why such learned individuals might not be as interested in your flip opinion based on no actual knowledge of the subject whatsoever as you are in delivering it. And if you've got a heart as cold and black as mine, you'll think even further about how you can trip up those pompous eggheads at their own game, and you'll run off and study the subject. And more often than not, you'll realise just why those pompous eggheads were right after all. As for indirectly working, nothing freed me from my gong-fu induced woo-ishness than realising a few of my venerated heroes were full of shit because others that I respected weren't afraid to call 'em on it. That's where the collateral damage comes in--it can actually be occasionally useful. (What? PZ just called Benny Hinn a fraud? But, but, I just sent him little Lurleen's college fund. He can't be a--ahh, I see now.)

But there are those who come here and are genuinely interested in learning but have, unfortunately, been filled with misinformation (and who knows what else) by their respective churches, and get tagged for it. What can I say? In my case, I know it's a little bit of battle fatigue, and it's a little bit of ‘once bitten, twice shy.’ I’ve been burned here so many times by fundie trolls in sheep’s clothing that I’m afraid I’m a little gun shy and trigger happy. I don’t like it, but there it is, and sometimes I mistake genuine commenters for trolls. (And trolls aren’t always trollish nor non-trolls never trollish.) But I’m not above apologising for it (nor am I above slipping back into bad habits), as Randy Stimpson and David Heddle can both attest to.

This said, is there room for civil comments and civil commenters? You bet your ass there is, and I’m extremely grateful for the posters on both sides of the divide that are, not because I think they’re better or more effective or more godly or whatever, but because they’re not me. And I can learn from them.

This place isn’t a salon--it’s a saloon, and PZ’s the bartender and proprietor. He doesn’t haul out his shotgun often but he’ll do, more often than not because you’re complaining about the noise rather than shooting tequila bottles off the bar while swinging from the wagon-wheel chandelier. You can enjoy a quiet conversation here if you want (killfiles make effective earplugs), but if this place isn’t your style, you’re always more than welcome to head to the lounge at your local Chili’s.

Posted by: Steve B | January 13, 2009 3:49 PM

@Alyson:

"Dogma is defined, IIRC, as: an idea held to be incontrovertible as declared by an authority.

If we're talking about climate change science, the only "authority" is the reality of information. The climate is changing, and in ways that can be directly traced to human beings' behavior."

Bingo! Someone is thinking here! Listen very carefully to what you just said. We are no longer talking about "Global Warming," instead "Climate Change!" Of course the climate is changing! There just happens to be a small minority that is just not buying the "we're **cking up the planet with everything we do" philosophy. Sure we are doing some nasty things, but shouldn't we be applying resources to those things that science and economics show we can remedy quickly and cheaply? Do any of you realize how much mitigating and reducing carbon dioxide emissions is going to cost humanity? Do you realize any idea anyone has come up with to reduce CO2 emissions WON'T CHANGE SQUAT? Are you all prepared to build 2 to 3 nuclear power plants every week to make an actual dent in CO2 emissions? Did you know that for every watt of power generated by wind or solar has to be backed up by a watt of base-load generation, such as coal or natural gas? Didn't think so.

Posted by: Glen Davidson | January 13, 2009 3:51 PM

You're omitting the fact that there are other people involved in observing the conversation.

Actually, we're well aware of that fact. That's why we treat morons like morons. I do usually try to answer politely to a polite comment, but at the second one or third one I don't tolerate a dishonest approach any more.

What you apparently fail to recognize is that this is the world-wide web, that numerous polite and (by our standards) overly deferential treatments of pseudoscience exist out there. Talkorigins is just one. And you know what I've found out? Very few of the IDiots/cretins are at all tolerant of a place like Talkorigins, indeed, they seem to hate it all the more for being thorough and polite.

Furthermore, there are plenty of forums which are more polite, in which they can engage if they don't like our tone. So they don't need to be here at all in order to learn, if they in fact are open-minded.

So when they come here, often with disingenuous bullshit, they're really just asking for it.

And yes, we're dismissive of mindless jerks because we're mindful of the audience out there. People ought to be afraid to attack well-supported science, both because we have a good command of the facts, and because we're not going to suffer fools gladly--unless, of course, they really can support their claims (not something I've encountered on the creationist side). What honest science does suffer fools gladly? Apparently, only the one under dishonest attack is supposed to do so.

The fact is that you're just unaware of the dynamics of the situation, and shooting your mouth off in ignorance. Most people are frankly not going to be persuaded by the facts alone, because they aren't going to study the issues sufficiently to do so.

We can give good short answers to many questions, and we often do so when the commenter is polite--although there are some jerks who simply attack. But we're not in this just to "persuade," the fact is that we're out to make people look stupid when they ignorantly attack science, hence we rightly jeer at people who persist in dishonest and ignorant attacks on science after they have been properly answered.

Yes, some do so before that, however this is not UD, where people are censored without engaging in truly egregious acts.

Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/6mb592

Posted by: Steve_C | January 13, 2009 3:54 PM

Teehee. I was hoping he WOULD notice.

Posted by: Breakfast | January 13, 2009 3:55 PM

Thanks, Brownian - that all sounds pretty reasonable to me.

Posted by: Everbleed | January 13, 2009 4:04 PM

Too much fun.

You go PZ.

Sic 'em.

Posted by: Michael X | January 13, 2009 4:06 PM

If you don't know the difference between science and the way science is done then please ask a grownup to explain.

Science is defined by the way it is done you tiresome twit. It's a method applied to areas of study arbitrarily defined and classified by man that continue to change in scope and name, but the method remains the same. The systematically organized body of knowledge called "Science" is a product of the method.

But it's lackwits who claim to have a better way to truth than through painstaking evidence gathering, hypothesis making and controlled testing, that get the brunt end of my insult stick.

So you got a problem with how science is done, present a better way. I need a good laugh today.

Posted by: Steve B | January 13, 2009 4:08 PM

@Watchman:

" You should agree that my prediction is easily falsified by January 13, 2012.

True enough. However, if you're right, how will we know it wasn't due to more than six years worth of proactive global reductions of the anthropogenic contribution to greenhouse gas levels?"

Just look at the atmospheric CO2 levels reported by Mauna Loa observations and you will note that there hasn't been any diminishing of CO2 in the last 3 years. It is unlikely that it will diminish over the next 3 years. You will readily agree that it is unlikely that any reduction of anthropogenic CO2 emissions will occur over the next three years. Anyway, I'm not betting on CO2 levels, just temperature change.

Posted by: Tulse | January 13, 2009 4:09 PM

Sure we are doing some nasty things, but shouldn't we be applying resources to those things that science and economics show we can remedy quickly and cheaply?

Not if the problem will have long-term and expensive consequences. That would like suggesting that someone with cancer should only take vitamin C and other quick and cheap remedies, rather than getting chemo.

Do any of you realize how much mitigating and reducing carbon dioxide emissions is going to cost humanity?

Is that cost greater than what not mitigating and reducing will cost humanity in terms of impacts on food supply, diseases, weather-related disasters, flooding of major coastal regions, etc. etc. etc.?

Did you know that for every watt of power generated by wind or solar has to be backed up by a watt of base-load generation, such as coal or natural gas?

Yes I did -- did you know that there are carbon-neutral renewables that are suitable for baseload power such as tidal, wave, geothermal, and ocean thermal (as well as more exotic options such as space-based solar and various approaches to fusion)? Did you know that there are various methods for storing power from wind and solar and other intermittent renewables to make them directly suitable for base-load power? Did you know that significant reductions in CO2 could be had through conservation?

Posted by: JeffreyD | January 13, 2009 4:12 PM

For some reason, I feel compelled to point out to Patricia and others that I have a full, soft, and luxuriant beard. Not sure why, but I must do this. This incarnation of beard was begun on 05 November 1975. Available for perusal by anyone near Charleston, SC or, several times a year, in Washington DC. Photos are available in the lobby, tip your waitresses, try the veal.

BTW, getting married on 24 Jan 09 so the beard will be off limits after that. :>

(What? Oh, yes nurse, I will shut down the computer and take my meds now.)

Posted by: Quiet Desperation | January 13, 2009 4:13 PM

Concern troll is concerned about “concern troll”?

And, somewhere, a parcel of dark energy was created.

That's almost like an LOLCat caption. CONCERNED KITTEH IS CONCERNED.

Posted by: africangenesis | January 13, 2009 4:16 PM

watchman@371, The Mauna Loa CO2 statistics should tell you that. We are currently ahead of the worst case scenerios, although if somehow the recession can be prolonged ...

Posted by: DGKnipfer | January 13, 2009 4:18 PM

@312,

I'll toss my uneducated ginger goatee in to the ring if it gets me some harsh treatment. Just don't tell my wife.

Posted by: Patricia, OM | January 13, 2009 4:21 PM

Why JefferyD, you sly dawg you. Congratulations on your engagement! I send you a slutty cyber smooch!

Posted by: Steve B | January 13, 2009 4:22 PM

@Tulse

"...did you know that there are carbon-neutral renewables that are suitable for baseload power such as tidal, wave, geothermal, and ocean thermal (as well as more exotic options such as space-based solar and various approaches to fusion)? Did you know that there are various methods for storing power from wind and solar and other intermittent renewables to make them directly suitable for base-load power? Did you know that significant reductions in CO2 could be had through conservation?"

Finally, a real debate! Yes, all of your alternative methods of power generation have potential. Not one of them is ready for prime time. Even if we increase our investments in those methodologies by an order of magnitude, they won't make much difference for many decades to come. All of the renewable sources you mention are exotic. The 2-3 fission reactor plant construction pace I mentioned earlier is just for covering growth in demand, triple that figure to replace existing power generation infrastructure. Build a smart grid and save over 25% of that, but that is a simple political solution, sorry it won't get done, too much nimby.

Posted by: Michael X | January 13, 2009 4:25 PM

PZ is an educator. It stands to reason that he'd like to be a good educator

Pat, PZ is not only an educator. This is a public citizens blog encompasing everything PZ likes or dislikes. Further, even if PZ were solely interesting in education, he need not be an educator every second of every day. In reality, he's also a concerned citizen and combatant against religious lunacy, and likewise, that doesn't lead into how he teaches biology in the classroom.

This blog and it's content is more diverse than one particular topic that serves more than one audience. If you don't like religious topics, read up on a Peer Reviewed Research post. Something for everyone.

Posted by: Ryan F Stello | January 13, 2009 4:27 PM

Pat Calahan (#381) "But, But But..!"-ed

Well, again... PZ is an educator. It stands to reason that he'd like to be a good educator.

To his students, who pay him to educate them.
You aren't in that demographic (whiny finger waggers).

Since when is it a net negative to try and offer someone constructive criticism?

What makes you think your criticism is constructive?

Think of it this way:
Imagine how horrible it would be if we were welcoming of folks like yourself who ONLY seem to talk about tone and how offended they or others are.

It wouldn't be very progressive if we have to stop the "real" threads and wait for the tantrums to stop.

Posted by: Saskboy | January 13, 2009 4:28 PM

You've made an impressive comeback today, even though as you mentioned, you don't have to have the most votes to be a 'winner', you just have to continue to produce a varied and interesting blog based more on fact than on fiction.

Posted by: Ryan F Stello | January 13, 2009 4:31 PM

And by demographic, I meant your demographic.
Just in case you were concerned.

Posted by: Patricia, OM | January 13, 2009 4:31 PM

What! You expect us NOT to tell your wife. That's it buster, you just march over to the spanking couch. It's the one beside the Naked Bunny with a Whip. I'll be busy sending your wife a naughtygram.

Posted by: Chris Christner | January 13, 2009 4:40 PM

Hey PZ, check your original quote:

A clarification: being rude does not mean lunging for the other guy's beard and giving it a gratuitous twist. It doesn't mean you have to use profanity, even. It means calling out bullshit when it is ladled up in front of you.

That kind of incivility is actually very useful...

I substituted nothing. Your quoted comment and the tenor of comments here prove how you and your little tribe relish the use of profanity and general rudeness to strangers.

Posted by: JeffreyD | January 13, 2009 4:41 PM

Smooches back, darling Patricia.

Now, off for fried shrimp, a tall umbrella drink, and some music.

Ciao

Oh, and Christner, since you are worried about profanity, fellate yourself in a sand pit full of squid while being sodomized by a rhino. See, no profanity.

Posted by: KnockGoats | January 13, 2009 4:42 PM

Hell, I'll stop the party myself or ask people to tone it down if I'm *at* the party but it's reasonable to assume you're pissing off the neighbors.

Which is basically my point; I'm just mentioning the fact that this *isn't* a private party miles away from the rest of the world. It's a public blog, rated very highly among science blogs in particular.

What an incredibly stupid analogy. No-one is in any way discommoded by this blog unless they choose to read it. If they look and don't like, they can go away. So why don't you, you tedious concern troll?

Posted by: E.V. | January 13, 2009 4:44 PM

Christner, you're an idiot.

Posted by: mayhempix | January 13, 2009 4:48 PM

"...had been a devout follower of the anthropogenic theory of catastrophic global warming..."

Well that's SteveB's problem right there. First he was a "devout follower of AGW and now he's a devout follower of AGW Denialism.It reminds of David Horowitz who was a fanatic leftist in the 60s, became disillusioned when his heroes turned out to be flawed humans like himself and then became fanatic rightwingnut. Fundie personality types are always all or nothing and there is no area in between.

I for one am never a devout follower of anything, but as far as it goes, I will take conclusions based on the scientific process and peer review over anything posted by a true believer.

Posted by: Tony Byron | January 13, 2009 4:49 PM

"Science is defined by the way it is done you tiresome twit."

That's exactly why I said specifically "questioning the way science is done" and not "question science" as you said.

And by the way, questioning (accepted) science is the path to advancing science.

I won't get too detailed here but doing science does not include collecting unrepresentative data from asphalt parking lots and blacktop roofs or cherry-picking dates (in Europe specifically) such as 1991 as a baseline.

"Tiresome twit" is nice...I appreciate someone who goes outside the box for an ad-hominem. Obviously you are not an average "angry little alarmist".
You will be in a subset.

Posted by: Tony Byron | January 13, 2009 4:53 PM

"Science is defined by the way it is done you tiresome twit."

That's exactly why I said specifically "questioning the way (the method)science is done" and not "question science" as you said.

And by the way, questioning (accepted) science is the path to advancing science.

I won't get too detailed here but doing science does not include collecting unrepresentative data from asphalt parking lots and blacktop roofs or cherry-picking dates (in Europe specifically) such as 1991 as a baseline.

"Tiresome twit" is nice...I appreciate someone who goes outside the box for an ad-hominem. Obviously you are not an average "angry little alarmist".
You will be in a subset.

Posted by: Stu | January 13, 2009 4:53 PM

I just don't see how renewable power can be integrated into our grid as it is currently configured.

Christ on a crutch, do you need help carrying those goalposts? Do you think maybe there's a reason grid overhaul should be, and luckily seems about to become the first priority?

But thank you for conceding the main point. We can move on now.

Posted by: Steve B | January 13, 2009 4:57 PM

Frog:

"People then "wonder" about the incivility! Someone comes along, describes the problem as non-linear -- then pretends that it should be economically modeled as a linear system! (The underlying assumption of the second point being that there's a cost-benefit proportionality, and we should make a decision based on that)."

I don't care about civility, I'm in complete agreement with PZ in that regard.

Why not use a linear model for short term? We don't have much else. You will have to agree with me that it is rare for any linear model to be accurate for very long, we should only apply resources to things that give a short term measurable benefit.

Are you saying that we should use chaotic models for the short term and linear models for long term projection?

Posted by: Tulse | January 13, 2009 4:59 PM

Yes, all of your alternative methods of power generation have potential. Not one of them is ready for prime time.

Nonsense -- there are tidal and geothermal projects generating power at this moment (in Brittany, Spain, Scotland, etc.), and one such plant has been operating since 1966. And unlike conventional power plants, the technology for these kinds of approaches is pretty basic engineering, and doesn't require much in the way of exotic solutions.

Even if we increase our investments in those methodologies by an order of magnitude, they won't make much difference for many decades to come.

Not at all -- as I said above, some are generating power right now, and because most are built not as large megaprojects, but instead as relatively small units that benefit from economies of scale, they are likely to become rather cheap and easy to produce very quickly. It is anticipated that Europe may have as much as 5,000 megawatts of capacity just from wave and tidal installation by 2020, and that is with current investment levels and not an order of magnitude increase.

All of the renewable sources you mention are exotic.

Space-based power and fusion are, granted, but not the others, which involve extremely straightforward engineering using current technologies.

Posted by: DGKnipfer | January 13, 2009 5:00 PM

@402,

Sorry but I like to be the one holding the whip; though I do appreciate Bunny for her methods. Besides, my wife is more than welcome to read the blog and I'm posting under my real name.

Posted by: Hank | January 13, 2009 5:01 PM

Speaking of idiots have you ever read some of the tripe put out by James Hansen. The guy talks of protecting creation and being carried off by mephistopheles. Ha! The guy needs to put forget the literary pretensions and clean up his data.

Posted by: KnockGoats | January 13, 2009 5:02 PM

I just don't see how renewable power can be integrated into our grid as it is currently configured. - Steve B

It already is. Currently produces about 6% of total energy used in the US, but 30% of California's electricity (note: not 30% total energy). The US DOE reckons wind power alone could account for 20% of US electricity by 2030. Some countries, of course, have higher values already.

The big short-term reductions in fossil fuel consumption and CO2 production, however, lie in energy efficiency and behaviour change - much faster and cheaper than any building programme.

Posted by: Don Smith, FCD | January 13, 2009 5:15 PM

@Nerd #346:
How about 4) you realize all the annoying people are going to heaven and all of the interesting people are/will be in hell?

Posted by: Emmet, OM | January 13, 2009 5:17 PM

I say they guy that's got the biggest gun is the one with the greatest incisive wit with which to mow down terrible arguments.

Unfortunately, he also thinks you're a fuckwit ;o)

Posted by: Michael X | January 13, 2009 5:19 PM

Tony, I wish I could return the favor. You however remain in the majority of insufferable trolls.

That's exactly why I said specifically "questioning the way (the method)science is done" and not "question science" as you said.

My whole point was that these claims are interchangeable and laughable.

So here's what I can conclude so far. You speak as clearly as mud, equivocate around the word "science", provide no clarification, all the while continually claiming to "question the way science is done". Yet if, as you say, you're questioning of science is actually just doing science in the typical sense, then all I can request is that you quit spending time on APGW and take an English class and start using phrases in ways that don't muddle the meaning of your statement.

For example: "Obviously can't stand the idea of people questioning the way science is done" would read, if said by a scientist: "Obviously can't stand the idea of people questioning YOUR CONCLUSIONS." See the difference? One statement questions, within science, the conclusions of particular findings, while the other questions science as a method. English!

Lastly, "tiresome twit", in the context I used it in was not an ad hominem. It was an insult. If my response to your statement was that I wouldn't agree with you because you're a tiresome twit, then it would be an ad hominem.

I'm afraid if I spend any more time teaching you english I'll need to charge tuition.

Posted by: Pat Cahalan | January 13, 2009 5:21 PM

@ Ryan (#396)

PC> PZ is an educator. It stands to reason that
PC> he'd like to be a good educator.

R> To his students, who pay him to educate them.
R> You aren't in that demographic (whiny finger
R> waggers).

Not in my opinion... sorry. Educators and scientists don't get to be educators and scientists only when they damn well feel like it and only to the audiences that they select.

This blog is hosted by Science Blogs. PZ notes in his profile both his profession and his place of employment, right there in the first line. I would imagine he asks (indeed, rightly so) that people judge the relative value of his postings at least partially based upon his profession, and grant him a standing as an expert in biology and at the very least a practitioner of education.

A scientist (note, again: I freely admit this is *my opinion*) has a responsibility to further the cause of science. An educator has a responsibility to further the cause of education. Particularly for tenured faculty -> you have tremendous authority and privilege granted to you by your standing, and you have a professional obligation to be aware of that, and not abuse that standing. PZ has mentioned agreement with this general principle himself before, by criticizing (rightly so) educators and scientists who abuse their standing to support horseshit outside their actual fields.

> What makes you think your criticism is constructive?

Maybe it's not, but it's certainly not destructive. Why are you responding as if it is?

> Think of it this way:
> Imagine how horrible it would be if we were
> welcoming of folks like yourself who ONLY seem
> to talk about tone and how offended they or
> others are.

I'm posting comments about tone and offense... on a thread about *tone and offense*. How horrible! I'm posting comments *germane to the topic*, on a comment thread *specifically about that topic!*

I'm not hijacking some other thread. I'm not commenting about tone on a thread about biology. PZ is positing a standard of behavior, and I'm mentioning possible consequences of that standard. Isn't that what the comment section of a blog is supposed to be... for? Discussion?

Posted by: Lego my Logo | January 13, 2009 5:23 PM

We need to identify, ban, and tag these deniers now. It should be simple to compile a list for future incidents and to share with other sites. Deniers can yak all they want to themselves but disproven lies have no place in the public scientific arena. They are only further pollution clogging up rational discussion. It might be humorous, but also tragic, that each posted lie also generates further CO2 and wastes more precious energy resources. If we are serious about reason and the environment (the natural, objective one and the virtual ideal one) then we must commit to purging these toxins out of the system.

Posted by: Brownian | January 13, 2009 5:24 PM

It's doubtful that many of you would survive an actual rough bar.

It's doubtful you'd survive telling me that in person.

(Hey, since we're obviously flexing nuts, now.)

Posted by: frog | January 13, 2009 5:25 PM

SteveB: I don't care about civility, I'm in complete agreement with PZ in that regard.
Why not use a linear model for short term? We don't have much else. You will have to agree with me that it is rare for any linear model to be accurate for very long, we should only apply resources to things that give a short term measurable benefit.

Well, there you go again! Some phenomena show threshold effects -- climate being a classic example. A series of linear approximations is guaranteed to be complete wrong! It'll miss the threshold, and once we hit that it will be impossible to respond appropriately.

We know that the Younger Dryas climactic disruption in North America was triggered within a very short period, for example. It may have made N.A. basically uninhabitable for a millenium. So you suggest that we don't use our foresight to try to avert such a disequilibration of the system, and instead keep our noses to the grindstone? Seriously?

Regardless of the quality of our current models (and I do not doubt that they are seriously screwed up), the overall envelope is clear. We are looking at a number of explosive positive feedback loops, from decreasing albedo to ocean acidification and massive methane hydrate release. To just "declare" that away because our models can't tell us whether current technological practices will bring us to the threshold in 10 years or 100, is insane.

Posted by: Emmet, OM | January 13, 2009 5:30 PM

It's doubtful that many of you would survive an actual rough bar.

I dunno, I can run pretty fast for a short guy.

Posted by: E.V. | January 13, 2009 5:31 PM

No Tony Byron, YOU should win an award. Would you mind listing your science credentials for the Academic posters here (I am not one, I freely admit) but there are more PhDs and PhD candidates than you can shake a stick at. We'll all consider your assessment of Pharyngula as soon as you can prove you're not the trollish buffoon you appear to be. Thanks.

Posted by: Janine, Bitter Friend | January 13, 2009 5:32 PM

5) Hell has all the good bands.

Posted by: Stu | January 13, 2009 5:34 PM

Of course all of the renewable methods work

Phew. Okay, for a minute there I thought you were actually going to debate that.

but they are limited

I assume you mean geographically and temporally? If not, please elaborate.

and if they worked real well, we'd be using much more of it already

They simply haven't been economical yet. Now we can either start fixing that right now, or wait until oil hits $500 a barrel and the entire world economy keels over.

If you are a denizen of the coast, or near it, how would you like a wave power system within your view?

Oh no! A bunch of buoys half a mile off the coast!

And I'd like it just fine if the alternative is hand-cranking my lights in the evening, thank you very much.

Several wind power projects have been canceled for aesthetic reasons.

Yes, people are morons. Film at 11.

Many don't want whales to be chopped to bits by tidal power extraction.

Are you serious? Do you have a link for this?

Go ahead and produce all the renewable/alternative power you possibly can, it just won't come close to reducing CO2 emissions to any level that would make a measurable difference.

Depending on how serious we get about it, 20-50% by 2030 sounds plenty measurable to me.

Posted by: Ward S. Denker | January 13, 2009 5:35 PM

And Ward Dinker: I guess you are under-armed in this battle.

And...

Unfortunately, he also thinks you're a fuckwit ;o

I do believe I have struck a nerve. I got a tired, un-witty cliche meant to deride me and an outright insult (jeers and bottles). Neither seemed to address the point being made, unless I need to consult a numerologist to find the hidden meanings.

When the response resembles exactly what I predicted that it would resemble, doesn't that make you the slightest bit embarrassed? Don't you realize that you resemble most what you like the least? It looks like denial to me.

I hit a nerve with little more than holding up a mirror. I didn't have to parody either of you, you did that yourselves. Look hard at what you're seeing. Is that who you are?

Posted by: Grendels Dad | January 13, 2009 5:36 PM

My four day growth of chin stubble makes me feel like I brought a knife to a gunfight. I’m backin’ outa here real slow now…

Posted by: Janine, Bitter Friend | January 13, 2009 5:37 PM

Posted by: Emmet Caulfield, OM | January 13, 2009

I dunno, I can run pretty fast for a short guy.

Can I call you Rincewind The Wizzard?

Posted by: Kel | January 13, 2009 5:39 PM

When I said "Pharyngula is interesting, and if you don't agree you can fuck off!", it was meant to be accompanied by this video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-_2xGIwQfik

Posted by: frog | January 13, 2009 5:40 PM

Pat Calahan: Not in my opinion... sorry. Educators and scientists don't get to be educators and scientists only when they damn well feel like it and only to the audiences that they select.

Now you are really veering into concern trolling. PZ's entire life must be committed to "science and education", as if he was some kind Fraa in a concent from Anathem?

You think that's a serious point?

Yes, we get to have multiple lives. We're allowed to be politicians one day, and educators another. You don't get to demand that we be straight-jacketed and removed from certain elements of the public and private discourse.

PZ isn't required to rigorously describe the digestive anatomy of cephalopods at an orgy -- he's allowed to screw and moan just like everyone else. Only an asshole would demand anything else.

Posted by: Emmet, OM | January 13, 2009 5:44 PM

Thus spake Dr. Wankseed @452:

I do believe I have struck a nerve.

Not in anyone's funny bone, you didn't — what's wrong with a little humour?

Posted by: Michael X | January 13, 2009 5:48 PM

No need for the mirror, Ward. I have a few myself. And my god do I look fantastic!

Posted by: Stu | January 13, 2009 5:50 PM

as wind power only produces that energy at optimum conditions, hence the need for expensive back up power.

Or, with an upgraded grid (to transfer solar and wind energy around efficiently), battery storage at house level and increased pumped storage facilities, you wouldn't need as much. Not to mention that efficiency increases would severely decrease peak demand.

Anyway, that doesn't even seem to be the crux of your argument. Am I correct in assuming that you are advocating against renewable energy primarily because it would not help quickly enough?

Posted by: Steve_C | January 13, 2009 5:52 PM

HAHAHA. Nerd. See my post #443.

Posted by: Colonel Sun | January 13, 2009 5:58 PM

MMGW - the new religion of the neo-flagellants:

http://img265.imageshack.us/img265/7743/capture7720082574320amur6.jpg

Posted by: Steve B | January 13, 2009 6:00 PM

Stu: "Or, with an upgraded grid (to transfer solar and wind energy around efficiently), battery storage at house level and increased pumped storage facilities, you wouldn't need as much. Not to mention that efficiency increases would severely decrease peak demand."

That is all well and good, but we are no where near the technology to do that. Increasing efficiency is something we already do, it pays right away, dumping large amounts of government largess won't help us increase efficiency any faster than it already is.

"Anyway, that doesn't even seem to be the crux of your argument. Am I correct in assuming that you are advocating against renewable energy primarily because it would not help quickly enough?"

Sort of, you could set me into the "it is too little too late so all of this AGW panic is pointless" camp.

Posted by: frog | January 13, 2009 6:01 PM

SteveB: Now just how certain are we of these positive feedback loops? Have we seen them in the past? Positive feedback loops should have killed us long before we even walked the earth. Are you saying that the climate system is balancing on a sharp knife edge, and that any perturbation will send us spinning to either hell on earth or hell freezing over? That is what positive feedback should give us, an either/or, no shades of gray allowed, and any perturbation will send it spinning off.

Are you that ignorant of geological history -- even the recent history of the holocene?

The Dryas event is one example, due to the dumping of glacial water down the Hudson. There is also evidence of massive methane hydrate explosions at the end of the last ice-age, we know that the Saharah's conversion to desert was fairly quick... That's not including less clear similar events going back tens of millions of years.

Now, Stevey, in reality positive feedback loops aren't unbounded -- a threshold gets hit, then a saturation occurs. It's the same thing you see in any biochemical reaction or information system -- a big old S curve. Usually, it leads to a disruption, but the rest of the system (aka, trees, wolves and worms) adapt after a die-back. I'd really prefer not to be involved with one, or leave one to my children and grand-children --- now that would be uncivil.

The only basically uncontrolled positive feedback I've heard about was the Snowball earth effect about 600 mya, where the entire planet may have been reduced to super-arctic conditions. Even that case obviously saturated and was only a meta-stable state that eventually de-stabilized leading to another positive feedback towards planetary tropical conditions.

So, yes -- we can be fairly certain these "positive feedback loops" exist, just as the negative feedbacks exist. Yes -- we have evidence of their past behavior, and good evidence that we are entering their reactivation (just google siberian methane hydrate -- if that doesn't scare the hell out of you, you're just too stupid to live). No, the fact that these loops exist does not imply that we're living on a knife's edge constantly -- most of the climactic time is spent in meta-stable states. Just like a personality -- meta-stable most of the time, with threshold effects that can completely transform it in a blink of an eye, to a new meta-stable state.

What we have to worry about is massive perturbations; since it's non-linear, most of the build up will be quite slight changes (the "linear regime" of biologists trying to cheat) until we hit the threshold. And if you don't think we've done a massive perturbation that is very likely to create a possibly unexpected threshold-crossing, well I guess ignorance is bliss.

Posted by: Pat Cahalan | January 13, 2009 6:02 PM

@ Michael X

> At a certain point the evidence against your
> claim that PZ's method is bad simply becomes
> overwhelming. PZ is successful as a scientist,
> educator and public intellectual because of
> the way he is.

Mr. X, there are several obvious and immediate holes in your argument. One, the particular measurement of popularity you cite is not in any wise a reasonable metric for quality of science or educational ability. I'll go ahead and grant you PZ is a good biologist (I have no reason to doubt this and will accept it on face value. Even if this is not true, it would be difficult for me to claim this in any justifiable way, as I have no standing as a biologist myself). At my present place of employment, I'm surrounded by outstanding scientists (not to mention my own educational institution). I do not notice a general positive correlation between "good scientist" and "good educator".

Also, not I did not claim that PZ's method was "bad". I observed that it can have negative consequences, something which seems pretty obvious, but some here have rejected that observation.

Claiming that *PZ's method* is in fact (either qualitatively or quantitatively) bad is a much more rigorous claim. Who am I answering here? All I really wanted to accomplish by my commentary is the first, actually. I'm really quite astounded that some people have difficulty actually acknowledging the point.

> So here is my challenge friend. Either begin to
> support your claims with real evidence or save
> it. Your time for assertion is up.

I just may accept your challenge, sir. What evidence do you require? Are citations from peer-reviewed psychology journals acceptable? Sociology? Educational journals (they may not be properly scientific)? Do you require refereed journals, or are conference papers enough to provide you with some sense that what I'm saying has value? I'm imagining that you yourself are not a social scientist, so what authorities will you accept as a reference?

Moreover, since you are now asking me to invest a large amount of time in research (as opposed to making a simple observation that has generated a substantially disproportionate amount of negative response), can you provide me with some sort of reasonable guarantee that ya'll gonna stop acting like assholes when I scientifically prove to you that it is counterproductive?

Or am I just going to go off and bust my ass off and have everyone just say, "Megh. We like it here", which seems to be the prevailing defense (and which is not much subject to being countered via science, is it?)

Posted by: Emmet, OM | January 13, 2009 6:02 PM

LOL! good one. but.. what if those aren't fake ears. but plastic surgery ?

Raise your hand, palm facing the guy, part your fingers between the second and third finger, and say “live long and prosper” while backing away slowly?

Posted by: Emmet, OM | January 13, 2009 6:05 PM

Are you the type of person that finds out he is talking to a doctor at a party and hikes up his shirt to ask about "this damned rash"?

Better than pulling out his cock and asking the same question.

Posted by: Tony Byron | January 13, 2009 6:08 PM

My my Michael you do get into some persnickety parsing don't you?

How about addressing the data collection from heat islands and admitting why 1991 is a magic baseline for ghg emissions?

How about admitting computer models can't explain past "climate changes" like the "little ice age" or the "medieval warming"?

Water vapor and clouds and solar influence can't be accurately modeled and it's obvious from the divergence of IPCC predictions and the reality of the last 10 years.

Do go on playing with yourself over semantics though.

Posted by: frog | January 13, 2009 6:10 PM

Pat: Or am I just going to go off and bust my ass off and have everyone just say, "Megh. We like it here", which seems to be the prevailing defense (and which is not much subject to being countered via science, is it?)

It's perfectly amenable to scientific analysis -- just show evidence we don't like it here.

Maybe you meant that we shouldn't like it here? Or that we should spend time where we don't like it? Or that it shouldn't matter what we like?

I'm starting to smell a smug puritan ethic -- it's not a pleasant odor.

On a more serious not, you seem to be assuming that a manifold of approaches is wrong -- that there is one right approach, rather than an alliance of approaches which work in concert. Ah, there's that stench again!

Posted by: Emmet, OM | January 13, 2009 6:11 PM

Thus spake Janine:

Not for the beard, for the running.

Yeah, I know, but when I saw the full white beard of David Jason on the Wikepedia page, it reminded me of E.V.'s description earlier on and I couldn't resist.

Posted by: Kel | January 13, 2009 6:12 PM

Are you the type of person that finds out he is talking to a doctor at a party and hikes up his shirt to ask about "this damned rash"?

Posted by: Steve B | January 13, 2009 6:17 PM

Stu,

I'm not making anything up. Positive feedback gets you a rapid transition to a maximum or minimum possible value. We are all familiar with the microphone and amplifier feedback loop. It takes considerable control to keep such a system in check. Is the implication that our climate system needs careful control to keep within optimum bounds? What was that control in the past? Do we have sufficient knowledge and suitable feedback measurements to control it ourselves? Are we going to be pushing on the rope or pulling it?

Posted by: Watchman | January 13, 2009 6:19 PM

Ward wrote:

I find it laughable that some of you are comparing the place to a "rough bar" or a "saloon."

This, from the guy who earlier equated a typed verbal insult to a punch in the face. I conclude that he does understand the concept of metaphor, therefore he has chosen to be inconsistent on this point.

Posted by: Steve_C | January 13, 2009 6:21 PM

Ward. You're a tool. And really fucking long winded too.

Posted by: Kel | January 13, 2009 6:23 PM

I get it already, you hate Libertarians, you hate AGW skeptics, and you really hate Creationists. Down with America, jihad! Right?

Posted by: Brian D | January 13, 2009 6:27 PM

Colonel Sun @ #470: You do realize that graph starts in an El Nino and ends in a La Nina, both of which have substantial but short-term (i.e. NOISE) effects on temperature trends (i.e. SIGNAL), right?

Why not look at the entire record or the decadal rankings? (Or this if you'd rather complain about temperature records.)

Could it be that denialists like Watts consider the full record the way creationists consider transitional forms?

Posted by: 'Tis Himself | January 13, 2009 6:32 PM

I get it already, you hate Libertarians, you hate AGW skeptics, and you really hate Creationists.

Shorter Ward S.: "You hate stupid people."

Posted by: Brownian | January 13, 2009 6:36 PM

I, for one, welcome Ward's frankness, honesty, and intellectual curiosity as espoused in comment #489.

Look, he was honest and (relatively) concise, and he refrained from hurling insults.

Sorry, but I'm not gonna dogpile on the guy for that comment. I actually appreciated it quite a bit.

But it's not true that I hate Libertarians, AGW skeptics, or Creationists; it's just that I find their arguments to mostly consist of intellectual rubbish. That doesn't bother me. That is, of course, when they make arguments at all.

It's when they make from the hip assertions that even the most cursory examination of the surrounding world would immediately refute that I lose my nut.

Posted by: kamaka | January 13, 2009 6:38 PM

Apparently, the guy who thinks rough bars might be too much for the likes of us has never hung out with any field biologists.

Posted by: John Morales | January 13, 2009 6:40 PM

Ward @489:

[1] If you didn't have dissenters here and you all got your wish, [2] you'd soon abandon the blog. [3] Know why? Know what another place is where you only talk to people who agree with you? A church. [4] Do you really want to think of PZ as a preacher and you only want other parishioners in the pew beside you?

Posted by: Steve B | January 13, 2009 6:44 PM

Stu,

Looks like I missed your larger post.

"So, yes -- we can be fairly certain these "positive feedback loops" exist, just as the negative feedbacks exist. Yes -- we have evidence of their past behavior, and good evidence that we are entering their reactivation (just google siberian methane hydrate -- if that doesn't scare the hell out of you, you're just too stupid to live). No, the fact that these loops exist does not imply that we're living on a knife's edge constantly -- most of the climactic time is spent in meta-stable states. Just like a personality -- meta-stable most of the time, with threshold effects that can completely transform it in a blink of an eye, to a new meta-stable state."

So we have many multiples of overlapping meta-stable states, about as predictable as a rivulet of water trickling down a sheet of glass. There are all sorts of disaster scenarios that scare the hell out of little kids hiding under their beds. Methane hydrate doesn't scare me any more than a comet or asteroid impact, just as many ifs need to come together.

I guess I'm just too stupid to live. Haaarrrrggg.....

Posted by: NFPendleton | January 13, 2009 6:51 PM

I got the feeling that I might find a "home" here, but after that post, it's confirmed. I always get the stink-eye for not putting up with Teh Nonsense.

And as for staying "on subject" ... apparently they've never spent any time in a university classroom. Books are great, but we humans do better when taught by humans. Non-linear thought shouldn't be dismissed just because we're supposed to be all sciencey at the Pharyn.

Posted by: Steve B | January 13, 2009 6:53 PM

Frog,

Now we're talking! Your last comment was the best argument I've heard to date!

"It's pretty easy to see that CO2 emission has outpaced the controls on it -- such as increased plant growth or increased albedo from increased rainfall. The detail are less than essential, since as you so rightly point out, such systems are very sensitive to "initial conditions" -- i.e., are measurements underdetermine the system. That does not imply, however, that we can't get a good idea of a switch in probabilities -- i.e., that a threshold is coming."

Now, what I'm trying to understand here, keeping in mind I'm too stupid to live, is how we are certain about CO2 being a initiator of a positive feedback loop.

Posted by: Brownian | January 13, 2009 6:54 PM

I guess I'm just too stupid to live.

No, just too stupid to competently discuss climate.

No one's claiming you should die, just that you should shut the fuck up about things you clearly don't fucking understand, ya goddamned martyr.

Yeah, it's complex. Yeah, all the details haven't been worked out. Yeah, the relative strengths of different factors need to be considered. But if we threw our hands in the air (like we just don't care) every time we encountered some aspect of nature we found difficult to measure or comprehend, we'd still be banging hammerstones.

And we're expected to be civil when confronted with such incredibly moronic hubris?

Posted by: Janine, Bitter Friend | January 13, 2009 6:55 PM

Posted by: Brownian | January 13, 2009

I, for one, welcome Ward's frankness, honesty, and intellectual curiosity as espoused in comment #489.

Look, he was honest and (relatively) concise, and he refrained from hurling insults.

Sorry, but I'm not gonna dogpile on the guy for that comment. I actually appreciated it quite a bit.

I was content to not paying much attention to him, just a quick skim as I go through everything. But the crack about this being an Al Qaeda training camp and adding Jihad! at the end. It is merely an updated way to call your opponent a nazi.

Posted by: Ward S. Denker | January 13, 2009 6:58 PM

This, from the guy who earlier equated a typed verbal insult to a punch in the face.

And really fucking long winded too.

Now you are getting into the spirit of things. Who said that civility and comparing people to extremists couldn't go hand in hand? Why use of such words like hate to characterise the opponent's position as irrational is an eloquent way of beating the argument down. Very nice work, you'll do well here.

If what we're advocating is hateful invectives toward others and we've abandoned all hope of educating people then we're intellectually no better than the anti-US propaganda being used by an Al Qaeda training camp. One does not have to be violent to buy the propaganda of violent people, if you understand my meaning. It's all under the umbrella metaphor that this blog is like a "rough bar." Of course I'm not saying everyone that comes here is a hate monger, I'm just saying that some are using the same tactics. That should probably be discouraged because it tends to cast a poor light on others.

By declaring "open season on fresh meat" some have taken this to mean that "those with a dissenting opinion should be shot on sight because we hate them." When PZ says that he doesn't like where "they" came from (meaning CA and WUWT) some see that as the equivalent that it's an "us vs. them" situation.

I'm in a middle ground. I'd never heard of either CA or WUWT until PZ said something about them and I've read Pharyngula off-and-on for a while now, more often of late. I get it that a lot of the commenters aren't as interested in the science that occasionally does get mentioned here as they are his stance as a fire-breathing liberal. What I don't get is why some of us have to be shot down in the crossfire (and most of the bullets are coming from this side) who are interested in science. Is it really so difficult to imagine that three blogs can share a readership on issues of science? Is there any reason that commenters can't embrace new readership?

I've not seen the hosts of either of those two blogs say anything about Pharyngula at all, save one quote of PZ's (in context). In fact, they seem to be discouraging slagging on another science blog (or its readership).

I may have used a strong metaphor to call attention to it, but you've (mistakenly) turned it into a message of hate. That's what you were looking for, and it's what you found. The spade wasn't really a spade at all.

Posted by: Steve_C | January 13, 2009 7:01 PM

Zzzzzzzz. Still boring. Still longwinded.

Posted by: Pat Cahalan | January 13, 2009 7:09 PM

@ Michael X

> Also, his responsibilities to science and education
> must be continual and not fullfilaible through his
> work or time in class, but must also be taken into
> account in everything PZ does. Many have disagreed
> stating the near impossibility and/or un-
> practicality of asking such. Can you support
> these claims any further than assertion?

Ah, not exactly. To clarify: if one is presenting one's own personal opinions in a medium reserved for that purpose, I don't really care if they wear a tutu and rant about Time Cube. But clearly PZ has willingly blurred the lines between his professional and personal personae. I don't mind that, either; I do it myself, and find the maintenance of two distinct online personae to be inefficient and a giant waste of time. When you do that, however, you have to acknowledge the fact that one affects the other. There's probably jobs I won't get because I burn down political idiocy when I see it on my own blog (albeit as politely as I can manage). I'd probably have a hard time getting an NSA job with my frequent calling out of the still-current administration for domestic spying. In PZ's case, his blog and standing affect how people look at scientists.

> We can spin out wheels all day saying that PZ's
> style is too negative or not, but I'd rather
> learn if PZ's style produces negative effects
> or not. And if it does, do they outweigh the
> positive?

That is absolutely a fair question. 376 comments and several ungrounded accusations of idiocy before someone actually asked it. I honestly don't know; but my suspicion is that the answer is "it depends largely on the audience you're talking about". :)

I'll see if I can find out.

> Lastly, I don't really disagree that some
> people can be turned off by harsh rhetoric. I
> simply don't believe that such rhetoric
> produces more negative consequences than
> positive ones.

Remember that admitted bias later when weighing evidence, will you? :)

Posted by: Stu | January 13, 2009 7:12 PM

In fact, they seem to be discouraging slagging on another science blog (or its readership).

They are not science blogs. That's the entire everloving point.

And yes, 90% of what you write is firmly in TL;DR category. You might want to work on that.

Posted by: Kel | January 13, 2009 7:14 PM

If what we're advocating is hateful invectives toward others and we've abandoned all hope of educating people then we're intellectually no better than the anti-US propaganda being used by an Al Qaeda training camp.

Posted by: frog | January 13, 2009 7:17 PM

SteveB: Now, what I'm trying to understand here, keeping in mind I'm too stupid to live, is how we are certain about CO2 being a initiator of a positive feedback loop.

We've produced a four-million year perturbation correct? On top of massive deforestation, right? On top of massive ocean acidification, right? And all of these disruptions are unparalleled on different scales from the 10k time horizon to the 10m time horizon, correct?

I think, in that case, the onus is to show that it won't initiate a positive feedback. Just as if you had removed the spleen, half the liver and one kidney -- the reasonable position is that those arguing for removal of even a section of the second kidney show that it won't lead to a massive cascade.

This is medicine, not engineering (the distinction being that you have a live system that you can't isolate, take offline and test): first, don't do anything to kill the patient.

Posted by: Wowbagger | January 13, 2009 7:18 PM

As I pointed out in another thread - say it quickly and out loud - Ward S Denker.

'What a stinker'. It's no coincidence.

That being said, I bear him no ill will; I'm just pointing out that you shouldn't be surprised by his troll-like behaviour.

Posted by: Helfrick | January 13, 2009 7:23 PM

I was the "good with computers" guy growing up so Mum would try to get me to help her friends with computer trouble.

Me too. I still do computer work, but I usually don't like to talk about it with someone socially unless they do similar work. What kills me is when folks say something to the effect of "I'm so stupid when it comes to computers."

Posted by: frog | January 13, 2009 7:25 PM

Brownian: I, for one, welcome Ward's frankness, honesty, and intellectual curiosity as espoused in comment ...

I am rolling in my chair. You are one funny internet entity... the straight jokes are the best!

Posted by: The Rev | January 13, 2009 7:28 PM

I'm so sick of hearing people posit that the scientific establishment is afraid to be confronted on global warming. It's very simple. One of you nutsack denialists just has to formulate a hypothesis, test it, and if evidence supports the hypothesis (and your tests are repeatable) PUBLISH YOUR RESULTS IN A PEER REVIEWED SCIENTIFIC JOURNAL. Fuck. Screeching that we're suppressing you is meaningless. Do the science, bring something to the table, then we'll talk.

Same to you IDers. That is all.

Posted by: frog | January 13, 2009 7:29 PM

Sun: So the magnitude of the natural phenomena, what you call noise, far exceeds the claimed trend.

That's generally true for all biological phenomena until they hit threshold -- however, that doesn't mean you can't use the trend -- or the noise -- to come to important conclusions.

I guess you don't know any of the ion channel literature, for example.

Posted by: Janine, Bitter Friend | January 13, 2009 7:32 PM

Posted by: Colonel Sun | January 13, 2009

Since this blog appears to be a new religion site (not sure why it was in the science blog running) here's Freeman Dyson on the need for heretics

Brownian, I think we can agree that this person is a stupid git.

Posted by: Brian D | January 13, 2009 7:39 PM

Colonel Sun:

So the magnitude of the natural phenomena, what you call noise, far exceeds the claimed trend.

Only on small time scales, as any statistician can tell you. It's obvious Watts isn't a statistician worthy of the title.

Okay, let's look at the entire record.

http://i43.tinypic.com/33cm0av.jpg

An unpulblished paleoclimate record? While probably dismissing these out of hand?

There are other proxy methods to take. For instance, ice cores come to mind as ones that completely contradict your sources. Note how all of human civilization fits in a very narrow band out of that.

This sets aside how I was talking about an *instrumental* record, either through thermometers or satellites.

"Denialists"? How soviet.

Can the persecution complex, anonymous troll. It isn't persecution to call a denialist a denialist, and what makes a denialist a denialist are the tactics used. I should note that Watts fits the bill on pretty much all of these.

By the way, the underlying assumption in your posts is that climatology says that carbon is the only factor controlling climate. This is very much like a creationist saying evolution predicts a crocoduck.

Posted by: Brownian | January 13, 2009 7:42 PM

Brownian, I think we can agree that this person is a stupid git.

Freeman Dysan? No, he's fairly smart.

Easily misunderstood by drive-byers though.

Posted by: frog | January 13, 2009 7:44 PM

Another example of the need to be uncivil:
Sun: Since this blog appears to be a new religion site (not sure why it was in the science blog running) here's Freeman Dyson on the need for heretics

Now, I've had long running flame wars with other commenters, particularly about certain concensuses in the scientific community that I believe are unwarranted. But I've never accused my opponents of being "religious", or the entire site being a "new religion" because of a heated disagreement.

I've accused particular people of being ignorant, innumerate or careless, with unsupported positions. I've insulted particular people viciously (I believe).

But this weak-kneed, whiny, childish insult -- "you don't agree with me, so you're just a bunch of dogmatists" -- is just pathetic and empty. A real sign of empty trollage that never intended to have a debate -- pointing to an empty-headed ideologue behind it.

It lacks creativity, style or any imagination in word selection. It's at the level of youtube commentary -- the kind of insult thrown by a stoned teenager who dropped out by 11th grade. Just sad really.

Posted by: mayhempix | January 13, 2009 7:49 PM

"What I don't get is why some of us have to be shot down in the crossfire (and most of the bullets are coming from this side) who are interested in science. Is it really so difficult to imagine that three blogs can share a readership on issues of science? "

Oh bullshit Ward. If that were the case you would confine yourself to the threads that are about science. Instead you keep bringing up with the same sanctimonious holier than thou crap that hardly anyone else here buys in the slightest.

Posted by: Brownian | January 13, 2009 7:49 PM

Last I time checked climate was a physical phenomena.

Then check again, fuckhead. You clearly haven't a fucking clue about the interactions between the hydrosphere, lithosphere, atmosphere, cryosphere, and biosphere, you stupid lackwit. Why don't you read up on banded iron formations and their relevance to both the physical aspects of the planet and its biology for a fucking start, you asshole?

And then go jump off a fucking bridge. I'm tired of educating arrogant fucking morons like you today, you fucking pillar of dumb.

Posted by: frog | January 13, 2009 7:52 PM

Sun: Last I time checked climate was a physical phenomena.

Deserves an anti-Molly! Complete gitosity.

Posted by: Kel | January 13, 2009 7:52 PM

It isn't because we're talking esoterically about applying metaphors that may or may not be applicable. A church (the other metaphor used) could easily become an Al Qaeda training camp, in theory, if the preacher routinely preached hatred and called for removal of others for not being believers in "the cause."

Posted by: Ward S. Denker. | January 13, 2009 7:54 PM

'What a stinker'. It's no coincidence.

It doesn't even sound like that, unless you have a mental condition and that's how you speak. If that really is the case, that's OK though.

Posted by: Moses | January 13, 2009 7:56 PM

Posted by: Janine, Bitter Friend | January 13, 2009 11:54 AM

Bye Cortillaen.

I too will forget you in five minutes.

I feel better already.

Was he that giant load-of-crap black-text block? I started to read it, but the stupidity and false conviviality of it burned.

Posted by: Moses | January 13, 2009 8:03 PM

Posted by: Colonel Sun | January 13, 2009 7:29 PM

Since this blog appears to be a new religion site (not sure why it was in the science blog running) here's Freeman Dyson on the need for heretics

http://www.edge.org/documents/archive/edge219.html#dysonf

Heretics, not morons. No where does he say we need morons, who couldn't pour piss out of a boot if the instructions were written on the heel, to challenge scientific orthodoxy.

We need SCIENTISTS to think out-side of the box. Even if it means, and it usually does, that the out-side-of-the-box thinking in which they were engaged was wrong.

But some git in Texas, or Nova Scotia, on the payroll of the Oil Companies and is being used as a cat's paw to sew doubt and division in something... You know, a LOT of doctors sold out to the tobacco companies. They were outside the box, they were wrong, and a lot of people died.

And that's what you are. You're the hacks that would rather have people die of AIDS than admit you're wrong. You're the hacks who'd rather people got addicted to cancer-sticks and would have them die than admit you're wrong.

Ignorant, pus-brained, egotistical ass-troll-morons.

Posted by: E.V. | January 13, 2009 8:06 PM

Gee Mick, you sure convinced me; where do I sign up? Oh wait, where's all that evidence to back up your position?

*cricket... cricket...*

Posted by: Kel | January 13, 2009 8:06 PM

Quite simply Ward, the fact that your posts are allowed here despite the fact you compared us to an Al Queda training camp is proof enough that PZ allows free speech and free expression. This blog is scarcely moderated and to be banned one has to really go out of their way in being an obnoxious weed. Your view is put up here along with others, and that's really as much as you can ask for anywhere - and indeed it's better than a lot of places on the internet.

Posted by: John Morales | January 13, 2009 8:11 PM

[1] It would be better to starve the "creobot" trolls by not engaging them at all. [2] By displaying open hostility toward them they are finding what they set out to find: evidence that some evolutionists are elitist, hateful jackasses with nothing better or more intelligent to say than "fuck off, troll!"

1. I've been on blogs that practice that; the outcome is a climate of fear that trolls will arrive, and that those who respond are criticised. Often, the trollish droppings are removed by a moderator or the blog owner and the troll banned.
In Phangula, trolls get stomped. It's fun.
2. As opposed to being validated by not being confronted? Heh.

You fail to see the nuances; not all creobots/godbots are trolls (except perhaps functionally), and not all trolls are creobots.

Posted by: Patricia, OM | January 13, 2009 8:12 PM

Michael X - You have not been ignored. (I was edging closer to you all the time, while quietly pouting.)
You sir, are outrageously handsome and debonair!

Posted by: frog | January 13, 2009 8:14 PM

Ward: Actually, that is only evidence that I read those posts and don't comment on them. Isn't it at least a little bit possible that I can both read and agree with them and not have anything to say about it?

Okay -- I can't help myself. You agree with them all? You never have something to add, something to extend to them?

You do know about probabilistic inference, don't you?

Apparently, you know nothing about how science is done.

Posted by: Ward S. Denker | January 13, 2009 8:17 PM

2. As opposed to being validated by not being confronted? Heh.

Nobody fears that the weirdo babbling in the park that biblical Armageddon is upon us and it's time to repent doesn't draw crowds. Ignoring him is better to do than arguing with him because arguing with him may actually feed his delusion of a conspiracy that "they" are out to stop him from delivering "the word." You're actually validating some other position he holds by responding in the first place.

That's why most people just walk on by and ignore the fellow.

Posted by: John Morales | January 13, 2009 8:18 PM

Ward @564, Nisbet is an appeaser. He has a blog.

Posted by: Patricia, OM | January 13, 2009 8:19 PM

Mick probably learned that from Rush Limbaugh.

Posted by: Kel | January 13, 2009 8:21 PM

Kel, to be fair, I have a smackdown in moderation here, but that's because I provided several links to back my claims up using HTML.

Posted by: frog | January 13, 2009 8:28 PM

Moses: yet you demonstrate that you are completely ignorant of something learned in any decent high school general science class.
You could have at least tried Wikipedia. Hardly rocket science, but even they get it right: Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas as it transmits visible light but absorbs strongly in the infrared and near-infrared.

Feeling uncharitable? Our esteemed friend Steve B does understand that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. What he can't get is that CO2 is embedded in a complicated system with some obviously limits, where excess CO2 over ocean acidification, loss of carbon dump growth in the ecosystem, feedbacks between polar albedo and temperature change, etc, and etc, and etc, makes a threshold effect inevitable.

We should of course refine our model to get a better sense of what the thresholds on the system are -- work that is being done with a cursory review of Science or Nature, much less actually reading Climatological journals.

But our honorable friend instead prefers to speak in a pseudo-scientific gobbledy-gook about "chaotic systems" without understanding such simple facts, as that the earth's orbit is a chaotic system. One which has a very clear envelope.

Or that many systems are highly dependent on initial conditions -- but even if the differential form of the equations can't be solved, the integral form often come out quite neatly.

So please, give SteveB the benefit of the doubt: he's not ignorant of everything, just the things that don't benefit his conclusion.

Posted by: E.V. | January 13, 2009 8:30 PM

Ward:
I'm assuming that you think that we as atheists are looking to proselytize and convert the irrational religious who see faith as equivalent to rationality. No amount of charm, niceness or civility is going to bring an evangelical ideological metamorphosis.
"Hallelujah! You once believed in magic but now you know physical laws govern all material things and that gods and metaphysical creatures are human constructs! Amen!"
No matter how reasonable, rational, patient and charitable an non-theist is, it will do nothing to convince someone of divesting their "faith". Ask Scott H. Ask the the many theists who read Pharyngula religiously (heh, heh).
The fanatical fundamentalists/evangelicals/creationists don't care how nice or mean you are, either way you are their enemy. You are the one THEY are trying to convert. Logic, science and reason are futile until the cognitive dissonance becomes loud enough for them to have to sort out reality from dogma and even then there is the chance that they will reject reason for faith because of the ultimate social and psychic cost.
Your catch more flies with honey vs. vinegar approach is wrong. Flies always prefer shit and carcasses.

Posted by: Michael X | January 13, 2009 8:35 PM

Well I gotta rehearse. But, doing Moliere's Les Precieuses Ridicules is going to be a lot funnier to me after this thread.

Don't be too uncivil guys! *snicker* *snicker*

Posted by: frog | January 13, 2009 8:40 PM

Ward: Admitting that most scientists are not multi-disciplinary and that they're actually, you know, ignorant about other fields outside their own isn't scientific.

What can I say, but if I believe what you claim, then you're just a hack. Every field is multi-disciplinary and requires at least a passing knowledge of other fields. You sound like Sherlock Holmes claiming that he doesn't need to know that the Earth revolves around the Sun for his detective work!

You don't know enough to recognize a question that those in the field may not have asked? You don't see any intersections with your field, you don't have curiosity that is unanswered in the posting or the comments, yet you never misunderstand severely enough to require posting a question? And this at the simple level of a comment -- not posting a blog on the subject, but simply a small comment underneath someone else's blog?

See, I'm in a real quandary -- are you merely a hack, or being completely disingenuous? I think logical consistency requires the latter, but then again, they are not mutually exclusive.

Posted by: Moses | January 13, 2009 8:42 PM

Posted by: Mick | January 13, 2009 7:47 PM

Except unlike eugenics, this is the age of the internet and all the retarded alarmist predictions and comments will be stored in incredible detail. Unlike eugenics, there will be no graceful historical exit for progressives...

Eugenics were, for the most part, the providence of the rich right-wingers. Prescott Bush was a typical member of Eugenicists. And, for the record, he lost in his first run for Senate because of his support for Hitler and eugenics and since it was right after WWII... People were not so kind and forgiving to the Nazi-sympathizers among us.

Amazingly how fifty-years can change a country. His son and a grandson both became President. And his grandson is the closest thing we've ever had to a fascist leader of a fascist state and will go down as one of the worst leaders in the history of our country and the modern world.

You'd know that if you weren't a semi-literate, uneducated fuck-tard.

Posted by: Ward S. Denker | January 13, 2009 8:45 PM

I'm assuming that you think that we as atheists are looking to proselytize and convert the irrational religious who see faith as equivalent to rationality. No amount of charm, niceness or civility is going to bring an evangelical ideological metamorphosis.

Many atheists have come from the ranks of the religious, deconverted because they managed to find insightful reasons to believe that religion is silly and only serves to fill the gaps of human knowledge that existed at the time.

Some of us came to this on our own, others have been convinced. It's amusing to hold a creationist to the fire, but that only serves to cause those incidental visitors to decide that what they're actually seeing is elitism in a wrapper of smugness. They're not going to bother to see if there's actually candy under that.

I'm sure Pharyngula comes up on a lot of Google searches (some of which you'd never expect) because PZ's quite a prolific blogger, quoted and linked to often. This gives him a prominence in the scientific community. I contend that this prominence comes with a responsibility to try to educate his readership. You may not agree, but I think entries like this one harms evolution education.

Posted by: Kel | January 13, 2009 8:47 PM

I contend that this prominence comes with a responsibility to try to educate his readership. You may not agree, but I think entries like this one harms evolution education.

Posted by: Emmet, OM | January 13, 2009 9:04 PM

Ward @#589,

People deconvert in different ways. Some of the testimonials on RichardDawkins.net say, and more than a few posters here have said, that seeing other people puncture the vainglorious sanctimony of religion by being rude and crude about it actually helped them see religion for the bucket of shite that it is — true, many people don't respond to it, but some do.

Richard Dawkins agrees with Daniel Dennet when he notes in The Four Horsemen videos (with Hitchens and Harris) that, while working on Breaking the Spell, he tried desperately to rephrase the parts that were deemed excessively “shrill” by religious readers of the drafts, and it was impossible to satisfy them — any criticism of religion, no matter how mildly he tried to phrase it, was seen as excessively strident, intemperate, and offensive.

There is plenty of room for the attitude that you might as well speak plainly and be hanged for a sheep as a lamb and it finds expression here.

Posted by: Emmet, OM | January 13, 2009 9:09 PM

#593: s/Dennet/Dennett/

Posted by: Brownian | January 13, 2009 9:27 PM

Tell you what, Ward. You show us how it's done. Take someone like Colonic Sun here. You straighten him out, show him where he's wrong, help him see the error of his ways, and you do it wearing your Ambassador for Science robes.

Posted by: Harry | January 13, 2009 9:40 PM

Gee PZ. Still fighting that adolescent battle against the tyranny of creationism? Never grew out of that and moved on and became an adult.

How old did you say you are? A University professor without maturity or a shred of a sense of responsibility. Just the same hate and anger you carried with you since you were a sullen and miserable teenager.

I hope you dont mind the ad-homs. After all, it is your preferred tone isnt it?

I do gotta add though--I dont see what makes you any superior or even different from the people you revile.

Posted by: Emmet, OM | January 13, 2009 9:50 PM

You're really showing your age there, Emmet…

I was but a tiny tot back then ;o)

Oh, and Harry#599 is definitely a cowgull.

Posted by: Crustacean | January 13, 2009 9:53 PM

599: A+ for effort, C- for execution.

Posted by: Ward S. Denker | January 13, 2009 10:04 PM

Crustacean @603,

That averages to a passing grade, so thanks! ;)

Posted by: Brownian | January 13, 2009 10:12 PM

A few posts with scant data in them aren't enough to form a conclusion on your side of the argument. It's not germane to the discussion at hand, and it would be really difficult to bring all of the arguments here at once. Couple with that the realization that the residents here don't consider your point of view to be a scientific one at all, and that they're reluctant to admit their real reasons why, you'll find this blog to be cold company.

You know what Ward? Fuck you, you slimy little shit.

Reluctant to discuss reasons? How's this? A fucking douchebag who writes a smug comment like "Last I time checked climate was a physical phenomena" has just demonstrated that he hasn't even a high school understanding of climate forcings. Since he's not even aware of the basics, it's pretty well impossible for him to have a 'scientific view', any more than it's possible for the letter writer PZ highlighted in his most recent post to have a 'scientific view' of evolution. Need more reasons, you dumb fuck? Crack an introductory palaeo textbook, and you'll see why the Colonel is an idiot.

It's equivocating pieces of shit like you who think their vacuous, ignorant little opinions are worthy of debate and try to defend them with unsupported assertions that we need to have a discussion on civility when dealing with fuckwits. If you clueless fuckers bothered to gain even a cursory understanding of the issues you try to argue against, we'd have no problem.

Try reading the 'correspondence' section of a scientific journal to gain a clue as to what disagreement--even vehement disagreemen--between individuals who've taken the time to actually learn the basics and beyond before they open their traps.

As for you, you uneducated little prick, I'm done with you on this thread.

Posted by: «bønez_brigade» | January 13, 2009 10:15 PM

And, fuck, I'm glad I now don't have to type my name and email address every goddamn time I want to comment. Melikes the post-SB-server-upgrade version of Pharyngula.

Posted by: Wowbagger | January 13, 2009 10:16 PM

Harry, #599, squawked:

I do gotta add though--I dont see what makes you any superior or even different from the people you revile.

That's probably because what you 'don't see', Harry, would - as they say - fill more than a few bigger-than-average barns. I'll hazard a guess that this is the result of your head being stuck, permanently, up your ignorant ass.

Posted by: David | January 13, 2009 10:28 PM

Having read about 20% of the comments, I can see why this site DIDN'T win. The ratio of "debate" to "consensus" is high in real science. In this blog it is extremely low.

Dogma != Science

Not matter how "uncivil" you manage to be.

Posted by: SC, OM | January 13, 2009 10:33 PM

A fucking douchebag who writes a smug comment like "Last I time checked climate was a physical phenomena" has just demonstrated that he hasn't even a high school understanding of climate forcings.

...or of the fact that phenomena is plural.

Carry on.

Posted by: Brownian | January 13, 2009 10:39 PM

You did ask me to try and dissuade him without attacking his point of view. I did exactly what you asked. There's no need to get angry when I was being accomodating (though it wasn't the exactly what you envisioned).

Sorry. I forgot to stipulate that you must use science, not dogma. Nice work attacking us instead of him. A real win for the civility proponents.

Anyways, don't worry about it. I don't need anything more from you. As I said, I'm done with you on this thread. I only responded to this out of courtesy.

Posted by: Brownian | January 13, 2009 10:47 PM

So Brownian, has the climate debate became yet another outlet to air you ideological views? Is that all this is about to you guys?

That's pretty much what I was thinking anyway. It really wasnt about the science after all was it?

Yup. You nailed it. We're all about the validation of our previously held beliefs.

Posted by: Brownian | January 13, 2009 10:52 PM

I should add, since it's pretty much what Harry was thinking anyway, that I've been thoroughly inculcated in the AGW dogma held by liberal science professors. I've got the 4.0 average in every climatology course I've ever taken to prove it.

I'm really adding this for the benefit of the rest of you, since it's pretty much what Harry was thinking anyway.

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead | January 13, 2009 10:57 PM

Who is Harry?

Posted by: Ward S. Denker | January 13, 2009 11:00 PM

I am curious why there's so much objection to the term "physical phenomena [sic]"

Are you trying to support the claim that climate cannot be described by physics? That is what generally the term physical implies, scientifically speaking. Is it just because there are some aspects that can be described by biological processes? I didn't see him making a claim that it's only a physical phenomenon.

There's a lot of it that's described by physics, such as fluid dynamics, etc. The amount of solar radiation Earth receives due to its position in relevance to the sun as well as processes like deep ocean currents make up a lot of what drives our climate, and those are physical processes too.

Where's the disconnect here?

Posted by: Ryan F Stello | January 13, 2009 11:03 PM

What makes you different from the people you rile against?

A sense of irony.

My turn: why do you care?

Posted by: Crustacean | January 13, 2009 11:11 PM

what gives you such a sense of superiority that you no longer feel you need to be civil

Harry, what gives you such a sense of superiority that you can demand that others be civil, or provide their reasons for not being so?

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead | January 13, 2009 11:21 PM

Ah, just another concern troll. Yawn.

Posted by: Travis | January 13, 2009 11:28 PM

Harry,
What beliefs have you questioned? Maybe I missed the posts where you actually questions beliefs here. Your first just complained about the tone and anger, and after that you said a few things about people being zealots but I still have not seen anything where you have particularly questioned anything.

Posted by: Klokwurk | January 13, 2009 11:34 PM

*Yawn* Can we move on from Harry? I think we've established exactly why he is here and that nothing of substance is going to come from responding to him.

Posted by: Harry | January 13, 2009 11:38 PM

Well Travis, the question is out there and on topic. Professor Myers opines that he doesnt feel the need to converse with skeptics in a civilized manner and encourages his readers to act likewise. My original intent was to comment that in this approach, I didnt see what makes Professor Myers different than the blind religious dogmatist he rails against. Now its just a really good question. I you have read my last few posts you know what my question is. If you dont act this way out of a sense of superiority, then what's it for?

Do you see what I'm getting at?

Posted by: Wowbagger | January 13, 2009 11:47 PM

From you guys I get a sense defensiveness concealed as smug superiority, but I'll be just as happy with your explanation of why being as rude and offensive as you want to be is more desirable for you.

You're really not very good at this, are you?

What you're doing is called projecting. Because your positions are mostly groundless you are insecure; this makes you defensive, so you assume others must be as well.

Your assumptions are incorrect. The appearance of smug superiority may be indicative of nothing other than smugness stemming from actual superiority. To be defensive would mean possessing an underlying doubt in the position held - which isn't always the case.

I can't speak for PZ (or anyone else) but I, personally, choose rude and offensive if it seems the most appropriate means of conveying my opinion. It's effective, fun for me to write, and provides (I assume) entertainment for the readers.

Is your point to convince the unbelievers or to consolidate your own beliefs?

False dichotomy - it's neither. Unbelievers are unlikely to be convinced; my own beliefs need no consolidation. What's important - probably more so in debates over religion - is the fence-sitters, those who can be swayed.

Posted by: Feynmaniac | January 13, 2009 11:51 PM

Arguing about how to argue is boring. If you have something substantive to say, say it. Either wise, fuck off.

Posted by: John Morales | January 13, 2009 11:57 PM

Harry:

Professor Myers opines that he doesnt feel the need to converse with skeptics in a civilized manner and encourages his readers to act likewise.

Posted by: Wowbagger | January 14, 2009 12:00 AM

SC wrote

5 or fewer! Fewer, you pissy little shit-for-brains snot-nosed scumbag.

Hmm, once I stopped laughing I counted: 'pissy', 'shit-for brains', 'snot-nosed' and 'scumbag' all relate to bodily functions, at least tangentially. But that's only four. So, Harry has to accept it.

Posted by: John Morales | January 14, 2009 12:09 AM

Harry:

Still sounds defensive to me

Posted by: Ward S. Denker | January 14, 2009 12:11 AM

John Morales,

Well, that's kind of playing at semantics, isn't it. It was actually frog that first used the term to describe climate:

Some phenomena show threshold effects -- climate being a classic example.

As for being "sicced" for grammar, it's getting rather late and I have no coffee :(. At the time I was quite distracted as well by other pressing issues. I ended up writing that one short post in disjointed bursts, so I'm actually amazed it came out as well as it did, in retrospect.

Besides, if we're nit picking my style, I should point out that I could have used a better word here:

The amount of solar radiation Earth receives due to its position in relevance relative to the sun as well as processes like deep ocean currents make up a lot of what drives our climate, and those are physical processes too.

A little more evidence that I'm just getting tired, and that I'm actually aware of it.

Posted by: SC, OM | January 14, 2009 12:16 AM

You've contributed nothing insightful, interesting, amusing, or intelligent, Harry, and I'm busy on another thread. I deem you worthy of mocking and correction.

Oh, and by the way:

OK Wowbagger, so here's the question: (Brownian, PZ Myers and any of the rest of you can join in), what gives you such a sense of superiority that you no longer feel you need to be civil?

Posted by: Wowbagger | January 14, 2009 12:20 AM

Still sounds defensive to me, (and a tad frightened), and more than just a little bit the same response I would expect to get on any extremist website. Who really knows right?

Tell you what, Harry, you find a site where people discuss the heliocentric model of the solar system, and you tell them that they're being 'defensive' when they call someone who believes in an earth-centric model a fucking useless clown shoe who wouldn't know shit from Shinola.

Or, go to a site about gravity and see how people who go there to propose the idea of magical, undetectable, invisible fairies who carry objects to the ground instead of gravity. Are they 'defensive' when they tell them to cram their stupid ideas up their stupid asses, with walnuts?

There are occasions where insults ≠ defensiveness. This is one of them.

Posted by: Kendo | January 14, 2009 12:25 AM

Hey Harry #620! Your first question has an unstated assertion, that a sense of superiority is a necessary condition for incivility. Care to support that assertion? I mean, to me it sounds axiomatic re. your idea of superiority but I could be wrong. (Do I need to mention the mind-numbing banality of your second question?)

Posted by: Harry | January 14, 2009 12:47 AM

Professor Myers?

Posted by: Magnus W | January 14, 2009 1:21 AM

Worth reading on the subject:

http://tamino.wordpress.com/2007/12/16/wiggles/

Statistics

Posted by: SC, OM | January 14, 2009 1:36 AM

I posted this link a little while ago on the other thread:

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Stephen_McIntyre

Thought it might be of interest.

Posted by: anonymouroboros | January 14, 2009 1:42 AM

@Harry
Gee PZ. Still fighting that adolescent battle against the tyranny of creationism? Never grew out of that and moved on and became an adult.
*You* rail against being uncivil. I'm sure that this response is somehow civil in your mind, but ask yourself this question from, who else, yourself:
What makes you different from the people you rile against?

But here's the real question:
(...) what gives you such a sense of superiority that you no longer feel you need to be civil.
(Note that I gave you the benefit of the doubt and acted as if I missed something by not quoting the rest of it.)

What makes you different from the people you rile against?
Better yet, what makes you different from the average troll?

However, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you're an idiot. You criticize others for not having civility, yet you yourself show incivility in all of your posts that I have read. "Hypocrite" is the word, but perhaps stupid is simply a better word for such an obvious error in argumentation. Mind you, hypocrisy does not necessarily disqualify the argument itself, but it does show that you do not have any real commitment to what you express, making you either a dunce or both a dunce and a troll.

Posted by: Jadehawk, OM | January 14, 2009 1:50 AM

er. that was supposed to be climate change, not climate science

Posted by: Stu | January 14, 2009 1:59 AM

Holy shnikes. I, for one, would like to hereby nominate frog for the next round of Mollies. He/she has done what I aim/aspire to do, only better, with more patience and respect, however undeserved.

Steve: really, cut your losses.

Harry: do you have a point?

Declan: bring your proof, we'll bring ours. Until then, shut the fuck up.

Posted by: Rob JM | January 14, 2009 2:15 AM

Well isn't this just fun, two lots of scientifically trained skeptics trying to call each other names. Insults may overcome those sensitive bible types but us science types just take it as a complement! anyway a few points about science and AGW theory i'd like to make.

1/ science is about theory and observation, and is independent of opinion or reputation.
Therefore there is no such thing as a scientific consensus since a consensus is unscientific.
2/ The IPCC consensus did not involve consultation of IPCC scientist. to prove me wrong please show the voting results.
3/ The IPCC continue to ignore the various effect of water vapor/clouds because its "to hard to understand" Please tell me how you can be confident of you findings when you don't understand the component that makes up 95% of the greenhouse effect, most of the albedo, and many of the climate forcings.
4/ The dominant greenhouse gas, water vapor, has decreased by up to 14% percent since the 1970s, please explain how the total greenhouse effect is increasing?
5/ Measurements of the outgoing longwave radiation show the earth is losing more heat as it heats up. please explain how the earth warms due to trapping more heat while the observations show its loosing more heat.
6/ The official (Dogey) temp record say we have warmed up 0.7dec C in 150 years. how is this significant when the temperature naturally varies by 3-4 deg during the current 'stable' interglacial climate period of the last 10,000 years
7/ please explain why climate scientist ignore pre-existing thermodynamic principles that prove negative feedback, such as Le Chateliers principle, while continuing to model climate as a system dominated by positive feedback, just like a perpetual motion machine.

Does anyone still have 'faith' in a theory containing more holes than a piece of swiss cheese after a nasty incident with shotgun!
Cheers :)

Posted by: Janine, Bitter Friend | January 14, 2009 2:37 AM

One last thing Harry, fuck you for implying that the regulars here are so weak minded that they merely follow PZ's lead.

Posted by: clinteas | January 14, 2009 2:44 AM

You guyz !!! Oh,you guyz !!!

2 hours to read through a thread just to arrive at the conclusion that:

1. AGW people are just as dogmatic and close-minded as creationists

2.They feel its impolite and rude to critizise their opinions,just like creationists

3.They spend considerable time on a blog they clearly dont like,and dont get

4.They misrepresent and lie and shift goalposts,just like creationists

YAWN.

Posted by: Global Warming Is A Scam | January 14, 2009 6:33 AM

This is fallout from the Weblog Awards, where a couple of climate change denialist blogs have effectively turned out the disgruntled conspiracy theorist vote. One of those blogs will almost certainly win the 'award' — which tells you the value of these contests — so don't worry about that.

Shorter PZ:

WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!! I didn't win. Those mean denialists voted against me! WAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!! I WANT MY MOMMY!!! WAHAHAHAHA!!!

where "denialist" is defined as:

Anyone who does not march in lock-step with the drumbeat of my far-left Warmista agenda

Posted by: Global Warming Is A Scam | January 14, 2009 7:02 AM

Lunatic @ 676,

I find it astonishing that "far-left" seems to be a conditio sine qua non to be a real "warmista".

The Warm-monger movement is absolutely dominated by socialists, communists and other left-leaning types disaffected by the failure of the Soviet Union in the late 1980s. They saw "environmentalism" as an opportunity to advance their agenda, which is of course the elimination of capitalism world-wide and an implementation of their utopian socialist one-world government.

Your language betrays your ideology,Im afraid.And your blindness.

Unlike, say, calling someone a "lunatic" or a "denialist", thereby invoking the spectre of Holocaust denial. Only in the alleged mind of a deluded religious fundamentalist such as yourself could such babble pass for logic.

Posted by: KnockGoats | January 14, 2009 7:12 AM

Rob JM

1/ science is about theory and observation, and is independent of opinion or reputation.
Therefore there is no such thing as a scientific consensus since a consensus is unscientific.

The second sentence does not follow from the first. A scientific consensus means that the vast majority of relevant experts agree, based on the state of the peer-reviewed literature, that a question has been settled, and that it is therefore time to move on to further questions and/or refinements.

2/ The IPCC consensus did not involve consultation of IPCC scientist. to prove me wrong please show the voting results.

You evidently do not understand the meaning of "consensus". Look it up: it does not imply voting, but a conclusion that all or almost all those involved accept. The IPCC reports are based on the peer-reviewed scientific literature, and are drawn up by large teams of experts. Any who disagree with the consensus can withdraw. A very, very few have done so.

3/ The IPCC continue to ignore the various effect of water vapor/clouds because its "to hard to understand" Please tell me how you can be confident of you findings when you don't understand the component that makes up 95% of the greenhouse effect, most of the albedo, and many of the climate forcings.

This is simply false: water vapour and clouds are included in all GCMs, and it is the feedback from water vapour (warmer air holds more) that increases the estimated mean temeperature increase from a doubling of CO2 from 1.1 degrees C to between 2.5 and 4.5 degrees C. There remains some uncertainly about the net effect of clouds, which is fully acknowledged in the IPCC reports. Given the above,
you are clearly either completely ignorant, or a barefaced liar. Which is it?

4/ The dominant greenhouse gas, water vapor, has decreased by up to 14% percent since the 1970s, please explain how the total greenhouse effect is increasing?

[citation needed]

Water vapour content varies greatly from place to place, and minute to minute.

5/ Measurements of the outgoing longwave radiation show the earth is losing more heat as it heats up. please explain how the earth warms due to trapping more heat while the observations show its loosing more heat.

[citation needed]

It is of course only the ocean, surface and troposphere that are warming: the stratosphere is cooling (note: if the warming were of solar origin, this would not be the case.

6/ The official (Dogey) temp record say we have warmed up 0.7dec C in 150 years. how is this significant when the temperature naturally varies by 3-4 deg during the current 'stable' interglacial climate period of the last 10,000 years

*Sigh* Because 150 years is a lot less than 10,000 years.

7/ please explain why climate scientist ignore pre-existing thermodynamic principles that prove negative feedback, such as Le Chateliers principle, while continuing to model climate as a system dominated by positive feedback, just like a perpetual motion machine.

So according to you, nothing can ever change, because negative feedback will always stop it. No-one says positive feedbacks are going to continue increasing the temperature indefinitely. The most important feedback in GCMs is the ability of warmer air to hold more water vapour (you know, the thing you falsely claimed they ignored in point 3). Do you really think that thousands of scientists would have missed it, if their concepts of climate dynamics violated the conservation of energy? Or maybe they do know it, and are all part of the evil commie/greenie/Muslim/business/grant-hungry-scientist/alien-lizard conspiracy? Grow up.

Posted by: Ward S. Denker | January 14, 2009 7:18 AM

Magnus W,

What your link neglects to mention is that there may just as easily be multiple signals within the same noise, rendering a finding irrelevant and not of the statistical significance implied.

If there's one thing we know about climate it's that it's definitely not cut-and-dried.

One last thing Harry, fuck you for implying that the regulars here are so weak minded that they merely follow PZ's lead.

What's interesting is that the most recent poll crashed, a number of commenters brought up the fact that the question was worded poorly. Anyone who read it could see that, if they looked. In lieu of making an actual choice on their own (that should have gone one way or the other in equal proportions due to the wording), they grumbled but crashed the poll in PZ's favor anyway.

The reason that I assert that it should have gone either way in equal proportions is bolstered by the fact that, since the day of the crash it has since equalized. It has settled on a 49%/51% yes/no split. That means that at least some of PZ's fans willfully voted against their nature, or didn't care enough to decide the question on its merit.

At final count it had been taken from a 70%/30% split to a 28%/72% Yes/No split.

Care to explain?

Posted by: Global Warming Is A Scam | January 14, 2009 7:31 AM

Im noticing an interesting trend with GW denialists,they all seem to have their finger pretty tight on the Holocaust denial comparison trigger,not that it surprises me.

Only because you Warmistas chose the term "denialist" for the express purpose of invoking Holocaust denial, thereby associating your opponents with perhaps the most sickening event in human history.

Fortunately, though, people are starting to catch on to this tactic, so I don't think you'll be able to use it much longer.

Just out of interest,what does the former Soviet Union have to do with the arctic ice melting?

Please learn to read for comprehension. I said that leftists joined the environmental movement after their utopian nation-state collapsed. I do agree with you on one point, however: the USSR definitely has nothing to do with the increase in the Antarctic ice cap.

Oh, and for all of you Warmistas out there: what is the optimal temperature of the planet? And don't give me any of this nonsense that "no such temperature exists". If the temperature is irrelevant, so is "global warming".

Posted by: clinteas | January 14, 2009 7:40 AM

As fascinating as it is to see someone indoctrinated,politically uneducated and closed-minded try to make the facts fit his worldview,It is something I can witness here all the time and it does not become a more interesting process just because its a GW denier instead of a creationist for a change.

Their thinking,if you want to call it that,seems to work in a rather similar way.

Only because you Warmistas chose the term "denialist

You know jack shit about me mate,how unsurprising that you would assume I am a "warmista",thats what I meant when i said your ideology betrays you.

Posted by: Ward S. Denker | January 14, 2009 7:43 AM

John Morales,

Given two equally bad choices, people will vote for each in nearly equal numbers. Look at the 2000 election - public sentiment at the time was almost exactly split.

It's a pointless poll, but it is still subject to human behavior, and it's on a page that's sure to get huge numbers of hits.

You can't just wave your hands and make the problem go away, you need to explain why it equalized to predictable levels, given that it's unlikely there really are that many other sites like Pharyngula out there out to crash it and that they too would likely fall upon a 50/50 split.

Posted by: wildlifer | January 14, 2009 8:16 AM

@684
The "optimal temperature of the planet" would be temperatures in the range that man is adapted to, especially wrt agriculture.

Posted by: Stanton | January 14, 2009 8:37 AM

"Global Warming is A Scam" thinks that the communists are environmentalists?

Uh, has this person pulled his head out from under his large rock to actually look at the environmental records of communist countries?

Posted by: Josh | January 14, 2009 8:52 AM

Do you really think an appeal for the other species on the planet would work on a denialist?

Nope, not at all. That is a fair point. It still doesn't really give us the leeway to erect foolish metrics like the "optimal temperature" of a planet, but I definitely see where you were going.

Posted by: Stephen Wells | January 14, 2009 9:09 AM

As a scientist, I'd say that any "warming skeptic" who doesn't display a clear and evident grasp of the underlying science here- specifically, the spectroscopic properties of the CO2 molecule- counts as a "denier". Use of well-known wrong arguments- like confusing the magnitude of an underlying trend with the magnitude of typical variation- is a pretty big red flag, much as creationists who blunder in here asking "why are there still monkeys" deserve, and get, short shrift.

I do love the term "Warmista" though. I should get that on a T-shirt.

Posted by: Blue Fielder | January 14, 2009 9:11 AM

Harry, cry all you like, but you and your ilk aren't "skeptics", you're ideologues.

Posted by: Harry | January 14, 2009 9:27 AM

Stephen Wells:
"I'd say that any "warming skeptic" who doesn't display a clear and evident grasp of the underlying science here- specifically, the spectroscopic properties of the CO2 molecule- counts as a "denier".

I'm sure you might find debate in that point. At least once we moved beyond the invective that is. Of course, there have been other points of contention in the debate. Be that as it may Stephen, is there anyone that you can name that doesnt comport to your views on climate change you consider merely a "skeptic" rather than a "denier"? Is there no contrary view point in your mind that has any merit?

Posted by: mayhempix | January 14, 2009 9:43 AM

Harry:
"Is there such a thing in your mind as an AGW Denier?"

There, I fixed it for him.

Posted by: clinteas | January 14, 2009 10:04 AM

mayhempix,

agreed this particular specimen is especially fond of the big commie gay atheist liberal conspiracy,to come up with a world-wide secret plan to make up global warming to further their evil environmentalist agenda.

But communist,atheist,liberal and gay anxiety seems par for the course in american right-wing and left of the IQ Bell curve cycles...

Posted by: KnockGoats | January 14, 2009 10:17 AM

wildlifer, Josh,
GWIAS has been here before, depositing his "optimal temperature" turd. It was pointed out to him numerous times that there is a range of acceptable temperatures, and that it is rapid change that is dangerous, hence he was speaking through an orifice usually reserved for waste elimination, but he's far too stupid to understand the point, as you'll see by his loony conspiracy theory. Hence my analogy@689.

Posted by: clinteas | January 14, 2009 10:22 AM

Thanks Nick,
that was fantastic !!

Posted by: Stephen Wells | January 14, 2009 10:32 AM

@700: do you really think the IR spectroscopic properties of CO2 are subject to debate? Wow. I think the minimum condition for taking an informed part in the debate is to acknowledge that warming due to anthropogenic CO2 is the default assumption. If you can then argue coherently for countervailing factors, go to it.

There's plenty of argument to be had and open questions to be solved in climate science, as in any other healthy science. But if you kick off by denying that anthropogenic CO2 is a warming factor, you go in the same bin as flat-earthers and creationists. And if you claim that AGW is a cabal, conspiracy, or something that scientists are backing because of social pressure rather than evidence, you go in the same bin as the conspiracy theorists.

It reminds me of the tobacco "debate". There was a period of a few decades when pretty much every medical organisation in the world was saying that tobacco smoke was a major, major health issue, and the tobacco companies- the ones with the money- could muddy the waters just enough to keep marketing their product. Thing is, their arguments were only remotely plausible if you started from the assumption that tobacco should be considered, by default, harmless; then you could demand strong, nay incontrovertible evidence, for harm. But if you think for a second about biology, the default assumption for _persistently inhaling the smoke of burning vegetation, laden with tars and nicotine_ should be that it's harmful, and you need evidence to conclude that it's _not_.

We're at pretty much the same place here. People who grasp the physics are concerned about AGW. It's the fossil fuel companies that have all the money and political clout to keep the debate "balanced". That makes it grimly amusing when people post stuff like 678: "The Warm-monger movement is absolutely dominated by socialists, communists and other left-leaning types disaffected by the failure of the Soviet Union in the late 1980s. They saw "environmentalism" as an opportunity to advance their agenda, which is of course the elimination of capitalism world-wide and an implementation of their utopian socialist one-world government." Weird: I'm a liberal democrat and I'm glad the Soviet Union collapsed (for one thing I wouldn't have met my wife otherwise!), yet I'm concerned about AGW because of basic science which no "denier" seems capable of arguing coherently against.

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead | January 14, 2009 10:36 AM

I see KnockGoats still has it.
I've stayed away from the civility argument because nobody was going to change anyone elses minds, and I didn't see any room to mock. My opinion is that once a person demands total civility for his arguments, he knows they are lame, and he/she will lose the argument on a factual basis. And doesn't want to be taken to task for his/her lame ideas and made to feel bad, so they hide behind the civility argument.
The facts stand for themselves. If people ignore or misrepresent the facts, they need to be shown the error of their ways, and sometimes you need to get their attention, just like you need to get the attention of toddler throwing a temper tantrum. Strong language may do the job.
Personally, I try to either let the other side start the name calling, or use the 3 post rule if they are just obstinate.