…and this is a 
There's no getting around it. I often hear creationists protest "Oh, we love science!", but then the weird process they describe after that looks nothing like science, and resembles something more like church with lab coats. At least Michael Egnor of the Discovery Institute doesn't hide his loathing in a rant that has to be read to be believed. Prompted by the hacking of an email server that revealed that climate scientists tend to be rude and crude in their private communications (a fact that does not diminish the science of climate change at all), Egnor goes on a tear, cussing out climatologists and us wicked Darwinists, declaring "war", demanding a purge, accusing all the various prestigious academies of science of committing fraud, suggesting that science be defunded, and comparing scientists to Mafia dons.
Don't hold back, Michael. The crazy thoughts will make your cranium explode if you try to bottle them up.
You needed your dose of Sunday morning irony, didn't you? The sight of a deranged shill for a right-wing propaganda organ complaining about institutionalized biases, and crying out against bad science while supporting creationism, ought to give you your full weekly dosage.
Comments
Posted by: 'Tis Himself, OM
|
November 29, 2009 11:50 AM
You darn scientists, insisting on "evidence" and rejecting conservative gods.
Posted by: Tim_Danaher | November 29, 2009 11:56 AM
´SPOING!´
Posted by: fiddler | November 29, 2009 12:01 PM
For a stunning discussion on christian science look at this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Eb5Q-YkblmY
I watched this 2 days ago and I still have trouble wrapping my head around the concept lol.
Posted by: Spector567 | November 29, 2009 12:01 PM
"leftist-atheist ideology," I have always been amazed of how creationists like to call everyone who disagrees with atheist and remove them from there religion.... Do they not that why there such a growing atheist movement is because they keep telling people to get lost out of there religion ever single chance they get.
Posted by: AJ Milne
|
November 29, 2009 12:04 PM
Heh. Ah yes... Psycho denialist conspiracy theorists hack a server, looking for the smoking gun that will reveal dem eeeevil climate scientists been making it all up all along...
... and don't find it--rather, just, that a lot of climate scientists talking among 'emselves do happen to say rather bluntly they think the denialists are slimy assholes... And, well, duh, on both points, and thanks so much for demonstrating how very justified is this view again, guys, by the way... Sucks to be you, I guess...
... But as if that's really gonna stop 'em from insisting they found something anyway, not to worry. Certainly not on the eve of another round of climate talks. And of course, now, the onus is kinda on 'em to do so, too... Since data crime of this nature can cost you in criminal court, you really do need to come up with something to justify yourselves, at least politically... See, sure, yeah, we broke a few laws, but these guys were baaaad. Rilly. So it was in the public interest, honest. So please don't go jailing anyone, thanks...
(/Shorter: stand by for more conspiratorial bullshit 'bout how this stuff reveals how all climate scientists really just hate 'merica, those bastards...)
Posted by: Bill McElree | November 29, 2009 12:06 PM
PZ, How do you not just explode some days? There are times when I despair for our future as a species because of this nonsense! Religion is the single biggest threat to our survival because it makes non-survival a valid option and thus gives permission to idiots like Egnor.
Posted by: Kimberly Hosey | November 29, 2009 12:08 PM
"The Discovery Institute hates science"
Well, duh.
But yeah. The stunning idiocy of this, combined with the tripe in The 5000 Year Leap, which I had thrust upon me on Thanksgiving, just may make my head explode from incredulity.
Posted by: RagingBullwinkle
|
November 29, 2009 12:09 PM
There should be a war. Our science and technology vs. their magic sticks and stones.
Posted by: James T | November 29, 2009 12:10 PM
Hello-
Just wanted to point out that the vast majority of "Questionable" emails from CRU have been addressed, while most of the others are self explanatory.
Michael Mann addresses some himself here:
http://climateprogress.org/2009/11/28/climategate-michael-mann-hockey-stick-copenhagen-diagnosis/
and his colleagues address more here:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/11/the-cru-hack-context/
Posted by: bobxxxx | November 29, 2009 12:12 PM
The ID-Darwinism debate clearly demonstrates that venality and shameless self-interest, as well as a toxic leftist-atheist ideology, runs very deep in the scientific community.
What debate is this wacko talking about? And since when did evolutionary biology become a 'leftist' political idea?
Posted by: fishyfred
|
November 29, 2009 12:13 PM
Actually, I got my full weekly dosage this weekend because I saw a good friend of mine for the first time in a long time... and he accused me of having "found religion... the religion of global warming."
Posted by: Becky | November 29, 2009 12:14 PM
scientists tend to be rude and crude in personal correspondence? Gasp, I have a hard time believing it!
I think these wackaloons think upon obtaining a Ph.D every scientist is taken to the side and told what lies to tell. How come I never got my talk? I still don't know what lies I'm supposed to be agreeing with. I guess I'll have to stick with the annoying facts & reasonable looking data, it would have been quicker and easier for someone to tell me what I'm supposed to be lieing about.
Posted by: Dust | November 29, 2009 12:14 PM
"leftist-atheist ideology,"... Where can I sign up? Sounds like fun.
Does that include bacon?
Posted by: mk | November 29, 2009 12:17 PM
@bobxxxxx
"Reality has a liberal bias." Stephen Colbert. Some people seem to take that to heart.
Posted by: Ewan R | November 29, 2009 12:17 PM
You know it's a lie if the data looks reasonable as this is clearly contradictory to how the world really works (as revealed in certain infallible historical texts) - ie if you can explain it with a "because......" rather than a "...did it"
Posted by: Ol'Greg | November 29, 2009 12:18 PM
I'm so sick of hearing about those emails. It seems when you're in the business of creating an organized cover-up you can't help but imagine everything is an organized cover-up.
Posted by: Dania
|
November 29, 2009 12:23 PM
Oh, sure. Let's treat scientists as criminals. Let's criminalize and defund all science. Really, I can't think of a better way to get the world back into the Dark Ages. That's their dream, right?
Posted by: Gorogh | November 29, 2009 12:24 PM
Crucial paragraph. Man do I hate conspiracy theories.
*goes to fetch his plausibility hammer*
Posted by: History Punk | November 29, 2009 12:25 PM
Again, I wish all those American right-winger pissed off about the alleged FOI violations by the CRU got this upset when the CIA or one of their other favorite government bureaucracies did the same thing.
Again, even if CRU made everything up, they're just one thousands of government bodies, private organizations, and random individuals researching the topic. Toss out CRU provided evidence for global warming and the fact of global warming stands strong.
Posted by: Naked Bunny with a Whip | November 29, 2009 12:26 PM
I knew I was sick, but this story didn't even get an eyeroll out of me. Perhaps I should see a doctor.
Posted by: amphiox | November 29, 2009 12:28 PM
"leftist-atheist ideology"
Funny how "survival of the fittest" is the fundamental underpinning of their favorite theist-rightist economic system.
Oh. They recognize and affirm that "survival of the fittest" is a poor metaphor for evolution.
They are that sophisticated? I see.
Posted by: Naked Bunny with a Whip | November 29, 2009 12:36 PM
Seriously! Do these people believe scientists are required to complete the kolinahr as part of their training?
Posted by: AnneH | November 29, 2009 12:37 PM
James T @#9-
Thanks for those links. I was trying to figure out just what, specifically, the denialists were screeching about. It was giving me a headache.
As it turns out, they were upset by a misunderstanding of terms that mean different things when used in scientific discussions vs vernacular ones. Even if a certain data set - warming evidence gathered from post-1960 tree rings at high latitudes in the Northern Hemisphere - is invalidated by the 'tricks' used to correct the data, that is a miniscule subset of the mountains of data that support human-caused global warming.
To dismiss all of that data because of inaccurate high-latitude tree rings is just silly. It's a tempest in a teapot.
Posted by: Moggie
|
November 29, 2009 12:38 PM
Welcome to the Khmer Rouge, Seattle branch. Here's your shovel.
Posted by: Sean McCorkle
|
November 29, 2009 12:40 PM
Naomi Wolf's "The End of America" has a discussion about how the press gets effectively undermined by propaganda efforts during takeovers of democracies. One point is valid here: Its not necessary for those opposing the truth to get everyone to believe their fabrications 100%. Its only necessary to sow confusion to the point that the public doesn't know what to believe and thus begins to distrust all sources of information, including those presenting the truth.
The global warming deniers are doing pretty well along these lines.
Posted by: Alyson Miers | November 29, 2009 12:41 PM
WIN
Posted by: raven
|
November 29, 2009 12:41 PM
Michael Egnor seems to be descending into madness like Andew Schlafy.
I'll leave it to others to determine the rate. As David M. pointed out, the metric for this one way trip is...0.X timecubes/month.
The DI has become a powerful ally for the Darwinists. With enemies like this, who needs friends?
PS Odd factoid. The DI spends 4 million USD/year attacking science. The amount spent on ID research is somewhere around zero. This is known as "xian science".
Posted by: llewelly | November 29, 2009 12:42 PM
It would be better for everyone if creationists never figured out that their insistence that everyone who disagrees with them is an atheist is not driving people away from religion.Posted by: a_ray_in_dilbert_space
|
November 29, 2009 12:47 PM
This whole episode has been utterly amazing. Gavin Schmidt's patience has been utterly boundless as the tin-foil hat crowd have advanced pioneeringly stupid arguments and utterly ignored reasoned responses by him and others. Unfortunately, Egnor's excretions have not been beyond the pale. Several posters have all but called for the criminalization of science, and of course they scrupulously avoid the evidence. The posters have been a veritable who's who of anti-science in the US, Britain and Australia.
Of course the Wall Street Urinal has jumped on the bandwagon, and other rightwing rags as well. Anyway, if you venture over to Realclimate, wear asbestos underwear. The stupidity radiating from the denialosphere is white-hot.
Posted by: raven
|
November 29, 2009 1:03 PM
Cheer Up!!!
Compared to some, Michael Egnor is a moderate.
Some xian death cultists have called for biologists to be rounded up, sent to concentration camps, and killed. Very biblical except the ancients would use swords. People today are lazy, wouldn't want to risk carpal tunnel syndrome waving swords around and hacking scientist's heads off.
David Willis, a leader of Kansas creos was one.
What is the point of being a xian death cultist if you can't kill people by the thousands anyway?
I suppose one of two things will happen. Xianity will continue shaking itself to pieces as extremists drive out everyone else. Or they take over and create a new Khymer Rouge style state. The USA will then be known as New Talibanistan run by the Xian Talibani.
Canada and Mexico among other countries all of the sudden would gain half the world's Nobel prize winners and scientists.
Posted by: Lynna | November 29, 2009 1:09 PM
Someone up-thread noted this already, but it bears repeating:
Rude language does not, in an of itself, falsify climate change theories. Someone needs to explain this to Fox News. This idea that if you find blasphemy in email correspondence (and sexual innuendo as well -- OMFG!), the idea that that automatically falsifies the science therein is just more of the non-argument based on "see what kind of rude people adhere to these theories!"
Posted by: Sven DiMilo | November 29, 2009 1:13 PM
I need a syringe of epi straight to the heart.
Posted by: anonymous bloger | November 29, 2009 1:15 PM
It beggars belief that the discover institute brands its self as a scientific organisation.
Do they self-delude and actually think they are undertaking a scientific process or are they cynically playing the publicity game?
I understand that some individuals may have different combinations of the above..
http://carnifexinsania.blogspot.com/
Posted by: Moggie
|
November 29, 2009 1:29 PM
But remember, ID is neither religious nor politically partisan.
Posted by: mas528 | November 29, 2009 1:31 PM
I went to the site that was set up to search the emails. There is a lot of them. Far too many for Egnor to have read or understand. He's not a scientist. Not even close.
The blog makes a lot of accusations, but no links to, or excerpts from the emails.
Personally, the ones I read (from 2008-2009) were mostly about reviewing/editing each other's papers. Something about the time intervals, smoothing, and outlier data. The closest I could find was them being very careful because the skeptics would have access to the data and would pick the paper apart.
But then, I am not a scientist either. as well, I read about six of them which is meaningless.
Could someone point out the "smoking gun" emails?
Posted by: Larry
|
November 29, 2009 1:33 PM
I just happened to read PZ's latest entry on the IDiots while listening to an old Alan Parsons Project piece entitled Psychobabble.
I may have to reconsider my belief system if I keep encountering coincidences like that.
Posted by: alex.asolis.net
|
November 29, 2009 1:38 PM
"Prompted by the hacking of an email server that revealed that climate scientists tend to be rude and crude in their private communications..."
I don't think their being rude was the issue, exactly.
Posted by: blf | November 29, 2009 1:44 PM
Unlimited funding and all the sex you want (all forms/ages/sexes/…). The constant wars and numerous deaths are mostly for entertainment. Silly person, just ask the Vatican.
Posted by: Ira Rosofsky | November 29, 2009 1:48 PM
I don't understand why right-wing politics have become synonymous with an anti-science attitude. Where are the old-time conservatives who were perfectly happy to oppress the downtrodden while having no problem with empiricism?
Posted by: idle.pip.verisignlabs.com
|
November 29, 2009 1:54 PM
I hope someone records and posts this. My internet connection is flakey, so I can't watch it live, and I really want to see this...
Posted by: Ben Lawson
|
November 29, 2009 2:27 PM
"Discovery" Institute = Deception Institute.
Posted by: Naked Bunny with a Whip | November 29, 2009 2:34 PM
Then what was it? What was the issue? What point were these hackers making, and did they succeed in supporting it with the evidence at hand?
Posted by: Russell Stewart | November 29, 2009 2:59 PM
You know, I am willing to entertain the possibility that the scientific community is wrong about climate change. I don't think that's the case, but stranger things have happened. I would even be willing to consider the possibility that at least some of them are playing fast and loose with the data. Scientists are human beings after all, and are far from perfect.
But this is the most idiotic argument I have ever heard:
Really? Are these guys that stupid? Because it's quite obvious what side of this debate has most of the power and money. If I were a climate scientist and I had solid evidence debunking the claim of man-made climate change, all it would take is one phone call to Exxon-Mobil and I would have all of the money I could ever need.
Posted by: Jason A.
|
November 29, 2009 3:06 PM
#35:
There was one which said something about the 'Nature trick to hide the decline they claim was falsifying data, but it was about adjusting a proxy to match the actual instrumental readings. And, just as it says in the quote, it was published in Nature, so it's not like it was a secret.
There were a couple where they were talking about not submitting to a certain journal that had been taking over by denialists which the denialists claim was locking them out of the peer review process.
There was one talking about deleting a data set rather than give it to the denialists. No way to tell if this is something they actually did or if this is the kind of thing you say in private about people you don't like.
The rest, as far as I can tell, really was about being 'not nice'.
Posted by: 'Tis Himself, OM
|
November 29, 2009 3:08 PM
Russell Stewart #43
There you go, thinking logically again. A true conspiracy nut would never demean himself by using such mundane tools as empiricism and logic.
Posted by: Jason A.
|
November 29, 2009 3:09 PM
I find pointing out the whole conspiracy theory aspect to be handy with Joe Public who wouldn't understand the science (and thus get confused and uncertain - the denialists goal).
Posted by: Colin Meier | November 29, 2009 3:28 PM
I'm not quite a science-Mafia don (more of a groupie, really), but can I just say - in a slow, cigar-throat voice : "Vinnie - these ID people : concrete shoes all round..."
Posted by: Colin Meier | November 29, 2009 3:31 PM
And my apologies for perpetuating the organized-crime stereotype that haunts Italian-Americans...
Posted by: Kel, OM | November 29, 2009 3:34 PM
Got to love the climate debate, scientists say humans are responsible for it - but look there's a natural force that contributes, therefore humans account for none of it. It's like those people who think that evolution is up in the air because we haven't found remains of every single animal that ever existed...
Posted by: Blake Stacey | November 29, 2009 4:03 PM
Scientist A: This data is flawed.
Scientist B: Why do you say that?
Scientist A: Well, when we calculate temperatures from tree-ring data, the numbers we get don't match actual temperature records, for this particular time period.
Scientist B: Oh, OK. We should write up why that happens, I guess.
Scientist A: Agreed.
Scientist B: And once that's out of the way, we don't really have to plot the bad data, do we? I mean, it's bad data, after all.
Scientist A: Sure.
[Several years elapse]
Global warming denialist: ZOMG! COMMIE FASCIST BASTARDS OUT TO DESTROY AMERICA!!
Posted by: Benjamin Franklin | November 29, 2009 4:09 PM
Why is anyone surprised that the Disscovery Institute is using any straws they can grasp in an attempt to discredit any form of legitimate scientific methodology?
Remember - It's always about the "Wedge".
Posted by: David Marjanović, OM | November 29, 2009 4:37 PM
2/3 of the cdesign proponentsists that come here believe this quite obviously.
Posted by: tresmal | November 29, 2009 5:48 PM
I'm not the only one to notice that the output from the DI is becoming increasingly strident and loony. I've been wondering about something that might have some bearing on this. Does anyone know if the people who have been funding the DI (the Ahmansons et al) are satisfied with the return on their investment there? I mean satisfied enough to continue funding them at their current or higher levels?
Posted by: Steven Dunlap | November 29, 2009 6:03 PM
I'm waiting for a rant about how the conspiracy to contaminate our precious bodily fluids, our precious essence, will soon be revealed.
Yikes! When Dr. Strangelove starts to look tame by comparison it's time to pack it in folks.
Posted by: 3B
|
November 29, 2009 7:37 PM
Strange indeed is this world, PZ. Am I delusional or is the D.I. taking its cues from yours truly? Thanks for your brilliant observation in the earlier thread btw and thanks for the endless labor exposing "creationist ethics" (a true oxymoron). Within the past two weeks I've been making noise at the local V.A. Out-Patient Clinic. In several different conversations with several different authorities the thorny issue of corrupt public officials and a corrupt government were discussed at length. I just finished reading in the Times about U.S. Supreme Courts' upcoming cases. One of the most important cases concerns the definition of a corrupt public official. It's very important for citizens to understand what supremely wise patriots define as a corrupt public official. Gee whiz I wonder how this conservative court will rule on this tiresome, perplexing and never ending issue. Many are grateful for your labors P.Z.
Posted by: F
|
November 29, 2009 9:48 PM
History Punk @ 19
Or, as when Palin's email account was hacked.
Posted by: ginckgo
|
November 29, 2009 11:15 PM
speaking of Climate Change science denial: Anthony Watts at WTFUWT has sent his minions PZ style over to http://www.sciencemuseum.org.uk/proveit.aspx to skew the vote on "being counted in for action on Global Warming". The tally stands @ 5477 counted in vs 8420 counted out so far. We need to get the balance back the other way.
Posted by: dbmorrisalum
|
November 30, 2009 12:18 AM
"church with lab coats"
This cracked me up.
Posted by: Colin Meier | November 30, 2009 3:52 AM
Only this morning did I realise "Concrete bibles all round" would have been funnier (for a given value of 'funny').
Posted by: DLC
|
November 30, 2009 5:40 AM
If the CRU were the only outfit doing work on climate, and if they controlled the publishing on the subject entirely, I would be concerned.
As it is, it's an item of curiosity, but not a real concern.
Posted by: P Smith | November 30, 2009 11:48 AM
Michael Ignorant is more like it.
Posted by: John Harshman | November 30, 2009 2:06 PM
Forget the DI. Who is the sensuous curmudgeon? Here's some of what he says:
"Please keep this in mind: It may be true that global warming is largely a scam, although it’s still early days and we really don’t know yet."
Remember, that isn't a loony creationist talking. It's a loony anti-creationist. PZ, what kind of site were you linking to there?
Posted by: Sarah Bellem | November 30, 2009 2:42 PM
We need to remember that those climate change denial rants of Egnor's appeared in the blog "Evolution News & Views" This shows how little the evolution denialists have left to say anymore. How many ways can you keep saying sure looks complicated therefore goddidit. They certainly won't ever be able to present any legitimate researc for ID
It also points out the strong religious attachments of many of the denialism movements with fundamentalist Christianity. After all God gave the world to man to use and abuse. If we despoil our earth those fundamentalists just think they will be carried off by Jesus to heaven, leaving the ruined earth to us rationalists. That it is all part of the grand scheme of God so why would you want to interfere with it.
You can read from Egnor's anger that he would be the first to set up camps to place all of us non-believers if he ever had the chance
The now famous Palin quote paraphrased, "If God didn't want us to eat wild animals then why did he make them out of meat?"
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | November 30, 2009 2:54 PM
Yeah I'll have to admit that this comment by him really doesn't make me want to like his thought processes.
That’s just my reaction to anything promoted by Al Gore.
seriously? Was that supposed to be a joke?
The "BUT ALLLLLLLLLLLLL GOOOOOOOOOOOOOOORE" tactic?
Pretty lame.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | November 30, 2009 2:57 PM
The bold/underline in my above comment is supposed to be in the blockquote of him answering Damian.
more from him
That's a piss poor way to go about assessing something.
Posted by: baju
|
February 1, 2010 10:40 AM
It would be better for everyone if creationists never figured out that their insistence