Adam Shand update

Yikes! You're a scary guy. I'm glad I moved to Melbourne where I'm safer from your murderous midgit ways.

Gosh. I was undecided as to whether anthropogenic climate change was a basic, obvious truth or a conspiracy theory concocted by an international cabal of grant-hungry scientists, but hearing Cambria call you a "poisonous cherub" has completely decided it. After that bombshell, it is obvious that the data is still uncertain...hockey stick... IPCC fraud... no scientific consensus... Al Gore is fat... etc etc.

Not only are they Aware Of All Internet Traditions, it's also quite likely that Their Understanding Of Economics Is Quite Complete.

It's καÏαλλάξια, baby!

Maybe we have a new definition:

Shand job: the act of comment wankery over a made-up affront, signaled by a new Cheeto-stain on your pants that you have to lie to your mom about.

Best,

D

Dano for the thread win I think but I'll add the descriptor "Joe Cambria[n]":

"an opinion as passe and full of rocks as the time period and location bearing the same root name."

Tim as "serial killer"? I link to a public photo of Tim (per his permission, if copyright police are about) during my university class lesson on good science blogging and their reaction is that they want to fly to Oz and drink beer with him.

Well, as C.S. Lewis pointed out, the higher a creature is, the worse it becomes when it goes wrong. Cherubim are the second-highest of the nine ranks of angels; one that exists in the direct presence of God. Satan was a fallen cherub according to the book of Ezekiel. And get out of your mind any picture of chubby little nude babies with wings, those are "putti," not cherubs. A cherub is more like a griffin.

No wonder Tim became a serial killer when he fell. Now all we have to do is find the evidence that links him to the long trail of mutilated bodies. Tune in next week for: CSI - Global Warming Denial!

Up until this point I've accepted the overwhelming evidence in support of AGW. However after finding out that Tim L. is a hobbit, I now realise I've been the victim of an vast conspiracy theory involving a number of vertically challenged creatures, possibly including leprechauns.

PS - If someone accused me of being a serial killer, I'd sue them. Just sayin'.

Mr Cambria does seem to be toying with potentially defamatory comments there, how absolutely charming.

It'd be nice to think that this decent into adhoms is merely a rhetorical ploy, but I get the sense with these guys that they're genuinely unable to distinguish between attacks on ideas and attacks on the person holding them.

well tim, it seems your unrelenting sacrifice of poor lovable third worlders at the altar of Rachel Carson has been recognized by the Friends of Truth and Justice. It's too late to save those billions of dead children, but there's still time to save the campaign for ending hunger on earth from being robbed of funding by the greedy climatology cartel. Al Gore is fat.

Viewers of The Venture Brothers will realise that Tim is neither a dwarf, a cherub or a hobbit, he's Tim-tom, one of the Murderous Moppets.

I hate to jump the good ship science, but z has a point with the fat thing. I also don't trust anyone with a beard to tell me not to spray for bugs.

And shaving off the beard just makes it worse. you had the beard, keep it. Al Gore, now you're just pretending to be clean-cut. It's like spraying air freshener to hide the marijuana fumes.

It turns out that Cambria was [calling Marion Delgado a serial killer](http://catallaxyfiles.com/?p=3631&cp=1#comment-101210). I think that makes it worse. Because he was banned from here Cambria is even defaming commenters here. [This Usenet posting](http://groups.google.com/group/sci.anthropology/msg/48640a9bade479cb) resulted in a judgement of $40,000, and because he egged him on, Soon my be liable as well. What do people think?

Can't seem to face up to the facts.
Tense and nervous. Can't relax.
Serial killer
Qu'est-ce que c'est?
Fa fa fa fa fa fa fa fa fa fa

Just read some of that thread at Catallaxy. Ugh. I feel the urgent need to soak in Dettol for a week. That JC is a seriously nasty piece of work, though hardly alone in that behaviour over there. (JC does seem to have an awful lot of time on his hands, he is posting every minute or three.)

However, anybody with half a brain is not going to take what they say seriously. That is partly why they are so obnoxious, nobody pays any attention to them screeching at each other, and it really bugs them. Their total influence on public policy and society is vanishingly small.

Ignore them. They are not worth the time. You got much bigger fish to fry.

Though I am a little disappointed in Jason Soon, I thought he had more intelligence and talent than that, and could actually make a genuine contribution to public debate. Guess I was wrong.

Better run, run, run, run,
Run, run, run away...

just a few weeks ago someone at larvatus prodeo suggested I should start reading/commenting on catallaxy because it is full of "thoughtful people" who "love liberty" or some such. I'm glad to see they're living up to the description, and that I was too small-minded and bigoted to test it out. That's an hour of my life I would never have got back!!!

This Usenet posting resulted in a judgement of $40,000, and because he egged him on, Soon my be liable as well. What do people think?

There's probably not much use in asking an international audience that question. In the American context, that statement would be unlikely to win a judgment. In the Australian context, who knows? Besides the Aussies, that is.

> I feel the urgent need to soak in Dettol for a week.

WotWot, if that's still not enough, I recommend this.

(OK, that was a self-promotional blurb.)

bi - brilliant.

The theory of scientific reality is just that, a theory.

btw, jc hates me MORE now that i always killfile and never respond to him (I see killed jc posts all over). But in general (a) J.C.? hating? mirabile dictu! and (b) Agreed, the typical thread on that thing is quite off-putting. But I like Cambria's implication that *I* am Unabomber-like, very much.

The first three, and perhaps thus most important, "chapters" of the Unabomber Manifesto (after the "Introduction" is called "THE PSYCHOLOGY OF MODERN LEFTISM," "FEELINGS OF INFERIORITY" and "OVERSOCIALIZATION." All three deal with Leftism as the paradigm disease of our age.

Take it away, Unabomber!

THE PSYCHOLOGY OF MODERN LEFTISM

6. Almost everyone will agree that we live in a deeply troubled society. One of the most widespread manifestations of the craziness of our world is leftism, so a discussion of the psychology of leftism can serve as an introduction to the discussion of the problems of modern society in general.
7. But what is leftism? During the first half of the 20th century leftism could have been practically identified with socialism. Today the movement is fragmented and it is not clear who can properly be called a leftist. When we speak of leftists in this article we have in mind mainly socialists, collectivists, "politically correct" types, feminists, gay and disability activists, animal rights activists and the like. But not everyone who is associated with one of these movements is a leftist. What we are trying to get at in discussing leftism is not so much a movement or an ideology as a psychological type, or rather a collection of related types. Thus, what we mean by "leftism" will emerge more clearly in the course of our discussion of leftist psychology (Also, see paragraphs 227-230.)
8. Even so, our conception of leftism will remain a good deal less clear than we would wish, but there doesn't seem to be any remedy for this. All we are trying to do is indicate in a rough and approximate way the two psychological tendencies that we believe are the main driving force of modern leftism. We by no means claim to be telling the WHOLE truth about leftist psychology. Also, our discussion is meant to apply to modern leftism only. We leave open the question of the extent to which our discussion could be applied to the leftists of the 19th and early 20th century.
9. The two psychological tendencies that underlie modern leftism we call "feelings of inferiority" and "oversocialization." Feelings of inferiority are characteristic of modern leftism as a whole, while oversocialization is characteristic only of a certain segment of modern leftism; but this segment is highly influential.

FEELINGS OF INFERIORITY

10. By "feelings of inferiority" we mean not only inferiority feelings in the strictest sense but a whole spectrum of related traits: low self-esteem, feelings of powerlessness, depressive tendencies, defeatism, guilt, self-hatred, etc. We argue that modern leftists tend to have such feelings (possibly more or less repressed) and that these feelings are decisive in determining the direction of modern leftism.
11. When someone interprets as derogatory almost anything that is said about him (or about groups with whom he identifies) we conclude that he has inferiority feelings or low self-esteem. This tendency is pronounced among minority rights advocates, whether or not they belong to the minority groups whose rights they defend. They are hypersensitive about the words used to designate minorities. The terms "negro," "oriental," "handicapped" or "chick" for an African, an Asian, a disabled person or a woman originally had no derogatory connotation. "Broad" and "chick" were merely the feminine equivalents of "guy," "dude" or "fellow." The negative connotations have been attached to these terms by the activists themselves. Some animal rights advocates have gone so far as to reject the word "pet" and insist on its replacement by "animal companion." Leftist anthropologists go to great lengths to avoid saying anything about primitive peoples that could conceivably be interpreted as negative. They want to replace the word "primitive" by "nonliterate." They seem almost paranoid about anything that might suggest that any primitive culture is inferior to our own. (We do not mean to imply that primitive cultures ARE inferior to ours. We merely point out the hypersensitivity of leftish anthropologists.)
12. Those who are most sensitive about "politically incorrect" terminology are not the average black ghetto-dweller, Asian immigrant, abused woman or disabled person, but a minority of activists, many of whom do not even belong to any "oppressed" group but come from privileged strata of society. Political correctness has its stronghold among university professors, who have secure employment with comfortable salaries, and the majority of whom are heterosexual, white males from middle-class families.
13. Many leftists have an intense identification with the problems of groups that have an image of being weak (women), defeated (American Indians), repellent (homosexuals), or otherwise inferior. The leftists themselves feel that these groups are inferior. They would never admit it to themselves that they have such feelings, but it is precisely because they do see these groups as inferior that they identify with their problems. (We do not suggest that women, Indians, etc., ARE inferior; we are only making a point about leftist psychology).
14. Feminists are desperately anxious to prove that women are as strong as capable as men. Clearly they are nagged by a fear that women may NOT be as strong and as capable as men.
15. Leftists tend to hate anything that has an image of being strong, good and successful. They hate America, they hate Western civilization, they hate white males, they hate rationality. The reasons that leftists give for hating the West, etc. clearly do not correspond with their real motives. They SAY they hate the West because it is warlike, imperialistic, sexist, ethnocentric and so forth, but where these same faults appear in socialist countries or in primitive cultures, the leftist finds excuses for them, or at best he GRUDGINGLY admits that they exist; whereas he ENTHUSIASTICALLY points out (and often greatly exaggerates) these faults where they appear in Western civilization. Thus it is clear that these faults are not the leftist's real motive for hating America and the West. He hates America and the West because they are strong and successful.
16. Words like "self-confidence," "self-reliance," "initiative", "enterprise," "optimism," etc. play little role in the liberal and leftist vocabulary. The leftist is anti-individualistic, pro-collectivist. He wants society to solve everyone's needs for them, take care of them. He is not the sort of person who has an inner sense of confidence in his own ability to solve his own problems and satisfy his own needs. The leftist is antagonistic to the concept of competition because, deep inside, he feels like a loser.
17. Art forms that appeal to modern leftist intellectuals tend to focus on sordidness, defeat and despair, or else they take an orgiastic tone, throwing off rational control as if there were no hope of accomplishing anything through rational calculation and all that was left was to immerse oneself in the sensations of the moment.
18. Modern leftist philosophers tend to dismiss reason, science, objective reality and to insist that everything is culturally relative. It is true that one can ask serious questions about the foundations of scientific knowledge and about how, if at all, the concept of objective reality can be defined. But it is obvious that modern leftist philosophers are not simply cool-headed logicians systematically analyzing the foundations of knowledge. They are deeply involved emotionally in their attack on truth and reality. They attack these concepts because of their own psychological needs. For one thing, their attack is an outlet for hostility, and, to the extent that it is successful, it satisfies the drive for power. More importantly, the leftist hates science and rationality because they classify certain beliefs as true (i.e., successful, superior) and other beliefs as false (i.e. failed, inferior). The leftist's feelings of inferiority run so deep that he cannot tolerate any classification of some things as successful or superior and other things as failed or inferior. This also underlies the rejection by many leftists of the concept of mental illness and of the utility of IQ tests. Leftists are antagonistic to genetic explanations of human abilities or behavior because such explanations tend to make some persons appear superior or inferior to others. Leftists prefer to give society the credit or blame for an individual's ability or lack of it. Thus if a person is "inferior" it is not his fault, but society's, because he has not been brought up properly.
19. The leftist is not typically the kind of person whose feelings of inferiority make him a braggart, an egotist, a bully, a self-promoter, a ruthless competitor. This kind of person has not wholly lost faith in himself. He has a deficit in his sense of power and self-worth, but he can still conceive of himself as having the capacity to be strong, and his efforts to make himself strong produce his unpleasant behavior. [1] But the leftist is too far gone for that. His feelings of inferiority are so ingrained that he cannot conceive of himself as individually strong and valuable. Hence the collectivism of the leftist. He can feel strong only as a member of a large organization or a mass movement with which he identifies himself.
20. Notice the masochistic tendency of leftist tactics. Leftists protest by lying down in front of vehicles, they intentionally provoke police or racists to abuse them, etc. These tactics may often be effective, but many leftists use them not as a means to an end but because they PREFER masochistic tactics. Self-hatred is a leftist trait.
21. Leftists may claim that their activism is motivated by compassion or by moral principle, and moral principle does play a role for the leftist of the oversocialized type. But compassion and moral principle cannot be the main motives for leftist activism. Hostility is too prominent a component of leftist behavior; so is the drive for power. Moreover, much leftist behavior is not rationally calculated to be of benefit to the people whom the leftists claim to be trying to help. For example, if one believes that affirmative action is good for black people, does it make sense to demand affirmative action in hostile or dogmatic terms? Obviously it would be more productive to take a diplomatic and conciliatory approach that would make at least verbal and symbolic concessions to white people who think that affirmative action discriminates against them. But leftist activists do not take such an approach because it would not satisfy their emotional needs. Helping black people is not their real goal. Instead, race problems serve as an excuse for them to express their own hostility and frustrated need for power. In doing so they actually harm black people, because the activists' hostile attitude toward the white majority tends to intensify race hatred.
22. If our society had no social problems at all, the leftists would have to INVENT problems in order to provide themselves with an excuse for making a fuss.
23. We emphasize that the foregoing does not pretend to be an accurate description of everyone who might be considered a leftist. It is only a rough indication of a general tendency of leftism.

OVERSOCIALIZATION

24. Psychologists use the term "socialization" to designate the process by which children are trained to think and act as society demands. A person is said to be well socialized if he believes in and obeys the moral code of his society and fits in well as a functioning part of that society. It may seem senseless to say that many leftists are over-socialized, since the leftist is perceived as a rebel. Nevertheless, the position can be defended. Many leftists are not such rebels as they seem.
25. The moral code of our society is so demanding that no one can think, feel and act in a completely moral way. For example, we are not supposed to hate anyone, yet almost everyone hates somebody at some time or other, whether he admits it to himself or not. Some people are so highly socialized that the attempt to think, feel and act morally imposes a severe burden on them. In order to avoid feelings of guilt, they continually have to deceive themselves about their own motives and find moral explanations for feelings and actions that in reality have a non-moral origin. We use the term "oversocialized" to describe such people. [2]
26. Oversocialization can lead to low self-esteem, a sense of powerlessness, defeatism, guilt, etc. One of the most important means by which our society socializes children is by making them feel ashamed of behavior or speech that is contrary to society's expectations. If this is overdone, or if a particular child is especially susceptible to such feelings, he ends by feeling ashamed of HIMSELF. Moreover the thought and the behavior of the oversocialized person are more restricted by society's expectations than are those of the lightly socialized person. The majority of people engage in a significant amount of naughty behavior. They lie, they commit petty thefts, they break traffic laws, they goof off at work, they hate someone, they say spiteful things or they use some underhanded trick to get ahead of the other guy. The oversocialized person cannot do these things, or if he does do them he generates in himself a sense of shame and self-hatred. The oversocialized person cannot even experience, without guilt, thoughts or feelings that are contrary to the accepted morality; he cannot think "unclean" thoughts. And socialization is not just a matter of morality; we are socialized to confirm to many norms of behavior that do not fall under the heading of morality. Thus the oversocialized person is kept on a psychological leash and spends his life running on rails that society has laid down for him. In many oversocialized people this results in a sense of constraint and powerlessness that can be a severe hardship. We suggest that oversocialization is among the more serious cruelties that human beings inflict on one another.
27. We argue that a very important and influential segment of the modern left is oversocialized and that their oversocialization is of great importance in determining the direction of modern leftism. Leftists of the oversocialized type tend to be intellectuals or members of the upper-middle class. Notice that university intellectuals (3) constitute the most highly socialized segment of our society and also the most left-wing segment.
28. The leftist of the oversocialized type tries to get off his psychological leash and assert his autonomy by rebelling. But usually he is not strong enough to rebel against the most basic values of society. Generally speaking, the goals of today's leftists are NOT in conflict with the accepted morality. On the contrary, the left takes an accepted moral principle, adopts it as its own, and then accuses mainstream society of violating that principle. Examples: racial equality, equality of the sexes, helping poor people, peace as opposed to war, nonviolence generally, freedom of expression, kindness to animals. More fundamentally, the duty of the individual to serve society and the duty of society to take care of the individual. All these have been deeply rooted values of our society (or at least of its middle and upper classes (4) for a long time. These values are explicitly or implicitly expressed or presupposed in most of the material presented to us by the mainstream communications media and the educational system. Leftists, especially those of the oversocialized type, usually do not rebel against these principles but justify their hostility to society by claiming (with some degree of truth) that society is not living up to these principles.
29. Here is an illustration of the way in which the oversocialized leftist shows his real attachment to the conventional attitudes of our society while pretending to be in rebellion against it. Many leftists push for affirmative action, for moving black people into high-prestige jobs, for improved education in black schools and more money for such schools; the way of life of the black "underclass" they regard as a social disgrace. They want to integrate the black man into the system, make him a business executive, a lawyer, a scientist just like upper-middle-class white people. The leftists will reply that the last thing they want is to make the black man into a copy of the white man; instead, they want to preserve African American culture. But in what does this preservation of African American culture consist? It can hardly consist in anything more than eating black-style food, listening to black-style music, wearing black-style clothing and going to a black-style church or mosque. In other words, it can express itself only in superficial matters. In all ESSENTIAL respects more leftists of the oversocialized type want to make the black man conform to white, middle-class ideals. They want to make him study technical subjects, become an executive or a scientist, spend his life climbing the status ladder to prove that black people are as good as white. They want to make black fathers "responsible." they want black gangs to become nonviolent, etc. But these are exactly the values of the industrial-technological system. The system couldn't care less what kind of music a man listens to, what kind of clothes he wears or what religion he believes in as long as he studies in school, holds a respectable job, climbs the status ladder, is a "responsible" parent, is nonviolent and so forth. In effect, however much he may deny it, the oversocialized leftist wants to integrate the black man into the system and make him adopt its values.
30. We certainly do not claim that leftists, even of the oversocialized type, NEVER rebel against the fundamental values of our society. Clearly they sometimes do. Some oversocialized leftists have gone so far as to rebel against one of modern society's most important principles by engaging in physical violence. By their own account, violence is for them a form of "liberation." In other words, by committing violence they break through the psychological restraints that have been trained into them. Because they are oversocialized these restraints have been more confining for them than for others; hence their need to break free of them. But they usually justify their rebellion in terms of mainstream values. If they engage in violence they claim to be fighting against racism or the like.
31. We realize that many objections could be raised to the foregoing thumb-nail sketch of leftist psychology. The real situation is complex, and anything like a complete description of it would take several volumes even if the necessary data were available. We claim only to have indicated very roughly the two most important tendencies in the psychology of modern leftism.
32. The problems of the leftist are indicative of the problems of our society as a whole. Low self-esteem, depressive tendencies and defeatism are not restricted to the left. Though they are especially noticeable in the left, they are widespread in our society. And today's society tries to socialize us to a greater extent than any previous society. We are even told by experts how to eat, how to exercise, how to make love, how to raise our kids and so forth.

And last but not least, I am the serial killer, yes, but Lambert is still a cherub. Meaning, a high rank in the angelic host, if the yahoos understood Abrahamic religions.

bi.

Thanks for some powerful antidote. I must get the formula off you one day.

triglossia Triple-tongued? He he.

LOL. I never read the Unabomber but he comes across as a more reasonable version of Rush Limbaugh.

Not to be annoying or moreso than normal. Only posting here again to point out my unforgivable negligence in skipping over the earliest posts. Prior credit for the discovery that the climate, etc. trolls are ignorant of Angelology goes to Barton Paul Levinson.

saurabh, WotWot: thanks!

WotWot:

> I must get the formula off you one day.

There's a Latin grammar and a "Declaration of Independence" font, and more. But most of it is probably magic pixie dust.

> triglossia Triple-tongued? He he.

First there was diglossia. In any case, I think it was first. :)

@anonymous 37 (#17):

In the American context, that statement would be unlikely to win a judgment.

An allegation of paedophilia wouldn't win a judgment in the States?

Robin Levett asked:

An allegation of paedophilia wouldn't win a judgment in the States?

Not if it's true; and sometimes not even if it isn't.

yeah, to win libel/slander in the US you have to prove that the statement was made both with malicious intent and in the full knowledge that it was false. they take "free speech" very literally here. unless you are criticizing the administration's handling of a war during the period while it is still popular, of course.

@Robert (#30):

Not if it's true; and sometimes not even if it isn't.

I was rather assuming it wasn't true; after all, if true it certainly wouldn't get a judgment in the UK, and the same is I believe true in Oz.

So just all these other papers support skepticism of AGW:

Environmental Effects of Increased Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide
(Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons, Volume 12, Number 3, 2007)
- Arthur B. Robinson, Noah E. Robinson, Willie Soon

*[Rest of list snipped]*

Interesting... Skeptical Peer Review does exist

Skeptical Peer Review,

Have you actually looked at these papers? If so, can you tell us which actually deny anthropogenic climate change? I have a looked at some and find that they give a rather different perspective to the one that you are claiming. Some (e.g. Fischer et al. 1999) don't even seem relevant. One (I'm not telling you which, but it is in a proper journal, not the embarrassing Energy and Environment and its ilk) even says: "Our review does not disprove a significant anthropogenic influence on global climate" , which somewhat undermines your point. Of course if you have actually read them, you will know this.

Interesting... Skeptical Peer Review does exist

rarely.

Energy and environment for example does NOT do peer review.

could you guys please stop posting this stupid list and start by READING the papers? and taking a look at the sources?!?

So Skeptical Peer review says:

So just all these other papers support skepticism of AGW:

Environmental Effects of Increased Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide (Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons, Volume 12, Number 3, 2007) - Arthur B. Robinson, Noah E. Robinson, Willie Soon

[Rest of list snipped]

Interesting... Skeptical Peer Review does exist

I rather suspect that SPR (the poster) is a parody, either intentional or unintentional...

After all, the Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons reviewing an article on environmental effects of increased atmospheric carbon dioxide? Perhaps they can contribute to the environmental health effects portion of the argument, but they are rather less qualified to comment on the ecology, let alone the physics, of climate warming.

Of course, if we can accept medical opinions on AGW, it begs the question as to why we can't listen to a former vice-president who has the temerity to comment upon climate science.

But however you slice and dice it, if the Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons is the bulwark of the Denialist position then they have a poor foundation indeed.

What kind of nincompoop would present this source as a reference of first resort?

Oh, that's right...

...it was Adam Shand, even before the ironically named Skeptical Peer Review underscored the, well, irony.

One of my hobbies is trying to understand the origins, motivations, and (sometimes) psychopathologies of various forms of anti-science thinking.

The topic areas range widely, from:
- beliefs in astrology, UFO-abductions, etc, i.e., stuff well-covered by The Skeptical Inquirer

to
- anti-AGW denialism

There is clearly a wide variety of mechanisms that go beyond normal scientific skepticism:

- economic interests
- ignorance of science, automatic distrust of science
(and often amplified by Dunning-Kruger Effect)
- ideological viewpoints
- political positions
- psychological need to be against the mainstream

So, since Adam Shand is outside my milieu, can any of you Aussies with more direct experience speculate, not just on his specific comments, but the origins & motivations involved? Does he just do this with AGW, or with other areas where science & policy interesect?

background;

"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Association_of_American_Physicians_and_Sur…"

Ewww.

Following z's nudge I had a bit of a wander through some sites giving background on the AAPS, and I have to say that I would like to modify my statement at #36, to wit:

Perhaps they can contribute to the environmental health effects portion of the argument".

I knew that they were, um, 'conservative', but a bit of a poke below the skin reveals that they're nuttier than a rutting ram's scrotum. My reviewed response is that the American Association of Physicians and Surgeons has almost nothing sensible to say even on matters of health and medicine. And I say this having worked (as a biomedical scientist) with physicians and surgeons for 15 years. They certainly have no objective capacity for comment on matters even remotely pertaining to climate change.

No prizes for guessing why their 'journal' doesn't have a stratospheric impact factor. Shand's humiliation for referring to such tripe should be absolute.

Oh, the ignominy...

"No prizes for guessing why their 'journal' doesn't have a stratospheric impact factor. "

impressive title, though.

Yes of course delete the list and pretend the hundreds of skeptical peer-reviewed papers do not exist. Censorship is all the alarmists have anymore. The Fischer paper supports the fact that CO2 lags Temperature changes.

Just a note the skeptics do not believe in astrology, UFO-abductions or even creationism. But it is nice to try and label people you don't even know as loons when it is those promoting AGW who don't even understand computer systems or their limitations which is why they can be suckered into believing anything based on flawed models.

Posted by: Skeptical Peer Review | July 8, 2008 3:13 AM

Just a note the skeptics do not believe in astrology, UFO-abductions or even creationism. But it is nice to try and label people you don't even know as loons when it is those promoting AGW who don't even understand computer systems or their limitations which is why they can be suckered into believing anything basrestaned on flawed models.

One does not need to "[understand] computer systems or their limitations" to be promoting AGW. Even the doubtiest of Thomases eventually comes to believe the evidence of their own lyin' eyes when nature decides to put on a show of force.

Not so long ago I did a google search on polar melting. This BBC article dated Thursday, 27 December, 2001, 20:16 GMT came up with the following reassuring heading: Low probability of ice collapse:

Scientists think there is just a one in 20 chance that the West Antarctic Ice Sheet (WAIS) will collapse in the next 200 years...The 5% probability of disintegration has been worked out by researchers commissioned by the British Government.

Compare that rosy scenario to the March 2008 video of the collapsing Wilkins ice shelf, located in West Antactica.

The globes climate freezer is defrosting. Nothing like this has happened during the period of human civilization. And most scientists never saw it coming within our lifetime.

The implication is that mainstream global warming "models are flawed" alright. But they err on the optimistic side.

Perhaps the global warming skeptics should be turning their corrosive disposition on the Panglosses in establishment climatology.

Skeptical Peer Review (sic) says:

Yes of course delete the list and pretend the hundreds of skeptical peer-reviewed papers do not exist

Quite simply, SPR (sic), your 'list' is about as reliable as a condom made of rice paper. If you do not understand why this is so, you are only compounding your public display of cluelessness.

The Fischer paper supports the fact that CO2 lags Temperature changes.

So do all the models that support AGW. Your point is...? Do you understand how this pertains to the contemporary global warming phenomenon?

By the way, it is not that I label people as loons, but rather that they label themselves thusly by their own unsubstantiated, uneducated, uninformed, ill-considered and/or unintelligent words. And so it is apparent to all the rational folk reading this thread that you are determined to ensure that you are perceived as a first-class loon with bells on.

I gave you an out a couple of days ago - you should have claimed parody...

What is it with July? Is it brainless-troll season, or did someone just unlock the door to the cellar?

What is it with July? Is it brainless-troll season, or did someone just unlock the door to the cellar?

Remedial summer school is in session, and those forced to repeat science courses have found that appearing to work hard at the computer by displaying their poor understanding of the subjects they've flunked on blogs fools the teacher into thinking they're busy learning something.

And that's a remedial run-on sentence, so there!

"those promoting AGW who don't even understand computer systems or their limitations "

well Tim, I guess he's got your number.

z:

This is simply a plot to make us "kill Sceptical Peer Review" like the terrorists we are!

And it worked! Look for new posters called Scientific Amiability, Useful Dialog, Sound Science, Dissident Views ...

P.S. Tim Lambert is a cherub. Cherubim do not know computers. He's outsourcing his courses to an imp, eft, or some sort of incanabulum.