What do UFO's, the belief that magnetism causes climate change but atmospheric gasses are not related, child molestation, and academic sock puppeting have in common with sea level rise? To find out, set aside some time to carefully read this: UFOs, Sea Level Rise And The Magnetism Of Climate Science Denial and then click on this.
Greg Laden: "What do UFO’s, the belief that magnetism causes climate change but atmospheric gasses are not related, child molestation, and academic sock puppeting have in common...?"
I know! I know!
The myriad hordes of UFOs that are now arriving at Earth use magnetic drives, which are causing the planet's temperature to rise. And their occupants are here to molest our kids with bizarre experiments while posing as university professors.
Did I leave anything out?
It seems I did leave one thing out. The aliens have come here in their UFOs to do their bizarre experiments because they are suffering from hereditary sterility and wish to use our germ plasm to cure that malady.
In fact, architect David Vincent is here with me now, and he's telling me quite a tale. Quite a tale!
Okay, back to seriousness. Having read the DeSmogBlog article on Watson and Parker/Boretti, I am struck by the multi-layer bogosity of the pair. Denying CO2 is a greenhouse gas, claiming multiple academic affiliations (and using aliases to do so), associating with people known to claim climate change is a "fraud"...
Here's a clarification: "[Parker] refused to respond directly to any of these questions, saying only that there was no evidence for an acceleration of sea level rises in the future. I asked again for clarification, but Dr Parker didn't want to address the questions."
What I mean is that it clarifies the question of whether Parker's thinking processes are coherent. They are not. It's plausible that sea-level rise might accelerate in the future, but no scientist can claim to have evidence that it will. So far, Parker is right. His logic falls down when he claims to show that it won't accelerate. He cannot know or show that.
And I think that's about enough time devoted to the strange suppositions of this pair. Might as well listen to "Coast to Coast AM."
This guy is plainly ridiculous and unethical, but really, can you offer a shred of Scientific evidence that people who hold silly opinions about climate change or UFOs are any more likely, much less substantially more likely, to abuse children than the general populace? I doubt you would look kindly on a website that started publicizing criminal allegations against tenured PhDs with the implication that academia is inherently linked with criminality.
Jane, I didn't make that allegation.
But, now that you mention it, there seems to be a high rate of child abusing in the background of a good number of people in the denialism industry. You may be on to something.
As far as the post to which I refer here (go read it!) the links are being made with respect to specific named individuals, not categories of individuals. But again ... maybe there is something to look into here.
It's not the child abusers we know about that are cause for concern. It's the ones we don't know about that are dangerous.
Maybe f'n over the environment for our children isn't fast enough for some of them?
I have come to the conclusion that we all have a little blame global warming and its consequences and guilt even more politicians who do not slow down.