Obama made a Lincoln's birthday speech, and a fine speech it was. It was a call to work for the common good, for strong government, and for investment in things I happen to value: education and science. It also includes a brief nod to Charles Darwin.
Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy
If only he'd left off the 'god bless America' nonsense at the end, it would have been perfect.
- Log in to post comments
More like this
... with Science! And she also talks about fishing, the size of government, Republicans, Obama, government reform And lies, damn lies.
Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy
Obviously this is an Obama plot to take away our guns.
... and some other guy ...
You must go to just after six minutes 20 second. And then it's like, one second long. But there is is.
*/
Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy
Quiz: Who first and most consistently against slavery, Lincoln or Darwin?
Atlantis has landed safely. Hubble servicing mission is finished.
It woke me up coming down.
Atlantis landing had been delayed for two successive days because of weather, so this morning they diverted the landing site to the backup location at Edward's Air Force Base, just over the mountains from…
At this point, I don't think I'd have a beer with this cop. Also, I have to agree that Obama stuck his foot in it on this one. He may have been right, wrong, whatever, but when this sort of thing happens it is best to stand back and not get directly involved in this sort of thing until the dust…
It was a direct correspondence between us, how am I supposed to take it? Please re-read SC's comments Stu and imagine you are the focus of the comments.
Weird freakin thread.
Which one prevented the split of "to split" in that sentence?
Really? ... hadn't noticed.
It could level off without peaking, I suppose.
Fine by me.
We weren't.
Pouting crescendo.
Pouting climax. I have many, in fact.
Oh, and bite me.
See the last sentence of your #464.
But not for calling me an "overbearing patronizing ass." Nice.
Hahaha, Pharyngula has flamewars about linguistic prescriptivism now? Are self-appointed grammarians on PZ's list of argumentative groups to piss off*?
* Sorry, "List of argumentative groups off whom to piss".
You guys are a strange lot. In #450 llewelly ignored the relevant comments that already addressed his question. As did Sir Nerd with Bad Science Attitude yet again in #448. You guys are flame baiters.
Are you denying that this science oriented blog discusses climate science? Are you saying that that is a topic that is off limits? If so then please inform those that have long posted here on that topic.
Maybe llewelly you should tell Nerd and KnockGoats and others to stop their discussions of AWG? If you do that then your request would be fair.
To answer yet again the article (#19) was related to Darwin's observations of climate and I wanted the opinions of people here at a science blog that regularly engages in discussions on climate science. Obviously I got biased fireworks instead of actual answers that educate about science. Sad.
The Google reports 73,900 links for the search "pharyngula climate science" and 15,500 links when the search is narrowed to the scienceblogs.com site. Clearly the evidence shows that pharyngula and science blogs dot com are involved in the debates on climate science.
#446. What does it matter if the article is classified by you 'Tis Himself as a "blatent AWG denier article"? Your classification doesn't address any of the actual content within the article and doesn't elaborate upon any of what Darwin did in climate science. So you add nothing but your very biased opinion on the topic. You also teach nothing except that you are biased and useless as a person who can education others about topics in science. You seem to almost border on being a person who is an enemy of science and science education.
Answering "repeat questions" IS a very important part of science and especially part of science education!!! To deny that is really to be a denier of science education and an enemy of science. You might as well go and write a science fiction book and form a religion that hides secret levels of knowledge from those new converts with money.
Thought Crimes in Science Flash News: All Scientists Must Never Accept Any Repeat Questions on Topics Already Answered. No more research for anyone asking a question that's already been settled. No more research into physics, or chemistry or biology. Science students are banned from asking their professors to prove that atoms exist! Students to be expelled and labeled deniers of atoms just for opening their mouths to phrase the question. Oh, I see you, no, don't open your mouth to ask about the proof that atoms exist! No, don't do it. We know you want to, take him away! All Science Must be Accepted on Faith, no questions about any Accepted Theory or Facts permitted. Citizens convicted of these thought crimes will be executed tomorrow night in public. Since this policy was enacted no prevailing theories have been corrected nor falsified thus proving the validity of this mild policy. End of news flash.
Science is about dealing with questions that support or contradict theories. The prevailing theory is AWG. There will be questions from all directions about the theory and all are valid questions when those involved are pursuing excellence in science. To ignore the questions is to have a very bad attitude to the scientific process and even worse to science education. That is even more shocking at a blog run by a science professor and it was stunning when I found out that a science teacher with 30 years of chemistry experience had such a bad attitude. It shows that the state of science education is a horrible mess with teachers being part of the problem!
To blindly classify articles and people asking questions about it as a "this" or a "that" puts up walls and doesn't communicate anything about the underlying science. It just proves that you can call people names and that you show your bias is towards the prevailing theory without regard to any possible questions that might improve it. You are blind when you ignore and automatically categorize like many here have. When you are blind you do bad science and even worse science education.
So call me whatever names you want for it matters not except to show your lack of maturity and the low level of your intellect when it comes to interacting with other people. I'll not let your name calling stop my pursuit of asking questions which is what you are attempting to do when you call people names and label them as "denier" or ____. Every time you label someone a "denier" or "liar" when they ask questions you don't like you're just like someone burning books in a totalitarian state.
On crescendo, yes, it was a rapid increase in the feeding frenzy that I was referring to (not the climax which came later) which the hooligans in this crowd regularly whip up with their inane use of words to label people. The Google reports 2110 uses of "denier" for the pharyngula site. The Google reports 2110 uses of "liar" for the pharyngula site. I'm sure a thorough study of pharyngula records will show who the culprits are in name calling. Getting at their motives would also be an interesting study.
Unfortunately the Fearless Leader here regularly labels people too which is really unfortunate as it builds up walls that stop communication when what is needed is getting more people involved in science and learning how to tell what is good science and what is bad science. It's clear that some leadership is needed to improve the standards of conduct of those who think that they are experts in science and communicating it to the public. How to raise the standards? Stop labeling people. I'll do my best from now on to avoid say "you ARE xyz" as my way of showing leadership. How about you PZ Myers? What will you do with your language and how will you lead your regulars (and your cadre of hooligans) you let get away with vapid name calling and labeling of all sorts?
How will you support the best pursuit of excellence in science and science education?
Respectfully PZ Myers, so yes, if you want to label me as a "tedious shit-stirrer" when I ask questions of science (and then have to defend the asking of said questions against the hooligans guarding the site) on your science based blog then so be it. I'm proud to stir sir for it'll be better for science that I stir. It is us that stir that make much of the progress. Some stir quietly, I attempt to stir respectfully and I meet challenges to progress with the same intensity that they come at me. So allow your hooligans to bark and refuse to answer questions and prevent science education all they want.
The real question is what does that labeling, by you, of people inquiring about science on your blog say about you and your attitudes to science and science education sir? Do you take the same bad attitude towards science education into your class rooms or when you are educating people about science in public? Hmmm...
pwl, the only question you keep asking ("where's the data and programs?") has been repeatedly answered ("ask the authors of the papers."). Now think of something original to say or I suspect PZ will ban you for being tedious. After all, you're not contributing anything by posting again if all you post is the same complaints, so we lose nothing by your absence.
Why don't you have another look at the FORTRAN code you complained about and actually determine whether there are any problems with it? "It has GOTOs" is not such a problem. We'd all be really impressed if you actually achieved that. Go use your amazing abilities as a system scientist, we're all agog.
Stu,
>> I pronouced Main like the english "mine"
> Well, AG, you were doing it wrong then. The vowels would have been too soft, and the n too prolonged.
You also have an argument with Windy#299 then. Perhaps it is just the native english ear and tongue, although that can hardly be considered uniform. Consider the differences in the pronounciation of "butter" on both sides of the Atlantic. Non-native speakers often cannot even hear subtle differences such as you are making, if they haven't had to distinguish them during certain periods of development. FYI, I can't roll my "R"s as or pronounce the the high German "ich", although I can pronounce the hard and soft forms used in the dialects, well ... sort of.
Your generalization to politics, history and AGW is wishful thinking, which is probably why you "weighed" in on pronounciation.
Or it could be faked. :P
Bullshit, denier liar.
Buffoon.
PWL, take your questions to RealClimate. Or are you afraid to get real answers from real scientists working in the field? Why do you keep bringing you inane questions here when we acknowledge we don't have the answers? And just because you ask questions we are not required to answer you. You just keep trolling along trying to hijack the thread to your anti-science political agenda. And we don't buy your lies. I see a plonking in your future as you have been warned by PZ against just such stupid behavior.
It's difficult online to have people get that you are sincere and honest about what you write.
On the contrary, it's quite easy for people to get that you are a dishonest, neurotic, whiny twit. The only one having trouble getting you is you, due to your severe pathology. It's sad, really, that by the very nature of your disease, you're unlikely to get much sympathy.
Why don't you have another look at the FORTRAN code you complained about and actually determine whether there are any problems with it? "It has GOTOs" is not such a problem.
Nor "It's written in a language in which some other program was written that had a bug that lost a space probe". It would be shocking that someone whose thought processes run along such dishonest lines would deny being dishonest, if not for the fact it's the same core dishonesty that produces the denial.
Best comment in thread.
stupid americans
Your regular crowd is out of control
Oh noes!
Hmm. Something familiar...
pwl: Your delusions of grandeur are starting to seem wholly pathological. Get help.
ag: The generalization seemed fairly valid, since, oh, I don't know, you've been provably wrong about pretty much everything?
Stu,
You are correct, you "don't know".
I'm envisioning some sort of graphical representation of thread-drift. Like, a 3-dimensional graph with the explicit topic of the OP at the origin. The three axes would have to be, probably, principal components that would combine variables such as lib...nism, god-botting, troll-stomping, Walton on Walton, semantic quibbling/prescriptionism/descriptionism, holy ineffable cracker abuse, global-climate-change denialism, pygmies + dwarfs, etc.
This thread, and the still-simmering Titanoboa one, have wandered far, far from the origin.
Ahem. The words "good English" are in the post's title, making my parenthetical remark wholly appropriate.
:)
Sven DiMilo,
Which dimension is your post on? I hear the complaints, yet there is always more than one side in each drift, even though usually only one side gets the blame.
yeah, but good Italian?
(just to preempt the inevitable quip: pretty good eggplant parm at Giovanni's around the corner)
AG: good point. There often develops a metathread of comments about the thread itself. We may have to abandon the visual representation and go all multidimensional 'n' shit.
I'm reminded of something about a shoe. You want to bury the hatchet or just snipe?
Well, if it had been a gastronomical reference "good English" wouldn't have made any sense at all. :)
Anyway, crescendo is a regular word in the English language.
(Is there really a Giovanni's around the corner?)
"Ahem. The words "good English" are in the post's title, making my parenthetical remark wholly appropriate."
That aspect would also seem to make the prescriptive/descriptive comments appropriate also. The implicit backhanded slap at GW would seem to invite political discussion. The "investment in things" in the stimulous package, would seem to bring to mind the AGW orientation of some of those investments and the economic purpose of the stimulous. The drifts seem to be happening on the right thread for once. What else would someone comment about on the thread?
I suppose we could dig into nature of PZ's mechanism for "marvel"ing, and whether his choice of targets of his marveling are genetically or evironmentally influenced. I often wonder why people comment on anything but the different drifts, the original posts themselves are often just tidbits of possible interest that require no comment.
Cadre of hooligans?. I'm flattered. *blush*
With someone who picked a fight over a parenthetical aside not directed to him, called me an "overbearing patronizing ass," and suggested that I have no friends due to my combative personality*? Not particularly, no.
*On a thread, mind you, on which I thanked PZ and KnockGoats, wished Patricia a happy anniversary, apologized to Jadehawk, and complimented Stu.
Long Island, baby. There is a Giovanni's around the corner, but you have to pass Luigi's Pizza on the corner to get there, and then wonder whether you should instead have gone with Pizzeli's across the street (locations slightly changed to protect the innocenzo).
If it's an English word then it doesn't need the italics.
Off to pick other nits elsewhere!
I was using italics to indicate that I was referring to the word. I probably should have considered that using italics sometimes rather than quotation marks might throw some people off in this case (especially since it's put in italics when used as a technical term), but I genuinely thought people were aware that it's an English word, especially since we were discussing dictionary definitions right at the start of the discussion and when I offered a correct alternative to pwl's use I did not italicize it.
AHA! I see the problem. It was never my intention to "pick a fight" with you. I try to temper most posts with levity. It was simply a goodnatured (at least from my end of things) discussion about a foreign word introduced by musicians and appropriated by writers who have altered it's meaning. I wasn't fighting with you, just offering a stream of conscious alternative to the declaration of " misuse" and the hyperbolic tendency of hand wringing over the demise of the language, not that I felt you were being hyperbolic or prone to hand-wringing.
If you'll look at the thread, the combative stance was yours, but perhaps it all went wrong when I joked about William Safire being a pedant.
I've almost always championed your posts SC, but damn, you turned what was supposed to be friendly banter into a "let me shame the fuck out of you E.V., for even addressing me."
You've adopted the best traits of Truth Machine as well as the worst. You have a tremendous intellect, there is no doubt of that, but you were callous and overbearing in your responses to me. It wasn't a fight from my end of things, I don't really see how you misconstrued something as banal as the use of crescendo into bash-worthy flame war. But one thing is for certain - you've exposed yourself as petty and I didn't want to believe that about you.
I'll apologize for calling you an overbearing pompous ass when you take responsibility for being unduly insulting and combative.
BTW, surely you understand that the rhetorical "no friends" remark was in response to my perception of you as an over-intellectualized, condescending scold. I'm hoping I just misperceived your tone because you misinterpreted my intentions in bantering about language.
I am merely yanking your chain, SC. Successfully, it appears. As the evil murderous brainwasher sez in "The Manchurian Candidate," always with a bit of humor.
Seriously, given what seemed to be a friendly quibble, who saw that crescendo coming?
Thanks for the anniversary wishes!
I've been busy with celebrating and cursing the snow.
It's *facepalm* I really should edit more carefully.
I know, but you raised an interesting point. I think some people have been misunderstanding what I'm saying, and that misunderstanding may be partially due to my use of italics rather than quotation marks to indicate that I'm talking about the word itself. I'm not saying that I disapprove of English speakers adopting foreign terms or giving them new meanings. "Crescendo" has long been part of the English language, with an established meaning that is still listed as the primary definition in dictionaries. At some moment in the past, some writers - out of ignorance as far as I can tell - started using it incorrectly (I don't know when this started, but Safire refers to Fitzgerald and Faulkner, so it's been going on for a while), and this has spread. I like the original English definition, which is true to the word itself, and don't like seeing it fall aside as this dumb use expands.
***
The problem is that you're acting like a jerk, E.V.
Then please explain posts like #459.
See above.
Oh, no - of course not. I can't imagine how anyone could get that impression from what you've written there.
If you'll look at the thread, you'll find that it was yours.
It did seem you were trying to be provocative, but nothing "went wrong" then. As I said then, he may well be a pedant. I don't know. But I agree with him about the misuse of "crescendo." If you want to call me a pedant for that, fine. BFD.
That interpretation is entirely in your mind, E.V. And the only reason I suggested you were being obtuse was that you had asked and by that point I was pretty much forced, in frustration, to conclude that you were.
I don't recall asking you for your analysis of me or my comments, and you're wrong in any case. But thanks for bringing up some painful memories.
Thank you.
No, I really wasn't.
Who bashed whom?
There's no need to, since it's not correct.
I won't, because I wasn't.
Nope. No bashing there.
A little humor, my dear Zilkov, always with a little humor.
People, is it really worth having a massive flame war over the correct use of the word "crescendo"?
At least when I piss people off (which occurs here rather regularly), it's generally in the course of discussing issues which are actually objectively important. This argument, by contrast, is just ridiculous.
??? Really? You took this as an affront?
You went on needless SIWOTI alert and were condescending as hell.
Incidentally, the "nukular" and "irregardless," examples were facetious.
Surely you saw the chilling effect of other posters growing silent before I reread and reinterpreted your patronizing posts. Hell, Sven even feels compelled to point out he's kidding. Since you don't recognize any culpability on your part, I'm done here. My assessment of you still stands and has be reinforced by your posts after i offered to put .
??? Really? You took this as an affront?
You went on needless SIWOTI alert and were condescending as hell.
Incidentally, the "nukular" and "irregardless," examples were supposed to be wry jokes.
Surely you saw the chilling effect of other posters growing silent before I reread and reinterpreted your patronizing posts and called you an overbearing ass.
Hell, Sven even felt compelled to point out that he's kidding today. Since you don't recognize any culpability on your part, I'm done here. I apologize for anything I misinterpreted, but my assessment of you still stands and has been reinforced by your latest posts (after I offered an olive branch).
oops. weird misposting. Disregard #543
Pikeman @382,
Heaven forbid that a person hold different views to yours, PZ. ;-)
You know, Pikeman, I used to be a religious Christian. (I got better.) And during my Christian days I posted here many times.
Now, I am beginning to suspect that PZ's own Christianity might, just possibly, be less devout than my own was. But he never, never threatened to ban me because I had religious views he rejected.
And the assembled Pharynguloids never told me to feck off for being a Christian. A fair few of them did argue vigourously against my points, demanding that I back them up and defend them, ideally with actual evidence. (And in doing so they were, of course, doing the work of the Lord, whose own holy and inerrant scripture admonishes us to be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh us a reason of the hope that is in us.) But nobody, not even Holbach, ever said, "You're not welcome here because you have different ideas to ours".
I am no longer religious. But I am otherwise just as tedious and annoying as I ever was. And still nobody here orders me to piss off and die. So if people are telling AG and pwl etc. to seek the comfort of other websites, it can't be because their ideas are unwelcome. It must be because they are, on a very fundamental and personal level, dickheads par excellence. But feel free to join yourself to their cause.
I have to say, BTW, that on most other days I would be harsher with you. But tonight I am of good will and at peace with the whole world, because 9:38.
Yeah, but that Hussein Obama guy sure talks pretty, don't he? Probly drinks French wine too. *spits*
damn 3 times??? WTF?
Is that what the kids are calling it these days? I just recently figured out 420.
I took it as fightpicking, and when I asked which Italians you were talking about you ignored the question.
Sorry, but you are starting to sound rather obtuse
I've already provided the context of that statement, which anyone can read above.
*headdesk*
Resulting from your insistence on condescendingly "explaining" things to me (and others) while making no effort to understand what anyone else is saying.
What are you talking about?
WTF? That was a sincere question. It's incredible. You've admitted that both your thinking and writing were sloppy, and now you're accusing me of being patronizing and pompous merely for asking you to clarify.
I honestly don't know why you're having such a hard time grasping this.
Another sincere expression of frustration.
If you really did understand, you didn't demonstrate it. That it's a "friendly exchange" doesn't mean you can just keep flinging whatever random, jumbled thoughts occur to you in the moment at someone who's trying to engage in meaningful communication. There's nothing friendly about that.
Oh, duh.
I'm amazed that you don't see the condescension in your own statements. Do you think I'm unaware that languages change and grow? What response other than "duh" do you think would be appropriate?
you can hardly argue that we should all just accept every development in the language's [evolution].
I'll add: and not look like a massive hypocrite.
Sure you were. I should stop being such a pedantic, hyperbolic whiner about one change, accepting that languages simply grow and change, while you can object to others.
OK, so you accept any and all transformations of the language and consider all objections to be silly, handwringing pedantry. Fine. You could have just said this at the start and saved everyone a lot of time. You could have teased me about my purism in this case and I would've laughed with you. You chose to go another route.
Um, no. And I read Stu's response to your namecalling. Perhaps you should take another look at it.
Did you interpret my response to him as combative or angry? I'm sure he didn't. (You may have also noted my acknowledging in the next post that my italicization may have contributed to the confusion; I was still trying to find a reason for your obtuseness.)
I'll miss you so.
As a heaping pile of bullshit.
Right.
Sven @549,
no, I'm too old for whatever the kids are calling 420. What I'm happy about is Ireland beating Italy at de rugger today.
Optimistic, yet only cautiously so; let's see what they do against England and Wales in the weeks to come.
And I'll miss you too, sweetums.
OK Timeout:
Uh, I was under the impression I was doing just that. I accept my part in this.
I really didn't get this at all. I'm not trying to be argumentative - it just isn't how I read your comments. I accept my part in this as well.
Because it's ever so important! To me! :)
Seriously, though, as I said, I quite like the word as used with its original definition - to refer to a "crescendo of violence," for example, is evocative and loyal to the word itself. This meaning is being lost as the word is increasingly used incorrectly. Of course it's of no importance in the grand scheme of things, but it makes me sad.
I think you're right.
I am, too.
Accepted.
Likewise. Let's forget the whole thing.
EV, SC, let's just end with the following:
Ballad to pwl:
I walked out of the building
And wow, what did I see
But a line of yellow vehicles
All just waiting for me
I jumped in one and said: "Hey!
filthy immigrant, to the airport it is!"
The driver then went on his way
and asked, "wait, what is this?"
"You ARE at the airport, fool!"
But pwl was not having any of that
"Al Gore told me it was gonna cool
and he was wrong, and he is fat!"
"Prove to me the warming, see
or I am going to whine
They say we are in deep doodee
I say we will be fine"
"Them scientists don't want to talk to me
and explain it so I understand
I am a systems thingie, don't you see?
Why won't they talk to the hand?"
"It's them, it's them, they're after us
Them scientists are cutting us out
Drive faster, monkey, sour puss
They know what it's all about!"
"Conspiracy, conspiracy, conspiracy,
questions scare them blind
They're scared, scared witless, can't you see
of what they could possibly find."
"I will take them to task, I will show
those damned liberals will see
they don't know what they know"
And the truth will set them free.
All I do is ask questions
All they do is burn me down
I spent so much time in so many sessions
And the best response is a frown?
We pulled up to the building, hard and fast
We had traveled long and far
The raghead said: "Oh, at last
here's the airport -- again --, now get out of my car!"
With due apologies to Cuttlefish.
"... if people are telling AG and pwl etc. to seek the comfort of other websites, it can't be because their ideas are unwelcome. It must be because they are, on a very fundamental and personal level, dickheads par excellence. But feel free to join yourself to their cause." - Mrs Tilton
Obviously I touch a nerve Mrs Tilton that you don't.
I didn't come here to seek comfort, I came here asking the questions that I asked. They haven't been answered which is fine. Instead of answers from a group that regularly engages in the topics I asked about I get attacked for asking. It's a very sad and vicious group here.
I've been a regular reader of pharyngula for many years and on occasion I've posted comments. So I belong here as much as any other reader.
Your comment, Mrs Tilton, along with the others is just one of the many childish attempts to control and intimidate people who ask basic questions that you guys don't like to see asked. If you don't want to answer, as many of you've made clear, then fine that is your choice and I'm sure you can save your precious time by not saying anything at all but nooooo, you choose to attack the person asking the question. Very sad indeed.
I touch a nerve because the point that I'm making is very valid that the community at pharyngula needs to reform it's manners and behaviors towards people asking science questions.
This is no longer about the original questions that I asked, although answers to those are still welcome, this has now been about the manner in which a few of the regular people who haunt this science blog web site treat people.
It's now about your lack of common decency in interacting with your fellow human beings who are committed to the pursuit of excellence in science, critical thinking and rational thought.
While many of you might be atheists you clearly are not humanists as demonstrated by your vicious attacks with name calling and threats.
While many of you might be educated scientists and even teachers of science you've demonstrated no class in the way you've interacted with me.
You might even be loving people at home or even good teachers at school but watch out for when you get on your keyboard at pharyngula as it's not the best of you that reaches the eyes of others. It might not be the worst but it's very nasty - and that's nasty in a bad way.
I will ask. I will ask till I have a satisfactory answer. Yes I will ask at other web sites and have been. I will ask here as I see fit until the topic is banned at this web site... then I will point out loud and clear that pharyngula censors people based upon the asking of basic science questions.
Questions are part of the essential process of learning science and in particular in this case, climate science. It is a big subject with lots of details that are difficult to know if they are bogus or not. That is why I ask. I'm not into believing the authorities, I want ways and means of verifying or falsifying the nonsense that I read from the two camps on the topic: pro AWG and con. While I might ask questions that seem skeptical of AWG, I'm equally skeptical of the counter claims; I need evidence not beliefs or authorities ordering me to sit still and not stir up trouble by asking basic questions. Certainly I don't need self appointed nut jobbers like Nerd and knockgoats proclaiming their biased opinions and nasty juvenile taunts.
If the web site gets questions asked a lot they usually set up a FAQ, maybe pharyngula needs one of those for questions that "have already been dealt with and that are no longer to be answered". But that's a really weird stance for a science blog to take, to not answer questions. No, you can't ask that, we're scientists and we don't allow questions ot be asked since we already answered them - how pathetic. Shutting up those that ask questions is what totalitarians and the religious nut jobs do. It's not what real scientists do nor is it what real science educators do! It's shameful of everyone on this blog who has asked me to not ask them or to go away or to stop.
"nothing's sacred" wrote this opinionated belief about me "On the contrary, it's quite easy for people to get that you are a dishonest, neurotic, whiny twit. The only one having trouble getting you is you, due to your severe pathology. It's sad, really, that by the very nature of your disease, you're unlikely to get much sympathy." It's nice to know that you take on nonsense beliefs nothing's sacred, evidence that you're not a person committed to the pursuit of excellence in science but just a person who snivels and calls people names. You're behavior is very anti-science and anti-science education which is proven by your choice of your screen name. It is clear that even the pursuit of excellent in science isn't important for you as nothing's scared as you put it!
Finally to the Nerd of Redhead, wow, you're a piece of work sir. You spout as if you're an expect in climate science and other topics and call people childish names yet when asked questions you prevaricate and opine rather than dip into your knowledge base and help them out with an informative answer. I suppose that is your right and your free choice and if that's the way that you want to live your life then fine. It's sad thought since you were given an opportunity to make an informative answer that might have help the science education of the person asking. Instead you act like a spoiled child. It's shameful behavior sir. The fact that you - as you claim - "taught general chemistry" makes your behavior even more shameful. One again I publicly say shame on you sir Nerd as a teacher of science you hold a great responsibility in your hands, in your fingertips as you write into the blog. As a teacher be oh so very ashamed of your childish and very nasty biased opinionated interactions. I publicly reprimand you sir. You might be right about some or all of your science but you are so wrong about your approach and you fail the test as a science educator who knows how to interact with people. I attest to that. Be ashamed sir Nerd. You have the opportunity to shape people's impressions of science and all you do is resort to name calling when someone asks you a basic question you don't like. Shameful.
I understand that my comments may not have you alter your behaviors and raise the standards of conduct among the people who comment on this blog. I know that that will take people thinking about what I've written and seeing the validity of the points made. I would have preferred a calm and respectful conversation about the original questions, but I'll settle for the debate about the horrifically low standards of human conduct commonly seen as normal in the pharyngula science blog by the regulars who interact and consider this their endarkened corner of the intertubes. Turn on the light and see that the people that you are interacting with are human beings who deserve respect even if they have diametrically opposed ideas about the world than you. If you hit hard on everyone who stops in with a comment that you don't like you're just making enemies and not friends.
I am a person committed to the pursuit of excellence in science and in my career and in science education when I interact with people about science.
Who are you going to be?
pwl, it wasn't worth you typing all that. We know you're a whiny self-absorbed neurotic with delusions of science. Comfirming it was unnecessary.
pwl, you're funny.
I'm imagining what pwl is like at parties, if he goes to parties. If he meets a businessman he'll demand thirty-seven times to see their company accounts, call them a fraudster if they don't produce the books on the spot, and treat it as an admission of guilt if people get annoyed with him.
just a person who snivels
Oh, the irony.
I was referring to this FORTRAN bug:
"MARINER 1, the first U.S. attempt to send a spacecraft to Venus, failed minutes after launch in 1962. The guidance instructions from the ground stopped reaching the rocket due to a problem with its antenna, so the onboard computer took control. However, there turned out to be a bug in the guidance software, and the rocket promptly went off course, so the Range Safety Officer destroyed it. Although the bug is sometimes claimed to have been an incorrect FORTRAN DO statement, it was actually a transcription error in which the bar (indicating smoothing) was omitted from the expression "R-dot-bar sub n" (nth smoothed value of derivative of radius). This error led the software to treat normal minor variations of velocity as if they were serious, leading to incorrect compensation."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mariner_1 reference 1.
As any software engineer will tell you it's likely that there are many bugs in every software program, including even in the smallest of programs. It is very likely that there are bugs in the climate modeling software just as there are likely bugs in your car's control computer systems. In fact it's poor software engineering practice to assume that there are no bugs in the software!
Our lives depend upon these systems. It's important to get them correct.
However, let's for the sake of argument assume that the climate modeling software is 100% bug free. That still doesn't prove (or disprove) that the model is an accurate representation of objective reality.
The main thing to know is that no matter how detailed your climate model of The Sun-Earth-Moon dynamic system is, it's never going to be the real thing as "The Map Is NOT the Territory" which means that no models will ever be perfect and will likely be far from it. We live in Nature, not a modeled climate simulation written in FORTRAN. We are not in the fantasy world of the Matrix! Get Real. Nature's harsh. Get used to it.
Besides, randomness is generated from within simple systems in Nature as Stephen Wolfram has proven (see "A New Kind of Science", chapter 2) thus it's not possible to model the climate systems in Nature with anything approaching predictive certainty especially when they are stretched out into long time periods. These are basic facts, observations and conclusions derived from information science.
When you can have your program predict the climate situation accurately a year from now (and ten years from now and fifty years from now) on an hourly by hourly basis across the entire planetary surface down to sub 100 meter resolution then maybe you can say you've got an accurate enough model for predicting climate. Till then good luck with that.
Ultimately climate models are a modern day version of soothing the future - something Nostradamus did long ago. Entrails anyone?
Why thank you for your comments that don't contribute to the discussion Stephen Wells, John Morales and "nothing's sacred". You really show your level of maturity. If you have something to actually contribute to the science discussion I'll pay attention.
@pwl: 1, you still haven't grasped that "some fortran codes have had bugs" is not the same as "this fortran code has a bug", and you look worse every time you harp on it.
2, my ability to predict the next spin of a roulette wheel is zero, my ability to predict the long-term course of the game is near-perfect; climate simulation does not require highly accurate short-term weather simulation.
3, aw diddums get its ikkle feelings hurted?
Well Stephen Wells go ahead and be deluded that your program doesn't have any bugs, but as I pointed out even if your program has no bugs that doesn't mean that it is an accurate representation of objective reality.
Yes, climate simulation does require highly accurate climate simulations across long and short time spans and with a very high resolution of detail throughout the volume of the atmosphere and the surface and sub surface (oceans, earth) as well to capture all the variables.
While you might be able to predict possible outcomes with statistics you can't predict what will happen in any particular run of the simulation. It's probability of various outcomes.
There are many more variables in climate than the limited set that seem to show up in climate models. Nature has a lot of detail if you haven't noticed.
I take it from your comments that you might be a person who is engaged in writing climate simulations? Is that the case? Regardless, what are your credentials?
pwl, the reason nobody takes you seriously is that you continue to ask questions that have been answered - you seem to think that because you don't like the answers they must be wrong.
you also seem self-contradictory: you harp on the fact that science necessarily involves uncertainty, yet complain about uncertainty in climate models.
and your repeated assertion that "there was a bug in software A, in this application, means that this other application has to have problems which are even worse" is, as has been pointed out several times, unjustified without proof of the latter.
without a bit of honesty from you (which, given your history, is highly unlikely) it isn't possible to know whether you are completely ignorant about science, statistics, and modeling, and so are merely parroting others and making things up as needed, or whether you have gleaned just enough information somewhere to make it easier to mislead and choose the facts you ignore.
The fact that you are being treated as low-level troll means only one thing: people are giving you more respect than you deserve.
Well Stephen Wells go ahead and be deluded that your program doesn't have any bugs
Major logic fail -- Stephen of course did not assert or imply any such thing. And since it's so well known that even the smallest program has many bugs (not true, of course, but let's not quibble), why even bring up the NASA space probe program, or the fact that this climate program is written in FORTRAN and contains GOTOs? Even if it were written in some other language and had no GOTOS, it would, you assert (and I don't disagree), contain bugs. As I noted back at #355, "Do you have any idea how foolish that makes you look? How unreliable and dishonest a thinker you appear to be?".
PWL, still whining about us not letting you control things. By the way, I am Dr. Nerd to you. I have a PhD in chemistry, so I know when you lie about how science is conducted. I have been doing real science for 30+ years, and your failure to listen to on how science is conducted tells the other posters all they need to know about you. That is, you are a liar and bullshitter. f you want answers, find them at the proper source, which is RealClimate. We do not have to supply answers to you. And your pathetic need to post your inane ideas here is becoming bothersome, boring, and amusing because they contain nothing but old information. Which will get you plonked. Now, you need to either go to RealClimate or shut up. You have nothing of interest for us.
Why thank you for your comments that don't contribute to the discussion Stephen Wells, John Morales and "nothing's sacred". You really show your level of maturity. If you have something to actually contribute to the science discussion I'll pay attention.
This thread was about Obama's speech about Lincoln until you hijacked it and made it about AGW-denialist talking points. Now it has morphed into being all about you; there is no "science discussion".
"The steadily increasing resolution of GCMs is blurring the already fuzzy distinction between weather and climate. ... many medium scale phenomena in current GCMs cannot be calculated directly but must be dealt with by 'parametrization', meaning that important aspects of small-scale physics are in essence approximated and averaged over grid cells. ... In addition to using computing power to calculate on an ever-finer scale, climate researchers can always think of more science to put into their simulations. ... Getting everything right is still years away. ... 'The programming model we use [now] is not viable anymore in the next couple of generations of computers,' says Bader."
- David Lindley, "Calculating the Future", Communications of the ACM, January 2009, Vol 52, No. 1.
So good luck with your soothing simulations.
P.S. The fact that a program probably has bugs does not mean that it is producing erroneous results -- something that any real software engineer is well aware of.
PWL, go elsewhere to find information. I see a plonking in your future if you don't. Your monomania is becoming wearisome.
@569
ROTFLMAO! pwl apparently has no comprehension of what that says.
If you are a man of such stature in the field of science Nerd of Redhead then why do you feel the need to resort to childish name calling? Calling someone a "liar" is childish especially considering that I've said no lies. I simply asked a few questions, then you and a few of your fellow buddies here came out to thump me in the head and chase me away with taunts and name calling. That is what is shameful in your behaviors.
If you don't want to answer particular questions then move on to another comment that you do want to reply to. I'm not forcing you to answer sir. But you do have to admit that you do carry on about global warming and climate science a lot which is one reason I was asking the questions here. Or do you deny that you discuss these topics here?
If you don't want to adapt and treat people with respect online that's fine Nerd. As I said you might be a good scientist for all I know, but your manners online need a lot of soul searching, introspection and reconsideration on your part. If I may be so bold to say - as I am being.
If I deserve a plunking so do all that verbally assaulted me in this thread with their childish name calling and slander for they were conducting what is generally known as "flame baiting". I'd rather just get on with enjoying PZ Myers posts and posting comments when I see the need.
I've moved on sir Nerd. I've chastised you, so now it's up to you to grow up and act consistent with the stature and respect that you'd like people to give you.
Enjoy your week.
PWL, That is Dr. Nerd to you. Time for you to fade into the bandwidth. You are attempting to hijack the thread again like the troll you are, and PZ has already warned you on that behavior. Go to RealClimate or the primary authors of the papers you disagree with to get the information you desire. Your resistance to that idea says nothing good about you, your intentions here, or your integrity. Why can't you go to where the real answers are?
#570, yes I concur with you nothing's sacred, however it is a point that is irrelevant to the discussion and was essentially already covered in my recent posts.
You keep repeating yourself. Haven't you read my replies sir Nerd?
I'm simply replying to the nonsense and libelous words written about me here by you and a couple of others. I have found the need to comment on the nasty culture that seems to pervade from the finger tips of a few regular people who visit here. I've made my point.
How about giving it a rest sir Nerd?
If you have something of a technical nature to let me know about then great I'll attempt to learn something from you.
PWL, time to go elsewhere. You are boring.
I've moved on sir Nerd.
Liar.
How about giving it a rest sir Nerd?
Hypocrite.
Wow, so people who are engaged in asking questions of science are boring? That very well might be the case.
Some of them seem to also be nasty people without social manners.
Others simply want to learn science regardless of their emotional state.
Well, I certainly am trying to move on to technical questions but you guys keep dragging me back in with your childish comments to the meta conversation about your low standards of human interaction. As long as your conduct is of a personal attack nature I'll point out your childish and libelous comments when you make them.
PWL, what I have been doing is referring you to places where you can actually find the answers. That PWL, is science. If one doesn't know the answers, one refers people to those who do. Just like MD's refer people to surgeons who may need an operation. Why can't you go to the real sources? Unless you really have another agenda.
By now, we are on to your alternate agenda, which has nothing to do with finding answers. It is about trolling and trying to inflict you neuroses on this site. That is what I am objecting too. That is what PZ warned you about. That is why you need to fade into the bandwidth.
Continuing to ask questions we acknowledge we can't answer is not science or doing science, it is harassment, plain and simple. And that makes you a troll, a crime defined by PZ (see dungeon on masthead).
yes I concur with you nothing's sacred, however it is a point that is irrelevant to the discussion and was essentially already covered in my recent posts.
On the contrary, it's entirely relevant -- it implies that your drivel about all programs being buggy is irrelevant.
I certainly am trying to move on to technical questions
There's no one here who wants to have a discussion with you about technical questions; this is now a troll thread, devoted to you.
but you guys keep dragging me back in with your childish comments to the meta conversation about your low standards of human interaction. As long as your conduct is of a personal attack nature I'll point out your childish and libelous comments when you make them.
Among your many other dishonesties, you refuse to take responsibility for your own actions. No one is making you be a troll; you can stop at any time.
From my point of view Sir Dr. Nerd what you are doing is harassment which you began with your nasty comments in this thread towards me. If I knew your real identity I could sue you for some of your libelous statements.
I've replied to your suggestions about real climate and other sites many times now so please stop repeating yourself. You are belaboring the point for no need sir.
Please either add something of a technical nature or ignore my posts sir. I'll leave you be if you leave me be sir.
Your comment 583 adds nothing of a relevant technical nature nothing's sacred. Please say something relevant or ignore me. Thanks.
#572 adds nothing of a technical nature nothing's sacred as it's another personal attack by you. Grow up.
Ah, a technical comment from nothing's sacred. Wow.
That most programs likely have many bugs is a generally accepted guideline in software engineering.
The reason that I say the point you were making, nothing's sacred, isn't relevant is because I conceded the possibility that there could be a bug free climate model program for the sake of the argument. I did that to avoid the pedantic type of argument that you now are nitpicking about.
The more interesting observation is that climate models programs are essentially the same as soothing with entrails on so many levels and in so many ways. The article I referred to points out some of those characteristics and Stephen Wolfram's work, NKS, contributes much to information science on that point.
Full article:
Incidentally, pwl, you would improve matters very slightly by not using "sooth" as a verb meeting "predict the future", because it doesn't mean that. You are probably thinking of "soothsayer", which means someone who speaks truth, as in forsooth! "Soothing the future with entrails" is hilariously incoherent, so in a way it kind of suits you, but it's not helping you make a good impression.
PWL, that is Dr. Nerd to you. Also, Dr. SC and Dr. Myers. Failure to use the proper honorifics shows your lack of character.
If you aren't a troll prove it with a simple demonstration. Go away for 48 hours, and when you post again, do it on another thread. For this topic, either a climate thread or an open thread. Note I'm not trying to censure you, but just have you do things properly. Failure to go away means you are a troll.
We don't have the answers you keep asking about. We are not climate scientists. We just listen to real climate scientists. Your problem is with something we don't know much about, climate modeling, and we as honest people acknowledge that fact. Why can't you? Your harassment on the subject is both boring and trolling.
And here I was hoping that my ballad would make people stop feeding the troll...
*facepalm*
Nice copyright violation SC, OM. I'm sure the ACM will likely ask you to take that down. Violation of ethics is also your bent here eh?
It is an interesting article.
Soothing is an appropriate word to use, a creative variation on the word "soothsayer", in the context of climate science models as the limits of computation and prediction reveal.
You can also think of the climate models as being "soothers" for people who place too much confidence in them and their predictive powers.
Please provide the evidence that the climate models can make the predictions that is claimed of them.
PWL, please provide the evidence you aren't a troll by going away. It is not up to us to defend the models, but the authors themselves. Go the proper venue, or go away. Any other behavior is trolling on your part, and you know it. bye-bye
If you aren't a troll prove it with a simple demonstration. Go away for 48 hours, and when you post again, do it on another thread. For this topic, either a climate thread or an open thread. Note I'm not trying to censure you, but just have you do things properly. Failure to go away means you are a troll.
I could say that about you Nerd of Redhead.
If you want an honorific used then add it to your screen name. You can't treat different people differently sir and expect respect just because of that.
By the way sir, you owe me an apology for your nasty comments, aggressive personal attacks and liable against me littered throughout this thread.
The evidence shows that many of you used nasty aggressive personal attacks against me repeatedly and consistently. Your own conduct has been deplorable. Under your onslaught I've attempted to maintain a sensible composure and when asked by PZ Myers to consider a different strategy I did adjust. However, the record shows that none of you have adjusted to stop your nasty personal attacks as they keep coming.
I will always point out personal attacks as inappropriate and unprofessional, especially in the context of science and science education.
Now a blatant copyright violation of an ACM article.
They're free and welcome to do so. I were Lindley, however, I would prefer people reading my words in context to having them quotemined (out of order, just to increase the level of dishonesty) and misrepresented by an AGW denialist, you stupid, lying buffoon.
PWL, I owe you nothing, and you will receive nothing. You are the slimely troll, and you know it. PZ wants us to be mean to idiots like yourself. So, if you don't like playing mean, go elsewhere. You can leave any time.
Now, we cannot defend the models because we are not that familiar with the inner working of them. Ask questions of the authors if you want further information. But, we trust the scientists working on those models to be honest and show integrity with their professional work, and to date that appears to be the case. So we believe them. You, on the otherhand, have shown yourself repeatedly to be troll, a liar, and a bullshitter. Your word is not trustworthy at all. Everything you say is considered a lie. So you may as well go away for a while.
That choice to publish in this venue wasn't your choice to make SC, OM as you aren't the copyright holder.
If I copied any of the relevant text fragments out of order that was a non intentional error. The fragments can be read in just about any order and the point is still the same sir. No deceit intended. Nothing to hide. I was simply respecting their copyright by using the bits that make the point.
What is this "OM" anyways? Two of you have that on your screen names?
I have kept out of this until now,its been a rather wonderous thread...
I dont like this though :
I do not believe that that is true,Nerd.
PZ would like you to speak for yourself I guess,as a general rule,I do not recall him asking anyone ever to be mean to any poster,idiot or not.
If you think pwl is a troll,then why dont you just ignore him.But people here should speak for themselves,not out of any supposed group mentality,which does not exist.
PWL, OM = Order of Molly. Our fellow posters consider us worthy of repect. You will never get one.
Now, show us you aren't a troll by just leaving for a couple of days. When you come back, post this AGW topic on a climate thread or an open thread, and nowhere else.
Your are presently trolling (a major crime) on this thread, and you know it. PZ has told you to stop. By going away for a couple of days, you let PZ cool down. Do so, if you want to post here in the future.
Wow you claim that PZ Myers wants you to be mean to people who ask questions of science? That's a stunning admission sir Nerd. You admit your bias is a direct conspiracy to inhibit the transfer of science knowledge and science education. I'm even more shocked than before.
You have mistaken my intentions and implemented an intentional strategy to run me off. That is highly unprofessional behavior for a man of science sir. You are full of nasty surprises sir.
When have I lied?
When have I bullshitted?
Most of your comments sir are a nasty organized attempt to shoo me away. That is so unprofessional that it's bordering on professional misconduct sir.
Wow, this is a stunning revelation.
Actually what is now in the record is that I'm not trolling as your admission that you and yours are conducting an organized and authorized nasty campaign to get rid of me proves that the aggressor is you.
I can't believe you admitted that you're conducing an organize campaign to stifle scientific inquiry sir. That is professional misconduct. What is your real name sir?
That choice to publish in this venue wasn't your choice to make SC, OM as you aren't the copyright holder.
pwl: Email them and let them know. They can ask PZ to take it down and to reprimand me for having posted it, or take me to court. (My apologies to Lindley and the journal - my point, which was educational and scientific in nature, could possibly have been made with less than the full article.) Email Lindley and link to this thread. Email PZ and point him to the violation. But shut up about it.
You are a liar, pwl.
The point being that you are a fundamentally dishonest quoteminer. And I am not a "sir," jackass.
pwl, you do realise that the constant "sir" thing makes you sound even more like an excitable schoolchild, don't you? And babbling about "professional misconduct" in a _thread about Obama's speechgiving skills_ indicates you have no sense of, well, anything.
For the record, you've persistently lied by claiming to be an open-minded seeker after knowledge, when in practice you're an attempted nitpicker with an obvious agenda, i.e. you clearly want AGW to be a fraud.
Ignore the denialist troll.
If I copied any of the relevant text fragments out of order that was a non intentional error. is 100% the truth sir.
The fragments can be read in just about any order and the point is still the same sir. is a 100% correct statement give the point that I was making.
I'm not dishonest, I only used what I needed from the article to make the point. The full article doesn't change the basic nature of the reality of the limits to computation and the limits inherent in nature that I attempted to point out.
Are you a woman? I can't tell your sex from your screen name.
What is your real name and where do you work? What professional organizations are you a member of? I'd like to file a complaint if you are a practicing scientist or educator.
Yes please.
Clinteas, look here.
PWL, Why can't you let this go? Your failure to let go is trollish behavior, a classical definition thereof.
As I've said Stephen Wells I don't know what to know is correct when it comes to climate science. There are so many claims and counter claims being made that I honestly don't know. I'm skeptical of much if it for the simple reason that I don't like to take on new beliefs in anything without some way of knowing what the likely probability of any particular belief being true. I prefer testing it myself if at all possible. That is the scientific method and process. I'm equally skeptical of pro and con AWG just as I'm skeptical of invisible gods.
It's not my fault that you have a very aggressive bias against the honest search for scientific based evidence.
Assuming your claim of the authorization of PZ Myers is true, it's now clear that the people at this web site have engaged in a repugnant campaign to assault me with personal attacks rather than engage in an honest debate.
In all my decades online I've never met a more vapid group of nasty individuals hell bend on such a narrow focus to stifle debate on scientific topics. At a respected science blog none-the-less. The big shocker for me is that I actually did have a tremendous amount of respect for PZ Myers. Now that is completely shaken if Nerd's claim is correct. If it is correct that is the basis for a professional misconduct charge especially against an educator of his stature. WOW. Stunned. To put it politely I don't know what to think now about you people.
Nerd,
yeah Im aware of that post.
I personally do not like the group mentality "I can call someone an idiot and then treat him/her as one on here safely" part of it at all.
pwl is a puerile dick,so why not just iggy the troll,instead of having dozens of posts saying essentially the same thing over and over?
Maybe its just me.
I can't believe you admitted that you're conducing an organize campaign to stifle scientific inquiry sir. That is professional misconduct. What is your real name sir?
That's my spit-take of the day. I see the Dunning-Kruger effect is still alive and well. What an arrogant little douchebag.
As others have pointed out, your defense of
"If I copied any of the relevant text fragments out of order that was a non intentional error."
holds no water - your history indicates that the comment quoted here is lie, and that you knew precisely what you were doing.
Regarding "What is your real name and where do you work? What professional organizations are you a member of?"
You go first.
The policy you linked to is direct evidence that PZ Myers is on a anti-science education campaign. Amazing for a science professor who currently teaches. Shocking.
And here I've been being polite to you when you threatened me to be on good behavior while at the same time you've been authorized to attack everyone who disagrees with your point of view or who - heaven forbid - asks questions that you disagree with. Wow. This is quite a revelation. Now to see a written policy that advocates this! It's clear now that you people are the aggressors without any doubt.
You are a nasty bunch.
Try to understand this: Not one person is claiming that existing climate models are perfect or have no limitations. You quotemined from an article that never once suggested that they are fundamentally flawed in ways that render them scientifically unacceptable, did point to ways in which they're being made even more accurate than they are now, and accepted the ranges forecasted in these models (even pointing out, immediately following one of the quotes you mined, that "Researchers are beginning to calculate models with 50-kilometer resolution over periods of decades, enabling them to see how climate change might affect the frequency and intensity of extreme storms or the statistics of droughts. Such information, rather than the more abstract concept of global average temperature, starkly conveys the tangible consequences of global warming."). You posted a few short quotes followed by "So good luck with your soothing simulations." Outrageous.
You would know if you had actually read the other comments on the thread rather than droning on yourself.
"Dear Sir/Madam:
SC was mean to me on the internet, calling me, among other things, a buffoon. All I was trying to do was honestly troll a blog. I would appreciate your urgent attention to this matter.
pwl"
If it is correct that is the basis for a professional misconduct charge especially against an educator of his stature.
I would like "Using Big Words I Don't Understand" for $1,200, Alex.
PWL, you are a nasty pretentious troll. Time to go away. You know it, and we know it, so do so.
Your behavior fits the definition of a troll. So, if you don't like being called a troll, stop being one. Remove yourself from this thread, and bring the modeling complaint up again on a thread about climate or and open thread, both proper venues.
Your failure to leave confirms your troll status.
I don't need your real names as Professor PZ Myers has clearly violated professional standards of conduct for a scientist and especially a science educator with his highly aggressive "Open season on fresh meat". It's clear that your activities are authorized by the host of this web site.
I came here seeking scientific knowledge and the opinion of those here that might know more than me. I even was open about my background and stated that I'm not a climate scientist nor expert in that field. I came with a good intention and what I found was the nastiest organized campaign against those seeking science knowledge that I've ever experienced in my life.
Your policy is an outrage PZ Myers and an affront to science and science education.
Yes, I am ignorant of many of the aspects of climate science which is the very reason that I was asking here about it. Yet you have a policy to chase anyone who is less ignorant than your hooligans, no gang of thugs.
I'm very surprised that I've had the wherewithal to withstand your authorized onslaught against me by your thugs against science education. It is only my dedication to demonstrate that I'm committed to seeking knowledge and fairness and a higher standard of conduct in science. Now it's clear that your gang of thugs are following your orders. I just don't know what to think about you now sir.
This is not the way to treat people interested in science sir. You are one messed up person PZ Myers.
The first accurate thing pwl has said is that he doesn't know anything about climate science. And weirdly, instead of going and educating himself, he hangs around here, whining.
No Nerd, your admission proves that I'm not a troll but a victim of the nasty aggressive policy authorized by PZ Myers and that you are carrying out his orders with glee sir.
It is in fact that you are the troll, a member of the gang of anti-science thugs employed by PZ Myers to stifle science education of those who come here asking questions.
Now I'm actually getting the clear picture of what has been going on. I'm now glad to be able to reveal this unscientific and unprofessional behavior of you people to the world.
Then you shouldn't mind leaving.
PWL still here? Oh, if you come back, don't quotemine, lie, or misrepresent yourself like your have. It just makes you look foolish.
By the way PWL, Pharyngula is done on PZ's spare time, and has nothing to do with his academic postition. That fact that you don't know that tells us about your lack of investigative powers.
Last call!
I don't need your real names as Professor PZ Myers has clearly violated professional standards of conduct
- Professional: this is not PZ's profession.
- Standards: since it is his site, he sets them.
for a scientist and especially a science educator
You have demonstrated you have no idea what either means.
It's clear that your activities are authorized by the host of this web site.
Being mean to a willful idiot? Oh noes!
I came here seeking scientific knowledge
Liar.
the opinion of those here that might know more than me.
You have been referred to RealClimate over and over and over again. Liar.
I even was open about my background
Yes, that you hate Al Gore.
Oh no, you did not. Liar.
and stated that I'm not a climate scientist
Yes, you are a system engineer, and a spectacularly ignorant one. Woe be to the systems you touch.
I am ignorant of many of the aspects of climate science
Understatement of the year.
which is the very reason that I was asking here
Look, you moron, five minutes on motherhumping WikiPedia would have informed you better than the level you came in at -- the level YOU ARE STILL ON, for that matter. That makes you dishonest and stupid. One or the other we can live with, but both?
Damnit, fed the moronic waste of electrons again. Sorry people, I have to hit Post -- I actually spent two minutes on this.
Oh, when I do leave I won't mind it at all.
It is now clear that PZ Myers employs trolls to keep valid science questions from being discussed on his web site.
I'm shocked. As an atheist I've never feared any questions that are asked. Yet you people fear and chase away like it's a game to you.
No wonder PZ Myers engenders so much hate amongst those who have invisible friends. It was a serious mistake on my part to assume that because I am a scientist without an invisible friend (god) that I had something in common with PZ Myers. Clearly PZ Myers is not a humanist of any sort.
This is a very sad day for me. I've lost a person I deeply respected as a bright light in the fight for rational thought in the world.
Now I understand that the rest of you are simply cult members living your dream of being nasty to others.
Now I see that PZ Myers is as repressive of scientific progress as any religious person is - just in a different manner.
Yes, I agree with slicing through the provably false claims. It's your methods that put you on par with those who burn books PZ Myers.
This is devastating news and a very sad day.
You do not have the right to do this sir. You are entrusted with science education not bullying and childish name calling sir! You actually are professionally advocating ad hominem personal attacks against people in an indiscriminate manner! Wow.
I find this policy and the manner in which I've been treated by your gang of thugs to be highly disgusting and deeply and profoundly disrespectful.
I still don't really know how to react to this news. Wow. I'm stunned.
Shorter PWL, WAAAAA I'm not getting my own way, so I will throw a tantrum and blame everybody else for my bad behavior. WAAAAAAA
Now be a man, and just fade into the bandwidth. Come back when you are ready to admit you are wrong.
I'm now glad to be able to reveal this unscientific and unprofessional behavior of you people to the world.
Good job. We are in awe. Now kindly fuck off.
It matters not that this web site is done on the professors own personal time. The very fact that he is a trusted educator at a respected institution means that he must have a high standard of conduct.
This thread - and his written policy - is evidence of a campaign directed against me.
This demonstrates that he violates the trust given to him by a serious education institution.
PZ Myers I ask for, no demand, and deserve an apology for the manner in which I've been treated in this tread by your gang of thugs who now admit that they were following your directions to be aggressive and nasty with me. If you are not PZ Myers don't bother responding to this.
WAAAAAAAA crybaby is crying WAAAQAAAAAA
Be a man and just go away.
PZ doesn't employ anybody here, pwl, we're just mocking you because you won't go away. This is freelance, pro bono mockery, unsullied by the sordid exchange of hard currency.
And now, a recap for newcomers to the thread.
pwl: I want to know more about climate science!
Everybody: Go to these reputable sites and read these papers.
pwl: I want to know about climate science, which is a fraud perpetrated by Al Gore!
Everybody:
pwl:
Everybody:
PZ Myers, I demand that you renounce this policy and have your thugs cease and desist their organized and vicious campaign that violates basic principles of human decency and the standards of science and science education.
If you are not PZ Myers don't both replying to this.
You are a tedious, tiresome drone, pwl. All you've done is insist over and over again that True Scientists™ would treat your ignorant assertions as valid and interesting, which is not true, and then get all indignant when no one gives your ideas the automatic respect that you think they deserve. Your wounded feelings are not evidence for your dogma.
You also don't get to demand anything. Go away.
They mocked me on the internet! The sky is falling!
I ask for, no demand, and deserve an apology
Kindly. Fuck. Off. You. Asinine. Windbag.
That most programs likely have many bugs is a generally accepted guideline in software engineering.
You know nothing of software engineering; that is not a "guideline", it's an empirical observation. Software engineers know that there are engineering reasons for bugs in deployed programs, such as insufficient coverage. These bugs are not randomly distributed -- they are far more likely to occur in error handling code than in mainline algorithms.
The reason that I say the point you were making, nothing's sacred, isn't relevant is because I conceded the possibility that there could be a bug free climate model program for the sake of the argument. I did that to avoid the pedantic type of argument that you now are nitpicking about.
You're a fundamentally dishonest person. The issue of bugs in programs is a red herring that you introduced -- that's not "nitpicking" or "pedantic", that's the most basic fact about the discussion of bugs. Your statement that there could be a bug free climate model program is not a concession, it's a strawman; no one here claimed that there are any bug free climate model programs -- I "conceded" -- as a fact, not "for the sake of argument", that the program you examined probably contained bugs. But the whole issue is irrelevant, and has been since the moment you ridiculously mentioned the irrelevancies of FORTRAN, GOTOs, and the NASA space probe bug. I asked you why you mentioned those since, as you note, all significant programs contain bugs. You did not asnwer because you have no answer, because your mention of them was fundamentally dishonest and, as a fundamentally dishonest person, you cannot acknowledge that.
Now that you have admitted your organized criminal conspiracy to chase me away it's clear that you are PZ Myers authorized trolls obstructing science education. Now that that is known all your comments to be nasty and mean are now meaningless as I know what you are doing in your criminal activities.
You people are the worst scum and give science and science education and science blogs online a bad name. Now I can say that with the knowledge that it's the truth. Now I can reevaluate all your comments with the light of day revealing the true motivations behind your attempts to piss on me with the inane personal attacks. I know what you are up to now, and honest debate isn't part of your game plan at all. The evidence is clear. Your policy and your gang of thugs are an enemy of science education PZ Myers. That is very inconsistent with your professional education activities.
Wow. Now I know what those who have a god feel like visiting your web site. I don't agree with their non scientific views but now I know how they feel and I have compassion for their pain.
As an atheist/antitheist and scientist I'm deeply and profoundly saddened, shocked, and embarrassed by you, your policy and your gang of organized thugs PZ Myers.
I've only stuck around this weekend since I couldn't understand that nasty attitude being leveraged against me. Now that I do it all makes sense.
You are a very disingenuous man Mr. PZ Myers as a result of this policy that you've implemented.
Where is your heart sir? Cold and dead like a vampire? Where is your sense of responsibility to science education sir? Where is your sense of personal ethics sir?
Ignorance is why I came here. To ask questions to become less ignorant and your policy is designed to stifle science education sir. How repugnant of you sir. Shame on you a thousand times more than shame on Nerd and the others.
How despicable of you sir.
I've never met anyone in my entire life who was so against science education than you and your policy. Shame on you.
PWL,
Wow, how do you manage sounding so paranoid and egotistical at the same time?
HAHAHAHAHA
No one is forcing you to stay. In fact, many have asked you to leave and you yourself have said you would do so.
If you simply want people to laugh and mock your ignorance continue typing.
Not to pile on pwl, but after reading through this thread, all I can say is that if I want to hear whining and self-pitying nonsense, I'll pick up my 5-year old from kindergarten and tell her she can't have any yogurt today.
The Marketplace of Ideas is often more like a gladiatorial contest than it is a Victorian garden club. Pick up your scutum and gladius and get to it. If you don't want to, unlike REAL gladiators, you have the option of walking away.
And what can be less ineffective than "demanding" something from someone on a blog? Yeeeeesh.
Your policy PZ Myers has directly obstructed me from becoming less ignorant of climate science a topic which is as the record shows regularly discussed on this web site.
Your policy is anti scientific and anti science education. Shocking since you are a trusted science educator.
Yes I do demand that you change and revoke all such anti scientific education policies.
Your stature is now nothing.
Ignorance is why I came here.
It also is why you are staying.
Kindly fuck off.
pwl,
Dude, take your fucking meds.
Is pwl really so oblivious or are we looking at actual mental illness here? He's been told, the education is over there, the mockery is over here, yet still he stays.
Bye bye, pwl.
And you really think he'll read a thread that is this long and this active?
Just go here and spend the rest of the day there reading. I wish you good-afternoon.
The rest of you are now irrelevant as you are following the lead of an anti scientific education professor.
I now feel nothing but disgust for you PZ Myers. I used to have - even just a few hours ago - tremendous respect for you. That is now gone with the revelations about your online crimes against science education.
Shame on you PZ Myers. Shame. I publicly chastise you sir. I publicly reprimand you sir. A sad day for science as you have tarnished yourself and science with your conduct and policy.
Oops. I take my first sentence back. :-)
I publicly reprimand you sir.
WHAHAHAAAAHAAAAA... oh, that was priceless.
Time to lock the thread methinks, this clown seems to have enough energy and time to morph all day.
PWL, still the fool. We don't have to play your game. You failed due to your own ego. Nobody has to do what you want. Nobody has to answer your questions. Nobody has to put up with your constant harassment.
Hahahah. It's really comedic now!
PWL stupid shit. We tell him that it's stupid shit and that PZ endorses abuse when people repeat their stupid shit. And now it's a conspiracy against EDUCATION and SCIENCE!
Ahhhh. Too funny.
This thread is a classic.
An organized criminal enterprise to keep one guy ignorant about climate science via thuggish, freelance, pro-bono mockery. Sir.
It's so hard to choose a favorite moment--demands for apologies are good, but kind of trite. This might be the cake-taker though:
Pwl, just leave it. This is starting to become ridiculous.
FYI, I too lean towards climate change scepticism (and have been attacked here for it), but I know when to stop talking about it (especially as, like you, I'm not an expert in the field). You just keep going on and on, and saying the same thing every time; it isn't a way to have a productive discussion.
And Professor Myers is not "committing crimes against education and science" in asking you to cease commenting on his private blog. You have every right to set up your own blog (as I have done), and, if you're interested in discussing climate change, to join one of the many sites and forums on the subject. While I agree that some people here can be a little abrasive, that's the price one pays for commenting on internet fora in general (where no one knows each other, they're much less inclined to be polite for the sake of being polite), and one just has to deal with it.
Shut UP Sven!
Oh, by the way, if we're employed, where's my damned paycheck?
Ah, the good old "valid science question", which he carefully kept from asking to the authors of the model in spite of repeated attempts to have him do so. And had to ask here, where no climate modelers (to my knowledge) post regularly. He didn't want knowledge, he wanted to sow confusion.
I can't wait to re-read the transcripts at the next secret meeting of Pharyngulites.
Should be good for a big laugh before we plan our next attack on science.
Good post, Walton. pwl has actually made you sound like the voice of reason. We are in uncharted waters here :)
Note that our friend is already listed among the dungeon-denizens, and has already morphed (@#644) to whine anew. Oh, and to publicly reprimand the blogger. In the comments of the blogger's blog. Unclear on many concepts.
Unclear on many concepts
I'd say unclear, period.
"Shame on you PZ Myers. Shame. I publicly chastise you sir. I publicly reprimand you sir."
It could have been worse - he could have farted in PZ's general direction.
FYI, I too lean towards climate change scepticism (and have been attacked here for it), but I know when to stop talking about it
Actually, he barely said anything about climate change; the vast majority of his verbiage consisted of complaints about how he had been abused.
Gee,that one degraded quickly.....
clinteas: This one was going no damned way but down. I, for one, enjoy speeding up the journey into the abyss.
Every now and then.
I have been lurking on this site, where a question raised by blogger PWL plus a reference to an observation on South American climate swings by Darwin caused a group of rather fanatic-sounding defenders of the AGW paradigm to go ballistic and totally lose their manners in a most disgusting and childish way.
#187 by Knockgoats: “Yes indeed - in act that understates it, because you're a barefaced liar. You come here spewing denialist crap and claim you're not a denialist. The simple fact is that the vast majority of relevant scientific experts agree that anthropgenic climate change is real, and an urgent problem.”
“If we'd listened to morons like you, the ozone layer would have been destroyed by CFCs.”
“By the way, you juvenile little shit, if you really want to know why I'm "Knockgoats" you can find out, and find my real name, on this site.”
And in #245: “Denialist liar lies again.”
Then “Nerd of Redhead” spews in a bit of venom with #256, “From what I can see PWL is just here to disrupt things. In other words, just an ignorant troll. Otherwise he would shut the fuck up. And PWL, I do mean ignorant.”
And #261: “PWL, why can't you go away like a good little stupid ignorant troll?”
“Nerd” keeps up the juvenile rubbish with #267: “PWL, as a professional scientist of 30+ years, get off the bad attitude toward real science bullshit. The questions must be asked in the proper venue, which isn't here, and you know it. That makes you a liar and bullshitter.”
Then another even more juvenile blogger named “ggab”, added his bit of garbage (296) with, “I was just outside letting the dogs do their nasty fecal business and I think I must have stepped in some.
When I scraped it off, it said it's name was PWL and started spouting some global warming denialist malarky.”
Then “Nerd” comes back (#312) with: “PWL, you are just a liar and bullshitter. You have evaded every chance to come clean and admit your trolling. Until you wise up and listen to real scientists, like you those at RealClimate, or myself, that won't change.”
As far as I could observe, PWL maintained his calm and his manners during the entire “sh__ fight”, while a group juvenile sounding bloggers kept trying to insult him for disagreeing with them on some point related to AGW.
Sheesh!
Whatta buncha jerks!
My advice to you, PWL. Get off of this site. It’s populated by mannerless morons.
Max
Too late Manacker, PWL got his ass banned for crimes of trolling, insipidy, and being boring. Trolling because he hijacked the thread to push his anti-AWG agenda, and would not leave when presented with the fact we did not have the answers he sought. Insipidy and boring for repeating himself over and over for days on end. He did not want to learn from us, so you can add lying to his crimes. His pretend politeness fooled nobody, most of PZ.
manacker:
Lurking, eh? You apparently failed to notice #642, so your advice is based on ignorance, and has been pre-emptively vitiated.
I note in passing that "paradigm" does not mean what you seem to think it does.
By the way Manacker, I am a PhD chemist with 30+ years in science, and I do know the proper venues for questions. Questions on climate modeling cannot be answered here, since the to best of my knowledge, there is nobody posting here regularly who has any more than a passing knowledge on that subject. By the way, PWL had been avoiding going to RealClimate, where modelers do post, which was the venue I referred him to. That told me all I needed to know about his intentions. And the invective started after two days of circular arguments and PWL trolling. My recommendation to you, don't troll. Bring something up, and if nobody bites, let it go.
Sorry, Nerd, your qualifications may be excellent and you may have a lot of experience in your field, but your manners are poor and your method of debating is childish.
My advice to you would be to try to stay rational and unemotional, and stay away from personal insults. Just makes you look sillier than you probably are.
Nerd, You mentioned that you referred PWL to RealClimate. A good suggestion. I'd say Grist would be another good reference source. I would have advised him to also check out ClimateAudit and WattsUpWithThat, to get a balanced view from both sides of the ongoing scientific and political debate surrounding AGW, so he can then rationally make up his own mind, based on the validity of the arguments presented by both sides.
As you know (as a scientist), the "science" on AGW is definitely NOT "settled". No real "science" ever is.
manacker, your concern is noted.
BTW, did you know that "Obama made a Lincoln's birthday speech, and a fine speech it was."?
I listened to it, I thought it was fine. A fine speech.
Whaddayareckon?
Manacker, he wouldn't budge. I will refer people to real scientists. But I will not refer anybody to denialists sites, since they are not scientific. Science is done in peer reviewed primary scientific journals, not on web sites. And just asking questions, but not working to find the answers, is not science. That is pseudoscience (I am also a skeptic for 20+ years).
manacker/pwl, thank you for adding sockpuppetry to your list of fail -- although I'd be amazed if PZ actually spends the time updating the plonk list.
You are sad, provably wrong and provably pathetic.
To all others: please, let's let the sockpuppet eat lint.
Hey, I liked Obama's speech, too. There's no question. The guy is a superb orator.
Hi Nerd,
You just said "Science is done in peer reviewed primary scientific journals, not on web sites".
Makes sense to me, but why did you then recommend RealClimate to PWL?
Isn't this a web site?
Why is this particular web site a better source of information than ClimateAudit, for example?
But back to your lead statement, no Nerd, "science" is not done in "peer reviewed journals", but in laboratoties, observatories, etc. where "real life" observations are made, and also not in expensive climate models, where GIGO computers spit out "virtual reality".
Experimentation and observation rather than hypothetical speculation.
As a chemist, you should know this, right?
Max
Stu the "sockpuppet" speaks in strange tongues.
Hey, what are you smoking, dude?
manacker, you dumb ass, Stu is a long time regular. And, yes, I am getting very well paid to do my part in chasing you away.
Manacker/PWL, scientists working in the climate field set up RealClimate to counterbalance the denialists websites. A place where questions can be answered by real scientists, not a place populated by people with an anti-science agenda. Even though I have never visited the site, its origins and recommendations by other scientists make it the "go-to" place for correct information. The other sites practice pseudoscience, which is what PWL was trying to present.
Science asks questions only to look for further places to investigate. Then they go and investigate. For something like climate modeling, it may take a year to run a full calculation on a distributed computing system (BOINC). So progress is slow.
Pseudoscience asks questions only to make science look bad. They have no intention on following through with real research. Creating doubt is not science. Doing the work to remove the doubt is.
Nerd, I am sure that you, as a scientist, will agree that “rational skepticism” is one pillar of the scientific process.
Rationally challenging a scientific premise or hypothesis is an integral part of the process, as is doing the work to prove it or disprove it through experimentation and actual physical observations. Both are necessary parts of the process.
Blindly accepting or defending a scientific premise or hypothesis against any rational skepticism is the approach used by religious fundamentalists in defending their dogma against anyone who tries to create doubts (the "doubting Thomases").
“It must be that way because the ‘Holy Gospel’ says so” is just as foolish a statement as “it must be that way because IPCC (or ‘2,500 scientists’) say so”. Both are foolish and blind statements of faith, that have nothing to do with the true scientific process, which must, by definition, be open to and actually welcome all rational skepticism.
Climate model outputs are often confused with actual physical observations or results obtained through experimentation. The latter is science; the former is not. Climate models have no inherent ability to predict anything, as their outputs are only as good as the assumed inputs, which have been programmed in. In other words, they represent a calculation “tool”, much like the far simpler sliderule of bygone days. Nothing more.
False equivalency. The 2,500 scientists have data to back up their claims. And if you are knowledgeable in that field, you can go through all of the works done to make sure it is accurate or tear it down if you can find a flaw and prove it.
Manacker, what part of we don't do climate models don't you understand? PWL, this is your third moniker, which permanently puts you into PZ's dungeon. Along with the greats. Just because you have questions doesn't mean we need to answer them if a better forum is available, which is RealClimate. What part of that don't you understand? And what part of you don't get to decide what we discuss don't you understand? You are showing limited understanding.
My whole point for entering this whole discussion here after lurking for several days, was to point out (going back to the original lead article) that one poster, PWL, who appeared to be skeptical of some parts of the AGW theory was indeed speaking "good English", while several AGW-supporters that attacked him relentlessly for his viewpoint, (Nerd, ggab, Knockgoats, etc.) were speaking anything but "good English" (in fact, their Mamas would have washed out their collective mouths with soap for the language they used).
Just an observation from an unbiased lurker.
Sorry bud but I trust no one who claims to be 'unbiased'. You are merely a concern troll who is showing how concerned you are. Laughable.
Manacker, your concern is noted and rejected. PWL, go away. You are banned, and with this continued harassment will stay forever banned. You don't make decisions here, PZ does. Period, end of story. Bye.
Hey Nerd, don't get so excited. I am not PWL, so don't make silly false assumptions.
Climate models are great. So were sliderules many years ago. They just aren't "science".
Physical observations and experimentation are "science".
Let me give you just one example.
After many years of reports bouncing around on all sides of the magnitude and even the sign of cloud feedbacks, IPCC publishes its AR4 report, where all climate models cited assume a strongly positive feedback from clouds, strong enough to result in 1.3C out of the total assumed 3.2C climate sensitivity for 2xCO2.
Subsequent to this report, a study by Spencer et al. shows, based on actual physical observations, that the cloud feedback is strongly negative instead, which would result in a negative impact on the 2xCO2 climate sensitivity of around the same order of magnitude.
This is the "scientific process" at work.
Assumptions are made, models are run using these assumptions, the assumptions are then proven false through actual physical observations.
The next step should be that the model assumptions are now revised to agree with the physical observations and the climate models re-run.
Will it happen that way?
Or will a more dogmatic approach of "defending the theory against all doubts" by ignoring the actual physical observations (which "create doubt") be adopted?
We'll see.
So long Janine and Nerd
It's been nice blogging with you. But I really don't intend to waste more time here.
Work on your manners, Nerd. It will help you in life.
"manacker", you're a fine one to speak of manners, with your concern trolling and thread abuse. Bah.
Good riddance.
I like the oxymoron - "speaks good English"!
Proper English would read "speaks English well"
Ur funny!
kendal: a) Both those sentences are grammatically correct; note that the first has the same form as "Speaks British English".
B) That's not what oxymoron means.
Manacker doesn't know squat about manners, especially the manners PZ expects from us when dealing with concern trolls, but he did present some actual data which PWL never got around to doing even after about 10 days of trolling. So I will retract my claim of him being PWL. By the way Manacker, that is Dr. Nerd, with 30+ years in science, so I understand something about manners. Intruding where you don't belong and highjacking threads is bad manners too. Which PWL did, and also you to a far lesser extent.
I trust the scientists will get their models closer to reality given time. That is what science does, take a stab at something and then refine it. And I am willing to give them the time, especially since a full world model can take a year to complete using BOINC.
Physical observations and experimentation are "science".
...and the failboat sails on.
Paging Dunning and Kruger...
Stu wrote: "...and the failboat sails on"
Some "failboats" that didn't "sail on"
In November 2007 the passenger ship Explorer, which runs tours between South America and Antarctica, reported problems near the South Shetland Islands, south of Argentina. The Chilean navy received a distress call from the Explorer, saying the vessel had hit an iceberg. The ship carried 100 passengers (including some climate scientists from Europe) and a crew of 54. The ship sank. A Norwegian ship rescued the passengers.
In December 2007, a Norwegian-run liner, Fram, drifted with 256 passengers on board off the coast of Antarctica, after its engines failed. Passengers and crew were all rescued.
On December 4, 2008, an Argentine cruise ship, Ciudad de Ushuaia, which runs tourist visits to Antarctica (89 passengers, 33 crew) suffered a puncture in two diesel fuel tanks and was stranded on the coast of Antarctica after striking ice. Crew and passengers were rescued by the Chilean Navy.
The Ocean Nova passenger ship, which runs tourist visits to Antarctica ran aground on February 17, 2009 close to the San Martin Argentine naval base on Antarctica. After unsuccessful attempts to break the vessel free during the early morning high tide, a boat was sent to rescue the 74 passengers and 30 crew members stranded on board.
Major amounts of diesel fuel leaked into the ocean.
*headdesk*
Manacker, bad manners reposting on a thread two weeks after the last previous post. Meaning the thread had died a natural death. Only trolls and godbots engage in such behavior. Since you aren't a godbot, you must be a troll.
Hey Nerd,
Are you a "godbot", a "troll" or just a bad-mannered idiot with 30+ years of "experience" as a "scientist"?
Regards,
Max
E.V.is right. "Headdesk"