You may have noticed a recent influx of whining wackaloons, whose enchanting cries have consisted mostly of “You’re all so uncivil” and “This is not a science blog”. This is fallout from the Weblog Awards, where a couple of climate change denialist blogs have effectively turned out the disgruntled conspiracy theorist vote. One of those blogs will almost certainly win the ‘award’ — which tells you the value of these contests — so don’t worry about that. However, I do want to reply to the mindless, repetitive complaints of our new visitors, even though they will almost certainly evaporate when the award voting closes later today.
I want my commenters to be uncivil. There is no virtue in politeness when confronted with ignorance, dishonesty, and delusion. I want them to charge in to the heart of the issue and shred the frauds, without hesitation and without faltering over manners. These demands for a false front of civility are one of the strategies used by charlatans who want to mask their lack of substance — oh, yes, it would be so goddamned rude to point out that a huckster is lying to you. I am quite happy that we have a culture of being rude to frauds here.
The other claim is also a stupid distraction. This is a blog by an educator and scientist. We are not one-dimensional caricatures — I write about whatever interests me, whenever I feel like it. To claim that because I sometimes laugh and sometimes get angry and am a concerned citizen of a screwed-up country and have interests outside of journals and academia and am a father and husband and am willing to express myself on any topic that strikes my fancy means that there can’t possibly be any science here implies that you are a freaking idiot with a bizarrely narrow view of who scientists are, and a peculiarly close-minded vision of how this medium actually works.
Keep this in mind, O Regular Readers of the blog, and please do feel free to be uncivil to these fresh fools from the pseudoscientific fringe of the blogosphere.
I, for one, welcome Ward’s frankness, honesty, and intellectual curiosity as espoused in comment #489.
Look, he was honest and (relatively) concise, and he refrained from hurling insults.
Sorry, but I’m not gonna dogpile on the guy for that comment. I actually appreciated it quite a bit.
But it’s not true that I hate Libertarians, AGW skeptics, or Creationists; it’s just that I find their arguments to mostly consist of intellectual rubbish. That doesn’t bother me. That is, of course, when they make arguments at all.
It’s when they make from the hip assertions that even the most cursory examination of the surrounding world would immediately refute that I lose my nut.
That is all well and good, but we are no where near the technology to do that.
So I must be imagining the catalogs for deep-cycle battery banks, self-contained solar water pumps and solar water heaters I am currently browsing to upgrade my house in a month or two.
Gotcha.
Increasing efficiency is something we already do
Are you fucking kidding me? Google CAFE standards before you say anything else, please. It’s getting really embarrassing now.
dumping large amounts of government largess won’t help us increase efficiency any faster than it already is.
You’re right! Massive government-funded research has never come up with a technological breakthrough *cough* Manhattan Project *cough* Apollo Project *cough*.
Sorry, let me grab a lozenge.
Sort of, you could set me into the “it is too little too late so all of this AGW panic is pointless” camp.
Here’s your fiddle. Would you mind shutting up and stepping aside while those that care about our children try to fix things?
What the hell is wrong with you?
Apparently, the guy who thinks rough bars might be too much for the likes of us has never hung out with any field biologists.
Finally an answer! I was beginning to feel neglected.
Popularity is not meant to be a metric for science or education. It’s meant to show that PZ’s style isn’t as fraught with detrimental social downfalls as you seem to assert, or that even if those downfalls are present they are not as fearsome as you may believe.
His scientific credentials speak for themselves and his tenure and Peer Reviewed Blog Posts are evidence as to his educational ability.
Lastly, the only claim you’ve made that I particularly disagree with is that PZ must be bound by his role of “educator” at all times and is not allowed to be “angry citizen” because his blog is hosted by ScienceBlogs or is hailed as a great science blog by other people.
So, Evidence required: Anything that backs us up this claim “A scientist (note, again: I freely admit this is *my opinion*) has a responsibility to further the cause of science. An educator has a responsibility to further the cause of education. Particularly for tenured faculty -> you have tremendous authority and privilege granted to you by your standing, and you have a professional obligation to be aware of that, and not abuse that standing. PZ has mentioned agreement with this general principle himself before, by criticizing (rightly so) educators and scientists who abuse their standing to support horseshit outside their actual fields.”
For your argument to work, PZ must be on a par with those who “support horseshit outside their actual fields”. Also, his responsibilities to science and education must be continual and not fullfilaible through his work or time in class, but must also be taken into account in everything PZ does. Many have disagreed stating the near impossibility and/or unpracticality of asking such. Can you support these claims any further than assertion?
You see, I’m just a little tired of asserting ourselves into circles. We can spin out wheels all day saying that PZ’s style is too negative or not, but I’d rather learn if PZ’s style produces negative effects or not. And if it does, do they outweigh the positive?
Lastly, I don’t really disagree that some people can be turned off by harsh rhetoric. I simply don’t believe that such rhetoric produces more negative consequences than positive ones. So if you’d like to provide evidence (begin from anywhere you like) that PZ’s style or method of blogging is somehow so detrimental that it is in need of changing, then be my guest.
Ward @489:
Wrong on every count.
1. What makes you think “our” wish is for no dissenters?
2. Why would we? I originally subscribed (back before ScienceBlogs assimilated Pharyngula) for the posts.
3. Would it surprise you to know that threads (usually science posts) where only regulars comment are often full of disputation and acrimony?
4. What a quaint notion. PZ is the host, nothing more.
He raises issues, commenters discuss them. Apparently this is a hard concept for you to grasp.
Steve B: I’m not making anything up. Positive feedback gets you a rapid transition to a maximum or minimum possible value. We are all familiar with the microphone and amplifier feedback loop. It takes considerable control to keep such a system in check.
No — not in general. Natural systems are meta-stable — they are chock-a-block with negative and positive feedbacks. See wolves v. rabbits.
It’s pretty easy to see that CO2 emission has outpaced the controls on it — such as increased plant growth or increased albedo from increased rainfall. The detail are less than essential, since as you so rightly point out, such systems are very sensitive to “initial conditions” — i.e., are measurements underdetermine the system. That does not imply, however, that we can’t get a good idea of a switch in probabilities — i.e., that a threshold is coming.
For example, when pores form in biological membranes under large electric fields, we can’t determine exactly when and where they will form; any measurements we make will underdetermine the system. However, we can very accurately model the stochastic aspects of the system to predict the probability of holes forming at a given voltage and associated measures such as their rate of formation and size distribution.
The details of the day when and location where our system starts developing “holes” is less of interest than the magnitude of when the rate of their formation explodes. That we know is on the order of 10-100 years.
Stu,
Looks like I missed your larger post.
“So, yes — we can be fairly certain these “positive feedback loops” exist, just as the negative feedbacks exist. Yes — we have evidence of their past behavior, and good evidence that we are entering their reactivation (just google siberian methane hydrate — if that doesn’t scare the hell out of you, you’re just too stupid to live). No, the fact that these loops exist does not imply that we’re living on a knife’s edge constantly — most of the climactic time is spent in meta-stable states. Just like a personality — meta-stable most of the time, with threshold effects that can completely transform it in a blink of an eye, to a new meta-stable state.”
So we have many multiples of overlapping meta-stable states, about as predictable as a rivulet of water trickling down a sheet of glass. There are all sorts of disaster scenarios that scare the hell out of little kids hiding under their beds. Methane hydrate doesn’t scare me any more than a comet or asteroid impact, just as many ifs need to come together.
I guess I’m just too stupid to live. Haaarrrrggg…..
SteveB: Methane hydrate doesn’t scare me any more than a comet or asteroid impact, just as many ifs need to come together.
I guess I’m just too stupid to live. Haaarrrrggg…..
I’m glad we can come to an agreement. Particularly after comparing asteroid impacts (scary but with a very low probability of causing planetary disruption over the next century, or even next millenium) with methane hydrate release (which appears to be reaching saturation now in Siberia, and which we know closely follows and amplifies global warming events, such as 8kya).
We at least agree on the essentials. Again, you say: So we have many multiples of overlapping meta-stable states, about as predictable as a rivulet of water trickling down a sheet of glass. Yes, the details of the path are unpredictable — but the volume and direction of the path are perfectly predictable.
Only a serious dumb-ass wouldn’t plug a hole in his roof because the detail of the path of rain through that hole can not be determined. Unfortunately, we live under the same roof.
I got the feeling that I might find a “home” here, but after that post, it’s confirmed. I always get the stink-eye for not putting up with Teh Nonsense.
And as for staying “on subject” … apparently they’ve never spent any time in a university classroom. Books are great, but we humans do better when taught by humans. Non-linear thought shouldn’t be dismissed just because we’re supposed to be all sciencey at the Pharyn.
Mr. Denker writes: “It’s all of the intellectual rubbish that I’ve got to shovel before I find the true gems here that make me question coming back.”
Oh how true, Mr. Denker. Isn’t irony marvelous?
Frog,
Now we’re talking! Your last comment was the best argument I’ve heard to date!
“It’s pretty easy to see that CO2 emission has outpaced the controls on it — such as increased plant growth or increased albedo from increased rainfall. The detail are less than essential, since as you so rightly point out, such systems are very sensitive to “initial conditions” — i.e., are measurements underdetermine the system. That does not imply, however, that we can’t get a good idea of a switch in probabilities — i.e., that a threshold is coming.”
Now, what I’m trying to understand here, keeping in mind I’m too stupid to live, is how we are certain about CO2 being a initiator of a positive feedback loop.
We go off topic all the time here. It doesn’t matter. We’re all about tangents. Although, we can always count on a creobot to refocus us.
No, just too stupid to competently discuss climate.
No one’s claiming you should die, just that you should shut the fuck up about things you clearly don’t fucking understand, ya goddamned martyr.
Yeah, it’s complex. Yeah, all the details haven’t been worked out. Yeah, the relative strengths of different factors need to be considered. But if we threw our hands in the air (like we just don’t care) every time we encountered some aspect of nature we found difficult to measure or comprehend, we’d still be banging hammerstones.
And we’re expected to be civil when confronted with such incredibly moronic hubris?
Steve,
The larger post wasn’t me, it was frog (I’d love to take credit, but I’m in an honest mood for some reason).
Anyhoo,
Methane hydrate doesn’t scare me any more than a comet or asteroid impact, just as many ifs need to come together.
Worst. Analogy. Ever. Epically bad. Classic. Frame-worthy fail.
I guess I’m just too stupid to live.
If you can’t see that there are massive climate changes going on, that we are causing, that we can stop and/or reverse if we get serious about it, and that have the potential to kill of the majority of life on this planet if we proceed with your attitude, well…
Posted by: Brownian | January 13, 2009
I, for one, welcome Ward’s frankness, honesty, and intellectual curiosity as espoused in comment #489.
Look, he was honest and (relatively) concise, and he refrained from hurling insults.
Sorry, but I’m not gonna dogpile on the guy for that comment. I actually appreciated it quite a bit.
I was content to not paying much attention to him, just a quick skim as I go through everything. But the crack about this being an Al Qaeda training camp and adding Jihad! at the end. It is merely an updated way to call your opponent a nazi.
Frog:
Kicking butt and taking names, I see.
It was that metaphor that inspired mine, so it should not come as a surprise that it bears resemblance.
Brevity is not a strong suit of mine. For that, I apologize.
You seem to have missed the point, and I’m afraid I must not have clarified it well enough.
If what we’re advocating is hateful invectives toward others and we’ve abandoned all hope of educating people then we’re intellectually no better than the anti-US propaganda being used by an Al Qaeda training camp. One does not have to be violent to buy the propaganda of violent people, if you understand my meaning. It’s all under the umbrella metaphor that this blog is like a “rough bar.” Of course I’m not saying everyone that comes here is a hate monger, I’m just saying that some are using the same tactics. That should probably be discouraged because it tends to cast a poor light on others.
By declaring “open season on fresh meat” some have taken this to mean that “those with a dissenting opinion should be shot on sight because we hate them.” When PZ says that he doesn’t like where “they” came from (meaning CA and WUWT) some see that as the equivalent that it’s an “us vs. them” situation.
I’m in a middle ground. I’d never heard of either CA or WUWT until PZ said something about them and I’ve read Pharyngula off-and-on for a while now, more often of late. I get it that a lot of the commenters aren’t as interested in the science that occasionally does get mentioned here as they are his stance as a fire-breathing liberal. What I don’t get is why some of us have to be shot down in the crossfire (and most of the bullets are coming from this side) who are interested in science. Is it really so difficult to imagine that three blogs can share a readership on issues of science? Is there any reason that commenters can’t embrace new readership?
I’ve not seen the hosts of either of those two blogs say anything about Pharyngula at all, save one quote of PZ’s (in context). In fact, they seem to be discouraging slagging on another science blog (or its readership).
I may have used a strong metaphor to call attention to it, but you’ve (mistakenly) turned it into a message of hate. That’s what you were looking for, and it’s what you found. The spade wasn’t really a spade at all.
Don’t pay Luboš no mind, he’s got a golden shower fetish. He get’s it regularly from Rabbets.
Zzzzzzzz. Still boring. Still longwinded.
Ward @518:
Upon what do you base this assertion? Can you provide examples of such?
Because I think you’re bullshitting, and this is nothing more than hyperbolic rhetoric.
@ Michael X
> Also, his responsibilities to science and education
> must be continual and not fullfilaible through his
> work or time in class, but must also be taken into
> account in everything PZ does. Many have disagreed
> stating the near impossibility and/or un-
> practicality of asking such. Can you support
> these claims any further than assertion?
Ah, not exactly. To clarify: if one is presenting one’s own personal opinions in a medium reserved for that purpose, I don’t really care if they wear a tutu and rant about Time Cube. But clearly PZ has willingly blurred the lines between his professional and personal personae. I don’t mind that, either; I do it myself, and find the maintenance of two distinct online personae to be inefficient and a giant waste of time. When you do that, however, you have to acknowledge the fact that one affects the other. There’s probably jobs I won’t get because I burn down political idiocy when I see it on my own blog (albeit as politely as I can manage). I’d probably have a hard time getting an NSA job with my frequent calling out of the still-current administration for domestic spying. In PZ’s case, his blog and standing affect how people look at scientists.
> We can spin out wheels all day saying that PZ’s
> style is too negative or not, but I’d rather
> learn if PZ’s style produces negative effects
> or not. And if it does, do they outweigh the
> positive?
That is absolutely a fair question. 376 comments and several ungrounded accusations of idiocy before someone actually asked it. I honestly don’t know; but my suspicion is that the answer is “it depends largely on the audience you’re talking about”. :)
I’ll see if I can find out.
> Lastly, I don’t really disagree that some
> people can be turned off by harsh rhetoric. I
> simply don’t believe that such rhetoric
> produces more negative consequences than
> positive ones.
Remember that admitted bias later when weighing evidence, will you? :)
Funny you should bring up asteroids. Now suppose we discovered a “world killer” asteroid was going to hit the Earth in 20 years. Would you be frightened?
Now suppose again someone had a real solution but it would require that all of our resources were put towards it and it would destroy our economy in the process. Which would you pick? Assuming, you’ve picked “save the world”, at what probablilty of the asteroid striking would you switch back to “do nothing”?
Just curious.
In fact, they seem to be discouraging slagging on another science blog (or its readership).
They are not science blogs. That’s the entire everloving point.
And yes, 90% of what you write is firmly in TL;DR category. You might want to work on that.
Yeah, but since he’s been arguing for the need for us to be civil and didn’t use profanity, it’s clearly not an insult. Perhaps since I’ve come to expect so little from Libertarians, I’m being a little too generous.
Besides, creos liken us to Nazis all the time. Libertarians live in a similar land of make-believe, so why should I be insulted?
And by equating it to something so extreme, how is this not a variation on Godwin’s Law?
It’s not that people here don’t want dissenting opinion, it’s the constant stream of crap where people give the same nonsense in support of their views. Honestly there’s only so many times you can hear “have you ever seen a cat turn into a dog?” as a refutation for evolution before you grow weary of answering those with completely misinformed opinions.
The libertarian discussion has been done to death on here, almost every political thread leading up to the election broke down into an argument on libertarianism, anything even slightly political was taken to the extreme of ideology.
The point I’m trying to make is this, it’s not that contrary opinions are not wanted, it’s that battles over these positions are played out time and time again and people grow weary of hearing the same tired arguments over and over again. I’ve been posting on here about 8 months, and in that time I got to a point where I didn’t want to hear another libertarian because any and every discussion was getting turned into a battle over libertarianism.
From the frame of reference of many here, the libertarians, the AGW-deniers, the creationists, these are all just a persistent nuisance with no real arguments that come along. For the individuals who stumble upon this sight for the first time, of course they are going to feel the collective frustration. This blank slate idea where we discuss intellectually is a good concept in theory, but in practice we aren’t able to possess that blank slate and the arguments presented have been done to death.
Pat @522,
This is not clear to me. Care to instantiate an example of such?
SteveB: Now, what I’m trying to understand here, keeping in mind I’m too stupid to live, is how we are certain about CO2 being a initiator of a positive feedback loop.
We’ve produced a four-million year perturbation correct? On top of massive deforestation, right? On top of massive ocean acidification, right? And all of these disruptions are unparalleled on different scales from the 10k time horizon to the 10m time horizon, correct?
I think, in that case, the onus is to show that it won’t initiate a positive feedback. Just as if you had removed the spleen, half the liver and one kidney — the reasonable position is that those arguing for removal of even a section of the second kidney show that it won’t lead to a massive cascade.
This is medicine, not engineering (the distinction being that you have a live system that you can’t isolate, take offline and test): first, don’t do anything to kill the patient.
Stu: “Methane hydrate doesn’t scare me any more than a comet or asteroid impact, just as many ifs need to come together.
Worst. Analogy. Ever. Epically bad. Classic. Frame-worthy fail.”
Nope, have you wrapped your mind around how much methane hydrate there seems to be? Do you have any idea how long it takes to get it warmed up enough to be on the verge of catastrophic out gassing? I might as well piss on a glacier to see if I can melt it.
As I pointed out in another thread – say it quickly and out loud – Ward S Denker.
‘What a stinker’. It’s no coincidence.
That being said, I bear him no ill will; I’m just pointing out that you shouldn’t be surprised by his troll-like behaviour.
SteveB: Do you have any idea how long it takes to get it warmed up enough to be on the verge of catastrophic out gassing? I might as well piss on a glacier to see if I can melt it.
The measurements from Siberia seem to disagree with you. Since the last major outgassing appears to be part of a positive feedback loop that took us out of the ice-age into our current balmy and stable climate, which strangely appears to be correlated with the rise of civilization…
Well, I guess “empirical measurements of saturation” are of little import, and a natural historical model is just jibber-jabber by the non-believers.
Me too. I still do computer work, but I usually don’t like to talk about it with someone socially unless they do similar work. What kills me is when folks say something to the effect of “I’m so stupid when it comes to computers.”
#498 wrote:
“Posted by: Brian D | January 13, 2009 6:27 PM
Colonel Sun @ #470: You do realize that graph starts in an El Nino and ends in a La Nina, both of which have substantial but short-term (i.e. NOISE) effects on temperature trends (i.e. SIGNAL), right?”
So the magnitude of the natural phenomena, what you call noise, far exceeds the claimed trend.
“Why not look at the entire record or the decadal rankings? (Or this if you’d rather complain about temperature records.)”
Okay, let’s look at the entire record.
http://i43.tinypic.com/33cm0av.jpg
“Could it be that denialists like Watts consider the full record the way creationists consider transitional forms?”
“Denialists”? How soviet.
Brownian: I, for one, welcome Ward’s frankness, honesty, and intellectual curiosity as espoused in comment …
I am rolling in my chair. You are one funny internet entity… the straight jokes are the best!
Posted by: Brownian | January 13, 2009
Besides, creos liken us to Nazis all the time. Libertarians live in a similar land of make-believe, so why should I be insulted?
Perhaps in my quick skim, I did not catch all of the context.
I think I have amply demonstrated that I can be quick with the invective but I save that for those who come in with the insults. It is for that reason that I avoid pulling a Godwin. One has to draw a line somewhere. I have spent too much time around leftists who like to toss that bit around like fairy dust. It gets tiresome really quick.
I’m so sick of hearing people posit that the scientific establishment is afraid to be confronted on global warming. It’s very simple. One of you nutsack denialists just has to formulate a hypothesis, test it, and if evidence supports the hypothesis (and your tests are repeatable) PUBLISH YOUR RESULTS IN A PEER REVIEWED SCIENTIFIC JOURNAL. Fuck. Screeching that we’re suppressing you is meaningless. Do the science, bring something to the table, then we’ll talk.
Same to you IDers. That is all.
Since this blog appears to be a new religion site (not sure why it was in the science blog running) here’s Freeman Dyson on the need for heretics
http://www.edge.org/documents/archive/edge219.html#dysonf
Sun: So the magnitude of the natural phenomena, what you call noise, far exceeds the claimed trend.
That’s generally true for all biological phenomena until they hit threshold — however, that doesn’t mean you can’t use the trend — or the noise — to come to important conclusions.
I guess you don’t know any of the ion channel literature, for example.
Well, Pat, I look forward to what you find. Though I don’t envy your task. I must admit I still don’t find your argument about personal overlap convincing.
For example, I am an artist and an atheist. These overlap only in the sense that they are both facts about myself. But my social opinions and statements have not effected my professional life one jot or tittle and I am very vocal. The people I work with are professional and I am judged by my work. If people did begin to treat me differently professionally due to my views outside of my professional work, I wouldn’t want to work with them anyway and I don’t think they would get very much further in their goals either.
So in short what I’m saying is, there is no blowback that wouldn’t have already happened to PZ due to his blog that he isn’t aware of and ok with.
As for my last statement, let me rephrase it. “I have seen no evidence to lead me to believe that harsh rhetoric causes more negative effects then positive.” I would site women’s suffrage, civil rights, gay rights, and now the culture wars as evidence of harsh rhetoric doing more good than kid gloves.
Posted by: Colonel Sun | January 13, 2009
Since this blog appears to be a new religion site (not sure why it was in the science blog running) here’s Freeman Dyson on the need for heretics
Brownian, I think we can agree that this person is a stupid git.
Last I time checked climate was a physical phenomena.
Colonel Sun:
So the magnitude of the natural phenomena, what you call noise, far exceeds the claimed trend.
Only on small time scales, as any statistician can tell you. It’s obvious Watts isn’t a statistician worthy of the title.
Okay, let’s look at the entire record.
http://i43.tinypic.com/33cm0av.jpg
An unpulblished paleoclimate record? While probably dismissing these out of hand?
There are other proxy methods to take. For instance, ice cores come to mind as ones that completely contradict your sources. Note how all of human civilization fits in a very narrow band out of that.
This sets aside how I was talking about an *instrumental* record, either through thermometers or satellites.
“Denialists”? How soviet.
Can the persecution complex, anonymous troll. It isn’t persecution to call a denialist a denialist, and what makes a denialist a denialist are the tactics used. I should note that Watts fits the bill on pretty much all of these.
By the way, the underlying assumption in your posts is that climatology says that carbon is the only factor controlling climate. This is very much like a creationist saying evolution predicts a crocoduck.
It isn’t because we’re talking esoterically about applying metaphors that may or may not be applicable. A church (the other metaphor used) could easily become an Al Qaeda training camp, in theory, if the preacher routinely preached hatred and called for removal of others for not being believers in “the cause.” If films like Jesus Camp didn’t make us feel like it was only a small step from a Christian equivalent, we’d never comment on them at all. They’d be boring propaganda films like Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed and (almost) nobody would watch them that wasn’t already indoctrinated (or spoiling for a fight against the inanity).
Can’t you see that any message can be taken too far? Can’t you see how PZ essentially saying “sic ’em boys” can be easily misconstrued? I’m not about to go so far as to say that there is that real of a chance that this would be a slippery slope to Al Qaeda. That’s absurd (and the reason I said it, it got attention). What I am saying is that a certain kind of thinking should be discouraged and that’s “buy the propaganda because we’re in-the-know.” The only people you can convince like that are ones you really don’t want on your side.
It would be better to starve the “creobot” trolls by not engaging them at all. By displaying open hostility toward them they are finding what they set out to find: evidence that some evolutionists are elitist, hateful jackasses with nothing better or more intelligent to say than “fuck off, troll!” That’s enough to turn them (any of the people on the sidelines that aren’t commenting that are reasonable and religious) away from listening to any of us, no matter how reasonable we are.
Freeman Dysan? No, he’s fairly smart.
Easily misunderstood by drive-byers though.
Translation: You’re not praying at my church, so you must be a new religion.
Another example of the need to be uncivil:
Sun: Since this blog appears to be a new religion site (not sure why it was in the science blog running) here’s Freeman Dyson on the need for heretics
Now, I’ve had long running flame wars with other commenters, particularly about certain concensuses in the scientific community that I believe are unwarranted. But I’ve never accused my opponents of being “religious”, or the entire site being a “new religion” because of a heated disagreement.
I’ve accused particular people of being ignorant, innumerate or careless, with unsupported positions. I’ve insulted particular people viciously (I believe).
But this weak-kneed, whiny, childish insult — “you don’t agree with me, so you’re just a bunch of dogmatists” — is just pathetic and empty. A real sign of empty trollage that never intended to have a debate — pointing to an empty-headed ideologue behind it.
It lacks creativity, style or any imagination in word selection. It’s at the level of youtube commentary — the kind of insult thrown by a stoned teenager who dropped out by 11th grade. Just sad really.
Here’s an uncivil comment, the consensus over Global Warming smacks of the groupthink and pseudoscience over another progressive scientific consensus, eugenics.
Like eugenics, climate science does not engage in rigerous testing of theories, preferring weak evidence and theories backed by contemporanious liberal progressive political consensus. Like eugenics, tremendous damage will be done before the quacks are exposed and progressives try to bury the subject in the historical record.
Except unlike eugenics, this is the age of the internet and all the retarded alarmist predictions and comments will be stored in incredible detail. Unlike eugenics, there will be no graceful historical exit for progressives…
Then check again, fuckhead. You clearly haven’t a fucking clue about the interactions between the hydrosphere, lithosphere, atmosphere, cryosphere, and biosphere, you stupid lackwit. Why don’t you read up on banded iron formations and their relevance to both the physical aspects of the planet and its biology for a fucking start, you asshole?
And then go jump off a fucking bridge. I’m tired of educating arrogant fucking morons like you today, you fucking pillar of dumb.
Posted by: Brownian | January 13, 2009
Freeman Dysan? No, he’s fairly smart.
Easily misunderstood by drive-byers though.
Now you are being a smart ass. Thank you. I was under the impression that many people here admired Freeman Dysan. But I wonder if the drive-byers will understand?
“What I don’t get is why some of us have to be shot down in the crossfire (and most of the bullets are coming from this side) who are interested in science. Is it really so difficult to imagine that three blogs can share a readership on issues of science? ”
Oh bullshit Ward. If that were the case you would confine yourself to the threads that are about science. Instead you keep bringing up with the same sanctimonious holier than thou crap that hardly anyone else here buys in the slightest.
Sun: Last I time checked climate was a physical phenomena.
Deserves an anti-Molly! Complete gitosity.
Actually Sun, climate is an emergent phenomena.
This is not a church, and if you stay here you’ll realise that many people disagree on many things. You are setting this place up like there’s no dissent allowed, which is utterly false.
In regard to starving creationists, on one level I agree. But on another if their arguments continue unchecked then they’ll just feel that their position is unanswerable. It’s always better to try and educate, even if it’s infuriating.
Emmet Caulfield, regarding your #419, of course my beard has a birthday. The Fifth of November 1975 was the day I got out of the army, last shave after having to do two a day.
OK, off to the mirror to adjust my spandex and pointy rubber ears. Live lawng and prosper y’all, as they say in the Vulcan south, T’Prawalina to be exact.
It is a coincidence and an obnoxious one. Other people with my name actually exist, you know?
It doesn’t even sound like that, unless you have a mental condition and that’s how you speak. If that really is the case, that’s OK though.
Actually Sun, climate is an emergent phenomena.
Was he that giant load-of-crap black-text block? I started to read it, but the stupidity and false conviviality of it burned.
Nisbetianism at its finest!
Heretics, not morons. No where does he say we need morons, who couldn’t pour piss out of a boot if the instructions were written on the heel, to challenge scientific orthodoxy.
We need SCIENTISTS to think out-side of the box. Even if it means, and it usually does, that the out-side-of-the-box thinking in which they were engaged was wrong.
But some git in Texas, or Nova Scotia, on the payroll of the Oil Companies and is being used as a cat’s paw to sew doubt and division in something… You know, a LOT of doctors sold out to the tobacco companies. They were outside the box, they were wrong, and a lot of people died.
And that’s what you are. You’re the hacks that would rather have people die of AIDS than admit you’re wrong. You’re the hacks who’d rather people got addicted to cancer-sticks and would have them die than admit you’re wrong.
Ignorant, pus-brained, egotistical ass-troll-morons.
Actually, that is only evidence that I read those posts and don’t comment on them. Isn’t it at least a little bit possible that I can both read and agree with them and not have anything to say about it?
You’re trying to find what you’re looking for without any evidence for your position. That’s a patently unscientific way to see the world, and it’s the reason for my objection to posts like “Open season on fresh meat.” All they do is detract from the science posts and give people the impression that the host, and his posters are cretins.
Note: Before that’s taken out of context, since some of you are so fond of doing that) I did use the word impression. A few of you actually are cretins, but not enough of you to say that the entire blog is run by one or that even a majority of the commentators (on a good day) are either. But, when nobody says anything to the actual cretins and rather pats them on the back for it, they’re doing themselves and this blog a huge disservice.
Gee Mick, you sure convinced me; where do I sign up? Oh wait, where’s all that evidence to back up your position?
*cricket… cricket…*
Hey Mick #546,
I think you left out the part where you support, that “climate science does not engage in rigerous [sic] testing of theories…..
Quite simply Ward, the fact that your posts are allowed here despite the fact you compared us to an Al Queda training camp is proof enough that PZ allows free speech and free expression. This blog is scarcely moderated and to be banned one has to really go out of their way in being an obnoxious weed. Your view is put up here along with others, and that’s really as much as you can ask for anywhere – and indeed it’s better than a lot of places on the internet.
I don’t get the (joke/disparagement/insult/whatever it’s meant to be) and I suppose that means it’s supposed to be an inside joke. Google turns up nothing. If it’s meant disparagingly, you can keep it to yourself. If it’s supposed to enlighten me to something, please elaborate.
Heh.
1. I’ve been on blogs that practice that; the outcome is a climate of fear that trolls will arrive, and that those who respond are criticised. Often, the trollish droppings are removed by a moderator or the blog owner and the troll banned.
In Phangula, trolls get stomped. It’s fun.
2. As opposed to being validated by not being confronted? Heh.
You fail to see the nuances; not all creobots/godbots are trolls (except perhaps functionally), and not all trolls are creobots.
Not nearly as funny as the fact that “Ward S. Denker” is an anagram of “Dr. Wankseed”, though.
Michael X – You have not been ignored. (I was edging closer to you all the time, while quietly pouting.)
You sir, are outrageously handsome and debonair!
You bash. You protest. You deny.
You yet you demonstrate that you are completely ignorant of something learned in any decent high school general science class.
You could have at least tried Wikipedia. Hardly rocket science, but even they get it right: Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas as it transmits visible light but absorbs strongly in the infrared and near-infrared.
Molecule absorbs infra-red. Molecule gets warmer. Ta da. Or as is written up in Wikipedia: Late 19th century scientists experimentally discovered that N2 and O2 did not absorb infrared radiation (called, at that time, “dark radiation”) and that CO2 and many other gases did absorb such radiation. It was recognized in the early 20th century that the greenhouse gases in the atmosphere caused the Earth’s overall temperature to be higher than it would be without them.
(That’s right, about 100 years ago we knew this. But back then, the ‘problem’ was minuscule and thought to be so far in the future that it was of no concern. Well that, and the fact that nobody back then really could figure out what the real, likely, changes could entail.)
Ward: Actually, that is only evidence that I read those posts and don’t comment on them. Isn’t it at least a little bit possible that I can both read and agree with them and not have anything to say about it?
Okay — I can’t help myself. You agree with them all? You never have something to add, something to extend to them?
You do know about probabilistic inference, don’t you?
Apparently, you know nothing about how science is done.
Mick regurgitated,
Here’s my rigerous [sic] testing of a {hypothesis}.
The data: You speak like a political hack, write like a pretentious fop, and use “liberal” as an ad hominem.
My hypothesis: You have no evidence to back your bald faced assertion.
The test: I challenge you to put up or shut up asshole. Produce evidence of a lack of testing among climate scientists.
That sounds like insecurity in one’s position.
Nobody fears that the weirdo babbling in the park that biblical Armageddon is upon us and it’s time to repent doesn’t draw crowds. Ignoring him is better to do than arguing with him because arguing with him may actually feed his delusion of a conspiracy that “they” are out to stop him from delivering “the word.” You’re actually validating some other position he holds by responding in the first place.
That’s why most people just walk on by and ignore the fellow.
Kel, to be fair, I have a smackdown in moderation here, but that’s because I provided several links to back my claims up using HTML. The wonders of countering the Gish Gallop — even blog comments, which *can* have all their information linked to in a brief span of time, can get caught up in delays before publication.
Ward, Nisbet = Matt Nisbet of the ScienceBlog Framing Science. He’s got a long history of trying to frame arguments in such a fashion that pseudoscience isn’t mocked but rather isn’t addressed at all. Nisbet isn’t well liked. (It’s also rather interesting to see the different approaches to science communication that his frequent collaborator Chris Mooney takes compared to Nisbet himself.)) On a climate front, his most recent serious gaffe was described here.
Ward @564, Nisbet is an appeaser. He has a blog.
Dammit, I missed an “r”!
It should be “Dr. Wankseder”, of course.
Mick probably learned that from Rush Limbaugh.
Oh Patricia, flattery will get you everywhere.
That happened to me once, I learnt from my mistake though, never post more than two hyperlinks in the same post :P
Ward @571,
Really? How so?
I fail to see how addressing and disputing wrongness indicates insecurity; rather the opposite. I’m confident in my position, and welcome challenges to such.*
I rather think that avoiding confrontation, as you propose, is the insecure position.
—
* Note: since my beliefs are tentative, they’re open to change by argument and evidence.
Moses: yet you demonstrate that you are completely ignorant of something learned in any decent high school general science class.
You could have at least tried Wikipedia. Hardly rocket science, but even they get it right: Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas as it transmits visible light but absorbs strongly in the infrared and near-infrared.
Feeling uncharitable? Our esteemed friend Steve B does understand that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. What he can’t get is that CO2 is embedded in a complicated system with some obviously limits, where excess CO2 over ocean acidification, loss of carbon dump growth in the ecosystem, feedbacks between polar albedo and temperature change, etc, and etc, and etc, makes a threshold effect inevitable.
We should of course refine our model to get a better sense of what the thresholds on the system are — work that is being done with a cursory review of Science or Nature, much less actually reading Climatological journals.
But our honorable friend instead prefers to speak in a pseudo-scientific gobbledy-gook about “chaotic systems” without understanding such simple facts, as that the earth’s orbit is a chaotic system. One which has a very clear envelope.
Or that many systems are highly dependent on initial conditions — but even if the differential form of the equations can’t be solved, the integral form often come out quite neatly.
So please, give SteveB the benefit of the doubt: he’s not ignorant of everything, just the things that don’t benefit his conclusion.
I may not be able to be capable of adding additional scientific insight to posts on evolution, it’s an ancillary interest (one of many) of mine. I don’t want to add an “Amen, brother PZ,” derail the thread (unless I might have something funny to say) or risk sound like I am a “creobot” if I found a problem with the logic or the scientific rigor of said posts.
Admitting that most scientists are not multi-disciplinary and that they’re actually, you know, ignorant about other fields outside their own isn’t scientific. It’s honest. The vast majority of scientists are really knowledgeable about their field of study, but would be woefully inadequate applied to another field altogether. The only ones that come the closest to true multi-discipline across a great sphere of knowledge are mathematicians and they’re often not really called “scientists” at all. If we agree that everything is applied mathematics, that is. Those few are often jacks-of-all-trades, but even they have their strengths and weaknesses (and interests). Mathematicians are overwhelmingly hired by the NSA to devise and break encryption algorithms and codes (among other things).
Ward:
I’m assuming that you think that we as atheists are looking to proselytize and convert the irrational religious who see faith as equivalent to rationality. No amount of charm, niceness or civility is going to bring an evangelical ideological metamorphosis.
“Hallelujah! You once believed in magic but now you know physical laws govern all material things and that gods and metaphysical creatures are human constructs! Amen!”
No matter how reasonable, rational, patient and charitable an non-theist is, it will do nothing to convince someone of divesting their “faith”. Ask Scott H. Ask the the many theists who read Pharyngula religiously (heh, heh).
The fanatical fundamentalists/evangelicals/creationists don’t care how nice or mean you are, either way you are their enemy. You are the one THEY are trying to convert. Logic, science and reason are futile until the cognitive dissonance becomes loud enough for them to have to sort out reality from dogma and even then there is the chance that they will reject reason for faith because of the ultimate social and psychic cost.
Your catch more flies with honey vs. vinegar approach is wrong. Flies always prefer shit and carcasses.
Posted by: Ward S. Denker | January 13, 2009 8:05 PM
“You’re trying to find what you’re looking for without any evidence for your position.”
You clearly had no idea what I was talking about. You stated:
“I get it that a lot of the commenters aren’t as interested in the science that occasionally does get mentioned here as they are his stance as a fire-breathing liberal. What I don’t get is why some of us have to be shot down in the crossfire (and most of the bullets are coming from this side) who are interested in science.”
My observation was that it was bullshit for you to claim your interest was in science when you engage in the threads that are not. I could care less that you read the science threads without commenting. Have at it. But to claim you are the poor science loving victim caught in the crossfire on threads about social issues is wanking at its best.
Well I gotta rehearse. But, doing Moliere’s Les Precieuses Ridicules is going to be a lot funnier to me after this thread.
Don’t be too uncivil guys! *snicker* *snicker*
Ward wrote:
Don’t blame me, dumbass – I didn’t name you. I suggest you take it up with your parents.
And as for your snide comments regarding ‘correct’ pronunciation, you might want to note that there are numerous posters here who aren’t from the same town, county, state or country as you – and, in fact, many of whom aren’t native English speakers – so your name is going to be pronounced relative to the linguistic factors stemming from that.
Right now you sound like the kind of person who’d find listening to a non-English speaker struggle with pronunciation a real laugh riot.
Ward: Admitting that most scientists are not multi-disciplinary and that they’re actually, you know, ignorant about other fields outside their own isn’t scientific.
What can I say, but if I believe what you claim, then you’re just a hack. Every field is multi-disciplinary and requires at least a passing knowledge of other fields. You sound like Sherlock Holmes claiming that he doesn’t need to know that the Earth revolves around the Sun for his detective work!
You don’t know enough to recognize a question that those in the field may not have asked? You don’t see any intersections with your field, you don’t have curiosity that is unanswered in the posting or the comments, yet you never misunderstand severely enough to require posting a question? And this at the simple level of a comment — not posting a blog on the subject, but simply a small comment underneath someone else’s blog?
See, I’m in a real quandary — are you merely a hack, or being completely disingenuous? I think logical consistency requires the latter, but then again, they are not mutually exclusive.
Wowbagger,
I think you need a non-rhotic accent for it to work; it does work particularly well with an Australian accent, though, where it’s as good as Seymour Butts or I.P. Freely.
Eugenics were, for the most part, the providence of the rich right-wingers. Prescott Bush was a typical member of Eugenicists. And, for the record, he lost in his first run for Senate because of his support for Hitler and eugenics and since it was right after WWII… People were not so kind and forgiving to the Nazi-sympathizers among us.
Amazingly how fifty-years can change a country. His son and a grandson both became President. And his grandson is the closest thing we’ve ever had to a fascist leader of a fascist state and will go down as one of the worst leaders in the history of our country and the modern world.
You’d know that if you weren’t a semi-literate, uneducated fuck-tard.
PZ sez: “There is no virtue in politeness when confronted with ignorance, dishonesty, and delusion.”
I think what the professor meant to write is there’s no virtue in politeness when confronted with WILLFUL ignorance, dishonesty and delusion. Normal ignorance alone is no cause for taking a confrontational approach, but deliberate, studied ignorance deserves all the scorn one can muster.
I don’t have a reason to be pissed off if I can’t rouse you for watch until I find out the reason you won’t get out of your rack is that you’re pretending to be asleep.
You’d be assuming incorrectly then. What I am saying is that there are side-liners, incidentals that we can’t ignore. Being religious is not necessarily the same thing as being irrational.
Many atheists have come from the ranks of the religious, deconverted because they managed to find insightful reasons to believe that religion is silly and only serves to fill the gaps of human knowledge that existed at the time.
Some of us came to this on our own, others have been convinced. It’s amusing to hold a creationist to the fire, but that only serves to cause those incidental visitors to decide that what they’re actually seeing is elitism in a wrapper of smugness. They’re not going to bother to see if there’s actually candy under that.
I’m sure Pharyngula comes up on a lot of Google searches (some of which you’d never expect) because PZ’s quite a prolific blogger, quoted and linked to often. This gives him a prominence in the scientific community. I contend that this prominence comes with a responsibility to try to educate his readership. You may not agree, but I think entries like this one harms evolution education.
lol. You made my day. Especially with the very charitable ending. :)
Your concern has been noted.
And I thought that this discussion was supporting the cause of incivility. I was just giving back what I got. Just because it stings doesn’t mean you should get all pissy about it. :)
Actually, I find that I am most often the only one that’s actually trying to understand what non-native English speakers are saying (vocally, it’s harder to identify them on the internet because of the background noise of stupid Americans mangles signal detection of honest learners). I’m actually rather good at it.
The scientific edifice is filled with non-native speakers in America (though, since the SARS outbreak we’re not stealing as many Chinese scientists as we really should be, which is a damned shame). Bring them all here, in my opinion!
Ward @#589,
People deconvert in different ways. Some of the testimonials on RichardDawkins.net say, and more than a few posters here have said, that seeing other people puncture the vainglorious sanctimony of religion by being rude and crude about it actually helped them see religion for the bucket of shite that it is — true, many people don’t respond to it, but some do.
Richard Dawkins agrees with Daniel Dennet when he notes in The Four Horsemen videos (with Hitchens and Harris) that, while working on Breaking the Spell, he tried desperately to rephrase the parts that were deemed excessively “shrill” by religious readers of the drafts, and it was impossible to satisfy them — any criticism of religion, no matter how mildly he tried to phrase it, was seen as excessively strident, intemperate, and offensive.
There is plenty of room for the attitude that you might as well speak plainly and be hanged for a sheep as a lamb and it finds expression here.
Emmet Caulfield wrote:
#593: s/Dennet/Dennett/
Does that mean you’re a Harold Bishop rather than a Joe Mangel?
*ducks*
Tell you what, Ward. You show us how it’s done. Take someone like Colonic Sun here. You straighten him out, show him where he’s wrong, help him see the error of his ways, and you do it wearing your Ambassador for Science robes.
You’re really showing your age there, Emmet…
Gee PZ. Still fighting that adolescent battle against the tyranny of creationism? Never grew out of that and moved on and became an adult.
How old did you say you are? A University professor without maturity or a shred of a sense of responsibility. Just the same hate and anger you carried with you since you were a sullen and miserable teenager.
I hope you dont mind the ad-homs. After all, it is your preferred tone isnt it?
I do gotta add though–I dont see what makes you any superior or even different from the people you revile.
Alright, I’ll try.
Colonel Sun,
A few posts with scant data in them aren’t enough to form a conclusion on your side of the argument. It’s not germane to the discussion at hand, and it would be really difficult to bring all of the arguments here at once. Couple with that the realization that the residents here don’t consider your point of view to be a scientific one at all, and that they’re reluctant to admit their real reasons why, you’ll find this blog to be cold company.
What you can feasibly do within the space of a comment is to prove small facts. One such fact is that the Mann “hockey stick” was (being generous) terrible science, and at worst it was intentionally fabricated to produce the graph it did because it fails a simple monte carlo analysis. You can extend the argument further that many who supported it on face value (such as the IPCC and Gore), and still defend it today, have diminished scientific reputations (and they’ll deny it) for accepting such a load of crap to begin with. It’s indicative of the kind of pseudo-scientific nonsense that makes it into an IPCC report (which are whitewashed to remove dissenting scientific opinions).
:)
I was but a tiny tot back then ;o)
Oh, and Harry#599 is definitely a cowgull.
Oh, Hi Harry.
Good to see you finally got off that deserted island. It’s been a crazy time since you’ve been gone. The religiots took over the US and justified an ill-conceived overseas slaughter by burying their heads up their asses while spouting biblical verses. Their pogrom against homosexuals continues and their war against science has escalated. It’s really only through highlighting their hijinxs that we’ve been able to keep their idiocy in check by the slimmest of margins.
I know you’re eager to reacquaint yourself with civilisation, but I just thought I’d give you a heads up on some of the darker aspects of this modern world.
All the best.
599: A+ for effort, C- for execution.
Well, I voted for Pharyngula each day (and I played nice this year). So be it.
I thought PZ answered his critics well with this post, especially in point #2: it’s his fucking blog, and he’ll write about whatever the fuck he wants. As for their whines about science, maybe they need another reminder a la the Stan Palmer spanking.
Crustacean @603,
That averages to a passing grade, so thanks! ;)
Wrong. The NAS report showed while there were errors in the statistical analysis the overall conclusion still held. Will you guys ever let that go?
You know what Ward? Fuck you, you slimy little shit.
Reluctant to discuss reasons? How’s this? A fucking douchebag who writes a smug comment like “Last I time checked climate was a physical phenomena” has just demonstrated that he hasn’t even a high school understanding of climate forcings. Since he’s not even aware of the basics, it’s pretty well impossible for him to have a ‘scientific view’, any more than it’s possible for the letter writer PZ highlighted in his most recent post to have a ‘scientific view’ of evolution. Need more reasons, you dumb fuck? Crack an introductory palaeo textbook, and you’ll see why the Colonel is an idiot.
It’s equivocating pieces of shit like you who think their vacuous, ignorant little opinions are worthy of debate and try to defend them with unsupported assertions that we need to have a discussion on civility when dealing with fuckwits. If you clueless fuckers bothered to gain even a cursory understanding of the issues you try to argue against, we’d have no problem.
Try reading the ‘correspondence’ section of a scientific journal to gain a clue as to what disagreement–even vehement disagreemen–between individuals who’ve taken the time to actually learn the basics and beyond before they open their traps.
As for you, you uneducated little prick, I’m done with you on this thread.
So Brownian, has the climate debate became yet another outlet to air you ideological views? Is that all this is about to you guys?
That’s pretty much what I was thinking anyway. It really wasnt about the science after all was it?
And, fuck, I’m glad I now don’t have to type my name and email address every goddamn time I want to comment. Melikes the post-SB-server-upgrade version of Pharyngula.
Funny. I was reading our paper today (I live in Ottawa, Canada) and the issue of “courtesy” came up in the editorial section. The writer was reacting to bus signs in the UK. Anyways, for those interested, here’s the link:
http://www.ottawacitizen.com/opinion/right+believe/1171127/story.html
There’s a cute line in there: “These so-call new atheists are intelligent and articulate, but they have also been known, with the possible exception of Mr. Dennett, to ridicule traditional religion. This is not conducive to dialogue.”
Because religious people only want dialogue, right? Of course…
Harry, #599, squawked:
That’s probably because what you ‘don’t see’, Harry, would – as they say – fill more than a few bigger-than-average barns. I’ll hazard a guess that this is the result of your head being stuck, permanently, up your ignorant ass.
Brownian,
You did ask me to try and dissuade him without attacking his point of view. I did exactly what you asked. There’s no need to get angry when I was being accomodating (though it wasn’t the exactly what you envisioned).
Wowbagger,
I think Harry was being tongue-in-cheek. I could be wrong, though. He can answer for himself.
Having read about 20% of the comments, I can see why this site DIDN’T win. The ratio of “debate” to “consensus” is high in real science. In this blog it is extremely low.
Dogma != Science
Not matter how “uncivil” you manage to be.
“I’ll hazard a guess that this is the result of your head being stuck, permanently, up your ignorant ass.”
That’s good Wowbagger. That would definitely earn you an above average grade with Professor “PZ” Myers of the University of Minnesota. It didnt however, answer the question. I guess there really isnt anyway to tell the difference between you and a religious zealot is there?
…or of the fact that phenomena is plural.
Carry on.
Nope. We’re exactly the same. So you’re better off going to church than hanging out here. They’re nicer.
Bye.
Sorry. I forgot to stipulate that you must use science, not dogma. Nice work attacking us instead of him. A real win for the civility proponents.
Anyways, don’t worry about it. I don’t need anything more from you. As I said, I’m done with you on this thread. I only responded to this out of courtesy.
You might be right – if, of course, you happened to be ignorant of the definitions of the words ‘religious’ and ‘zealot’. Or perhaps ‘difference’ and ‘you’; at this point I’m not prepared to make any assumptions about your intellectual capacity – or lack thereof.
Maybe you should read over what I quoted from your post, genius. There wasn’t a question.
Yup. You nailed it. We’re all about the validation of our previously held beliefs.
OK Wowbagger, so here’s the question: (Brownian, PZ Myers and any of the rest of you can join in), what gives you such a sense of superiority that you no longer feel you need to be civil.
Here’s another:
What makes you different from the people you rile against?
Try to answer this while mentioning 5 or less bodily functions.
I should add, since it’s pretty much what Harry was thinking anyway, that I’ve been thoroughly inculcated in the AGW dogma held by liberal science professors. I’ve got the 4.0 average in every climatology course I’ve ever taken to prove it.
I’m really adding this for the benefit of the rest of you, since it’s pretty much what Harry was thinking anyway.
Why ask Harry? Why bother? You’ve already got your answer. “It’s yet another outlet to air [our] ideological views. We’re blind to new evidence. It’s pretty much what what you were thinking anyway.
Who is Harry?
Brownian:
“I’ve got the 4.0 average in every climatology course I’ve ever taken to prove it.”
Probably earned that average with reason skills like the argument below:
“You know what Ward? Fuck you, you slimy little shit.”
Was Myers your instructor? He must be proud.
I am curious why there’s so much objection to the term “physical phenomena [sic]”
Are you trying to support the claim that climate cannot be described by physics? That is what generally the term physical implies, scientifically speaking. Is it just because there are some aspects that can be described by biological processes? I didn’t see him making a claim that it’s only a physical phenomenon.
There’s a lot of it that’s described by physics, such as fluid dynamics, etc. The amount of solar radiation Earth receives due to its position in relevance to the sun as well as processes like deep ocean currents make up a lot of what drives our climate, and those are physical processes too.
Where’s the disconnect here?
Lesson for this thread. Do not mess with Happy Fun Brownian (OM)
A sense of irony.
My turn: why do you care?
Right now my sense of superiority over you is only a relative one; it’s fueled by nothing more than your frequent, repeated illustration of inferiority.
More to the point: why, exactly, are you assuming that incivility stems from a sense of superiority? You’ve demonstrated your inferiority and yet your first post on this thread was one of uncivil attack. Does the combination of the terms ‘pot’, ‘kettle’ and ‘black’ mean anything to you?
Well, you’ve got me there – thinking, after all, is a bodily function; one that you, evidently, disdain. Care to try again?
Harry, what gives you such a sense of superiority that you can demand that others be civil, or provide their reasons for not being so?
Wowbagger:
“More to the point: why, exactly, are you assuming that incivility stems from a sense of superiority?”
From you guys I get a sense defensiveness concealed as smug superiority, but I’ll be just as happy with your explanation of why being as rude and offensive as you want to be is more desirable for you. Is your point to convince the unbelievers or to consolidate your own beliefs?
Ah, just another concern troll. Yawn.
Crustacean:
“Harry, what gives you such a sense of superiority that you can demand that others be civil, or provide their reasons for not being so?”
1. I made no demands, I’ve just made comments and asked questions.
2. This is a forum right?
I’m sorry guys. I guess you arent used to having to have your beliefs questioned. I understand.
Harry,
What beliefs have you questioned? Maybe I missed the posts where you actually questions beliefs here. Your first just complained about the tone and anger, and after that you said a few things about people being zealots but I still have not seen anything where you have particularly questioned anything.
It’s OK, Harry. I know you don’t get out much.
*Yawn* Can we move on from Harry? I think we’ve established exactly why he is here and that nothing of substance is going to come from responding to him.
Harry
1. No, you’re not.
2. Wrong.
3. No, you don’t.
Well Travis, the question is out there and on topic. Professor Myers opines that he doesnt feel the need to converse with skeptics in a civilized manner and encourages his readers to act likewise. My original intent was to comment that in this approach, I didnt see what makes Professor Myers different than the blind religious dogmatist he rails against. Now its just a really good question. I you have read my last few posts you know what my question is. If you dont act this way out of a sense of superiority, then what’s it for?
Do you see what I’m getting at?
Yes. Harry. We never have anything questioned here ever. It’s one massive group think. Yup. You nailed it. You’ve won. You can go now.
You’re really not very good at this, are you?
What you’re doing is called projecting. Because your positions are mostly groundless you are insecure; this makes you defensive, so you assume others must be as well.
Your assumptions are incorrect. The appearance of smug superiority may be indicative of nothing other than smugness stemming from actual superiority. To be defensive would mean possessing an underlying doubt in the position held – which isn’t always the case.
I can’t speak for PZ (or anyone else) but I, personally, choose rude and offensive if it seems the most appropriate means of conveying my opinion. It’s effective, fun for me to write, and provides (I assume) entertainment for the readers.
False dichotomy – it’s neither. Unbelievers are unlikely to be convinced; my own beliefs need no consolidation. What’s important – probably more so in debates over religion – is the fence-sitters, those who can be swayed.
5 or fewer! Fewer, you pissy little shit-for-brains snot-nosed scumbag.
Arguing about how to argue is boring. If you have something substantive to say, say it. Either wise, fuck off.
Ward @625:
Because “climate” is a descriptor for long-term weather patterns. Classifications are abstractions, not physical phenomena.
Climate relates to weather, the which is itself a classification of physical phenomena.
Your lack of understanding. That an abstraction relates to phenomena does not mean it’s itself a phenomenon.
—
* Do you realise that, absent the context indicating plurality, there is no error in the term “physical phenomena”?
“That is what generally the term physical implies, scientifically speaking” – now, such an abuse of grammar deserves a siccing :)
Harry:
You appear not to understand that sceptic ≠ denialist. The former requires evidence and argument, the latter is impervious to such.
But the reason I come here is for the incivility!
SC wrote
Hmm, once I stopped laughing I counted: ‘pissy’, ‘shit-for brains’, ‘snot-nosed’ and ‘scumbag’ all relate to bodily functions, at least tangentially. But that’s only four. So, Harry has to accept it.
wowbagger:
“What you’re doing is called projecting.”
Is that what I’m doing? Well, I’m sure glad the only reason you choose to be uncivil is as a fun manner of expressing an opinion rather than out of a feeling of being either smug or defensive. I guess “fun” is as good a reason than any other.
Here’s a couple of guys having fun:
SC, OM:
“5 or fewer! Fewer, you pissy little shit-for-brains snot-nosed scumbag”
Feynmaniac:
“If you have something substantive to say, say it. Either wise, fuck off.”
Still sounds defensive to me, (and a tad frightened), and more than just a little bit the same response I would expect to get on any extremist website. Who really knows right?
Harry:
Further evidence that you lack perspicacity.
Well Harry, its like this…
when I’m showing someone an apple and they say “Its an orange”, I’m initially perplexed and keen to correct their (obvious) error. I say “No, its red, its an apple”
“Its an orange”
“No, its white on the inside. Its an apple”
“Its an orange.”
“Look. Its crunchy, not juicy. Its an apple”
“Its an orange.”
“Dammit! Look! Red, white,crunchy, its an apple!”
“I believe it is an orange. Nothing can change that.”
“For Fucks sake! Look…”
etc…
You can see how quickly civility is worn away in that conversation. So, it’s not that we possess an inflated sense of superiority, its that we’re all so damn sick and tired of people who can’t see the fucking apple.
John Morales,
Well, that’s kind of playing at semantics, isn’t it. It was actually frog that first used the term to describe climate:
Colloquially, most of us recognize the term “phenomena” as an ambiguous term that means “observable effects.” The term “physical” is quite a bit less ambiguous, and I don’t doubt the meaning he intended it to have.
As for being “sicced” for grammar, it’s getting rather late and I have no coffee :(. At the time I was quite distracted as well by other pressing issues. I ended up writing that one short post in disjointed bursts, so I’m actually amazed it came out as well as it did, in retrospect.
Besides, if we’re nit picking my style, I should point out that I could have used a better word here:
A little more evidence that I’m just getting tired, and that I’m actually aware of it.
You’re projecting, Harry. Both SC and Feynmaniac have been here a good long while, and they’re having a good laugh at you.
They also make a valid point. Exactly what argument are you making? You haven’t said anything substantive at all, at least not yet. No one can feel defensive when you haven’t even made the effort to challenge any ideas yet.
You’ve contributed nothing insightful, interesting, amusing, or intelligent, Harry, and I’m busy on another thread. I deem you worthy of mocking and correction.
Oh, and by the way:
John Morales:
“You appear not to understand that sceptic ≠ denialist. The former requires evidence and argument, the latter is impervious to such.”
Oh, I understand perfectly. Im glad we agree on this. However, that isnt Professor Myers stated belife. To him, there is no such thing as a climatw skeptic and no need to be civil at all:
“There are people who put together a coherent picture of a scientific issue, who review lots of evidence and assemble a rational synthesis. They’re called scientists. Then there are the myopic little nitpickers, people who scurry about seeking little bits of garbage in the fabric of science (and of course, there are such flaws everywhere), and when they find some scrap of rot, they squeak triumphantly and hold it high and declare that the science everywhere is similarly corrupt. They lack perspective. They ignore everything that doesn’t fit their search criterion, and of course, they’re focused only on putrescence. They aren’t scientists, they’re more like rats.
And the worst of the rats are the sanctimonious ones that declare that they’re just ‘policing’ science. They aren’t. They’re just providing fodder for their fellow denialists, and like them all, have nothing of value to contribute to advance the conversation. You can quit whining that you and McIntyre are finding valid errors; it doesn’t matter, since you’re simultaneously spreading a plague of lies and ignorance as you go.”/i”
Tell you what, Harry, you find a site where people discuss the heliocentric model of the solar system, and you tell them that they’re being ‘defensive’ when they call someone who believes in an earth-centric model a fucking useless clown shoe who wouldn’t know shit from Shinola.
Or, go to a site about gravity and see how people who go there to propose the idea of magical, undetectable, invisible fairies who carry objects to the ground instead of gravity. Are they ‘defensive’ when they tell them to cram their stupid ideas up their stupid asses, with walnuts?
There are occasions where insults ≠ defensiveness. This is one of them.
Oh great, Professor Myers…while I have you hear, can I go ahead and ask you if you think there are climate “skeptics” (not “denialist”) you can talk to and do so in a mature fashion?
Hey Harry #620! Your first question has an unstated assertion, that a sense of superiority is a necessary condition for incivility. Care to support that assertion? I mean, to me it sounds axiomatic re. your idea of superiority but I could be wrong. (Do I need to mention the mind-numbing banality of your second question?)
Alright, I read some of the NAS Report Feynmaniac linked, but all of what I’ve read so far is actually disclaiming confidence levels in the data that went into producing that graph.
It’s basically admitting the calculated levels of confidence the scientists at the NAS that reviewed it are of varying degrees. It mentions that there are several proxies for the data, since direct measurement couldn’t have been taken (kind of goes without saying) and that at least some of the proxies are pretty good and that said proxies correlate to one another pretty well.
What it then goes on to say is that, past a certain point in pre-history (I don’t mean actual history, but rather “measurement” history) the data becomes sparse and the confidence levels drop off rather drastically.
I’m not sure how this props up the Mann “hockey stick” at all, and actually seems to be asserting that some of the data that went into it doesn’t meet very high standards of confidence (by which I presume they mean statistical confidence, and not the colloquial meaning).
I’m tired and face a diminished capacity to concentrate on scientific literature for now. I think I’m going to give my brain a rest and go watch a movie.
Thanks for the interesting conversations (to all that were able to provide one, anyway).
Professor Myers?
I’m someone who is poking around here as a result of being led here by the blog vote thing. I love the site, being hugely into evolutionary biology and hugely against religious stupidity. I’ve bookmarked it for future browsing. I don’t care one way or the other about rudeness, but PZ you’re making a big mistake in your easy dismissal of the two climate sites. There are plenty of nutters who prowl the sites, but the bloggers themselves are actually doing outstanding work. In the case of Steve McIntyre, this outstanding work in the face of plenty of disgraceful unscientific behaviour by the so-called scientists whose work he is criticising. You should look at what he’s done with a more open mind.
Worth reading on the subject:
http://tamino.wordpress.com/2007/12/16/wiggles/
Statistics
Funny thing, Harry is not even the most obnoxious troll to hang out here today.
Harry, I will point out a few things to you. Because of the nature of this blog, there are a lot of evolution denying fundamentalist christians who like to venture here in order to either condemn or convert us. If you took the time to go through the archives, they come in condemning us and it goes down hill from there.
Funny thing, rarely do these people present anything that any of us have not seen dozens of times before. And for the people who actually have training in biology, it must really be galling. Just try to imagine what it must be like if people kept coming to you in your area of expertise and insisted that you are all wrong and that you are evil for pursuing your work. Yeah, it gets pretty fucking tiring.
Most of us can sniff out a troll pretty quick. It is not that any of us have special senses, they make it very easy for us to tell. As you may or may not tell, most of us here have a sense of humor and a low tolerance for bullshit. These trolls are game for us.
Cruel? Perhaps.
But there is a funny thing here. Harry, most of the people that you have been sparring with, would have spoken civilly with you if you have been civil. I have seen them be very patient with people that I have little patience for.
Harry, just how did you come in? Guns a blazin’.
Gee PZ. Still fighting that adolescent battle against the tyranny of creationism? Never grew out of that and moved on and became an adult.
How old did you say you are? A University professor without maturity or a shred of a sense of responsibility. Just the same hate and anger you carried with you since you were a sullen and miserable teenager.
I hope you dont mind the ad-homs. After all, it is your preferred tone isnt it?
I do gotta add though–I dont see what makes you any superior or even different from the people you revile.
There is plenty of combat here. You could have come in combative and have something to say about global warming. But you had nothing. You came in shouting insults to people who are used to being insulted. And even worse, they give it back. When you came in like that, you became sport.
You kept throwing your invectives but not once did you have anything to say. Yet more reason to pile on. And trust, no one was scared of you, we were all laughing.
One last funny thing, if you give these people here something to mull over, they will stop being mean. There will still be teasing but we tease each other here.
I posted this link a little while ago on the other thread:
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Stephen_McIntyre
Thought it might be of interest.
Declan O’Dea:
“I don’t care one way or the other about rudeness, but PZ you’re making a big mistake in your easy dismissal of the two climate sites.”
I wouldnt easily dismiss the rudness. Its part & parcel of the dismissal of any view not conforming to popular AGW “consensus” on this site.
They do discuss science over there. Yes, even though Mc Intyre makes himself clear nothing he had discovered disproves, or is meant to disprove AGW, the bulk of the comments are overwhelmingly skeptical. However, there is a distinct lack of such technical climate terms commonly used here, such as; “asshole”, “fucktard”, “Conservofascists”, “nutsack denialists” or “fucking fucking fuckers”. Im sure they loose points in the debate because of it.
@Harry
Gee PZ. Still fighting that adolescent battle against the tyranny of creationism? Never grew out of that and moved on and became an adult.
*You* rail against being uncivil. I’m sure that this response is somehow civil in your mind, but ask yourself this question from, who else, yourself:
What makes you different from the people you rile against?
But here’s the real question:
(…) what gives you such a sense of superiority that you no longer feel you need to be civil.
(Note that I gave you the benefit of the doubt and acted as if I missed something by not quoting the rest of it.)
What makes you different from the people you rile against?
Better yet, what makes you different from the average troll?
However, I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you’re an idiot. You criticize others for not having civility, yet you yourself show incivility in all of your posts that I have read. “Hypocrite” is the word, but perhaps stupid is simply a better word for such an obvious error in argumentation. Mind you, hypocrisy does not necessarily disqualify the argument itself, but it does show that you do not have any real commitment to what you express, making you either a dunce or both a dunce and a troll.
the debate about climate science is lead in scientific journals (where it happens to have been confirmed with as much certainty as modern science can provide, not on blogs. on blogs, some people have the gall to claim they know better, and others are fucking sick of telling them where they can stick their overblown egos, after discovering that it’s easier to talk a wall out of verticality than an AGW “skeptic” out of his denial
er. that was supposed to be climate change, not climate science
“Im sure they loose points in the debate because of it.”
I’M with an apostrophe, and LOSE with one ‘o’, you fucking, shitting, pissing, eating, lactating smegmacake.
I’d add “pompous windbag”, but I’m afraid that might be mistaken for respiration, and I believe I’m already over the bodily function quota. I’ll wait for my next turn.
Holy shnikes. I, for one, would like to hereby nominate frog for the next round of Mollies. He/she has done what I aim/aspire to do, only better, with more patience and respect, however undeserved.
Steve: really, cut your losses.
Harry: do you have a point?
Declan: bring your proof, we’ll bring ours. Until then, shut the fuck up.
Janine:
“Harry, just how did you come in? Guns a blazin’.”
Yes. Including this bit here:
“I hope you dont mind the ad-homs. After all, it is your preferred tone isnt it?”
I dont know if you ever took Professor Myers to task for promoting incivility, but I think it more than a little disingenuous to call me out for mine. Maybe if I had described Myers as a “whackaloon” I’d be at the same level. But you certainly couldnt object to what Ive written on the very thread written by a University professor advocating uncivil discourse.
Please Janine, lets not be dishonest. Ive seen what passes for debate here and Myers sets the tone, not I.
No, Im not here to talk about climate. Im here to discuss the discourse. In this, I am on topic. Its Myers thread.
You keep saying that I have nothing to add to the discussion, but I think you know what Im saying and that itg does have merit despite you and Myers claim that Im being laughed off.
I guess with you, at least I can be thankful that you havent used a four-letter invective in your post. That for the moment, puts you in a higher class than a University professor.
Well isn’t this just fun, two lots of scientifically trained skeptics trying to call each other names. Insults may overcome those sensitive bible types but us science types just take it as a complement! anyway a few points about science and AGW theory i’d like to make.
1/ science is about theory and observation, and is independent of opinion or reputation.
Therefore there is no such thing as a scientific consensus since a consensus is unscientific.
2/ The IPCC consensus did not involve consultation of IPCC scientist. to prove me wrong please show the voting results.
3/ The IPCC continue to ignore the various effect of water vapor/clouds because its “to hard to understand” Please tell me how you can be confident of you findings when you don’t understand the component that makes up 95% of the greenhouse effect, most of the albedo, and many of the climate forcings.
4/ The dominant greenhouse gas, water vapor, has decreased by up to 14% percent since the 1970s, please explain how the total greenhouse effect is increasing?
5/ Measurements of the outgoing longwave radiation show the earth is losing more heat as it heats up. please explain how the earth warms due to trapping more heat while the observations show its loosing more heat.
6/ The official (Dogey) temp record say we have warmed up 0.7dec C in 150 years. how is this significant when the temperature naturally varies by 3-4 deg during the current ‘stable’ interglacial climate period of the last 10,000 years
7/ please explain why climate scientist ignore pre-existing thermodynamic principles that prove negative feedback, such as Le Chateliers principle, while continuing to model climate as a system dominated by positive feedback, just like a perpetual motion machine.
Does anyone still have ‘faith’ in a theory containing more holes than a piece of swiss cheese after a nasty incident with shotgun!
Cheers :)
Posted by: Harry | January 14, 2009
I guess with you, at least I can be thankful that you havent used a four-letter invective in your post. That for the moment, puts you in a higher class than a University professor.
Not anymore. Fuck off you disingenuous piece of shit.
Whether you hear it or not, we are laughing at your sorry ass.
One last thing Harry, fuck you for implying that the regulars here are so weak minded that they merely follow PZ’s lead.
PZ,
Harry:
Note the second sentence of the above quote from PZ, indicating context. You, Harry, have provided nothing that a concern troll wouldn’t’ve. Do you care to acknowledge he’s advocating it for my commenters?
I think that what you’ve done here is a hasty generalisation.
We get it, you object to incivility, apparently not realising that reiterating the same thing ad-nauseam, supported by nothing other than your opinion, is uncivil.
You don’t get it, do you? It’s not about the language, or even the tone. It’s about honesty and clarity of expression (not being mealy-mouthed).
Again with the language issue! It’s about the sentiments expressed, not about the terminology. It’s about unwarranted deference to stupid, dishonest and wilfully-ignorant assertions.
Such as yours.
You guyz !!! Oh,you guyz !!!
2 hours to read through a thread just to arrive at the conclusion that:
1. AGW people are just as dogmatic and close-minded as creationists
2.They feel its impolite and rude to critizise their opinions,just like creationists
3.They spend considerable time on a blog they clearly dont like,and dont get
4.They misrepresent and lie and shift goalposts,just like creationists
YAWN.
So far, Harry hasn’t presented anything worth refuting with more than four letter words.
Has he an argument that goes beyond diction? (Perhaps more to the point, does he even understand why I kept highlighting pretty much what he was thinking anyway?) Perhaps if he were in the position of ever having worked diligently to understand a concept, he might.
Shorter PZ:
where “denialist” is defined as:
Lunatic @ 676,
I find it astonishing that “far-left” seems to be a conditio sine qua non to be a real “warmista”.
Your language betrays your ideology,Im afraid.And your blindness.
The Warm-monger movement is absolutely dominated by socialists, communists and other left-leaning types disaffected by the failure of the Soviet Union in the late 1980s. They saw “environmentalism” as an opportunity to advance their agenda, which is of course the elimination of capitalism world-wide and an implementation of their utopian socialist one-world government.
Unlike, say, calling someone a “lunatic” or a “denialist”, thereby invoking the spectre of Holocaust denial. Only in the alleged mind of a deluded religious fundamentalist such as yourself could such babble pass for logic.
RobJM @670:
It would appear that you may not be clear on the meaning of consensus. I’ll refer you to the wiki post on that. I think you will find that there is nothing about the concept of consensus that makes it something not found in science.Some of the softness you seem to find in IPCC statements may reflect the process of working towards consensus.
For your other statements of fact regarding albido, et.al. – citations please. You make some interesting claims. I’d personally be interested in 4,5, and 7.
As for your requirement for voting records – is it your contention that the process was run like an election? Elections do occur in selecting board chairpersons and members but any group working on consensus will most likely not have formal votes with simple majority rule wins. That’s the opposite of consensus. Who/what is the IPCC scientist that was not consulted?
Rob JM
1/ science is about theory and observation, and is independent of opinion or reputation.
Therefore there is no such thing as a scientific consensus since a consensus is unscientific.
The second sentence does not follow from the first. A scientific consensus means that the vast majority of relevant experts agree, based on the state of the peer-reviewed literature, that a question has been settled, and that it is therefore time to move on to further questions and/or refinements.
2/ The IPCC consensus did not involve consultation of IPCC scientist. to prove me wrong please show the voting results.
You evidently do not understand the meaning of “consensus”. Look it up: it does not imply voting, but a conclusion that all or almost all those involved accept. The IPCC reports are based on the peer-reviewed scientific literature, and are drawn up by large teams of experts. Any who disagree with the consensus can withdraw. A very, very few have done so.
3/ The IPCC continue to ignore the various effect of water vapor/clouds because its “to hard to understand” Please tell me how you can be confident of you findings when you don’t understand the component that makes up 95% of the greenhouse effect, most of the albedo, and many of the climate forcings.
This is simply false: water vapour and clouds are included in all GCMs, and it is the feedback from water vapour (warmer air holds more) that increases the estimated mean temeperature increase from a doubling of CO2 from 1.1 degrees C to between 2.5 and 4.5 degrees C. There remains some uncertainly about the net effect of clouds, which is fully acknowledged in the IPCC reports. Given the above,
you are clearly either completely ignorant, or a barefaced liar. Which is it?
4/ The dominant greenhouse gas, water vapor, has decreased by up to 14% percent since the 1970s, please explain how the total greenhouse effect is increasing?
[citation needed]
Water vapour content varies greatly from place to place, and minute to minute.
5/ Measurements of the outgoing longwave radiation show the earth is losing more heat as it heats up. please explain how the earth warms due to trapping more heat while the observations show its loosing more heat.
[citation needed]
It is of course only the ocean, surface and troposphere that are warming: the stratosphere is cooling (note: if the warming were of solar origin, this would not be the case.
6/ The official (Dogey) temp record say we have warmed up 0.7dec C in 150 years. how is this significant when the temperature naturally varies by 3-4 deg during the current ‘stable’ interglacial climate period of the last 10,000 years
*Sigh* Because 150 years is a lot less than 10,000 years.
7/ please explain why climate scientist ignore pre-existing thermodynamic principles that prove negative feedback, such as Le Chateliers principle, while continuing to model climate as a system dominated by positive feedback, just like a perpetual motion machine.
So according to you, nothing can ever change, because negative feedback will always stop it. No-one says positive feedbacks are going to continue increasing the temperature indefinitely. The most important feedback in GCMs is the ability of warmer air to hold more water vapour (you know, the thing you falsely claimed they ignored in point 3). Do you really think that thousands of scientists would have missed it, if their concepts of climate dynamics violated the conservation of energy? Or maybe they do know it, and are all part of the evil commie/greenie/Muslim/business/grant-hungry-scientist/alien-lizard conspiracy? Grow up.
Im noticing an interesting trend with GW denialists,they all seem to have their finger pretty tight on the Holocaust denial comparison trigger,not that it surprises me.
If you dare to critizise me,you are comparing me to Holocaust denialists,thats unfair,therefore Im right !
Classic fundamentalist debating tactics.
Just out of interest,what does the former Soviet Union have to do with the arctic ice melting? Let me guess,its all a global commie plot,right?
Magnus W,
What your link neglects to mention is that there may just as easily be multiple signals within the same noise, rendering a finding irrelevant and not of the statistical significance implied.
If there’s one thing we know about climate it’s that it’s definitely not cut-and-dried.
Well… He has been pretty effective at getting people to crash polls. There’s evidence of that all over the web.
What’s interesting is that the most recent poll crashed, a number of commenters brought up the fact that the question was worded poorly. Anyone who read it could see that, if they looked. In lieu of making an actual choice on their own (that should have gone one way or the other in equal proportions due to the wording), they grumbled but crashed the poll in PZ’s favor anyway.
The reason that I assert that it should have gone either way in equal proportions is bolstered by the fact that, since the day of the crash it has since equalized. It has settled on a 49%/51% yes/no split. That means that at least some of PZ’s fans willfully voted against their nature, or didn’t care enough to decide the question on its merit.
At final count it had been taken from a 70%/30% split to a 28%/72% Yes/No split.
Care to explain?
@670: your point number 5 expresses surprise that the earth would radiate more heat as it grows warmer. In the real world, it is normal, nay universal, for warmer things to radiate more heat. You seem confused about elementary thermodynamics.
Point 6 indicates that you don’t understand the difference between a mean and a variance, so you are confused about statistics too.
Point 7 implies that climate models violate thermodynamics, which is simply wrong. Whether a system displays positive or negative feedback is a question of the physics of the system; neither Le Chatelier nor perpetual motion machines are relevant.
Someone else can fisk your other errors, I’ve done the physics side. Though I do find the claim “IPCC consensus did not involve consultation of IPCC scientist” hilariously incoherent.
Only because you Warmistas chose the term “denialist” for the express purpose of invoking Holocaust denial, thereby associating your opponents with perhaps the most sickening event in human history.
Fortunately, though, people are starting to catch on to this tactic, so I don’t think you’ll be able to use it much longer.
Please learn to read for comprehension. I said that leftists joined the environmental movement after their utopian nation-state collapsed. I do agree with you on one point, however: the USSR definitely has nothing to do with the increase in the Antarctic ice cap.
Oh, and for all of you Warmistas out there: what is the optimal temperature of the planet? And don’t give me any of this nonsense that “no such temperature exists”. If the temperature is irrelevant, so is “global warming”.
Ward @682,
Try a search on this site for “pointless poll”. There’s more than one post that explains.
As fascinating as it is to see someone indoctrinated,politically uneducated and closed-minded try to make the facts fit his worldview,It is something I can witness here all the time and it does not become a more interesting process just because its a GW denier instead of a creationist for a change.
Their thinking,if you want to call it that,seems to work in a rather similar way.
You know jack shit about me mate,how unsurprising that you would assume I am a “warmista”,thats what I meant when i said your ideology betrays you.
@684: Speaking of screeding conspiracist jackholes…
John Morales,
Given two equally bad choices, people will vote for each in nearly equal numbers. Look at the 2000 election – public sentiment at the time was almost exactly split.
It’s a pointless poll, but it is still subject to human behavior, and it’s on a page that’s sure to get huge numbers of hits.
You can’t just wave your hands and make the problem go away, you need to explain why it equalized to predictable levels, given that it’s unlikely there really are that many other sites like Pharyngula out there out to crash it and that they too would likely fall upon a 50/50 split.
what is the optimal temperature of the planet? And don’t give me any of this nonsense that “no such temperature exists”. If the temperature is irrelevant, so is “global warming”. – GWIAS
Oh good gravy, this stinking turd is back. You’ve been answered repeatedly, fuckwit, and demonstrated conclusively your total inability to understand the answer, so let me try another tack:
What’s the optimal weight of a human being? And don’t give me any of this nonsense that “no such weight exists”. If the weight is irrelevant, so is “getting fatter”.
@684
The “optimal temperature of the planet” would be temperatures in the range that man is adapted to, especially wrt agriculture.
Wow. That doesn’t imply that humans are the only important organism on the planet at all.
“Global Warming is A Scam” thinks that the communists are environmentalists?
Uh, has this person pulled his head out from under his large rock to actually look at the environmental records of communist countries?
#691
Do you really think an appeal for the other species on the planet would work on a denialist?
Nope, not at all. That is a fair point. It still doesn’t really give us the leeway to erect foolish metrics like the “optimal temperature” of a planet, but I definitely see where you were going.
“You don’t get it, do you? It’s not about the language, or even the tone. It’s about honesty and clarity of expression (not being mealy-mouthed).”
What??? LOL!! C’mon John! No it isnt! Re-read Myers thread! Honesty and clarity have nothing to do with it! This is about a university professor advocating incivility towards people he disagrees with.
“It’s about unwarranted deference to stupid, dishonest and wilfully-ignorant assertions. Such as yours.”
Which “wilfully-ignorant” assertion? That you guys are no better than the strawman enemy you rail against? I’d say Im dead on. Maybe you can explain how I’m wrong. Is there such a thing in your mind as an AGW skeptic? Or must they all be “deniers”?
As a scientist, I’d say that any “warming skeptic” who doesn’t display a clear and evident grasp of the underlying science here- specifically, the spectroscopic properties of the CO2 molecule- counts as a “denier”. Use of well-known wrong arguments- like confusing the magnitude of an underlying trend with the magnitude of typical variation- is a pretty big red flag, much as creationists who blunder in here asking “why are there still monkeys” deserve, and get, short shrift.
I do love the term “Warmista” though. I should get that on a T-shirt.
Harry,
As a nOOb around here, you really shouldn’t be trying to re-interpret what PZ means.
The target of incivility is a class of people with which he disagrees. Instead of trying to interpret what he writes, try reading for comprehension.
Harry, cry all you like, but you and your ilk aren’t “skeptics”, you’re ideologues.
It’s been several months since I posted the link to this great talk by Naomi Oreskes, but I think the story is important to remember when dealing with either knowing or unwitting shills:
It’s also been several weeks at least since I mentioned the yam (“you’re all mean”) gambit, or yambit. The whiners here are rank yamateurs, and will need a lot of work before they’re ready for the big leagues. Dr. Jay Gordon is still world yampion. After an entire thread yamming it up at Respectful Insolence, he acknowledged that people had given him something to think about. Then he went off and posted a yamifesto on another site about the exchange, and proceeded shamelessly over the next few months to spread antivax and antiscience garbage that could have fatal consequences. This included penning the foreward to Jenny McCarthy’s book. He then returned to RI to thank the commenters for the thought-provoking conversation (the yat-p gambit, which often includes “We may disagree on many issues, but…” or “I’m going to have to read up on that and come back”). He’s responded to none of the strongest substantive criticisms, and has recently returned with more empty antivax blather. I’ve seen Dr. Jay in action. The Civili-team here is strictly little league.
Stephen Wells:
“I’d say that any “warming skeptic” who doesn’t display a clear and evident grasp of the underlying science here- specifically, the spectroscopic properties of the CO2 molecule- counts as a “denier”.
I’m sure you might find debate in that point. At least once we moved beyond the invective that is. Of course, there have been other points of contention in the debate. Be that as it may Stephen, is there anyone that you can name that doesnt comport to your views on climate change you consider merely a “skeptic” rather than a “denier”? Is there no contrary view point in your mind that has any merit?
I see Ward is still wanking away today.
I love how he comes here to deride PZ… my guess is jealousy.
Harry:
“Is there such a thing in your mind as an AGW Denier?”
There, I fixed it for him.
“The Warm-monger movement is absolutely dominated by socialists, communists and other left-leaning types disaffected by the failure of the Soviet Union in the late 1980s. They saw “environmentalism” as an opportunity to advance their agenda, which is of course the elimination of capitalism world-wide and an implementation of their utopian socialist one-world government.”
These guys kill me. They drip with global conspiracy paranoia and then cry out, “Why won’t you take us AGW Deniers seriously?!!”
Of course he also thinks the homos want to turn the public schools into gay child sex nurseries and that atheists and liberals are the reason god has forsaken us causing his authoritarian world to fall apart.
I suggest GWIAS ask his doctor about the wonders of lithium.
mayhempix,
agreed this particular specimen is especially fond of the big commie gay atheist liberal conspiracy,to come up with a world-wide secret plan to make up global warming to further their evil environmentalist agenda.
But communist,atheist,liberal and gay anxiety seems par for the course in american right-wing and left of the IQ Bell curve cycles…
Here’s something to amuse the sane, and get the denialist whackaloons really foaming at the mouth:
The Change we need: After eight long, tiresome years, President Al Gore won’t be missed. Even if he did save the planet.
I warn you though – there’s a nasty twist at the end!
wildlifer, Josh,
GWIAS has been here before, depositing his “optimal temperature” turd. It was pointed out to him numerous times that there is a range of acceptable temperatures, and that it is rapid change that is dangerous, hence he was speaking through an orifice usually reserved for waste elimination, but he’s far too stupid to understand the point, as you’ll see by his loony conspiracy theory. Hence my analogy@689.
Ha! Thanks KG, that was a fun what if…
Thanks Nick,
that was fantastic !!
Knock:
Yeah, I know. I’ve watched it unfold with GWIAS before. For whatever reason though, I’ve been in the mood lately where I don’t mind throwing on the broken record hat and reiterating to these guys, again and again, stuff that’s already been pointed out to them numerous times. I guess I’m always concerned about those watching silently from the sidelines for the first time. I hate having stupid points not get refuted in every instance where they appear.
BTW, I enjoyed the analogy in #689 quite a bit. Well done.
@700: do you really think the IR spectroscopic properties of CO2 are subject to debate? Wow. I think the minimum condition for taking an informed part in the debate is to acknowledge that warming due to anthropogenic CO2 is the default assumption. If you can then argue coherently for countervailing factors, go to it.
There’s plenty of argument to be had and open questions to be solved in climate science, as in any other healthy science. But if you kick off by denying that anthropogenic CO2 is a warming factor, you go in the same bin as flat-earthers and creationists. And if you claim that AGW is a cabal, conspiracy, or something that scientists are backing because of social pressure rather than evidence, you go in the same bin as the conspiracy theorists.
It reminds me of the tobacco “debate”. There was a period of a few decades when pretty much every medical organisation in the world was saying that tobacco smoke was a major, major health issue, and the tobacco companies- the ones with the money- could muddy the waters just enough to keep marketing their product. Thing is, their arguments were only remotely plausible if you started from the assumption that tobacco should be considered, by default, harmless; then you could demand strong, nay incontrovertible evidence, for harm. But if you think for a second about biology, the default assumption for _persistently inhaling the smoke of burning vegetation, laden with tars and nicotine_ should be that it’s harmful, and you need evidence to conclude that it’s _not_.
We’re at pretty much the same place here. People who grasp the physics are concerned about AGW. It’s the fossil fuel companies that have all the money and political clout to keep the debate “balanced”. That makes it grimly amusing when people post stuff like 678: “The Warm-monger movement is absolutely dominated by socialists, communists and other left-leaning types disaffected by the failure of the Soviet Union in the late 1980s. They saw “environmentalism” as an opportunity to advance their agenda, which is of course the elimination of capitalism world-wide and an implementation of their utopian socialist one-world government.” Weird: I’m a liberal democrat and I’m glad the Soviet Union collapsed (for one thing I wouldn’t have met my wife otherwise!), yet I’m concerned about AGW because of basic science which no “denier” seems capable of arguing coherently against.
Posted by: Stanton | January 14, 2009
“Global Warming is A Scam” thinks that the communists are environmentalists?
Funny thing, one of Rush Limbaugh’s point for many years is that after the fall of the Soviet Union, all of the marxists, lefties and liberals moved on to environmentalism.
I see KnockGoats still has it.
I’ve stayed away from the civility argument because nobody was going to change anyone elses minds, and I didn’t see any room to mock. My opinion is that once a person demands total civility for his arguments, he knows they are lame, and he/she will lose the argument on a factual basis. And doesn’t want to be taken to task for his/her lame ideas and made to feel bad, so they hide behind the civility argument.
The facts stand for themselves. If people ignore or misrepresent the facts, they need to be shown the error of their ways, and sometimes you need to get their attention, just like you need to get the attention of toddler throwing a temper tantrum. Strong language may do the job.
Personally, I try to either let the other side start the name calling, or use the 3 post rule if they are just obstinate.
Be that as it may Stephen, is there anyone that you can name that doesnt comport to your views on climate change you consider merely a “skeptic” rather than a “denier”? – Harry
There are a handful who deserve that title, most notably the Roger Pielkes, father and son – although the son is a political scientist with interests in climate change, not a climate scientist. Roy Spencer has published a few decent peer-reviewed articles, but these are far less out of whack with the consensus than the spin he puts on his work in the blogosphere. There’s a few more, maybe, but very few.
Josh@709,
Thanks! Yes, just repeating the truth is necessary in case, as you say, people are watching from the sidelines.
It’s the fossil fuel companies that have all the money and political clout to keep the debate “balanced”. – Stephen Wells
Actually, even they have mostly abandoned the claims that it isn’t happening or isn’t down to us. Exxon’s CEO has now called for a carbon tax. Of course, the fossil-fuel lobby will still be fighting for their profits, but the ideology-driven “libertarian” and similar whackaloons are now almost alone in pretending there’s significant doubt about the need for action – and we can see from the sort of conspiracy-theory lunacy they’re posting here how desperate they are.
Posted by: clinteas | January 14, 2009 10:04 AM
“But communist,atheist,liberal and gay anxiety seems par for the course in american right-wing and left of the IQ Bell curve cycles…”
Hey! You Aussies sent us Ken Ham!
I see that realclimate seems to use the term “climate change inactivist”, which is quite elegant.
> I want my commenters to be uncivil. There is no virtue in politeness when confronted with ignorance, dishonesty, and delusion.
Sure seems to me that the world could use more civil behavior. What good has ever come on being uncivil? Does it convince your opponents? Does it convince those who are unsure? No, it only rallies a mob. Incivility is the enemy of education and civilization.
Of course commies are environmentalists! That’s why China opens up a new coal-fired power station every week!
Oh, wait.
Are we really going to get NEW concern trolls now? Didn’t we move on?
@ 717,
Charles,
or can I call you Charlie,
Congrats on your quote-mining skills.At least that part of your brain works.
700 odd posts,and you have seem to have read none of them,certainly not what PZ actually wrote.
Its the context that counts matey,nobody here is advocating incivility(well,thats a relative term isnt it)or rudeness in the setting of education or science facilities.
Whats been pointed out here ad nauseam is that close-minded,irrational,boring,dense people that have repeatedly been given a chance to educate themselves or at least consider the validity of other’s viewpoints,when they choose to insist on their braindeadness,can be made the object of ridicule and what you call incivility.
Watch the Naomi Oreskes talk @ #699 (especially from the 28-minute mark on)!
Charles, if you want more civiity, apoliogize for your restarting he argument after 700+ posts. Otherwise, you aren’t civil.
Hey Charles,
considering that you believe the current recession is Obama’s fault, your wingnut “concern” has about as much credibility as George W. does.
@717: I think “what good has ever come on [sic] being uncivil” is right up there with “what have the Romans ever done for us?”.
Nerd@722,
I thought you were joking!
Wow, that’s real grade-A stupid, Charlie-baby! You should bottle it and sell it to people who want to run for Congress as Libertarians.
Is this gang bang with the Denialist over the Weblog Awards going to be a annual event now?
I hope not.
So far Im only mildly amused by the influx of deluded wingnuts,and theyre not very original.
Kind of like an afternoon out for tea and biscuits at the insane asylum.
Sorry, @725, Nerd@722 -> mayhempix@723. Apologies to both.
Funny thing — all the libertarian whackjob denialists have driven mean much further to the left than I had been before. I doubt that I’m the only one.
Is it possible that Liberterians are a radical leftist conspiracy to drive all the moderates to the left? That Horowitz never stopped being a Trotskyist, but is a deep-cover agent for the Communist International, an agent provacateur?
Global warming ain’t the commie conspiracy — it’s global warming denialism that’s the Mao-Lenninist plan! Those commies are really awfully clever.
Maybe I should stop reading PK Dick.
Posted by: Steve_C | January 14, 2009
Are we really going to get NEW concern trolls now? Didn’t we move on?
That is the beauty of teh intertoobs, there is an endless supply of identical trollz marching through.
Cahalan,
Never tell a man which shows he must watch on his own tv. PZ wants to post about matters you’d rather see ignored, that’s his business. PZ wants to allow certain types of comments regarding certain subjects or commenters, that’s his business too. Nobody made you the Miss Manners of the Blogosphere, and even if you were you’d still be an ass.
Anyone who acts like a bloody fool deserves to get stomped. Not only stomped, but kicked repeatedly until the message gets through, don’t be an ass. Thanks to fussbudgets and prissy missies like you we have a surfeit of the rude and obtuse fucking up productive dialogue.
To make this even plainer, sometimes people who obstruct advancement need killin’.
And speaking as someone who knows; saying your piece, offering what you can to support your claim, then shutting up has a better chance of getting your point across than exhibiting your tedious ignorance over and over again. There are things we can’t test yet. There are things we can now test, but we don’t because we’re so sure they don’t need to be tested. Why animals have sex for instance.
Myers allows things you don’t like. Big whoop. PZ blogs for himself, not you. If the Seed Consortium didn’t like the way he blogs, they’d dump him. All your bitching aint changin’ a thing.
And if you don’t want kids walking on your lawn, get a fence.
@686
clinteas, I don’t know from “warmista”, but you look like a damn “comma”-nist to me.
@KnockGoats
“Sorry, @725, Nerd@722 -> mayhempix@723. Apologies to both.”
Thanks Knock, but I’m not quite clear what you are apologizing to me for…
but the consideration is still appreciated.
PZ:
RE: Post #411, then #423 re “stupid” comment — yes, that would be stupid given the context of the interpretation, the person posting #423 interpreted the statement his way, not the way I intended, which was how some nutjob might (which makes that statement not stupid in the sense it relfects the nutjob’s perpsective, or, stupid because that was the nutjob’s perspective).
….then, post #435, which mentions “death threats”; the context suggests this is nothing new.
RE: Anyone who acts like a bloody fool deserves to get stomped. Not only stomped, but kicked repeatedly…To make this even plainer, sometimes people who obstruct advancement need killin’. (#731)
So now, we’ve got a posting advocating murder (or at least in a metaphorical sense…but the words taken at face value are unambiguous).
After reading this site for some time, it seems to me a threshold has been crossed. If I were you I’d be watching my back VERY seriously for some nutjob holding the polar opposite philosophy of life (or whatever one wants to call it). Forewarned is forearmed…and those inclined to “act” know this. IF such moves to act you won’t know about it, unlike the implied warning provided in remark #435, the “threat” and “act” may be separated by milliseconds.
Good luck, again.
@JY
So, since no one scuttled away in fear because or your previous “warnings”, you are going to continue on to veiled threats? Whats next, are you going to go camp out in front of his house?
Christ with a dildo – still on this? Why are the anti-science crowd still here, complaining that PZ’s blog is uncivil? The people who blog regularly here are all pro-science, pro-rationality, and anti-woo. You have done your best to demonstrate how deeply paranoid and unreasonable your views are. If nothing else, you have tried to demonstrate that there is some sort of “conspiracy” among proper scientists to perpetuate a myth. Now like most pharyngulites, I am not a scientist (though I do have a science degree), but I do know that scientists are not conspiracists, not in hock to whatever fashionable ideas are going around or to any group of special interests whatsoever. I trust them, and I trust their evidence.
And above all, when I hear their consensus, based on evidence, called a conspiracy – then I know that those claiming it are full of shit. And when, as happens all too often with some of the nutjobs who’ve come for an argument, social and political theories are brought in to define “our” position as merely pandering to a flawed worldview, then I know you’re full of shit.
As has been said before many times, if you think that “science” is wrong on this issue, then do your own (genuinely) unbiased research, publish, and change our minds.
Otherwise, you really are just a bunch of paranoid, misinformed, fuckwits – and you’re wrong.
RE: #735
That remark is absurd on numerous levels.
I’m just posting a possible outcome…but then I’m one of many that’s noticed how that “incitement to incivility” remark has been passed around in the blogosphere in conjunction with the blog vote & the 2nd place (?) ranking, usually in much abbreviated format to facilite misinterpretation, among some interesting groups. Based on that one might say ole’ PZ has made an invitation. He, you & others may differ. But that’s not my problem. Or yours. Or others.
Are you high? Take a moment and read what you wrote. Here’s another possible outcome that you may not have considered. Nothing will happen.
The smart monger movement is dominated by people with small penises that make up big words and then edit wiktionary so that when I look they seem like they’re real. You smartistas just see atheism as a way to direct attention away from the fact that you’re all hopelessly disappointed that your all holy science never turned out those fucking flying cars.
Well you can choose to call me retarded. But your obviously just using that to connect pure sugar cane common sense with mental disorders.
…I see through your little games.
Actually @739, I do have a small penis, and it makes me feel very disangrogenised. What’s your point?
Smart People are a Scam, it was a good try but I just do not buy it. Your portrayal just does not seem authentic to me. I am not sure what it is, not desperate enough perhaps?
What is the denialist version of a poe called?
Right, or maybe advocating the use of killfile? Nah, murder seems more likely…
Sorry, I meant “disandrogenised” – why is my spell check not working?
Question for regular Pharyngulites: In your opinion, how much overlap is there between the AGW-denialism camp and the creationism camp?
Ben, I don’t know really, it would be an interesting question to look into though. I suspect there is a fair amount of overlap but I would also guess the climate change denialism group has a large number of other people who for numerous political and social reasons also do not want climate change to be real or at least seen as a threat but who do not support creationism.
However after having long watched both groups, and many other forms of denialism I do see complete overlap in their modes of operation.
I suspect there’s much more overlap with wingnuttia. The leftist commie comments support that. I wonder how many of the wingers are AGW denialists just because they hate Al Gore. I bet a larger margin than those willing to admit. They probably believe that Al Gore said he invented the internet too.
Creationist in general don’t accept science at all, except of course medicine which they seem to think has nothing to do with science.
In your opinion, how much overlap is there between the AGW-denialism camp and the creationism camp?
It’s not that most AGW deniers are creationists, it’s that practically all creationists are also AGW deniers.
Ben@745,
There is certainly an overlap: Sarah Palin, Ron Paul, the even more loathsome Vox Day, and I would guess quite a few other Rethuglicans, and many of those “libertarians” who are also Christians. Roy Spencer, one of the few AGW sceptics to publish in the peer-reviewed literature, is also an IDiot.
Thanks, everybody. If you don’t mind, let me ask a slightly different question:
In your opinion, what percentage of creationists also deny AGW?
(That is a different question, isn’t it, or have I been at the computer too long?)
CJO, just saw your response at 748. That’s what I was looking for. Thanks!
Posted by: Smart People are a Scam | January 14, 2009 2:40 PM
“…I see through your little games.”
Stupid People Are Teh Stupid
Ward at #518:
Hmmm.
Sorry, Ward, I think you’ve misremembered the sequence of events. Either that, or you’re trying to lie your way out of this relatively shallow little hole (though all things considered, I think the first explanation is more likely and more fair.)
If your face-punching metaphor came in response to a claim that this blog was like a rough bar, I’m not seeing it. This is how I think it went. Correct me if I’m wrong.
Ward at #323:
Brownian at #364:
KnockGoats at #393 responded:
Ward at #427 responded:
Whose metaphor inspired whose, again? I think you’ve got it backwards.
Many AGW denialists have politico-economic reasons for their denial, not scientific objections to AGW. Post #678 is a more blatant example than most.
Steve_C:
Based on my personal experiences and on what I’ve observed online, you’re right on the money.
‘Tis Himself: No kidding. The guy objected to the use of the word “denialist” on (unsupported) Godwinesque grounds immediately after having vomited up this calmly rational claim:
“Absolutely dominated.” LMAO. What a fucking lunatic.
Cuttlefish, that poem (posted way back up there in the mists of time) was quite lovely.
Watchman,
My initial exposure to the phrase (though it’s been stated that the reference originated from an editor of Nature) was on another thread. I do pay attention, as well as I can, to the deluge of comments aimed in my direction. I can’t answer them all (and some just aren’t worth answering).
I internalized that those of you that regularly comment here see yourselves this way. I don’t seem to be mistaken. Nobody has claimed anything to the contrary that I’ve seen yet. I don’t tend to have the best memory for details, but I do have a great memory for where they can be found again. Striking characterizations and metaphors tend to stick with me though. This one seems to be a meme that may be unique to Pharyngula, a badge of honor the denizens wear proudly, if you will.
If I’ve misapprehended the nature of your collective self image, I apologize. Obviously, I’m not expecting that everyone sees themselves in any particular way. We all have our nuances as individuals.
Well, I’ve survived rough bars of various sorts, but the fact that I’m an outgoing woman has probably helped.
Of course that’s what people are saying, doofus. As I stated clearly in that post, that was Henry Gee’s characterization of Pharyngula, which formed part of his warped analysis of a heated discussion (during which, IIRC, Gee in fact did note his physical toughness and dare people to go to his town and say things to his face; I’d be happy to link to the start of that discussion if you’d like, or you can search for it under “Dr. Who? Dr. Dawkins”).
His characterization was funny for exactly the same reason references to PZ Myers’ cyberpistol are – because this is a freakin’ blog. But it wasn’t off the mark. It’s an Italian opera audience or a Catskills comedy audience – a tough crowd that knows its stuff. The people I’ve seen here love science and love debating social, political, and philosophical questions (including with one another). We also love a good heated argument, and if that includes skewering the stupid or dishonest then all the better. But there’s a range and mix of personalities – patient, sensitive, witty, scrappy, snarky, brutal – and different commenters are treated differently according to how they present themselves (I believe this should be clear to you by now).
I don’t see why this is necessary or how it even makes sense. There are a number of intellectual/debating heavyweights here.
For what? I’d rather hear an explanation of why this psycho-social analysis is so important to you. Why are you dwelling on this tiresome nonissue instead of trying to contribute to a substantive discussion? If you don’t like the tone of the responses, you’re free to leave, but you may find it more enjoyable than you thought. But be warned: Henry Gee couldn’t take the pressure, and you’re no Henry Gee, huckleberry.
Stephen Wells@710,
“warming due to anthropogenic CO2” is a factor, but the direct effects can only accout for less than 30% of the recent warming. The null hypothesis that must be overcome is that the warming is natural. The net feedbacks have to be positive for CO2 to account for more of the warming. They may well be, but there is not yet evidence for that.
“the recent warming”. You accept this?
Morales@761,
Yes, I accept the 20th century warming.
africangenesis, The null hypothesis that must be overcome is that the warming is natural.Rephrased, that would be “The null hypothesis that must be overcome is that the 27,000,000,000+ metric tons of human CO2 emissions have no effect on the climate“. Sounds odd to me.
John Morales, Why don’t we wait until we can tell that it won’t be swamped by natural variation. A possible 0.2 degrees C of the 0.6 degree C warming. Keep in mind that the next 27,000,000,000 metric tons will likely even less effect due to the logarithmic nature of its effect.
africangenesis, I’m querying why you hold that the null hypothesis is that human emissions have no climatic effect, ceteris paribus.
(PS Obviously, blockquote fail in my previous)
John Morales, No problem, I don’t even attempt to write html. I have not found evidence that the CO2 effect is strong enough to explain the recent warming. It is a plausible hypothesis if the net feedbacks are significantly positive but even a net negative feedback is possible. It is difficult to find any evidence that is not tainted by models, even so called observationally based estimates of climate sensitivity such as Annan’s depend on models and are based upon solar and aerosols instead of CO2. I believe that CO2 has an effect on the climate, it is obviously true in a trivial sense, but how could one go about proving that it has a significant effect amidst the noise of natural variation? It was hard enough to tease the warming itself out of the data with all the noise and confounding factors. The null hypothesis is not that CO2 has no effect on the climate. The null hypothesis is that natural variation is cause of the recent warming. Natural variation was the cause of past warmings and is poorly understood. Feedbacks to GHGs are poorly understood, especially clouds. Models are not yet ready for this particular task.
AG, you repeat yourself, rather than answer my question: (I’ll try the quotes again! :)
That aside, when you write
you clearly consider that human effects are climatically negligible.
Since you still assert, with no support, that this is the null hypothesis, I ask: Have you citations that quantitatively address this?
Does it actually matter why we can sail the Northwest passage again?
As far as I understand it,we are not due for another warming cycle caused by the funny orbit earth has round the sun for another 10000 yrs or so,havent had a meteor or vulcano eruption for a while(well,they actually cool us down,dont they?),and we’ve been blasting CO2 into the atmosphere for 200 years like there is no tomorrow.
Which now has gotten us into a positive feedback loop with the methane we are freeing by the receding ice and thawing of tundra etc.,I mean,its not rocket science is it?
You have to be pretty dense and a real conspiracy theory ace to seriously buy(and boy,it takes belief !)into this GW denialism shit.
I know what I consider better than you. Lets stick to the evidence. There are good argument that CO2’s direct effects would be on the order of 30% of the recent warming. The net effects after feedbacks may be more of less. Of course the IPCC conclusions require large positive feedbacks. A significant human contributiion plausible. It is questionable whether there is any evidence for it yet. Certainly not enough to overcome the null hypothesis. Even the stratospheric signature hypothesized based on models is in question, since it may only be a signature of warming, and even if accepted does not give us the amount of the attribution.
John Morales@767 again. Let me get this straight. Are you really unaware of citations that show there is natural climate variation?
africangenesis @770, no.
However, you seem to be claiming that the 30% (granting your figures) of the recent warming due to anthropogenic causes is not sufficient to consider a null hypothesis that this effect (over and above natural variation) is of significance, but on the contrary, that it is not of significance. My initial and subsequent questions are because I’m curious as to what evidence you’re employing to justify this assumption.
@africangenesis: your “null hypothesis”, as John Morales pointed out, assumes that CO2 has no effect, whereas basic physics says the null hypothesis is that it does. So, you are wrong. Then, you confuse range of variation with a shift of the mean, so you are wrong again. Try harder.
There is only an argument for nearly 30%, it is from model results also, but has more credibility because it doesn’t rely on feedbacks, just radiative transfer. But lets say the null hypothesis is that 30% of the recent warming is AGW. The models still aren’t capable of rejecting that in either direction.
@africangenesis
You’re like one of those Japanese soldiers they found on islands in the pacific in the 1980’s, still manning their guns 40 years after the war had ended. Someone get a megaphone, and bring this lost soldier home.
Newsflash! The data is in. It’s over. You lost. The good news is that the world is a better place because of it. Cheer up and invest some money in wind farms or something.
You mean the way failed presidential candidate and Internet InventorTM Al Gore and admitted liar “Dr.” James Hansen do?
Yes, the “thinking” of a Warmista is almost identical to that of a creationist, which should surprise no one, since in both situations an argument is being made from credulity.
Good thing I disassembled my irony meter the other day, for you know “jack shit” about me, how unsurprising that you would assume I am a “denialist”, that’s what you meant when you said your ideology betrays you. Pot, meet Kettle.
You are aware, are you not, Nicky ol’ girl, that sockpuppetry and morphing are not permitted here? How long before Nicky is banished to the dungeon? Oh, wait, he’s a Warmista. His views have been pre-approved. It’s okay then. Then again, if I posted the drivel below I would want to hide my identity also.
You mean you Warm-mongers have consistently avoided answering the question and have instead served up intellectual slop in the form of “there is no such temperature”, ignoring the logical conclusion that this renders “climate change” absolutely irrelevant.
I’ll take “Asinine Analogies” for one thousand, Alex!
Answer: This warmista tried to draw a parallel between weight loss and “climate change”.
Who is Nick Gotts?
That is correct!
You’ll notice I didn’t ask for the optimal temperature of a planet, but for the optimal temperature of this planet. It’s the difference between definite and indefinite articles. You fail English grammar. But don’t worry, it’s only your first language.
An individual human being does indeed have an “ideal” weight. You fail human physiology.
Your idiotic ideology actually makes my point for me; therefore, you fail propositional logic, to say nothing of reading comprehension.
Please visit your local elementary school and enroll in a remedial third-grade level course post haste. I mean, you wouldn’t want to experience the global-warming-induced End Of The World As We Know ItTM to come along without being able to understand what people are saying about it, would you?
GSIAS, got any peer reviewed primary peer reviewed scientific literature to back up your lies? If so cite them so we can verify the accuracy of the papers with your statements. No web citing allowed.
Hey, Red! You claim to be a scientist. Why don’t you point us to some of your own peer-reviewed climate science publications?
Just so GWIAS doesn’t get the last word, it’s worth reiterating the following.
The majority of actual climatologists, the relevant experts, are in broad agreement about AGW. GWIAS and other denialists might just as well tell us how the LHC will destroy the world, how 911 was an inside job or how Darwins lack of knowledge on the subject of ET’s destroys the case for evolution. Most Denialista’s are about as qualified to comment on the relevant science in these fields, as they are to drivel on about climatology. Frequently in fact, they are absurdly proud of their utter lack of relevant qualifications.
Tell you what GWIAS. Get your degree in Climatology, publish a few papers on the subject in the relevant journals and then a lot of people here will be genuinely interested to hear what you have to say about climate change. Absent that, not so much.
GWIAS, you are making the claim, so the burden of proof is upon you. But you know that if you were the least scientific. You also know you don’t have the proper peer reviewed scientific evidence. So time to toddle along to another web site to spread your lies. Bye Bye
the direct effects can only accout for less than 30% of the recent warming. – africangenesis
While approximately true, this is deliberately deceitful (I say deliberately, because I’ve pointed this out to africangenesis before, and his religion requires that no collective action should ever be taken to meet environmental threats). As africangenesis knows well, it is the positive feedback from warmer air holding more water vapour that raises the estimated rise in global mean surface temperature of doubling CO2 concentrations from just over 1 degree C, to between 2.5 and 4.5 degrees C. Thus the rise in CO2 plus the consequent rise in water vapour can account for effectively all the recent warming. Indeed, it may account for more than all the warming seen since the 1940s, as the rise in fossil fuel use has also caused a rise in sulphate aerosols, which have a cooling effect. Possible negative feedbacks (some clouds) are less well characterised but almost certainly considerably smaller than the water vapour positive feedback.
An individual human being does indeed have an “ideal” weight. You fail human physiology. Lying moron GWIAS
No they don’t, shit-for-brains. They have a healthy weight range, and doctors warn particularly against the dangers of rapid weight-change. In other words, the parallel with global mean temperature is exact. That’s why I made it.
I call for GWIAS to give his own ideal weight, to an accuracy of 1 gram, and justify his answer.
Has anyone ever been able to decipher WHY so many creationists deny AGW? Something to do with God not letting us destroy the planet, or that we don’t have power over God, blah, blah, blah…?
@782: (a) because if you see that AGW is happening you have to think of something to do about it and that takes effort and intelligence. (b) because sky daddy make all better soon. (c) because it’s science and therefore a Satanic snare and delusion. (d) because it was cold yesterday.
Pat, are you still around? You mentioned something about evidence that our incivility would have negative consequences. Are you still looking for it?
(d) because it was cold yesterday.
damn straight, where is that global warming when you really need it?
This morning, -10 F in Chiwaulkee metroplex. High of -3 F. Still, it beats what PZ had a couple of days ago.
@782, I think the reason is clear. The American Republican party. Bearing grandmothers and eggs in mind, the Republican base is made up of two primary wings. A minority of Free market idelouges, and a majority of Christian fundamentalists.
The primary set is republican ideology, inside that you’ve got mostly (but not completely) overlapping subsets of AGW deniers and Creationists.
When you consider this, and the power, reach and influence of the US it becomes clear. It’s republican ideology that is killing the planet and the Iraqis.
SC, OM,
I can certainly agree that there is a mix of personalities. As far as “different commenters are treated differently” I can’t really say that’s particularly clear to me.
The responses to me have run the gamut from vacuous it vicious and from insipid to intellectual. What it really looks like is everyone throws everything they’ve got to see what sticks.
It’s more like a elementary school cafeteria with a perpetual food fight going on than a rough bar. That’s my observation.
And before you ask why I care, I don’t. Remember, you asked me.
For nothing. I’m just disclaiming that I meant to offend anyone’s liberal sensibilities.
JY #743: RE: Post #411, then #423 re “stupid” comment — yes, that would be stupid given the context of the interpretation, the person posting #423 interpreted the statement his way, not the way I intended, which was how some nutjob might (which makes that statement not stupid in the sense it relfects the nutjob’s perpsective, or, stupid because that was the nutjob’s perspective).
#411: You are inciting uncivil behavior that is [or appears to be] contrary to your stated position as an educator (be uncivil versus educate). Religious whackos just love hypocrites — the extreme in that demographic just can’t resist seeing them as a target. It’s really inspiring to them! Why a family man would go out of his way to provoke THAT type of person is baffling. Read some of the comments closely….if I was you I’d feel like I just became a walking bullseye for some headcase.
Oh, so it’s my interpretation, eh?
Maybe you just lack the ability to communicate clearly? You know a little hedge of the form “[or appears to be]” is really insufficient to claim that you don’t really mean it. It’s the classic cowardly concern troll hedge.
Additionally, if you want to play the game, one of the rules is that you quote what you’re responding to so we can all see exactly what you’re reference is!
So, I guess I stand corrected — the comment was stupid not because it is your “perspective”, but it was stupid because you never clarified your perspective to sufficiently distinguish it from the “nutjob” perspective.
I’m not sure which is worse in this context — to be utterly insane, or utterly inane.
And before you ask why I care, I don’t. Ward S. Denker
So why was this the subject of the first of your recent comments, and why have you gone on and on whining about it?
Ward @ #758: Ok, fair enough, and thanks for the clarification. It did occur to me that maybe you were drawing on comparisons made in other threads, but it wasn’t clear given the flow of comments within this thread. My apologies for being short-sighted. Consider the issue closed.
And your “observation” is incorrect. I’ve been here for almost a year, lurking for a couple of months before I started posting – I think I have more knowledge of the situation than you do. I’m also a sociologist. If you’re going to make claims, you need to back them up with clear definitions and data. Until then, my more informed opinion beats yours.
(By the way, I see that you linked to my comment on the earlier thread. Did you ever respond to my request in that post that you point to specific comments that you considered “bullying” in context? Again, I would be happy to defend my own.)
What KnockGoats said.
I’m an anarchist. I’m not offended by your unsupported observations – they’re just lame and boring.
[I have to admit that at moments like this I actually do kind of miss truth machine.]
I do try and answer people when they ask me questions, that way they know I’m not dodging them. The ones that are getting ignored are either missed, or being intentionally ignored. Last I checked, answering questions put to me isn’t the equivalent of whining
“I’m a sociologist, so my metaphors are better than yours!”
That’s just silly. I know HTML so my metaphors are more colorful!
Appeal to authority, and a lame one at that, because it’s your own percieved authority you’re appealing to.
I needn’t dredge them up. If they’re filled with nothing but hate and invectives they didn’t get any responses. That should set you off on your path of enlightenment (or at least get you to stop asking me to chew your food for you).
You’re truly dense, Ward. I’m a sociologist, and therefore I expect that when someone makes a bold sociological claim about a group of people (s)he should be able to defend it with clearly-defined terms and evidence. You haven’t done so, so there’s no reason for anyone to take your silly unsupported “observations” seriously, and certainly no more seriously than the equally-casual observations of someone with far more knowledge of the situation who is also trained in social analysis.
So that would be a ‘no’ in response to the polite request for you to back up your accusations with specific evidence, then? Why am I not surprised? You’ve shown yourself to be an intellectually-dishonest little whiner, Denker.
(By the way, I clicked over to Denker’s blog the other day. It was very amusing. The first post was about rules, containing a seriously explanation of his own rules for his blog. I scrolled down the page, and don’t think I saw a single comment on any post. It seems someone has a rather inflated impression of his own importance. I think I’ll develop an elaborate system of rules for people to follow when they’re seeking my autograph.)
I’ll ignore all the rest, asked and answered.
The post on Rules you’re referring to isn’t about all the rules on my blog at all. I only have three, they’re short and (probably) fair. No religion, be respectful, and don’t litter (intellectually).
What it’s actually about, had you taken the time to read it (instead of complaining about what you thought you’d read) is a bit of self-reflection. I spoke esoterically about all kinds of rules (and laws) and the concept of them altogether. I questioned my own motives for having them, an exercise in honesty, and my own motives for breaking the rules of others.
I won’t speak anymore about that here. I avoid talking about my own blog here because I consider that to be bad form. I consider it equally bad form to slag on my blog but, in some ways, expected. Everyone’s a critic. What I find truly repugnant and distasteful is when someone intentionally misconstrues what I’ve said and turned it into another argument altogether.
Read, or don’t read, I don’t mind either way. Thanks for having at least a little curiosity about my views, though.
Um…
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2009/01/testing_testing_testingis_this.php#comment-1307618
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2009/01/testing_testing_testingis_this.php#comment-1310277
You’re welcome. Reciprocation, rather than relentless slagging, would be greatly appreciated.
Right – I asked you to substantiate your accusations with evidence, and you answered that you needn’t do so. That tells me all I need to know, Wa…nker.
Has anyone ever been able to decipher WHY so many creationists deny AGW? Something to do with God not letting us destroy the planet, or that we don’t have power over God, blah, blah, blah…?
Creationists’ science-denial is all purpose. It’s a symptom of an authoritarian political alignment as much as it is religious. Science is anathema to authoritarians, first because it’s a meritocracy, but mostly because it’s always offering up these uncomfortable conclusions based on methods and reasoning that they can’t understand sufficiently to engage with in the literature. It’s like this whole other world, and they can’t control the actors, the conclusions arrived at, or the dissemination of those conclusions. And what an authoritarian cannot control, he must misrepresent and demonize.
@ Helfrick
Yes, I’m still around (or, to be precise, I’ll be back when I have a well structured argument, which is liable to be a while since I have other obligations). Don’t worry, I take this particular issue seriously.
One side note, however. After I accepted this as a legitimate challenge, I noticed that Michael did something of a bait and switch on me at #539:
> “I have seen no evidence to lead me to believe
> that harsh rhetoric causes more negative
> effects then positive.” I would site women’s
> suffrage, civil rights, gay rights, and now
> the culture wars as evidence of harsh rhetoric
> doing more good than kid gloves.
That’s well outside of the realm of where I’m going; it’s like asking someone who’s proposing to do basic chemistry and show that CO2 has certain thermal properties that instead they have to prove global warming :)
I think it’s fairly possible for me to find credible evidence for the following propositions:
(a) Encouraging an uncivil environment limits direct educational effectiveness (your ability to educate directly).
(b) Encouraging an uncivil environment reduces collaborative efforts (your blog’s ability to foster an environment where knowledge can be pooled effectively).
(c) Encouraging an uncivil environment impairs organizational efficiency (you waste a lot of time that would otherwise be put to constructive use).
(d) Encouraging an uncivil environment is actually counterproductive as it both discourages new members to join the community and encourages some members who might otherwise be productive to leave.
Certainly, people may argue that (a) is only one purpose of this blog. Certainly, people may argue that (b) is only one purpose of this blog. Certainly, people may argue that (c) may not be germane, because they like wasting their time taking pot shots at people they think are stupid. Some people might argue that (d) isn’t relevant, because they don’t want new members here and don’t care if people that don’t like the environment go elsewhere.
Brownian may argue that I’m completely correct, but that the general science blogosphere in aggregate meets all of those purposes, and that this particular corner of the blogosphere is aimed at people who gravitate to this style of learning. Like I said above, this is a position that one could argue.
Glen may argue that I’m completely correct, but that there is a greater social consideration; that scientists *ought* to get fucking pissed at people who argue with science (using garbage) so that the non-scientific public knows that they’re invested in their stance. I consider this to be a more credible objection than Brownian’s, myself; philosophically speaking, it’s a telling point that I’m mulling over and I may very well decide that he’s right.
Michael (by his parting comment that I quote above) may argue that within the context of science education I might be right, but in the larger context of this blog being a front in a social war pitting the woo against science all of the points I’m making are outweighed by a greater social cause of fighting the woo. That’s a legitimate argument, too. The woo certainly does encourage behavior I don’t like; on the other hand “I’m fighting the woo!” does ignore the fact that the woo does have some debatable advantages to it, and carpet bombing the woo may not be the best strategic approach.
But I propose that if I go ahead and show (a)-(d)… provided of course everyone finds the evidence to be compelling… I’ve done the equivalent of showing that incivility can generally be regarded as *bad* in a social medium such as a blog.
The burden of proof, I now would argue, goes to Brownian, Glen, Michael, et. al. to show that *given that incivility can generally be regarded as bad*, in this particular case, it is outweighed by some other advantage gained (like I said before, I think Glen has an edge here). In an analogy to the AGW debate that is threaded throughout here, I’m showing that incivility is generally bad (CO2 retains heat), now it’s up to them to show me that fostering it here doesn’t impact the social view of science (effect the climate).
Now, unlike what someone mentioned above, I’m not trying to dictate policy here. I really do believe that PZ has a right to run his blog the way he wants to run his blog, and he (and everyone else) can look at what I present, and say, “Hey, you know what, you might be right… and I don’t have the time or the inclination to actually try and argue against it, but we do like it here and we’re going to keep doing what we want to anyway”.
I’m just pointing out that there are negative consequences :)
All that follows that is about the topic of the post, the first sentence was background and a seed statement intended to have a place to start a discussion on the main thrust of the topic.
That does not mean I never plan to make a link to a topic where I’ve clarified my position into a distilled form, especially as a short answer here (I am not prone to brevity). Both times I put in a link it was an answer along the lines of the topic at hand, esp. since — during the digression that led up to the post on Denker’s Law — the argument had become about me and my politics. Others indicated that they did not feel that I was thread-jacking (they were the ones to divert the topic, after all), so that made a response to the nature of the topic fair game in my eyes.
If I posted some random musing totally unrelated to the topic, you’d not have seen a link from me at all.
I tire of this topic, however. It’s almost 800 comments long as it is and I’m simply worn out discussing it. For my part, this particular discussion is at an end.
Adieu.
@783, Stephen Wells
@787, Brian Coughlin
@798, CJO
Good input re: creationists and AGW. Thanks.
Only somewhat on-topic:
Is it fair game to lure trolls over here from other fora?
We’ve had one clown show up on an anti-theism site, putting the word scientist in quotes, and claiming that evolutionary psychology is bunk. I’m sure there’s somebody here who could hand him his ass (with class :) on that topic, as I’m unfamiliar with it (although UC Santa Barbara has a nice FAQ…) and therefore can have little effect on the ranting.
He’s been banned twice. We’ll see how long it is before he shows up with a sockpuppet, though.
The best thing is, he thinks he’s the sharpest blade in the drawer, because he took a course in formal logic once.
Of course, our own forum is rather strictly moderated for CIVILITY and RESPECT. No fun at all.
Wanker’s (unqualified) statements were “The post on Rules you’re referring to isn’t about all the rules on my blog at all” and “I avoid talking about my own blog here because I consider that to be bad form.” These were both lies, as I’ve shown.
Yes, you keep complaining about this. I in fact addressed the substance, such as it was, of your ridiculous proposals; you proceeded to ignore my questions. But perhaps if you hadn’t introduced (as I recall) two sentences in your very first post with “As a libertarian,…” and then gone on to sound like a heartless raving loon, the discussion would have stayed more on point.
Are you sure you’re not an SNL character?
KG@780,
Of course I know that water vapor feedback will be positive, but the errors in the clouds are in the 10s of Watts/m^2.
You are incorrect that I wouldn’t advocate collective action, if there was evidence that warming was a threat. Even before the AGW fearmongering, I was in favor of energy taxes balanced by tax cuts elsewhere to achieve at least revenue neutrality, for purposes of reflecting the true cost of that energy in terms of military spending to patrol the shipping lanes and to lessen dependence upon foreign oil. As you know, the democrats in the NE were one of the barriers since they considered heating oil in need of an exemption. I’ve long been a supporter of nuclear energy and a skeptic of the fearmongering about it also. I also support suspension of the stringent clean diesel regulations, so that technology equivilent to that in Europe can be deployed here.
These measures would probably accomplish far more than Kyoto ever did.
Ben@782,
I think creationists are more likely look skeptically at AGW, because AGW believers have so many characteristics of a competing religion, they speak of fearful endtimes, with paniced followers with glowing eyes are evangelizing others into action, and they are asking everyone to drink economic kool aid. Economic koolaid just pales in comparison to being washed in the blood. Why believe AGW when you don’t have to?
Guess what. They don’t have to deceive themselves when they look at the “evidence” for AGW, it just isn’t there. There are plenty of good arguments and some that I think are mediocre for being skeptical of AGW. The arguments they hear are “common sense” arguments, that appeal to them. Strangely, despite original sin, they don’t believe that humans are an evil scourge upon the earth. Despite their belief in end times, the AGW endtimes don’t look like Revelations to them.
They don’t have to deceive themselves when they look at the “evidence” for AGW, it just isn’t there. – africangenesis
It is of course africangenesis and his fellow-denialists who are the religious fundamentalists: the idea that collective action to protect the environment is needed so horrifies them that, exactly like creationists or AIDS-denialists, they concoct ludicrous conspiracy theories, or in the more sophisticated, accusations of “groupthink”, to explain the scientific consensus and justify ignoring or distorting the abundant evidence on which it is based. Unlike most AGW denialists, africangenesis does know the climate science literature, but uses the cherry-picking approach typical of denialism to justify inaction. I have repeatedly urged him to debate his scepticism about climate models with real exerts at RealClimate, but he won’t – which is extremely telling. He did refer me to an online argument with an expert he was convinced he’d won because the expert stopped responding after making the position as he saw it clear – I do urge people to check it out and judge for themselves.
Ach! Problem with the link, which has a very long URL. I’ll try again:
http://www.chron.com/commons/readerblogs/atmosphere.html?plckController=Blog&plckBlogPage=BlogViewPost&newspaperUserId=54e0b21f-aaba-475d-87ab-1df5075ce621&plckPostId=Blog%3a54e0b21f-aaba-475d-87ab-1df5075ce621Post%3a68faa129-182a-4334-ac48-5131cd5b7546&plckScript=blogScript&plckElementId=blogDest
KG, I just cherry pick the model errors, including correlated errors among all the AR4 models that can’t be statistically eliminated by combining results into “ensembles”. Put together all the claims of model successes you want, and they can’t put the models back together again in this complex nonlinear system. It is practically a mathmatical truism. Continue believing the science is settled if you like, but unless unlike IPCC you can do it without the models, your belief will not be scientific. The IPCC has “confidence”, but in science “evidence” is more important than emotion.
I am sorry you are having problems with that link, was mine that long? You should guide those with short attention spans to the car analogy, I look forward to follow-ups here.
Most scientists are humble in the face of complex nonlinear systems. Perhaps some mathmaticians in the field of nonlinear dynamics should look into what these modelers claim they can do. Actually the claims of confidence seem to increase as one moves up the IPCC hierarchy, (hmmm, is that like the Pope having the most faith?) but the Working Group I authors are the ones who should have known better and glossed over the documented errors, which have continued to be documented since the AR4.
@808: a roulette wheel is a complex nonlinear system and you will have very little success modelling the sequence of numbers it produces. However, casinos seem to do very well. It’s almost as biasing the system- by putting a zero on a roulette wheel, or putting CO2 into the atmosphere- systematically shifts the results in one direction, even though the system is quite unpredictable in detail.
Arguing against taking action on AGW because the detailed consequences are hard to model is incredibly foolish and short-sighted. Imagine a guy who eats Big Mac Meals three meals a day. As his weight balloons he visits a series of doctors. One warns him about heart disease, another warns him about the stress on his bones and joints, others warn him about vitamin deficiencies, bowel cancers, diabetes, liver disorders… then, as no two of the doctors agree on _exactly_ what will happen to him or _exactly_ when, he concludes that they are all wrong, and carries on eating Big Macs…
So, ag, remind us again why you won’t debate with the experts at RealClimate?
People deal successfully with complex, nonlinear systems everyday – because many responses of many such systems are broadly predictable. We know that in temperate regions it’s going to get colder in winter and warmer in summer and can estimate how much – and that, of course, is precisely the same complex nonlinear system as we’ve been discussing, in this case responding in broadly predictable fashion to a change in the solar input.
Stephen Wells@809,
It is rushing to dring the economic koolaid rather than waiting for development of the models and science that is “short sighted”. Your argument assumes that the warming is serious. Few people consider the 20th century 0.6 degress C warming serious, it took a decade to detect, and another 0.6 degrees over the next century would be similarly benign compared to the economic consequences of moving to more expensive energy.
Yes, CO2 perturbs the climate warmer, but without the models we don’t know how much of the recent warming is due to the CO2. The models can’t be considered validated with the errors that they have that are much larger than the energy imbalance. Since several of the documented errors are correlated, the errors won’t cancel when the models are combined into ensembles. The models are actually underrepresenting some of the positive feedback processes seen in the climate observations, the earlier spring snow melts and snow cover area, and the arctic melting. Yet, they somehow “match” the climate. Perhaps they are balancing it with the recently documented bias toward positive feedback tropical clouds. The problem is that eventually the models will catch up with the spring melt and arctic melting, and the increased solar energy absorbed by the lower albedo surface and open ocean will be added to whatever the models achieved balance with, thus the high temperature projections. Models Gone Wild! This is just a sample of the problems.
KG@810,
Is realclimate your college of cardinals, the source of your faith? They may know more about the model weaknesses than you do, but they don’t know any more than about how the models can be valid for attribution and projection despite the errors, especially the correlated errors, than you do. It is a matter of faith.
So you don’t know what the mechanism could be, do you imagine it to be something statistical? Do you think there is a “proof” someplace? Are the model errors just the dust on a crystal ball? Or are they turned into wine.
If you go to your cardinals for answers, be sure to make it clear that you are a true believer, and you are sure they have answers otherwise you may be censored or mocked.
“If you go to your cardinals for answers, be sure to make it clear that you are a true believer, and you are sure they have answers otherwise you may be censored or mocked.”
Sounds like AG has already been over there and had his ass handed to him.
@Pat
Kind of wordy, aren’t you?
I’ll grant that the scale is somewhat different, but I think they make good examples. I’ll go back to my anecdote again. I was unsure about referring to myself as an atheist until I encountered the sometimes strident tone of Richard Dawkins and Dr. Myers. Up to that point, I thought “atheist” was a slur. It is entirely possible that many other people are not sure of where they stand or are tired of being marginalized by the “moral majority” and would find it refreshing to encounter people that are not afraid to speak thier mind. I am not offended by profanity or conflict. It seems to me that people are afraid of open discourse and that offering an argument is somehow disrespectful. Take for example our short exchange so far. I’m grateful for the opportunity to trade ideas with you. I have thought quite a bit about your premise and though I don’t agree with it, I can see what you are trying to say. Yes people will leave, but I still believe that the people that would be driven away don’t belong here. Maybe there will be some novel ideas that don’t get expressed because the people are unwilling to enter the fray. There are any number of hypothetical situations that you can conjure up to go either way. It is my opinion that the signal to noise ratio is better because of the open nature of the discussion and that censoring ourselves would only hurt.
You are incorrect that I wouldn’t advocate collective action, if there was evidence that warming was a threat. There is; you don’t. Effective action would of course require international agreements and the direction of investment, not a few piddling tax changes in one country.
Sounds like Ben believes in the cardinals too. He is attracted by the mystery. He is sure he couldn’t understand how it all works, even if it was explained to him, so why should he try? But he believes.
Get real, the climate system may be complex quantitatively, but conceptually it isn’t string theory.
KG@815, “piddling tax changes”, hmmm, so you don’t think price influences behavior. Where were you this summer. Are you worried that if the US did this unilaterally, it wouldn’t have a bargaining chip to threaten the others with? Are you hoping economic sanctions could be tried to coerce countries into participating in a treaty? If Venezuela refuses to stop subsidizing gasoline, despite economic sanctions, is it time for an invasion? After all, global warming is REALLY important.
AG, why haven’t you submitted your evidence somewhere other than Web sites? Is there a conspiracy against you?
I’ve believed in AGW for several years. However, I have an open mind and continue to weigh the evidence. All of your posts here, and the rebuttals by insightful people like KG, have made me believe in AGW even more. So thanks for inadvertently educating me.
Ben, It isn’t my evidence. It is all published in peer review journals. Perhaps you should reanalyze the rebuttals to see if they address how models can attribute and project the climate with correlated errors far larger than the energy imbalance, that just happen to be biased against a competing hypothesis. Yes, I don’t think this particular bias was on purpose. The modelers would love to be getting better agreement with the climate at temperate and higher lattitudes, but they didn’t for the AR4. They would love to be able to reproduce the amplitude of the solar cycle signature seen in the observations. Well about half of them would, the other half forced with the cycle smoothed away. The modelers would definitely have preferred to have increased their precipation by a factor of three more to better match the observations.
But your belief is now stronger. Are some of your cardinals here?
Wait, just to be clear: This bit about the problem with the models isn’t original thinking on your part? If it isn’t, then you are following your own “cardinals.”
Ben, arrrghhhh! You got me! Thud.
OMFSM, after hundreds of posts, AG finally shows a sense of humor. Truly, that made it all worthwhile.
Of course I know that water vapor feedback will be positive, but the errors in the clouds are in the 10s of Watts/m^2. – africangenesis
I put ag’s point to Gavin Schmidt of RealClimate. Here’s his response. Me, I’ll go with the climate science experts rather than the “libertarian” ideologue.
“There are of course systematic errors in the GCMs that don’t go away when you average lots of them together (a large part of the random error does disappear though). Modellers spend a lot of time trying to reduce this of course, but no-one ever claimed models were perfect. A possible error in logic would be to claim that such a systematic bias automatically implied that the sensitivity of the model to climate forcings was grossly in error. That doesn’t follow at all. For instance, take a really simple model T4 = S*(1-a)/(4 sigma) (where S is the solar input 1365W/m2, a is the albedo). The sensitivity to a change in S, dT/dS is T_eq/(4*S). Thus for a 10% error in ‘a’ (from 0.3 to 0.33 say), the difference it makes in the sensitivity is a little more than 1% (i.e. 0.0467 to 0.0461). And a 10% error in albedo is over 40W/m2 in the absorbed solar! The bottom line is that errors in climatological values, while important, have less impact on sensitivity than you might think.”
For a 10% change in albedo from 0.3 to 0.33, I get about a 4.5% change in climate sensitivity, and for the absorbed solar based on the 198 W/m^2 downward flux at the surface the 10% error in albedo is less than 6W/m^2.
The above calculations assume a linear coupling of solar variability to the climate and some parts of the coupling are more variable and nonlinear, such as UV to the chemistry of the stratosphere.
More importantly, the sensitivity to CO2 forcing hypothesized by the AR4 incorporates a large factor of positive feedback that is derived from models. These models are “validated” on the small energy imbalance responsible for the recent warming, where small absolute errors in one part of the system can result in the balance being achieved incorrectly by large relative changes elsewhere in the model. The models all have known biases against solar, failing to reproduce the amplitude of the response to the solar cycle seen in the observations.
Of course you can write about whatever you want, but you being a scientist does not make this a science blog. I am also a scientist and an educator, but I write mostly about atheism and so my blog is an atheist blog. To call my blog a science blog because I am a scientist who sometimes writes about scientific issues would be somewhat misleading.
I love Pharyngula and visit regularly, but I’d be hard pressed to consider it a science blog. But I’m not complaining. It is your focus on atheism and religion that brings me back.
@vjack,
So, I’m wondering, what percentage of posts must be specifically on science for one’s blog to be considered a “science blog”?
IMO, PZ’s 3rd paragraph in this blog post summed up his position rather well.
So hemp-brain, what’s the ideal temperature range of the planet?
Intellectual and scientific content of GWIAS posts:
‘
‘
‘
‘
*crickets chirring*
‘
‘
‘
‘
Wow, Red. There sure was a truckload of intellectual and scientific content in that post. I think we should send it to the Smithsonian. Maybe the entymologists out there would like to know how a cricket “chirs”.
However, since you claim to be a scientist, perhaps you could answer the following for an igoramus like me:
(1) What is the ideal temperature range of planet earth?
(2) How do you explain the Medieval warming period?
(3) How do you explain the increase in the Antarctic ice cap?
(4) How do you explain the warming on Mars? Martian SUVs?
Where are your citations to be peer reviewed scientific literature backing up your assertions GWIAS? I don’t answer questions from people who must prove their ideas. Dazzle me with you brilliance, and then tell me how your paper to Nature or Science on the subject is coming along.
I’ve said this in the past, but it bears repeating: you know you’ve won the argument when all the other side has is name-calling and insults not worthy of a first-grade special ed student.
Really, Nicky? Well then, by your logic, the planet must have a “healthy temperature range”. So what is it? Or are you going to weasel out of the question yet again? Oh, wait…you’re a Warmista…of course you are!
It is not name calling if it is true.
Lying moron.
GWIAS, I answered your question 100s of posts back ya fuckwit.
The planet doesn’t have an “ideal” range.
Life on the planet however, requires an “ideal” range.
Shorter Janine, Far Left Warmista:
Wildlifer’s definition of “fuckwit”:
You mean Nicky was GASP!! lying when he said that it did? I’m shocked. (not)
And what is that range? Or will you simply respond with more name-calling and weaselling out of the question?
Well, when you answer someone’s question, but yet they keep asking it, it makes them a fuckwit.
The range to which life is adapted. Unless you want to run some sort of an extinction/adaptation experiment.
Alternatively, it’s the most appropriate – if not the only – way to deal with someone who’s shown, repeatedly, they are a) dishonest, and b) have no intent to listen to the facts provided for them.
Plenty of valid information has been presented. You’ve just got your fingers in your ears. You act like a ‘first-grade special ed student’; that’s how you’re being treated.
Don’t like it? Then fuck off.
GWIAS, read my post #830 and respond. Otherwise, you are just a fake, fraud, liar, and bullshitter.
GWIAS
Far Left Warmista
Giggle.
Where have I been dishonest? When have any “facts” (as opposed to Warm-monger propaganda) been presented? Oh…you’re projecting. Never mind.
Shorter Cowbuggerer:
How scientific of you! I can see you were playing with the older children in the schoolyard this week.
Why don’t you point me to your paper in Nature there, Red? Of course, name-calling makes you RightTM, doesn’t it?
KnockGoats@823,
I should add that Gavin’s selection of albedo for his example was a bit disingenuous, since the actual energy input to the system is one minus the albedo, which obviously changed by much less than 10%
GWIAS, you just proved to me conclusively with your evasions that you are a liar a bullshitter. All the rest of the blog now knows that fact. Time for you to go away since nobody will believe what you say. You have nothing, you will have nothing, and thems the facts. You are as bad as Steve H on another thread. He destroyed his credibility by constantly being caught out lying, just as you are doing. However, if you wish to amuse us by allowing us to point out your errors, keep posting. If I were you though, I would just fade into the bandwidth to save face.
Projecting again, are we Red? How pathetic.
But par for the course with a Warmista.
By the way, what’s the optimal temperature range of the planet? And why was it warmer during the Medieval warming period than it is now? Must have been those 13th-century Hummers eh Red?
I’ll repeat myself since you did. Substantive statements by GWIAS:
‘
‘
‘
‘
‘
‘
*crickets chirring*
GWAIS,
You are linking to climateaudit.com, isn’t it climataudit.org that you intend to link to?
GWIAS, you have nothing to offer us except lies and distortions. If you had the cojones as an honest, honorable person integrity, you would go elsewhere. But you will be back proving my analysis of your character as you being anything other than an honest, honorable, person of integrity.
GWIAS bleated:
I am not a scientist, dickhead. Care to cite the number of the post where I claimed I was? Or are your research skills that sub-par? It would explain a lot.
So, I’ll explain it to you, once again. If you don’t like the way you’re being treated here, then fuck off. No-one’s preventing you from leaving. You aren’t providing anything worth reading, so I can’t see what the point of your being here is.
I’m no scientist, either, but I can easily see that this comment from AG –
The IPCC has “confidence”, but in science “evidence” is more important than emotion.
– betrays a great deal of ignorance; in science, the term “confidence” is used to describe how a conclusion is weighted by evidence, not anything emotional.
Eric,
If you were familiar with the IPCC AR4 report, you would know that the “very likely” conclusion, which they equated to 90% was not reached by any statistical test. If you review the use of confidence in both the third (TAR) and fourth (AR4) assessment reports, you will find that it is used in the subjective judgement sense and only rarely in the statistical significance sense. Of course, many of the diagnostic reports on the models in AR4 show that the confidence that the scientists expressed in the TAR was unjustified, and the claims by the AR4 authors that they were even “more” confident now, must be based on an ex-post-facto reduction of the TAR confidence to more reasonable levels.