Who “Peer Reviews” the Peer Reviewers?
Apparently only e-mail hackers. Here’s an excerpt from Mark Steyn’s recent article “Cooking the Books on Climate.”
The trouble with outsourcing your marbles to the peer-reviewed set is that, if you take away one single thing from the leaked documents, it’s that the global warm-mongers have wholly corrupted the “peer-review” process. . . .Here’s what Phil Jones of the CRU and his colleague Michael Mann of Penn State mean by “peer review”. When Climate Research published a paper dissenting from the Jones-Mann “consensus,” Jones demanded that the journal “rid itself of this troublesome editor,” and Mann advised that “we have to stop considering Climate Research as a legitimate peer-reviewed journal. Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues in the climate research community to no longer submit to, or cite papers.”
So much for Climate Research. When Geophysical Research Letters also showed signs of wandering off the “consensus” reservation, Dr. Tom Wigley (”one of the world’s foremost experts on climate change”) suggested they get the goods on its editor, Jim Saiers, and go to his bosses at the American Geophysical Union to “get him ousted.” When another pair of troublesome dissenters emerge, Dr. Jones assured Dr. Mann, “I can’t see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep them out somehow – even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!”
Which, in essence, is what they did. The more frantically they talked up “peer review” as the only legitimate basis for criticism, the more assiduously they turned the process into what James Lewis calls the Chicago machine politics of international science. The headline in the Wall Street Journal Europe is unimproveable: “How To Forge A Consensus.” Pressuring publishers, firing editors, blacklisting scientists: That’s “peer review,” climate-style. The more their echo chamber shriveled, the more Mann and Jones insisted that they and only they represent the “peer-reviewed” “consensus.” And gullible types like Ed Begley Jr. and Andrew Revkin of the New York Times fell for it hook, line and tree-ring.
I have a question: If the evidence for global warming is so persuasive, why the deception, censorship and blacklisting?
This strikes me as the same kind of dishonesty that goes on in the question of biological origins. To even suggest that intelligence might be behind biological systems is to get one censored, blacklisted or fired (just ask Dr. Richard Sternberg and see the documentary “Expelled” for confirmation). Those who control the “reputable” peer-reviewed journals are the self-selecting gate keepers who rarely publish anything other than their own party line, and then complain that for any opposing view to be considered respectable it must make it into their journals! That’s like saying to Jackie Robinson, “to be considered a great baseball player you must play in the major leagues,” but then denying him the opportunity to play in the major leagues.
This again shows that science doesn’t say anything– scientists do. All data must be gathered and then interpreted which means that science is only as objective as the people who do it. If the scientists are corrupt or allow their philosophical or personal biases to influence their conclusions, you get the kind of incorrect conclusions we see with global warming and biological origins.
I haven’t studied the global warming issue in depth. So for those who believe that man-made carbon emissions are responsible for changing the climate (whether the climate is actually changing is also under dispute), I have a question: why did the climate change so drastically long before there were man-made carbon emissions? It seems that if the climate today actually is changing (again, disputable), there’s probably a much more potent natural cause. True?
December 1st, 2009 at 2:27 am
from Steyns’ column:
“The “consensus” warm-mongers could have declared it only counts as “peer-reviewed” if it’s published in Peer-Reviewed Studies published by Mann & Jones Publishing Inc. (Peermate of the Month: Al Gore, reclining naked, draped in dead polar bear fur, on a melting ice floe)…”
This is why they hate conservatives/conservatism: we have such a grand time annihilating all of their sacred little cows and they can’t do anything about it - HA HA!
I LOVE IT!!!
December 1st, 2009 at 11:55 am
Dr. Turek,
I think you’ve been around academics long enough to understand how much of this works.
Simply stated, are there problems with peer-review? Of course.
But, what’s your idea?
Peer-review in essence lets the market decide. Not all journals are as reputable as others, and those that are reputable do not become so because someone says so, but because of a good track record of being correct and of keeping bad information from slipping through the cracks. The value of journals goes up and down as these things change.
Academics can be a fiercely competitive business and there are groups (schools of thought) and they compete and the competition can get heated (as you see in the exchanges quoted). This is not limited to climate science and doesn’t necessarily mean that the scientists involved secretly know they are wrong.
One thing that comes to mind is from the Discover Magazine article I posted in the other thread, and it’s mention of peer review. I don’t know what your intention was in writing the article, but I don’t want anyone to mistakenly get the idea that peer-review only attacks right wing viewpoints and beliefs. Here is a brief mention of peer-review of an experiment in which frozen chemicals yielded different amino acids and 11 nucleobases.
There were people who found the results a little too remarkable. When Bada and Miller submitted their findings to a top-tier science journal, the article was rejected. A reviewer of the manuscript felt that those molecules must surely have formed while the samples were thawing, not while frozen at the ridiculously low temperature of –108°F.
If peer-review was interested in nothing but discrediting a G-d based worldview and promoting socialism, then these results would have been printed right away. That’s not the way it works though.
Dr. Turek wrote:So for those who believe that man-made carbon emissions are responsible for changing the climate (whether the climate is actually changing is also under dispute), I have a question.
Wasn’t the logic behind this question already disproved in the other thread? Simply because a certain set of forces produces an effect, does not exclude other forces from producing the same or a similar effect. Furthermore simply because a set of forces is seen as powerful, does not lead to a conclusion that other forces must therefore be not-powerful. (Because my Hummer can crash through a brick wall does not mean that your Mini cannot do some serious damage as well.)
December 1st, 2009 at 2:33 pm
I believe it might rain tomorrow.
I believe my football team might make the finals next year.
I believe politians some of the time.
But I dont “believe” in global warming.
I think we are going to cook.
And I think people will blaspheme the name of God while the earth is scorching. (Revelation 16:9)
And I wonder about “humanists” and scientists who assert that what we really need to fix “global warming” is one world government which can assume emergency powers to fix “the problem” without worrying about all that democracy and voting stuff. (Because we “ordinary people” arent smart enough to understand the “science”)
Lion (IRC)
December 2nd, 2009 at 6:04 am
“Wasn’t the logic behind this question already disproved in the other thread?”
Yes it was. People got cancer before smoking came along. It’s a logical fallacy to say this means smoking doesn’t increase your chances of getting cancer.
Frank, I thought your area of expertise was in spotting logical fallacies? This is rather disappointing.
“It seems that if the climate today actually is changing (again, disputable)”
Actually, this is pretty much indisputed by anyone - the sceptics’ argument now has had to retreat to the ‘OK, it’s changing, but it’s correlation with carbon in the atmosphere is mere coincidence’.
A good ‘reformed sceptic’ article here by Bryan Appleyard. He blogged for years against global warming, but the evidence has now changed his mind. Fair play to him on that:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/t.....931598.ece
December 2nd, 2009 at 9:53 am
Nathan,
I am well aware that there can be more than one cause of climate change. As I said before twice on another thread, if we are causing GW or GC, I want to know it (remember, I have a degree in Environmental Studies and believe we need some level of environmental regulation). I simply have not seen evidence that we are causing it, especially in light of the fact that the climate has been changing in both directions for thousands of years prior to our emissions. Is it possible that we have a hand in it? Of course. But how much compared to natural means is the question. When “scientists” fake data to show the climate is warming, hide data that shows the climate is cooling, and muzzle dissent to support man-made global warming, it makes me think the answer to the question is not much.
But it still could be much. The problem now is, who can you believe? And we’re dealing with “who’s” because science doesn’t say anything– scientists do.
Here’s a summary of Climategate: http://wattsupwiththat.com/200.....ts-issues/
Blessings,
Frank
December 2nd, 2009 at 10:07 am
We can trade URLs:
“The “Copenhagen Diagnosis” released today reveals that by any objective measure—melting ice sheets, greenhouse gas concentrations, sea level rise—the climate is warming faster than anticipated. And when the natural variability induced by massive climate systems such as oscillations over decades in ocean temperatures, currents and even sunspots reverts to the mean, the roughly three warming watts per square meter added by greenhouse gases will still be there to drive climate change.”
http://www.scientificamerican......2009-11-24
December 2nd, 2009 at 10:25 am
And again, from Huffpost:
Thousands of emails from over 13 years were stolen, and edited, and have been taken out of context for those with a political agenda. As blogger Jeff Masters writes,
“Even if every bit of mud slung at these scientists were true, the body of scientific work supporting the theory of human-caused climate change—which spans hundreds of thousands of scientific papers written by tens of thousands of scientists in dozens of different scientific disciplines—is too vast to be budged by the flaws in the works of the three or four scientists being subject to the fiercest attacks.”
As climate czar Carol Brower says, “I’m sticking with the 2,500 scientists [of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.] These people have been studying this issue for a very long time and agree this problem is real.”
The above is one out of seven points, and well worth reading:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/.....71223.html
December 2nd, 2009 at 10:58 am
I simply have not seen evidence that we are causing [global warming]
I am just curious where you have looked and what scientific books/articles you have read on the subject.
The body of evidence is much larger than what is involved in climate gate. When you say “scientists” fake data to show warming, hide data that shows the climate is cooling are you simply referring to “climategate” or are you speaking of something else as well?
Personally, I have not read enough to form a true opinion on this.
I look at it in a very unscientific way. People sometimes commit suicide by sitting in a locked garage with their car running. What comes out of the back is poisonous — it kills you. (Though car emissions have become less poisonous because of the environmentalist lobby.) If I would not want to be locked in a room with one (let alone with the exhaust pipes of a coal power plant), then I think it would be better to not be ‘locked’ in an atmosphere with millions and millions of them.
That said, if there’s a say 10% chance that we are causing the planet to warm, and the consequences of that are catastrophic, then I think it makes sense to try to stop or modify our behavior (especially in light of what I said above).
As I said, I have not studied the issue in depth, but from what I have studied, no one denies that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas. The potential for serious warming to be caused by human activity is certainly there.
Another question, if you do not trust proponents of global warming because of their efforts to “hide” data, then why should you trust the deniers? Haven’t they had their own scandals?
One example: “NASA officials censored and suppressed scientific data on global warming in order to protect the Bush administration from controversy close to the 2004 presidential election, an internal investigation has found.”
This ware the findings of a 93 page report by the Inspector General’s office (under the Bush Administration). (Nasa ‘played down’ global warming to protect Bush. Scotsman.com)
You have had the American Enterprise Institute offer thousands of dollars to scientists who would write papers critical of global warming reports. (How much of a perversion of science is that?)
There are more problems from the “other side” as well. Do you also question them? If so, I would like to hear your thoughts on that as well, for the sake of balance.
December 3rd, 2009 at 2:36 am
First, I’ll admit that I don’t know if man made emissions cause global warming. Here I am more conservative than “conservatives” (who are only really conservative when it comes to change{they’re like old men screaming at kids to stay off their lawn} and their money). My conservative is more closer to the definition that would include not being a wasteful fool and my motto is, “If we don’t know for sure, then why risk it?”
I decided to sit down and look at numbers to put this into perspective for me and whoever else cares to read this.
The United States uses approximately 20,000,000 barrels of oil per day. Per Day. PER DAY. Each barrel contains approximately between 650 and 1000 pounds of carbon dioxide. That means that 13,000,000,000 to 20,000,000,000 (13 billion to 20 billion) pounds of carbon dioxide are released each day.
So what? Big mind boggling numbers right? How about some perspective? The average weight of air is 1.2oz per cubic foot. If you’re in a room that’s 10ft wide by 10ft long and 8ft high then the cubic feet (volume) of the room is 800. Multiply that by the weight of air and that’s 960 pounds of air in that room. Carbon dioxide is heavier than air. It’s about 1.8oz per cubic foot. That same room filled will only CO2 would have a weight of 1440 pounds. If you divide the amount of CO2 produced in a day by that number (let’s assume the worst and say 20,000,000) then you’d have (rounding up) 14,000 of those rooms filled with CO2 (about 1,100,000 cubic feet).
Further consider this: That is just ONE day of oil consumption. That’s about 7,000,000,000 (7 billion) barrels per year. This doesn’t include the burning of coal (how many people do you know that have electricity?) or natural gas (how many cooks on FoodTv cook with this?)
Go find out for yourself what the numbers are on coal and natural gas burning. Then consider that this is just one country and try to imagine how much CO2 is being pumped into the atmosphere by the whole world. CO2 that, in a world without people, would be sequestered below ground and not adding to the so named greenhouse effect.
December 3rd, 2009 at 3:59 am
Examples of liberal “math”:
the continent of Africa minus DDT = 20 mil dead black kids
Eugenicist Sanger + “planned parenthood” “clinics” = 30 mil MORE dead black babies
Leftist “thought” / lame, lying demonization = zero people w/ the courage/power to stop the above insanities
Which leads one to advance this problem: how does liberal “compassion” X liberal action = so many dead people of color?
(see also: the abandonment of Viet Nam / zero action re: Rwanda / Elian Gonzalez / etc. ad infinitum…)
December 3rd, 2009 at 4:27 am
p.s. In case the thrust of the foregoing comments didn’t penetrate, this is what I’m driving at: adhering to Kyoto / other draconian “climate saving” tactics will result in the destruction of “the little guy” at a rate that may well dwarf the above, liberal caused, atrocities. But hey who’s counting, right, lefties?
December 3rd, 2009 at 8:23 pm
At least you had sense to explain yourself because until you did I didn’t know what the f*** you were talking about.
What? Little guy? What little guy? What about the top heavy tax cutting makes you think that “conservatives” give a crap about the “little guy”?
Do you even know what government is? The government is US. We are the government. It’s supposed to be a reflection of it’s people. And I guess because you find it abhorent it’s actually doing it’s job. Because it’s not supposed to be just like you, or just like me, it’s supposed to be an average of all of us—minorities are equal to majorities, women are equal to men, atheists are equal to theists, old to young. If you don’t like it, then I guess you could move to the nearest theocracy in which they believe precisely what you do and oppress everyone else.
December 3rd, 2009 at 8:30 pm
And what part of that was I espousing a political view? I did a ten minute search of google, used my computer’s calculator, and threw out some astounding numbers. Do they indicate man made climate change? I don’t know, but it certainly points to more CO2 in the air than if that oil were sequestered in it’s original form so far underground. A tree will remove approximately 1 ton of CO2 from the air. That’s not in a day, that’s not in a year, that’s in an assumed lifetime of 100 years. That’s about 20 pounds of CO2 a year. It’s just math. Don’t be afraid of it. But think with your head. Stop being paranoid about the government, because you are part of the government.
December 3rd, 2009 at 9:12 pm
December 3rd, 2009 at 3:59 am
Examples of liberal “math”:
the continent of Africa minus DDT = 20 mil dead black kids
Eugenicist Sanger + “planned parenthood” “clinics” = 30 mil MORE dead black babies
Leftist “thought” / lame, lying demonization = zero people w/ the courage/power to stop the above insanities
Which leads one to advance this problem: how does liberal “compassion” X liberal action = so many dead people of color?
(see also: the abandonment of Viet Nam / zero action re: Rwanda / Elian Gonzalez / etc. ad infinitum…)
….that’s why I like you, Mark. You always come out of nowhere with something completely irrelevant. Kind of like a rodeo clown; something light-hearted to remind us all not to take any of this horrible mess too seriously
December 4th, 2009 at 4:11 am
Toby,
Your stats are very likely correct (give or take a few trillion tons of carbon). Here’s my problem: considering man has gone from burning, virtually, no fossil fuels -at all- to the vast quantities you note above (in a relatively short period of time) how is it that we haven’t yet incinerated ourselves? Seriously, all those gazillions of tons of crap being flung up into the strati, etc. and all us “top heavy tax cutters” has ta sho fer it is a half a degree over the last hunert years!?! Well split my atom, Einstein, but somethin’ jes aint be a addin’ up in all a dat dare cypherin’!
Man, secular “science” sho has some funny peoples promulgatin’ it!
December 4th, 2009 at 4:50 am
Tim said, “You always come out of nowhere with something completely irrelevant. Kind of like a rodeo clown; something light-hearted to remind us all not to take any of this horrible mess too seriously”
Thank you for the kudos. Glad to have lightened things up a little around here. But please, could you call in a “welfare check” on Toby? I’m afraid he may have popped a vessel. For some raisin, he appears to have surmised that my little screed, a couple of posts ago, was directed at him. Which of course it was, it’s just that the desired affect was not to cause a spontaneous aneurysm. I beg of you, rush a bottle of Excedrin over to his house, STAT! And remember, the continued presence of wild-eyed liberal rants on this chat board is in your hands so, go steadfastly forth in your mission young brave.
FOR THE GOOD OF THE BOARD! FOR LIBERAL LUNACY! LONG MAY IT REIGN!
Dreading the end of our stimulating tete a tete, Mark
P.S. How are rodeo clowns irrelevant? I mean, to a rodeo that is. A nightclub in downtown Detroit would be a bull of a different stripe, however. Were you referring to the status of their relevance as pertains to Detroit night clubs? I know you didn’t specify because it will likely destroy your whole “rodeo clown” theory but I feel I must give you the opportunity to acquit yourself all the same. Please clarify, because I think it necessary before we go any further.
Thank you,
Mark “Bouncing Barrels” Ducharme
December 4th, 2009 at 5:41 am
“has ta sho fer it is a half a degree over the last hunert years!”
What all scientists agree is that a rise of just three degrees would be enough to lead to the deaths of hundreds of millions of people. So I’m not sure where you’re getting the view that half a degree world average rise is not significant.
December 4th, 2009 at 8:59 am
FOR THE GOOD OF THE BOARD! FOR LIBERAL LUNACY! LONG MAY IT REIGN!
See what I mean? Where did that come from? It boggles the mind.
It reminds me of when I first tried to read FLCL….
P.S. How are rodeo clowns irrelevant? I mean, to a rodeo that is. A nightclub in downtown Detroit would be a bull of a different stripe, however. Were you referring to the status of their relevance as pertains to Detroit night clubs? I know you didn’t specify because it will likely destroy your whole “rodeo clown” theory but I feel I must give you the opportunity to acquit yourself all the same. Please clarify, because I think it necessary before we go any further.
Hah….yes, my “rodeo clown theory” XD I certainly put a lot of “thought” into that one….
December 4th, 2009 at 10:29 am
“it’s just that the desired affect was not to cause a spontaneous aneurysm. I beg of you, rush a bottle of Excedrin over to his house, STAT!”
When you say things like this you really show how little you know about science and pretty much cause anyone listening to shut down and only hear your well trod over, oft repeated, politically conservative claptrap.
If someone has an aneurysm you really don’t want to give them a form of aspirin. Aspirin effects platelet function and would cause extensive bleeding in the person with the aneurysm.
Hey wait . . . did you really know that all along and were actually showing us your murderous tendencies toward people that don’t think like you do?
December 4th, 2009 at 10:33 am
Toby, don’t feed the troll facts, it’ll only give him indigestion.
December 4th, 2009 at 12:01 pm
(me) “Dullards, Humor. Humor, Dullards.”
(Humor) “Ha, those guys are funny but, they’ll never shake my hand. They can’t even see me.” (chuckles bitterly. walks off into comedy oblivion, having failed his mission.)
December 4th, 2009 at 12:17 pm
I knew Mark would pull the ‘you guys got no sense of humor’ card. Right after ‘hilariously’ trying to associate anyone who disagrees with him with mass murder. Sure, it was JOKE when he said that a one degree rise in global temperatures is not problem.
And sorry that we’re weren’t suitably amused by your gags about eugenics and 20 million dead black kids, Mark.
December 4th, 2009 at 12:49 pm
“Right after ‘hilariously’ trying to associate anyone who disagrees with him with mass murder.”
Not you, Slappy, your ideology. You know, the one you to which you align yourself. Please keep in mind you are addressing a former card carrying member of the fraternity. That is, I always meant to get a card.
By the by, considering we have lowered the output of emissions in recent decades -tremendously- and your previously noted stats rendered but a half a degree, why to worry now? Aren’t we already headed in the “right” direction? Hm, maybe that’s why the earth has actually cooled the last ten years! Just kidding, I don’t believe any of this fallaciousness, er, clap-trap, was merely inquiring into the “thought” process.
Take your time answering….gotta go gather wood for the (apparent) coming ice age…
December 4th, 2009 at 1:02 pm
“considering we have lowered the output of emissions in recent decades”
Nonsense. Cite please.
“Hm, maybe that’s why the earth has actually cooled the last ten years!”
Er, the past 10 years is among the warmest decade on record for hundreds of years. They followed an extra warm El Nino in 1998. Again, the facts just don’t bare out your assertions.
And no, there’s nothing in my ideology about eugenics. My ideology sides with Norman Baulaurg, who is credited with saving the lives of a billion people. Why don’t I pin all the abusive Catholic Priests on you, say that’s part of YOUR ideology.
And my point stands anyway - you troll frothing-at-the-mouth posts about the deaths of ‘millions of black kids’ then in the next post claim we just don’t get your sense of humor. Lovely.
December 4th, 2009 at 2:23 pm
Nathan said, “And no, there’s nothing in my ideology about eugenics. My ideology sides with Norman Baulaurg, who is credited with saving the lives of a billion people. Why don’t I pin all the abusive Catholic Priests on you, say that’s part of YOUR ideology.”
Good point. Liberals are not 100% monolithic. It’s more like eighty five - fifteen. Ninety - ten at worst. And please, don’t go about spreading rumors that Catholicism is synonymous with Christianity.
I’ll apologize if you will…You first…Gee, Nathan, don’t you feel better already? (sorry…that’s must be the rodeo clown in me…)
Oh, and for appearances: Your belief in the absolute opposite of reality, concerning GW, perfectly illustrates the thrust of “Who “Peer Reviews” the Peer Reviewers?”. (Or at least the consequences of its thrust.)They speaketh, therefore you believeth. Point made and confirmed by your own willingness to take as gospel anything they say. Remember, “What all scientists agree is that a rise of just three degrees would be enough to lead to the deaths of hundreds of millions of people.”? (emphasis mine) “All” scientists, huh? Isn’t that like arguing from a previously, self established, dogmatic assertion tautology thingy or something? What about the people currently freezing there tautologies off in Siberia? What about the fact that these same geniuses can’t even tell you what the temperature will be a month from now? Liberals never cease to amaze! It’s like the example of government: They destroy everything they touch while simultaneously “riding in to the rescue” to wreck up the place some more. And here we have lying “scientists” alternately screaming, “THE MERCURY IS FALLING! / THE MERCURY IS RISING!” over the course of a few short decades and YOU swallow it hook, line and sinker. Come on, Nathan, get your ears out of their slobbering, politically motivated mouths for a moment and engage your own brain, would you? Besides, you’re really starting to tick dad off.
You clearly have the ability. Ironically, all you lack is the will.
December 4th, 2009 at 2:52 pm
“And please, don’t go about spreading rumors that Catholicism is synonymous with Christianity.”
I wouldn’t in the first place - I was pointing out a similar fallacy to the one you were rude enough to make. And there’s nothing liberal about eugenics. Unless you think eugenics is equivalent to animal breeding, in which case you won’t see the difference between the Nazis and someone who breeds puppies.
By the way -
1) The ten warmest years on record all occurred since 1997. Interpret that how you wish.
2) Still waiting for a cite for your ‘emissions have lowered claim’.
December 4th, 2009 at 3:11 pm
Nathan,
I want you to get up out of your chair. I want you to open your window. Right now! I want you to stick your head out the window and yell, “The world is not my oyster, and I can no more destroy it than eat it!”…(oh yeah) “And I’m not going to take it anymore!” And while you’re “out there”, open your eyes, God has a message for you. But you must open your eyes….and your heart.
It’s okay, Nathan. Letting go of childish illusions is a good thing, see?
December 4th, 2009 at 3:25 pm
Mark, you sound like a crazy person. Shouting out the window won’t make your assertions true, and they won’t change the facts. Last post to you, cheerio.
December 4th, 2009 at 3:43 pm
I think I actually, just now, busted a gut! (it’s a colloquialism, don’t bother yourself ) Thank you, Nathan and those of like mind, it is a pleasure to spar with you all. Your side is represented well and you, indeed, do exploits.
December 4th, 2009 at 4:09 pm
If you want a laugh, stick my name into youtube.
December 4th, 2009 at 6:05 pm
And sorry that we’re weren’t suitably amused by your gags about eugenics and 20 million dead black kids, Mark.
Yeah, especially since I just got done watching this absolutely depressing (see: Many Tear-inducing) show about the genocides in Rwanda (where they kidnap kids from their homes and force them to become soldiers, and threaten to kill them and their families brutally if they refuse). So yeah….”humor” to that affect would be kind of lost on me….
And please, don’t go about spreading rumors that Catholicism is synonymous with Christianity.
On a serious note: Catholicism was the original Christianity. In fact, it was them you have to thank for the Germanic Yule Tree’s incorporation into the “Christmas” celebration.
Mark, you sound like a crazy person. Shouting out the window won’t make your assertions true, and they won’t change the facts. Last post to you, cheerio.
As much as I hate to throw around insensitive terms like “crazy,” I agree with your assesment here….but in any case, it may help to point out that that strange quote was most likely a reference to an old movie about the early-1900’s economic crises, wherein a TV anchor instructs people to open their windows and shout that they’re “mad as hell” and “not going to take it anymore.”
…I could be wrong about that, but that’s the only thing I can think of that would make any sense of it, so…0.0
December 4th, 2009 at 7:12 pm
Tim said, “And sorry that we’re weren’t suitably amused by your gags about eugenics and 20 million dead black kids, Mark.
Yeah, especially since I just got done watching this absolutely depressing (see: Many Tear-inducing) show about the genocides in Rwanda (where they kidnap kids from their homes and force them to become soldiers, and threaten to kill them and their families brutally if they refuse). So yeah….”humor” to that affect would be kind of lost on me….”
Thank you for illustrating the central truth of Ann Coulters’ latest book: ‘Guilty: Liberal “Victims” and their Assault on America’. You express no qualms espousing an ideology that has led / will lead to the actual slaughter of millions then, you misrepresent my protestations to it and act as victim to my “gags about eugenics” as though, even if you weren’t telling a non-truth about the tenor of my comments, my “actions” would somehow be more -or at least as- reprehensible as the atrocities themselves. Thank you for reminding us all how it is done. It’s always good to know the “ethics” of your opposition.
Tim also posited this pearl, “On a serious note: Catholicism was the original Christianity.” In the book of Acts you will find the creation of the church of Christ by His apostles thus, the “Acts” of the apostles. Just as in the entirety of the Bible, it says nothing of a “trinity”, the “virtue” and “necessity” of worshiping false idols, spending the lions’ share of the churches resources on the church/things outside the will of God(see: Acts 5:1-11), raping little children, ascribing infallibility to mortals, etc., etc.
So, that statement of yours is lacking even an Infinitesimal portion of truth. The tree stuff is all for fun and is neither here nor there in the context of Christianity. Unless you think that other peoples’ harmless traditions can “infect” you if you imbibe of them. You can be that superstitious if you like, but leave me out of it.
At least I ascertain the facts when venturing into “your territory”. You should do the same when “teaching” me of mine. I’m not the only one reading this, you know.
Lastly (for now): If the mirror of truth has revealed to you something unpleasant, don’t smash the mirror, purge the “something unpleasant”.
thank you,
From: the guy on the wall
December 4th, 2009 at 8:33 pm
Thank you for illustrating the central truth of Ann Coulters’ latest book: ‘Guilty: Liberal “Victims” and their Assault on America’.
Thanks for putting this at the beginning, BTW, so I knew to take the rest of it with a grain of salt….Ann Coulter? Are you being serious? She’s a joke even amongst the hard-right conservatives here in the deep south, much less as a “credible” source of information.
You express no qualms espousing an ideology that has led / will lead to the actual slaughter of millions
….what?
then, you misrepresent my protestations to it and act as victim to my “gags about eugenics” as though, even if you weren’t telling a non-truth about the tenor of my comments, my “actions” would somehow be more -or at least as- reprehensible as the atrocities themselves.
[:/
I think you are putting WAY too much thought into this; one thing that you and I do not have in common, Mr. Ducharme, is that I do not make a habit of accusing people of being “permissive of [insert cause of genocide here]” when I disagree with them. In fact, it was you who, in your second quote in my response here, accused *me* of harboring ideas that “will lead to the [slaughter of millions],” and without the slightest defense of that claim to boot.
I simply find your jokes tasteless, is all. I’m not “offended” by them; I just don’t think they are funny, and your attempt to use them to make a political point or send a message (or whatever it was you were trying to do) got lost in the translation because you used such distracting, shockingly-out-of-context “humor.” I mean, that would be like me cracking random “Hah hah, Jews died in the Holocaust LOLZ!” jokes when talking about whether or not god is infinite. It’s just not necessary to make the point. It’s also disrespectful, but if it were funny I think we could probably excuse even that. But it wasn’t.
P.S.
I know I’m probably wasting my breath, but this all reminds me of a passage from Narutaru, wherein the main character Shiina makes a joke about how “Banda Academy” sounds like “Panda Academy;” the Banda Academy girl (who is standing next to her) considers the comment disrespectful and slaps Shiina, then walks away mad; the girl’s boyfriend asks her why she’s so worked up about it, and she says, “That girl looks so stupid….people like her are so simple and stupid, they don’t think about anything. They’re just gonna get out of high school and have a bunch of stupid kids and not do anything with their lives,” and so on and so forth. Her boyfriend says something like, “What makes you say that?” And she says, “I can see it on her face.” He says, “Come on, you can’t know all of that just by looking at her face.”
December 4th, 2009 at 9:00 pm
I said, Examples of liberal “math”:
the continent of Africa minus DDT = 20 mil dead black kids
Eugenicist Sanger + “planned parenthood” “clinics” = 30 mil MORE dead black babies
Leftist “thought” / lame, lying demonization = zero people w/ the courage/power to stop the above insanities
Which leads one to advance this problem: how does liberal “compassion” X liberal action = so many dead people of color?
(see also: the abandonment of Viet Nam / zero action re: Rwanda / Elian Gonzalez / etc. ad infinitum…)
and then, p.s. In case the thrust of the foregoing comments didn’t penetrate, this is what I’m driving at: adhering to Kyoto / other draconian “climate saving” tactics will result in the destruction of “the little guy” at a rate that may well dwarf the above, liberal caused, atrocities. But hey who’s counting, right, lefties?
Where’s the joke(s)?
Then Toby said, If someone has an aneurysm you really don’t want to give them a form of aspirin. Aspirin effects platelet function and would cause extensive bleeding in the person with the aneurysm.
Hey wait . . . did you really know that all along and were actually showing us your murderous tendencies toward people that don’t think like you do?
OOOOOH! I see! Toby’s brilliant hilarity is the “joke” you’re referring to. Right?
Sorry. You only acted offended because, due to the juxtaposition of an accounting of the Rwandan genocides/atrocities you had just seen, your twisting of my words caused you to cry.(Yeah, especially since I just got done watching this absolutely depressing (see: Many Tear-inducing) show about the genocides in Rwanda (where they kidnap kids from their homes and force them to become soldiers, and threaten to kill them and their families brutally if they refuse). So yeah….”humor” to that affect would be kind of lost on me….) It was Toby who claimed murderous intentions reside in my heart. Sorry again. Will try to work on both of those (imaginary) flaws. Hope you guys can forgive me.
And still, no one has admitted the truth of the column: “global warming” is a lie propagandized by lying, leftist “scientists”, politicians and the “news” media. But then, that last sentence explains itself, doesn’t it? Keep circling the wagons and demonizing the opposition, boys. You’re doing a great job.
December 4th, 2009 at 9:14 pm
Where’s the joke(s)?
Ah, so you were talking about the Excedrin comment when you made the remarks about humor. That makes sense, then.
I seem to have confused that more obvious attempt at humor with your normal trolling/random “liberal” flaming. Sorry about that.
Sorry. You only acted offended because, due to the juxtaposition of an accounting of the Rwandan genocides/atrocities you had just seen, your twisting of my words caused you to cry.,/i>
….what?
Your words didn’t move me at all; for one, that was a typo (it was supposed to say “Manly Tears,” which is a TVTropes reference), and second, I was referring to the show I had watched prior, not your comments. It was difficult viewing
December 5th, 2009 at 4:49 am
“it may help to point out that that strange quote was most likely a reference to an old movie”
Tim, I took it to be a reference to Peter Finch in the movie Network.
Look, Mark’s schtick is as follows:
1. Make a statement of fact that isn’t true (ie a lie)
2. Fail to provide any evidence for the statement when called on it
3. Yell ‘touchy feely’ stuff that just ‘feels right’ to him, again with nothing to back it up, about opening your eyes (to his ‘facts’?)
4. If all else fails, accuse the other person of supporting genocide, again with nothing to back it up. I’m sure those victims would be delighted that their deaths were being exploited by a someone to make crude political points that they don’t even understand.
He’s bad mannered, rude, can’t back up anything he says and also can’t admit he’s wrong when he gets called on his ‘facts’. Notice nothing from him about his ‘lowered emissions’ factoid, and no reply to this: 1) The ten warmest years on record all occurred since 1997.
You were wrong to call him a rodeo clown. He’s just a clown. Quoting Coulter for cripes sake!
December 5th, 2009 at 2:27 pm
You were wrong to call him a rodeo clown. He’s just a clown. Quoting Coulter for cripes sake!
Oh, I deserved every bit of what I got; I should know better by now than to take trolls seriously. I was just having such an interesting conversation in the other thread that I got distracted and started seriously arguing with him in this one
December 5th, 2009 at 5:44 pm
Ditto. When someone posts something that’s a simple matter of fact, and they get it wrong, I always make the mistake of thinking they might be reasonable, and able to acknowledge their error. It doesn’t work with right-wingers tho.
December 7th, 2009 at 9:11 am
The following BBC link goes through each denier claim and debunks them very well. I’d like to see someone respond to it:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8376286.stm
December 15th, 2009 at 7:22 pm
For those interested in the Global Warming discussion, this was up on Drudge today. http://www.dailyexpress.co.uk/posts/view/146138
Climate Change is Natural: 100 reasons Why
I don’t know how many of these are legit. There is so much controversy on this issue, I’m not sure who to believe. But if you want to compare, read this link and the one from Nathan above.
Blessings,
Frank
December 16th, 2009 at 5:50 am
Frank, The Daily Express has about as much respect in the UK as the National Enquirer has in America. I’m not a scientist, but even I could see the flaws in the first few I read.
And really, this?: “Peter Lilley MP said last month that “fewer people in Britain than in any other country believe in the importance of global warming”.
Something like a third of Americans aren’t aware that the earth goes round the sun, not the other way round. A similar number don’t know that Genesis is the first chapter in the bible! This says nothing about the veracity of the position.
Nothing new here.
December 16th, 2009 at 6:08 am
Sorry, I was wrong about that ‘third of Americans’ figure. It’s actually MORE than HALF:
“Polls show that the Bible remains the most popular book of all time, and almost all U.S. homes (93 percent) have at least one. Yet only half of U.S. adults can name a single Gospel, and most don’t know that the first book of the Bible is Genesis.
“A 2000 survey showed that even 60 percent of those chapter-and-verse-quoting Evangelicals thought Jesus was born in Jerusalem rather than Bethlehem. Similarly, a 2004 survey of high school students found that 17 percent thought “the road to Damascus” was where Jesus was crucified and 22 percent thought Moses was either one of Jesus’ 12 apostles or an Egyptian pharaoh or an angel. Half of high school seniors also thought Sodom and Gomorrah were married. (Can gay marriage really be far off?)”
So, would I be able to include this fact to in a list of ‘100 reasons why Genesis is NOT the first chapter in the bible”? Come on Frank, you can tell me this one, you’ve studied logic! I haven’t, but I seem to remember that it’s called Argumentum ad populum.
December 16th, 2009 at 11:01 am
For those interested in the Global Warming discussion, this was up on Drudge today. http://www.dailyexpress.co.uk/posts/view/146138
I read through about 30 of these yesterday, and I have to agree with Nathan.
Perhaps it’s not fair to judge not having read the article fully, but I have no reason to expect that things improve any.
It’s not only that these are easily countered with other facts, it’s that they are simply not reasons that climate change is natural.
It’s simply full of logical fallacies, non sequitor and straw men arguments.
Even if the logic held up — a reason for GW being strictly natural is not given.
Let me go through the first three (you’d think the writers would want to start off strong) as examples, but I think the rest of these are as easily, if not more easily discounted.
1. There is “no real scientific proof” that the current warming is caused by the rise of greenhouse gases from man’s activity.
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence! (Of course, this claim would be challenged by most who specialize in this topic.) For thousands of years, there was no “real scientific proof” (though I am not really sure what this phrase means) that the earth was round. Yay! A reason why the earth is flat!
Man-made carbon dioxide emissions throughout human history constitute less than 0.00022 percent of the total naturally emitted from the mantle of the earth during geological history.
This is completely irrelevant to the issue at hand. It’s an emotional argument really (I believe Nathan called it false humility). I will reuse my forest fire example (I will make up the stat obviously, to make my point). Forest fires since the beginning of human history only account for less than 0.0072 percent of all forest fires during geological history. See, how could one say that humans are able to cause forest fires?
3. Warmer periods of the Earth’s history came around 800 years before rises in CO2 levels.
Again, this is completely and utterly irrelevant to the science at hand. Larger forest fires than anything supposedly started by humans have occurred an untold number times throughout the earth history, See, how could one say that humans are able to cause forest fires?
I also have to point out my favorite one. Reason number 35 states: It is a myth that computer models verify that CO2 increases will cause significant global warming because computer models can be made to “verify” anything.
It makes sense that this newspaper would be on the level of the National Enquirer. They are simply insulting the intelligence of their readers with this article.
December 16th, 2009 at 11:04 am
I posted a short response to the article Dr. Turek posted. I think Nathan’s critique is correct, I simply added it. It’s awaiting moderation, since I quoted the link.
I did want to post two quotes from John Stewart about this.
Following that AGW is just a money making scam for those involved:
am so sick of fact cat scientists, with their easy double-blind study money.
Ooohhh, I study global weather patterns, my shirts are so fancy they need their pockets protected.
Summing up the segment ion AGW:
So on the one hand 90-95% of the scientific community believes global is real and that we’re causing it.
On the other hand, it gets cold in winter and scientists are paid!
December 16th, 2009 at 11:12 am
Nathan, the statistics on the Bible are scary.
What percentage of those people, who apparently have no knowledge of basic Biblical content know what the Bible says about homosexuality, do you think?
To become a US citizen, one must take a basic civics test. (Practice tests are available online, if anyone is interested in them.)
I think such a thing should be administered before being able to call oneself Christian.
(Obviously this is not realistic, but sometimes I think it would be very nice.)
I’d rather live in a community of people who knows more about Matthew 25 than Leviticus 18:22, rather than the other way around.
(Sorry for the slightly off topic post; I just found those figures shocking, but somehow not that surprising.)
December 17th, 2009 at 1:54 pm
As I mentioned before, intelligence is implied by specified complexity. Biologically, that is measurable in the thousands of pages worth of DNA is the simplest cell. If you want units, they are A, T, G, and C, and their sequence is not determined by repetitive physical, chemical or biological forces.
You just make this up as you go along, don’t you? You can’t define your terms. You can’t say what “intelligence” is. You’re not able to play with the big boys. We get that.
Frank, can I give you some adult advice? People aren’t stupid. Define your terms is a question the dog understands. Pretending you don’t hear, re-re-re-repeating the claim, making it up as you go along — that doesn’t fool anyone. It makes you look dishonest. And silly. You look silly. You make faith look silly.
People aren’t stupid, but you treat us like we are. “Intelligence is implied by specified complexity” — but you have no idea what intelligence is or how it works. And you act like no one will notice.
Brother Frank you can’t persuade people to Jesus till they see you trust Jesus enough to take a thousand little carefully reasoned baby steps from where you are to where you’re going. But you don’t do that. You rush to the bible and backfill with whatever trash is to hand. You get to Jesus with careful non-definitions, studied imprecision, bobbing and weaving away from honest questions. You are a caricature of sly prideful ignorance. You drive people away from faith. For shame. Jesus is ashamed of you Frank. Ashamed.
Now go, and sin no more.
Lloyd O. Roumetha
December 17th, 2009 at 2:23 pm
Dear Lloyd,
1) This is the wrong thread and 2) please save the condescension.
Perhaps you could respond minus the condescension where we were discussing the issue of what caused life.
And yes, you are correct. People aren’t stupid which is why the vast majority of people believe that intelligence is behind the universe.
Blessings,
Frank
December 17th, 2009 at 11:39 pm
Can anyone explain what a Hamilton is in physics and how does this apply to the idea of the existence or non-existence of God?
Thanks
Richard
April 18th, 2010 at 1:54 pm
On the ‘Climategate’ issue, the accused scientists and researchers involved were all completely exonerated this week.
“…a report, written by a team of experts recommended by the Royal Society and led by Lord Oxburgh, vindicated the work of the climate research unit, completely exonerated Jones and pronounced that his research was robust and solid.”
From The Observer. The whole article is worth reading: Google: “Feel free to doubt climate change: just don’t deny it”