Sep
1

Ace Of Spades HQ: Science Debunked By Press Release




Posted at 23:18 by Gavin M.

acepic0515.jpg
Above: A.O. Spades expressing dumbness

It’s hard to keep track of all of Ace’s miniature nephews these days, but among the Hueys, Pipeyes, Deweys, Louies, Peepeyes, and Poopeyes now posting on the site, one continues to distinguish himself in the flailingly arrogant wrongness that is, by common reckoning, the site’s trademark and chief source of appeal.

It’s one of life’s small tragedies that smart people are usually painfully aware of how little they really know, and are forced to confront their own humility day after day, whereas guys like Dogstar, eh, not so much. Tomorrow it’ll be something else, but today he’s happy to issue pronouncements on science, specifically climate science:

Time to move the Global Warming goal posts again!
[Dogstar]

Hey, it’s been a while since we checked in with the Global Warming eco-kids. They’ve taken some hits lately- the IPCC dropped the “hockey stick” graph and NASA was forced to recalculate all post-2000 US temperature data. The results- they lost two of their best talking points.

Um, yeah. Here are some questions for Dogstar: What does that matter*, what exactly do you think is the significance of that recalculation, and have you ever read a single sentence of an actual scientific article — as in like one single one, ever?

Actually, it looks like the last question is about to answer itself.

However, they still had their A-1, die-hard fallback position- “There’s a CONSENSUS of scientists!!!”

Well, sorry to be the party pooper, kiddos, but you just lost your ace in the hole

I don’t know how they do it or what it means for the rest of us, but the guys at Ace HQ manage to make everything sound like a 10-year-old’s misconception of gay sex. Now we’re thinking about Ace’s hole pooping at a party. Next it’ll be gerbils and Rod Stewart choking on a gallon of semen.

And I didn’t even touch ‘die-hard fallback position.’ We’re talking about a context of only two consecutive sentences.

So wait. Let me pour this bleach into the hole I drilled in my skull, and we’ll forget all about the preceding. . .gub, ug, fnah. I smell roses — no, hot tar. Where were we?

Oh right, here’s how the, uh, scientists have lost their ‘ace in the hole’ as regards the consensus of scientists:

SURVEY: LESS THAN HALF OF ALL PUBLISHED SCIENTISTS ENDORSE GLOBAL WARMING THEORY; COMPREHENSIVE SURVEY OF PUBLISHED CLIMATE RESEARCH REVEALS CHANGING VIEWPOINTS

In 2004, history professor Naomi Oreskes performed a survey of research papers on climate change. Examining peer-reviewed papers published on the ISI Web of Science database from 1993 to 2003, she found a majority supported the “consensus view,” defined as humans were having at least some effect on global climate change. Oreskes’ work has been repeatedly cited, but as some of its data is now nearly 15 years old, its conclusions are becoming somewhat dated.

Medical researcher Dr. Klaus-Martin Schulte recently updated this research. Using the same database and search terms as Oreskes, he examined all papers published from 2004 to February 2007. The results have been submitted to the journal Energy and Environment, of which DailyTech has obtained a pre-publication copy. The figures are surprising.

Of 528 total papers on climate change, only 38 (7%) gave an explicit endorsement of the consensus. If one considers “implicit” endorsement (accepting the consensus without explicit statement), the figure rises to 45%. However, while only 32 papers (6%) reject the consensus outright, the largest category (48%) are neutral papers, refusing to either accept or reject the hypothesis. This is no “consensus.”

The figures are even more shocking when one remembers the watered-down definition of consensus here. Not only does it not require supporting that man is the “primary” cause of warming, but it doesn’t require any belief or support for “catastrophic” global warming. In fact of all papers published in this period (2004 to February 2007), only a single one makes any reference to climate change leading to catastrophic results.

It will be interesting to see how the “Inconvenient Truthers” handle this.

Um, so there was a press release announcing a climate science paper by a non-climate-scientist, generated by certain usual suspects, and intended for publication in a famously shoddy journal. This paper is apparently supposed to suggest, counterintuitively, that a lot of scientists doubt global warming, and is apparently going to do this through some new and creative redefinition of the word, ‘consensus.’ We’ve actually been through this once before, when a character named Benny Peiser hatched up a similar study and was run off with his underwear in flames.

And yet, knowing nothing about any of this, and without even looking at this as-yet-unpublished paper, Dogstar is confident in pronouncing its data to be sound and indeed revolutionary. Unlike puny real scientists, who have to actually read or at least skim a paper in order to evaluate it, Dogstar is able to endorse it with a mighty ‘bwahaha’ based only on a press release from Senator James Inhofe’s office. Bold thinking indeed.

mlm1.jpg
Above: ZOMG! I haven’t actually quote-unquote ‘learned the secret’ yet, but I am so totally buying a Ferrari.

Then he decided not to even bother finding out what ‘the inconvenient truthers’ (i.e. scientists) were already saying about it.

There’s a lot of talk about creating a new Manhattan Project for alternative energy. An argument in favor of such an idea is the glowing success of the Skunkworks For Alternative Stupid at ace.mu.nu.

Astounding advances are no doubt still on the drawing boards.


* CCE comments over at Deltoid:

Re: Sadlyno,

A pet peeve of mine: the proper response to “The IPCC dropped the Hockey Stick graph,” is “no they didn’t.” It’s on page 467, AR4 WGI Chapter 6 along with 11 other reconstructions, none of which show any time in the past 1300 years warmer than today. AR4 rejects the criticism of the Hockey Stick on page 466. Furthermore, the SPM specifically states: “Average Northern Hemisphere temperatures during the second half of the 20th century were very likely (>90% probability) higher than during any other 50-year period in the last 500 years and likely (>66% probability) the highest in at least the past 1,300 years.”

687 Comments »

  1. mdhatter said,

    September 1, 2007 at 23:30

    We all know global warming is the result of a global shortage of pirates

    and maybe a shortage of hockey sticks too.

  2. Simba B. said,

    September 1, 2007 at 23:32

    Silly Gavin, Ace is a ten year old who thinks about gay sex all the time. You didn’t know that?

  3. tasteless said,

    September 1, 2007 at 23:32

    “Now we’re thinking about Ace’s hole pooping at a party. Next it’ll be gerbils and Rod Stewart choking on a gallon of semen.”

    My, my Gavin. Next thing you know you’ll be saying that Ace, a specific individual, is good for nothing but a little of the old taboo ass-to-mouth action.

    Oh how the mighty have fallen.

  4. ifthethunderdontgetya™³²®© said,

    September 1, 2007 at 23:33

    If a rocket scientist like Senator James Inhofe has doubts about global warming, I for one, am ready to lead the charge to Al Gore’s castle.

  5. Jrod said,

    September 1, 2007 at 23:37

    And how will you liberals explain the way it always cools off at night? Not only that, but winters still occur! There’s snow on the ground somewhere in the world and you expect us to buy your “global warning” foofrah?

  6. mikey said,

    September 1, 2007 at 23:42

    Arrrgghhh, this is beyond stupid. Let’s go back to the begining, ok?

    Why is Mars below freezing, Venus over 900 degrees f, and earth juuussst right? Why, that would be the relative quantities of greenhouse gasses. They are what make earth capable of supporting life. We KNOW the effect greenhouse gasses have on planetary climate, in aggregate. So why would it be anything but logical to assume that pumping millions of tons of carbon dioxide and nitrogen into the atmosphere would increase global temperatures?

    I get that the energy companies don’t want to lose the revenue it MIGHT cost them to mitigate their carbon emissions, but why these wingnuts are so virulently against what is simply obvious science is hard to say.

    Does Ace or Dogstar have thousands of shares of Cheveron or BP? Kinda doubt it.

    So lets say in fifty years, somehow it turns out global warming wasn’t real, or was never a real threat. What is the downside of alternative fuels, conservation and renewables? Why would that be bad? It’s good for national security. It’s good for the economy. It’s good for the environment. Nobody’s suggesting we should suddenly start living as agrarian hunter/gatherers. Shifting to CFLs and LEDs, using more solar and wind power (with oil over 70 bucks and likely to rise again soon, these become more cost effective), building some new generation nuclear plants, researching more efficient transmission and storage technologies – why would ANYBODY be resistant to any of that?

    Anyone?

    Bueller?

    Dogstar?

    mikey

  7. mikey said,

    September 1, 2007 at 23:46

    Can somebody convince the well-named tasteless to get into therapy for his OCD and paraphilia? I mean, they have meds, primarily seratonin reuptake inhibitors that can really help…

    mikey

  8. His Grace said,

    September 1, 2007 at 23:51

    Mikey, as usual says it better than I can.

    I never understood wingnuts. Funnel a couple trillion dollars down the drain trying to occupy a middle eastern country filled coincidentally with oil? Give billions in no-bid contracts to patriotic companies like Halliburton and Blackwater? Sure! That’s well spent money. Support the troops! We’re defending freedom.

    Want to spend a couple billion on renewable energy? Boondoggle! Boondoggle!!111!!!!! That’s wasteful government spending trying to steal our freedom.

  9. Legalize said,

    September 1, 2007 at 23:58

    But it snowed in Buffalo this winter. Moreover, I had to wear a wool overcoat in January and February. Take THAT, scientists!

  10. tigrismus said,

    September 2, 2007 at 0:03

    So Dogstar’s best argument is that 6% of scientists reject it? Is he Sirius?

  11. the_millionaire_lebowski said,

    September 2, 2007 at 0:05

    ICICLES IN BUFFALO IN WINTER!!!

    GODDAMNIT SOMEONE EXPLAIN THE ICICLES TO ME!!!

  12. tigrismus said,

    September 2, 2007 at 0:09

    Wait, not even 6% of scientists, 6% of papers. Shame on me for moving the goalposts like that.

  13. maddie said,

    September 2, 2007 at 0:21

    I’m going to de-lurk for a moment to make a wonky energy economics point…

    Mikey – Totally agree with your post above except for one minor thing: We don’t really use oil to generate electricity in this country (only 3% of our electricity is generated with oil), so the price of oil doesn’t really affect the economics of wind and solar power here. That said, the cost of coal, nuclear and natural gas power is rising for a variety of reasons, so renewables, in particular wind, are becoming more economic.

    Oh, and anytime you hear someone say “We’re going to build more nuclear plants to reduce our dependence on foreign oil,” they’re full of shit.

    And that’s your energy policy lesson of the day. Carry on.

  14. Ripley said,

    September 2, 2007 at 0:49

    Suck it, Galileo!! Ace rules!!

    Also, iirc, wasn’t Dogstar the name of Keanu Reeves’ band? Yes, it was. Nice to see their Fan Club President is keeping busy.

  15. RCP said,

    September 2, 2007 at 0:54

    Oreskes herself responded to the paper here.

    Money quote:

    The piece misrepresents the results we obtained. In the original AAAS talk on which the paper was based, and in various interviews and conversations after, I repeated pointed out that very few papers analyzed said anything explicit at all about the consensus position.This was actually a very important result, for the following reason. Biologists today never write papers in which they explicitly say “we endorse evolution”. Earth scientists never say “we explicitly endorse plate tectonics.” This is because these things are now taken for granted. So when we read these papers and observed this pattern, we took this to be very significant.We realized that the basic issue was settled, and we observed that scientists had moved on to discussing details of the problem, mostly tempo and mode issues: how fast, how soon, in what manner, with what impacts, etc.

  16. noen said,

    September 2, 2007 at 1:13

    I have has the misfortune of trying to “debate” GW and I really did get exactly that argument: “But it’s cold out, therefore GW is not real!!” Another person I tried debating with literally could not form coherent sentences at all. They were all lower case with no punctuation. When I did get him to punctuate he still made no sense that I could understand.

    People like this stopped thinking and growing in the eighth grade.

  17. tasteless said,

    September 2, 2007 at 1:18

    “Can somebody convince the well-named tasteless to get into therapy for his OCD and paraphilia? I mean, they have meds, primarily seratonin reuptake inhibitors that can really help…”

    Well, Mike, the problem is the SSRI’s inhibit the lithium I take for my bipolar problem and they also aggravate my daily thorazine not to mention stepping on the buzz I get from my crack habit.

    Just out of curiosity, what’s your street address?

    Maybe you’d feel better if you got together with Gavin and a pack of gerbils. You could watch each other poop the gerbils and then you could make Gavin choke on a gallon of semen. I know this idea probably confirms your suspicion that I need therapy, but I feel quite certain it meets the standards of propriety Gavin practices.

  18. A.Political said,

    September 2, 2007 at 1:29

    Simba B. said,
    Silly Gavin, Ace is a ten year old who thinks about gay sex all the time. You didn’t know that?
    =============

    you forgot he dreams of it too, and no in the nightmarish way, but in the embracing bathroom stall way.

  19. A.Political said,

    September 2, 2007 at 1:30

    but Ace refuses to pick up discarded pieces of toilet paper behind the toilet,

    He has to draw the line somewhere.

  20. mikey said,

    September 2, 2007 at 1:32

    Just out of curiosity, what’s your street address?

    Why do you ask? I’m obviously not into the kinds of things you are. You’ll do better in the mens room at the airport. Look for the dude with the wide stance…

    mikey

  21. tasteless said,

    September 2, 2007 at 1:49

    don’t flatter yourself mike, what I was insinuating was, for most of us anyway, decidely unsexual in nature…

    What I’m saying is, nie blog you got here. be a shame if anything was to happen

  22. atheist said,

    September 2, 2007 at 1:56

    Oh, and anytime you hear someone say “We’re going to build more nuclear plants to reduce our dependence on foreign oil,” they’re full of shit.

    Interesting Maddie. And, may I ask, why is that? Do you have a blog or a source that explains some of these details more?

    (Because I’d like to learn more about this.)

  23. J— said,

    September 2, 2007 at 1:58

    On February, 20, 2007, Oreskes gave a seminar talk at the USGS in Menlo Park, CA, on “Deflecting Disinformation about Climate Change.” The USGS has the video (via coigue at Daily Kos).

  24. NobodySpecial said,

    September 2, 2007 at 2:03

    I’d be worried, mikey. After all, we’ve seen how tasteless gets when he’s mocked.

    See?

  25. piotrr said,

    September 2, 2007 at 2:03

    We need to build more nuclear plants because nuclear plants are freaking cool.

  26. Randomfactor said,

    September 2, 2007 at 2:06

    Ah, but you’re forgetting how climate scientists who oppose the party line are villfied, prevented from publishing and made to wear silly, ill-fitting clothing. The fact that so many papers fail to support this hypothesis *PROVES* it. Therefore it doesn’t.

    Or something like that.

  27. Hoosier X said,

    September 2, 2007 at 2:12

    Another person I tried debating with literally could not form coherent sentences at all.

    You were debating Inhofe?

    Neat!

  28. wagonjak said,

    September 2, 2007 at 2:25

    Gavin–You Are The Snarkiest, and I love it!~ Thanks…C

  29. Legalize said,

    September 2, 2007 at 2:28

    Sen. Inhofe: “What the world needs now is some words of wisdom like ‘la la la la.’”

    That’s right; you didn’t know he forms his positions based on Cracker songs, did you?

  30. gaspode said,

    September 2, 2007 at 2:30

    Wow, so now we know that “tasteless” is a Bushie troll trying to malign the fine reputation of the good people here at Sadly, No! “tasteless” spends every waking hour hoping the Malkinthing links to one of his comments in order to demonstrate the sickness of teh left. Fuck off tasteless, when you insult mikey you, you insult me. C’mon tasteless, please tell us all your home address.

  31. mikey said,

    September 2, 2007 at 2:56

    when you insult mikey you, you insult me.

    Um, actually, I think it’s flirting

    mikey

  32. Gavin M. said,

    September 2, 2007 at 2:57

    don’t flatter yourself mike, what I was insinuating was, for most of us anyway, decidely unsexual in nature…

    Well, it looks like someone just wore out his welcome in a no-kidding, IP-blocking sort of way.

  33. Anastaius said,

    September 2, 2007 at 3:01

    Someone call the mechanics. I need to know what the consensus is on how much salt I need in my noodle water.

  34. Kathy said,

    September 2, 2007 at 3:03

    the argument I hear is “The whole Solar System is heating up, the cause is the SUN, not hydrocarbons, etc.”

  35. objectively pro- said,

    September 2, 2007 at 3:06

    …why these wingnuts are so virulently against what is simply obvious science is hard to say.

    Because they’re stupid. But who notices stupid anymore. To be the life of the numbskull party – to get the highfives of the droolers – ya gotta be aggressively stupid. SUV-drivin’, war supportin’ stupid. Dissin’ the libruls, that’s credentials.

    The fact that this stupidity supports the aims of the M/I complex – that’s just a coinkeedink, right?

  36. noen said,

    September 2, 2007 at 3:08

    I hear that the solar system is heating up from bear and puma flatulence so it must be true.

  37. mdhatter said,

    September 2, 2007 at 3:10

    Well, it looks like someone just wore out his welcome in a no-kidding, IP-blocking sort of way.

    you don’t think he meant TP-ing mikeys house? I’ve heard picking up TP can get a a little sexxxy

  38. gaspode said,

    September 2, 2007 at 3:12

    Oh, mikey, you dog.

    You know all the fine trolls is hot for your form.

  39. Gavin M. said,

    September 2, 2007 at 3:20

    Grrr.

    No-manners fool won’t be coming ’round here no more.

    And this time I don’t feel the least bad about it.

  40. Lesley said,

    September 2, 2007 at 3:22

    From Hinterland’s Who’s Who:

    The majestic Canada Goose takes a potty stop in Ace’s head before flying south every winter.

  41. mikey said,

    September 2, 2007 at 3:47

    Waitaminute. You don’t suppose that big scary guy was gonna come beat me up, do you?

    ‘Cause, man, that would really cause me to lose some sleep…

    Thanks, Gavin. I’m gonna suggest that was a good call…

    mikey

  42. cokane said,

    September 2, 2007 at 3:53

    “why these wingnuts are so virulently against what is simply obvious science is hard to say.”

    is it that surprising? wingnuts have been against evolution, stem cell research, and the big bang…

  43. Marita said,

    September 2, 2007 at 3:54

    Aren’t we about due for a Bradrocket post proclaiming his new man-crush on Clay Buchholz?

  44. Some Guy said,

    September 2, 2007 at 3:54

    “Nucular.” It’s spelled “Nucular Plant”

  45. Gavin M. said,

    September 2, 2007 at 4:06

    Waitaminute. You don’t suppose that big scary guy was gonna come beat me up, do you?

    Oh, he probably wouldn’t try it in a million years. But what am I supposed to do, let him pull that kind of shit on you?

  46. CMN said,

    September 2, 2007 at 4:15

    So is Brad R a Sox fan or not?

  47. Qetesh the Abyssinian said,

    September 2, 2007 at 4:15

    Onya, Gavin, very nice move indeed. No weenie puffs out his widdle chest at our Mikey and gets away with it.

    [Preens. Preens some more. Goes to sleep.]

  48. Marita said,

    September 2, 2007 at 4:17

    So is Brad R a Sox fan or not?

    Oh, he is tonight, CMN. Once the Steel Reserve wears off, I’m sure we’ll hear all about it.

  49. Matt T. said,

    September 2, 2007 at 4:26

    Who are these “Sox” of which y’all speak? Y’all do know college football started today, right? And Georgia Tech beat the tasteless out of Notre Dame, how about that.

  50. Marita said,

    September 2, 2007 at 4:29

    Matt T., I’ll have you know that college football started on Thursday night (when Oregon State beat Utah – huzzah!). Cal has quite a lead on the Vols right now, but it still wasn’t enough to keep me from clicking over to see a rookie close the deal on a no-hitter in his second major league start.

  51. FlipYrWhig said,

    September 2, 2007 at 4:34

    Hey, I had Naomi Oreskes for Earth Science in college. (Distribution requirement for science courses.) She was incredibly nervous all the time, and I thought she was ravingly pro-nuke. Good to know she ended up OK after all.

  52. MzNicky said,

    September 2, 2007 at 4:47

    smart people are usually painfully aware of how little they really know

    The farther one travels
    The less one knows
    The less one really knows

    —George Harrison, “The Inner Light”

  53. Dogstar said,

    September 2, 2007 at 4:48

    Here are some questions for Dogstar: What does that matter, what exactly do you think is the significance of that recalculation, and have you ever read a single sentence of an actual scientific article — as in like one single one, ever?

    Here are some answers for you:

    (1) The significance of the recalculation was to lower the average temperature for every year since 2000. It lowered the average temperatures so much that several of the previously described “Top Ten Hottest Years Ever” dropped out of the list, and were replaced by years from the 1920s and 1930s.

    (2) As a Chemical Engineer who holds US Patent #5024769, I’ve read and written MANY scientific articles.

    Thanks for helping me publicize the fraud taking place under the guise of “global warming”. I appreciate your effort.

  54. Simba B. said,

    September 2, 2007 at 4:51

    Ooh he showed up. This should be fun.

    **grabs popcorn**

  55. Matt T. said,

    September 2, 2007 at 4:53

    Marita,
    I’m sure you meant the LSU-Mississippi State game, ’cause if it ain’t in the SEC, it don’t matter. Christ, poor State. I don’t think they haven’t sucked since I was in junior high.

    Oh, please let Tennessee get beat. I say this as a University of Florida graduate and a childhood fan of Alabama growing up in Mississippi Bulldog country now living in Athens, GA…nothing sucks like a Big Orange. But the Ole Perfesser’s school, beaten by…Berkley. Beauty.

  56. Matt T. said,

    September 2, 2007 at 4:56

    Berkeley, rather. Still, beauty.

  57. Marita said,

    September 2, 2007 at 4:58

    Surely you jest, Matt. The PAC-10 is going to be the conference to beat this year, although I realize you may be blinded by geography.

    And Simba B, I agree. I can’t wait to see what else Dogstar has to add. A patent, huh? A patent obtained while working for an oil company. Hmmm… clearly coming from a neutral standpoint, eh Dogstar?

  58. objectively pro- said,

    September 2, 2007 at 5:01

    US Patent #5024769

    Isn’t that the non-slip strap© for the tinfoil hat?

  59. Dogstar said,

    September 2, 2007 at 5:04

    Hmmm…

    So, does that mean all research and spokespeople funded by environmental groups are suspect?

  60. Typical Republican said,

    September 2, 2007 at 5:04

    Nobody responded yet, Dogstar!

    We won! We won!

    We can go home now and celebrate.

  61. dgbellak said,

    September 2, 2007 at 5:04

    These dipshits know damn good and well that global warming is real. They just can’t let it affect their political stance, so they look for every piece of scientific “evidence” that contradicts it so that what they call normality can be restored to their dark, musty, unvacuumed corner of reality. They know this.

    For instance:

    Glenn Reynolds does not believe in man-made climate change.

    Glenn Reynolds believes in and supports terraforming, which requires the use of rapid, man-made climate change.

    See? No goddamn sense whatsoever. He has to know this.

    I do not picture their minds to be occupied by a hamster in a wheel. Instead, I envision two hamsters in a wheel running into each other.

  62. Matt T. said,

    September 2, 2007 at 5:05

    Marita,
    In all seriousness, you’re more’n likely right. The SEC’s been weak last couple years and will probably remain so this year. I don’t know who’s gonna wind up being the tall midget, though I do believe my Bulldog co-workers are in for a rude shock.

    And oil companies only have the public’s best interests at heart. They sorta like tobacco companies that way, got some brochures from the Cato Institute says so.

  63. Gavin M. said,

    September 2, 2007 at 5:09

    (1) The significance of the recalculation was to lower the average temperature for every year since 2000. It lowered the average temperatures so much that several of the previously described “Top Ten Hottest Years Ever” dropped out of the list, and were replaced by years from the 1920s and 1930s.

    By ‘several years’ I think you mean 1934 specifically, and only in the US (not in the entire world). The change was from 0.01 degrees warmer to 0.02 degrees cooler. A statistical triviality. We’re talking about the same NASA data, right? Correct me here.

  64. Gavin M. said,

    September 2, 2007 at 5:11

    Oh Marita, you’re a scientist, right?

  65. Marita said,

    September 2, 2007 at 5:17

    Oh Marita, you’re a scientist, right?

    Well, if you want to get all technical about it. Although, I had nothing to do with US Patent #5024769, so my opinion probably doesn’t carry much weight.

  66. J— said,

    September 2, 2007 at 5:19

    Dogstar, Principal Chemist, Chevron Corporation, signer of Frederick Seitz’s anti-Kyoto petition. An excerpt from the petition:

    There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth.

    And one from Seitz’s cover letter:

    This treaty is, in our opinion, based upon flawed ideas. Research data on climate change do not show that human use of hydrocarbons is harmful. To the contrary, there is good evidence that increased atmospheric carbon dioxide is environmentally helpful.

  67. Johnny Coelacanth said,

    September 2, 2007 at 5:20

    “Isn’t that the non-slip strap© for the tinfoil hat?”

    No, it’s a patent for oxidizing arsenic in an arsenic-containing….zzz….zzz…zzz.

    Sorry, nodded off there. Marita spotted it, though; Union Oil Company of California, Doggy is -so- not biased.

  68. Marita said,

    September 2, 2007 at 5:21

    I do not picture their minds to be occupied by a hamster in a wheel. Instead, I envision two hamsters in a wheel running into each other.

    I looked for a visual for you dgbellak. How’s this?

  69. Gavin M. said,

    September 2, 2007 at 5:21

    Well gee, what patents do you have then?

  70. Marita said,

    September 2, 2007 at 5:27

    Well gee, what patents do you have then?

    I have some stunning patent leather shoes. Can’t find a number on them, though.

  71. Johnny Coelacanth said,

    September 2, 2007 at 5:29

    “I have some stunning patent leather shoes.”

    Digging the Velvet Underground vibe that popped into my head. “Shiny shiny, shiny boots of leather…”

  72. Dogstar said,

    September 2, 2007 at 5:31

    Marita spotted it, though; Union Oil Company of California, Doggy is -so- not biased.

    Um, no. Not even close. Is this typical of your research and/or reading skills?

  73. Gavin M. said,

    September 2, 2007 at 5:32

    Hmm. Because okay, I was wondering. Seeing as you have a science Ph.D. with extra science-stripes on it — and perforce a familiarity with research methods — how might someone with a degree, for instance in chemical engineering, assert that a press release describing a paper is, you know, adequate in itself, absent the actual paper?

    I mean, not to take things in a personal direction, but let’s have the experts weigh in here.

  74. Johnny Coelacanth said,

    September 2, 2007 at 5:34

    “Um, no. Not even close. Is this typical of your research and/or reading skills?”

    Hey, sparky, I just googled your patent number. Don’t blame me if the United States Patent Database has it wrong:

    Inventors: [redacted]
    Assignee: Union Oil Company of California (Los Angeles, CA)
    Appl. No.: 07/473,226
    Filed: January 31, 1990

    [Note: removed the name as per teh policy on using-people's-names-without-asking. -G]

  75. Simba B. said,

    September 2, 2007 at 5:36

    Hey Dogstar, I know they didn’t have this in 1990 but these days you can Google the USPTO database. And it helps you gave us a number, so don’t play stupid.

  76. J— said,

    September 2, 2007 at 5:37

    Johnny Coelacanth, Unocal merged with Chevron in 2005.

    Gavin, would you happen to have comment of mine sitting in moderation?

  77. Gavin M. said,

    September 2, 2007 at 5:38

    The moderation thing has been overactive lately — I’ll go look.

  78. objectively pro- said,

    September 2, 2007 at 5:41

    Oh, you’re still here, Dogs?

    Well. since you brought it up, tell us, how do environmentalists and scientists personally benefit from pointing out climate change?

    Is it the baskets of sweet coin? The boundless glory? The groupies?

  79. Gavin M. said,

    September 2, 2007 at 5:41

    Indeed there was one! I just set it free.

  80. Marita said,

    September 2, 2007 at 5:42

    Oh, Gavin, all of those blog posts are peer reviewed. By other… um… bloggers. Or something.

    Are you trying to tell me this blog isn’t peer reviewed? I knew the quality was suspect.

  81. Johnny Coelacanth said,

    September 2, 2007 at 5:42

    “[Note: removed the name as per teh policy on using-people’s-names-without-asking. -G]”

    Sorry ’bout that, cut n paste. Not trying to “out” anybody. That’s the exclusive province of Godlstein, et alia on the right.

  82. Dogstar said,

    September 2, 2007 at 5:43

    $$$

  83. J— said,

    September 2, 2007 at 5:46

    Indeed there was one! I just set it free.

    Thanks! Let’s celebrate with Murph.

  84. Gavin M. said,

    September 2, 2007 at 5:46

    Sorry ’bout that, cut n paste.

    No harm, no foul — just don’t tell anyone my real last name is Mxyzptlk.

  85. mikey said,

    September 2, 2007 at 5:54

    Damn, that’s weird. So’s mine!!

    mikey

  86. objectively pro- said,

    September 2, 2007 at 5:57

    Elaborate, please.

    What $$$? Their salaries? That’s a little weak.

  87. Gavin M. said,

    September 2, 2007 at 5:58

    Are you trying to tell me this blog isn’t peer reviewed? I knew the quality was suspect.

    But wait. All things in due course, and so forth.

    Since you have a PhD with, you know, mashed potatoes, corn on the cob, and all the trimmings, tell me if I’m somehow in error about this not-actually-reading-the-paper thing.

  88. J— said,

    September 2, 2007 at 5:59

    Dogstar has responded to this post with a new post at the HQ.

  89. Gavin M. said,

    September 2, 2007 at 6:01

    Oh, nice of him to tell us.

  90. Hoosier X said,

    September 2, 2007 at 6:05

    I feel bad that we ran Dogstar off. I guess we didn’t have enough consideration for his feelings.

    We need to be more politically correct. Some people are very sensitive, tou know.

  91. Marita said,

    September 2, 2007 at 6:07

    Since you have a PhD with, you know, mashed potatoes, corn on the cob, and all the trimmings, tell me if I’m somehow in error about this not-actually-reading-the-paper thing.

    As far as I can tell, the paper is just submitted, not actually peer-reviewed and published, so it would be a bit hard to read without getting a copy from the author (even after it’s published, assuming it is, it would be hard to get a copy of it, since hardly any libraries carry that journal). In any case, I’d want to have a look at it before I trumpeted the results. But then, I actually care about my scientific reputation, so perhaps I’m a little uptight.

  92. Some Guy said,

    September 2, 2007 at 6:16

    Wow.

    So, scientists are claiming there’s global warming for the chance to make money.

    However, scientists claiming there’s NO global warming are doing it for, what, their feelings of goodwill to the oil copmanies?

    That’s one hell of an I. Ron Clad argument, there.

    You’d make a fabulous lawyer, Dogstar. Frogstar. Frogstar Scout. Where’s your towel, huh? Punk?

  93. Gavin M. said,

    September 2, 2007 at 6:20

    Indeed. But Dogstar’s latest post is 0% about the core issues — the Tim Lambert, the Naomi Oreskes, the LGM, et al — and all about Teh Ghey. So maybe he missed that whole point, sneakily hidden as it was in several declarative paragraphs with accompanying links.

  94. a different brad said,

    September 2, 2007 at 6:27

    Still, this doesn’t piss me off as much as Ingrid Newkirk on Bill Maher last night.
    Without belittling both the truth of the impact of factory farming on our environment and the need for more humane and healthful ways of raising the animals we eat, saying meat eating is the number one cause of global warming is just plain offensive, not just because it’s wrong. More because of the naked opportunism involved.
    PETA’s cause is mostly just, but its methods and leadership are reprehensible.

    Also, I have a secret patent for something I WON’T TELL YOU ABOUT because then the government would have to kill you, but it makes me an expert in everything scienticianistical, and I say cheez whiz actually has a negative caloric value.

  95. DEMIZE! said,

    September 2, 2007 at 6:32

    I’m doing my post graduate thesis on Sadly-No!does that help at all guys?I can’t get my lighter to work…

  96. RubDMC said,

    September 2, 2007 at 7:07

    “As a Chemical Engineer who holds US Patent #5024769 blah blah blah…”

    Oh, so you’re the fucker responsible, eh?

    Well, it didn’t work and I want my goddam money back!

    Bigger penis in three days – my ass.

  97. STH said,

    September 2, 2007 at 7:20

    I’m pretty sure that Cheez Whiz is itself a major cause of global warming, what with the methane it produces in the human gastrointestinal tract. The negative-calorie thing sounds like a good deal, though, adb. What do you figure, kind of a matter-antimatter thing?

    Only in America would somebody see a need to make Velveeta even MORE disgusting.

    And people would actually pay money for it.

  98. DEMIZE! said,

    September 2, 2007 at 7:24

    Damn,I had a feeling Velveeta was manufactured by the petro-chemical industry.

  99. 3D said,

    September 2, 2007 at 7:27

    So lets say in fifty years, somehow it turns out global warming wasn’t real, or was never a real threat. What is the downside of alternative fuels, conservation and renewables? Why would that be bad? It’s good for national security. It’s good for the economy. It’s good for the environment. Nobody’s suggesting we should suddenly start living as agrarian hunter/gatherers. Shifting to CFLs and LEDs, using more solar and wind power (with oil over 70 bucks and likely to rise again soon, these become more cost effective), building some new generation nuclear plants, researching more efficient transmission and storage technologies – why would ANYBODY be resistant to any of that?

    Anyone?

    Bueller?

    Wingnuts like anything that makes liberals mad. It doesn’t matter if supporting that thing benefits no one, or even if it actually runs counter to things they believe in, they will support it if it pisses liberals off. Example, all the “values voters” who are dying to run out and vote for Giuliani.

    The only people left supporting the Republican party are (1) super-rich people who directly benefit from their criminal activity; that is to say, amoral people who outright support the things the Party does, and (2) people so disfigured and crippled with rage at liberals, for a variety of reasons, that their belief system is completely incoherent and self-contradictory. They would vote for anyone liberals don’t like, and the more liberals don’t like them, the more popular those candidates become. Most of the numbnuts bloggers parodied on this blog are in group (2).

  100. a different brad said,

    September 2, 2007 at 7:28

    In reality, cheez whiz has a negative caloric value because the amount of calories expended in projectile vomiting is greater than in an average serving size.
    In what we’ll call…. RightWorld, it’s because it’s so delicious Jebus wouldn’t punish us by having it make us gain weight.

  101. RCP said,

    September 2, 2007 at 7:46

    $$$

    It’s true. Take Patrick J. Michaels, for instance. Instead of receiving 100,000 dollars from a coal mining company, writing for CATO, and being a Professor of Environmental Studies at UVA , he could have gotten enough money from George Soros’ liberal funding network to buy a gold-plated Ferrari.

  102. Lesley said,

    September 2, 2007 at 8:10

    The Ace machine has moved on from debunking global warming to attacking Brian de Palma for making a movie about the US soldiers who raped and murdered a 14 year old Iraqi girl after murdering her five year old sister, mom and dad.

    They’re very offended he’s made the movie, so they’re ripping him a new one.

  103. Some Guy said,

    September 2, 2007 at 8:24

    Say what you will about Velveta, but it makes one hell of a salsa con queso.

    Silly Lesley! Talking about things that happened is treason! Besides, for all we know, she deserved to be brutally raped to death, and her family slaughtered and her village burned.

    War crimes are just boys being boys. Discussing them hurts people, though.

  104. mikey said,

    September 2, 2007 at 9:59

    Well, damn but this has been fun. I had a date, and while I was in n out some dude wanted to beat me up, but gavin kicked his heinie all the way to podunk, and then some other dude came bopping in with an official US patent but he turned out to be a wack fucker, Marita shot holes in his shit, and he went home and beat up some fags which sadly didn’t make him feel any better, then I got home and was kinda hungry so I put some process cheese food on a cracker only to learn that velveeta is a petrochemical that causes projectile vomiting.

    I’m gonna put on a Barry Manilow CD and go to bed….

    mikey

  105. noen said,

    September 2, 2007 at 10:12

    Dogstar said:

    Here are some answers for you:

    (1) The significance of the recalculation was to lower the average temperature for every year since 2000. It lowered the average temperatures so much that several of the previously described “Top Ten Hottest Years Ever” dropped out of the list, and were replaced by years from the 1920s and 1930s.

    (2) As a Chemical Engineer who holds US Patent #5024769, I’ve read and written MANY scientific articles.

    #2 is duly noted though being an engineer hardly qualifies one as a climatologist. That would be like someone with a degree in food science tsk tsking a paper by Stephen Hawking.

    #1 is more complicated because with climate change you can’t simply talk about temperatures. A comparison of the average temps in 1934 with 2000 doesn’t tell the whole story. Temperatures are not simply getting warmer on average, they are getting warmer everywhere on average. The nature of the heating is radiative. What greenhouse gases like C02 and water vapor do is they trap solar radiation and then release it so that instead of the simple dissipative heat from the sun we get radiant heat from all around us.

    We are in other words, getting baked, and not in a fun way.

    None of this has anything to do with the paper by Schulte. I posted links in my reply to dogstar in the hopes they would be helpful and anxiously await his reply.

  106. Hoosier X said,

    September 2, 2007 at 10:29

    I say dogstar won the debate.

    That should make him feel better about himself. Maybe he won’t be such a Mr. Grumpypants, “Look at me! I got a patent” nurdnik.

  107. cokane said,

    September 2, 2007 at 10:42

    what’s funniest really is that A.O.Spades can’t even seem to run a website correctly. This is now the 2nd time that wabside had crashed a web browser I use.

    I mean Mr. Spades, if you’re website is causing 2 diff browsers to crash, and 1/2 the time the comment thing don’t work, asdf!

  108. Some Guy said,

    September 2, 2007 at 10:56

    I’d like to make it clear that Some Dude is is no way affiliated with Some Guy brand products. In fact we currently have a lawsuit pending over copyright protections, the details I cannot divulge into for obvious reasons.

    Please continue your support for us by investing only in Official Some Guy Brand vague anonymous pseudonyms.

  109. RandomObserver said,

    September 2, 2007 at 11:17

    The corrected data includes a measure of 5 year spans. Something like 4 of the 5 highest 5-year spans are from 1999 to 2006. So while the corrections may change the bragging point of the single most anomalous year (which was previously number 2 or something) it doesn’t change the overall picture at all. (I looked at the corrected data weeks ago, sorry for not being more specific)

    It is no longer the case that the hottest single year was in the last decade but the last decade was the hottest decade by far. Consistently much hotter than any other. Again, I think if you rank the top 10 5-year spans 6 or 7 come from 1999+. (Again I may be a bit off here with the exact numbers)

    As far as the report, these clowns haven’t read it. I can’t even find the text of it leaked anywhere. One thing that is incredibly obvious is that it changes the methodology used in the original and uses papers that may not be relevant at all (paleoclimate etc) to alter the percentages. If you use the same methodology as the original study the results would appear to be very similar. (In this case the consensus being 90%+ instead of 100%)

    Essentially what they’ve done (and again, nobody bothers to actually link to the text of the study anywhere, only to the press release, so I’m making an educated guess) is counted irrelevant and neutral papers in a third category. Therefore all the relevant percentages are diluted by the single largest category: papers that are not relevant to the topic at hand at all.

    It’s like claiming that because only 0.01% of internet postings affirm the existence of the moon that there is no consensus on the existence of the moon.

    Here is another press release I just found on the internet:

    “Dogstar is dumb.”

    Looks like I win. Lollers.

  110. RandomObserver said,

    September 2, 2007 at 11:29

    By the way I should also point out that the journal the paper was submitted to is global warming skeptic vanity publishing project and does not appear to be peer reviewed in any real sense.

    http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Energy_and_Environment

    It’s not even a scientific journal.

  111. M. Bouffant said,

    September 2, 2007 at 12:10

    All I know is we’re having Extreme Heat Warnings here in the Sun Drenched Hell-hole™ known to some as Southern California. (Today’s high inside the second floor walk-up that is the House of Bouffant©? A mere 93ºF, measured on a thermometer about a foot off the floor.) So stuff your icicles, Buffalonians!!

    Now let me get this straight: Science Boy (no female lip-readers @ Ace HQ, it’s safe to assume) employee of an oil co., is all hot & bovvered not by actual research disproving a consensus that will soon enough have him out of work, and possibly clinging to a palm tree in an infinite ocean, but by a “research” paper that cherry picks other actual research papers? W/ employees like DogFaced Boystar, It’s no wonder Union Oil had to sell out to Chevron. I mean, is he Sirius?

    Though whoever suggested he & Ace probably don’t have Chevron or BP stock might be wrong about part of that. Chevron may have given Doggie some stock to go away after finding him on their New Employees From Union Oil List. Are we sure it was Chevron who bought Union? I remember some outfit bought Union, but not enough to care about the details. And while the Union Oil signage (orange spheres w/ “76″ on them) have undergone some changes (like, they’re no longer spheres, just circular signs) they haven’t all changed to Chevron or Standard stations. Shit, could’ve looked it up in the time I took typing that.
    Poopy Doody!! BM!! Eat my BM!! Yay!! (In memory of tasteless.)

  112. Kevin said,

    September 2, 2007 at 13:13

    Hey, this isn’t fair! Why didn’t someone hit Dogstar with the always hilarious ‘Shorter Dogstar’ thing where you replace what a person said with what your warped mind thinks he said?

    Someone always does that to me when I come to this place. Why not Dogstar? You guys are playing favorites :(.

  113. Kim said,

    September 2, 2007 at 14:27

    Nice observation, thanks. I don’t visit your blog every day, but when I
    visit your blog I enjoy browsing through your old posts and try to catch up
    what I have missed since my last visit.

  114. Jillian said,

    September 2, 2007 at 15:14

    Got nothing to add, but if we’re going to talk science, I thought it worthwhile to point out that the mighty Stephen Hawking is a fucking Quake master.

  115. Kevin said,

    September 2, 2007 at 15:49

    “Above: A.O. Spades expressing dumbness”

    Pretty cool though that Ace can express with a single gesture what it takes Gavin a whole paragraph to do! Just another example of why conservatives are so much better than whiny liberals I guess.

  116. Aghast said,

    September 2, 2007 at 15:53

    Shorter Kevin: “Wah!!!!”

  117. Aghast said,

    September 2, 2007 at 15:54

    Sorry.

    ‘Shorter’ concept created by Daniel Davies and perfected by Elton Beard.

  118. borehole said,

    September 2, 2007 at 16:45

    Shorter Kevin: “Kev”

  119. Dogstar said,

    September 2, 2007 at 16:55

    You guys are hilarious. First, you trash me by claiming I’m “dumb” and making all sorts of wild assumptions about me.

    So, naturally, I respond by listing a couple of my qualifications, which causes even more fury, because I’m perceived to be “bragging”.

    That’s good. I’ll have to use that the next time I’m arguing with the opposing side. Not.

    BTW, I was in a hurry to post and incorrectly cut/pasted the wrong patent number (I used the reference patent # by accident, instead of our patent #, which is 5348662).

    My apologies for not catching that earlier. It was late and I was tired.

    With regards to your objections to the Schulte paper, I find them to be meaningless. You don’t like his credentials, but that doesn’t matter (Gore has no credentials, but you don’t trash his assertions). You claim he’s been “debunked” because Oreskes had objections to it. Well, duh. Of course she objected. Are her objections valid? Nobody here knows.

    But that doesn’t stop you from claiming Schulte’s wrong, does it?

    GW is a theory, backed by some and opposed by others. Man’s contribution to GW is impossible to prove, because atmospheric CO2 levels ALWAYS lag temperatures changes. It is an indisputable fact.

    CO2 causes less than 5% of the total warming effects associated with the “greenhouse effect”. The overwhelming majority of “greenhouse” contributions are made by water vapor.

    How do you feel about third world poverty/starvation? The push for more ethanol in fuels caused corn, wheat, soybean, milk, egg, beef, pork and chicken prices to skyrocket world-wide in the last year. As a result, over a billion low-income people in South/Central America, Africa and Asia cannot afford the amount of food they used to.

    GW research is an on-going effort, and right now it is an interesting theory, but impossible to classify as “scientific fact”. If you want to argue the pros and cons in good faith, that’s one thing. But what I’m seeing here is not good-faith, honest debate.

    Drop the hysteria and I’ll be happy to discuss this topic with any of you.

  120. Marita said,

    September 2, 2007 at 17:18

    But what I’m seeing here is not good-faith, honest debate.

    Yeah, here’s my problem. You made a big show of the results of the Schulte “paper” (I’ll put that in quotes, because it’s not published yet, and for all we know may not be), when you presumably have only read someone’s representation of what the paper actually says. You’re accusing us of bad faith debate, but writing a post like that about a manuscript you haven’t seen is either intellectually dishonest, or just foolish.

    I’m not going to claim that Schulte is wrong, because I haven’t seen the manuscript. I’ll admit that I’m suspicious of it though. People do sometimes publish outside their field, but since it’s outside their area of expertise, it should make the work subject to more careful scrutiny, since they’re likely to be more prone to mistakes (not to mention that they haven’t established any credibility in the field).

    In any case, before I’d make any decision, I’d want to look at the methodology, examine the conclusions to see if the data obtained actually supports them (even in good peer-reviewed journals, the authors sometimes get the conclusions wrong, for a variety of reasons), and then probably look at the primary data (if available) to see if I agreed with how the papers examined were classified (ie, were the “neutrals” really neutral). So… since you’ve put up a blog post heralding the results of this paper, I’ll ask you: Have you done any of these things? Have you even seen the actual manuscript?

    If the answer is yes, then please share with us. If it’s no, you probably need to drop the honest debate line, because you aren’t engaging in one.

  121. RandomObserver said,

    September 2, 2007 at 17:42

    With regards to your objections to the Schulte paper, I find them to be meaningless.

    The press release you quoted is the meaningless thing here. It is a press release summarizing a paper nobody has read that hasn’t been peer reviewed or published that was submitted to a social science journal that doesn’t perform proper peer review at all. The journal chooses articles based explicitly on their politics.

    So it would appear that the person arguing bad faith is in fact you. I’ll say it again, here is my counter press release:

    “Dogstar is dumb.”

    Or if you’d like here is another:

    “Study shows that global warming is undeniably real. (And that Dogstar is dumb)”

    If you object then I find your objections meaningless. Oh shit I win again. See how that works?

    I love how these blazingly anti-science types work. Scientific theories are not science, but press releases are. Peer reviewed work is not science, but work that appears in a vanity publisher is.

  122. owlbear1 said,

    September 2, 2007 at 17:46

    Honest Debate?

    Holy shit you have no shame…

  123. owlbear1 said,

    September 2, 2007 at 17:57

    Beyond that, your arguments completely ignore the most salient fact.

    Millions of tons of Carbon are being released into the atmosphere each year. Carbon that had been buried deep underground and effectively locked out of the system.

    A simple analogy for you Dogstar:

    If I shit in your mouth day after day after day do you really think you are going to stay healthy?

    The game you play is “See these numbers don’t PROVE anything so therefore there is NO problem!”

    That is utter bullshit and very dishonest.

  124. Dogstar said,

    September 2, 2007 at 18:20

    In any case, before I’d make any decision, I’d want to look at the methodology, examine the conclusions to see if the data obtained actually supports them (even in good peer-reviewed journals, the authors sometimes get the conclusions wrong, for a variety of reasons), and then probably look at the primary data (if available) to see if I agreed with how the papers examined were classified (ie, were the “neutrals” really neutral).

    Lol…

    If you stopped to do that every time you saw or read something, you would never get anything done.

    That’s an impossible standard to maintain for more than five minutes.

    Oh, and owlbear1? What part of “CO2 causes less than 5% of the total warming effects associated with the ‘greenhouse effect’ ” do you have a problem with?

    What part of “atmospheric CO2 levels ALWAYS lag temperature changes” do you have a problem with?

    And why do you get all emotional and start talking about shitting in people’s mouths? Is this the accepted “Sadly, NO!” debating technique?

    I will say this, though. I don’t mind the hysteria, name-calling, etc. as much as the immature practices of (1) altering other peoples’ posts and (2) banning people and then trashing them.

    The fact that those things have not happened yet gives me some hope about the objectivity and open-mindedness of the people who run this place. So, although I disagree with your politics and your name-calling, I have to admit this site is not as bad as a few others in the left-o-sphere.

  125. Kevin said,

    September 2, 2007 at 18:23

    Thanks Aghast! You’ve partially re-assured me as to what liberals think is funny, but do one on Dogstar! I can’t go back to the normal side of the blogosphere without a single one of the left’s ‘shorter so and so’ things on him.

    C’mon, please! Shorter Dogstar: ‘I eat boogers’ or ‘I enjoy sex with my buddies’… whatever your liberal heart tells you. give me SOMETHING my hippie friends!

    Borehole, you suck. Because that was funny. How dare you :). Have you considered joining the side that’s right?

  126. Hoosier X said,

    September 2, 2007 at 18:31

    Dogstar was a lot more credible before he started responding in detail.

  127. Marita said,

    September 2, 2007 at 18:32

    Lol…

    If you stopped to do that every time you saw or read something, you would never get anything done.

    That’s an impossible standard to maintain for more than five minutes.

    Holy God, are you serious? That’s the best response you can come up with to the questions I asked you?

    I’d never make a big deal about a paper that I hadn’t taken the time to examine, and somehow I still manage to get plenty done. Where is your degree from that you made it through with an attitude like that? I would have been laughed out of grad school had that sentiment escaped my mouth (or keyboard).

    And once again: Have you read the actual paper/manuscript? Or just someone’s summary of it?

  128. Thers said,

    September 2, 2007 at 18:33

    If you stopped to do that every time you saw or read something, you would never get anything done.

    Well, you’d never get any science done, that’s for sure.

  129. Righteous Bubba said,

    September 2, 2007 at 18:34

    Lol… If you stopped to do that every time you saw or read something, you would never get anything done. That’s an impossible standard to maintain for more than five minutes.

    What’s being talked about is not “something” by which you appear to mean “anything” but an article intended to prove something via a certain methodology. I dunno about you but I treat the police blotter or a computer manual in a different way than I treat more scholarly work.

  130. Kevin said,

    September 2, 2007 at 18:35

    Dogstar, they won’t listen, they won’t learn. You should give it up. This is not a battle a regular person can win. Oh, and don’t question Marita, or she’ll chat incessantly about how she has a PhD in something or other (I’m guessing physical education or some other soft science). Trust me, it’s not worth it.

    We have to accept the fact that there are many people in the world who are simply not very intelligent. It’s not that big of a deal. It’s just how things are. Much like there are fools who don’t think 9/11 was caused by angry muslims, there are some who think Gavin is funny. Who think ‘Shorter so and so’ quips are humorous. We’ve got to accept the fact that those people exist, not try to teach them what actually is funny. They won’t get it.

  131. Marita said,

    September 2, 2007 at 18:40

    Shorter Kevin:

    I choose to ignore the fact that I am repeatedly pwned in this comment section, by people I claim are not terribly smart, because I just can’t handle the humiliation of defeat.

    Someone needs an attention hug…

  132. Kevin said,

    September 2, 2007 at 18:44

    Hey, before anyone complains, I think the left does us a great service by being not so intelligent. You guys give us the opportunity to assuage our white guilt by giving you those checks you get at the beginning of every month.

    Win win!

  133. Kevin said,

    September 2, 2007 at 18:44

    Marita, quit talking about yourself.

  134. tb said,

    September 2, 2007 at 18:45

    I don’t think you guys heard correctly, the man holds a patent. They only give those to people who know what they’re talking about.

  135. Dogstar said,

    September 2, 2007 at 18:46

    See what I mean? Marita, that’s just plain sad.

    So, what’s next? Editing my posts, to put words in my mouth?

  136. Hoosier X said,

    September 2, 2007 at 18:49

    I just don’t get it. If Kevin doesn’t think it’s funny over here, why doesn’t he hang out somewhere like the Fox New site or the Day by Day page or Free Republic where the “Al Gore invented the (insert topic du jour joke here)” jokes and the “Michael Moore is fat” jokes never stop?

    I hear Mallard Fillmore is looking for a few fans.

  137. Nimrod Gently said,

    September 2, 2007 at 18:50

    A conservative lecturing me about what is and isn’t funny is, paradoxically, the funniest thing I have ever heard from a conservative.

  138. Gavin M. said,

    September 2, 2007 at 18:50

    So, what’s next? Editing my posts, to put words in my mouth?

    Um, what in the blue blazes…?

    Can someone explain the comment policy to Dogstar?

  139. Marita said,

    September 2, 2007 at 18:53

    Dogstar, you’re still evading the question: Have you read the paper/manuscript, or just a summary of it?

  140. Nimrod Gently said,

    September 2, 2007 at 18:53

    Lol…

    If you stopped to do that every time you saw or read something, you would never get anything done.

    That’s an impossible standard to maintain for more than five minutes.

    It’s called “Journalism”. It used to be widely practised in the West.

  141. Kevin said,

    September 2, 2007 at 18:58

    Let me guess again. Was it Social Science you got a PhD in, I said, through tears of laughter? HAH! This is embarrassingly funny because it’s so indicative of the worthlessness of the left. Can you not see it?!?

    Give it up. You TOTALLY cruised through college without learning anything by opting for a worthless degree in sociology or whatever fake skill you have to have to become a social worker.

    Don’t bother denying it. You are so nailed. Hah! Social worker! You totally made my day.

    Sorry Marita, but this is just too funny.

  142. Marita said,

    September 2, 2007 at 19:02

    Oh Kevin, you’re cute and everything, but my degree is in Biochemistry and Biophysics.

    And it was paid for entirely by YOUR tax dollars! Thanks, Kevin!

  143. Mallard Fillmore said,

    September 2, 2007 at 19:03

    Kevin, you’re very funny. Can I hire you as a writer?

  144. Jillian said,

    September 2, 2007 at 19:03

    So, when a person questions the conclusions or methodology of a paper, taking the time to review the paper – crunch the numbers contained in the paper yourself, check to see if the statistical methodology used is generally considered valid for the type of results the authors are generating, and so forth – is too much of a bother?

    From what I see here, no one is suggesting this needs to be done with ALL papers, ALL the time. If I publish a paper which yields the conclusion “diets high in sugar are bad for insulin-dependent diabetics”, I don’t imagine there would be much call to recheck my work. (Just to add that if there WERE, the grown-up, responsible response to that is not “Awwwwwwww, do I HAVE to?!?!?!?!?)

    But when the results are controversial, or the paper is dealing with an area of active debate (of which there are approximately 9,745,893,281,007 such areas currently recognized in the field of climatology alone), calls to recheck the paper for accuracy and valid methodology are perfectly reasonable.

    The first example that springs to mind for me as to why one might want to do this is the crappy paper Greg Paul published on religion a couple of years ago – it’s a prime example of shoddy statistical method and cherry picked data. It’s also significant because I’m an atheist, and I have a bias toward believing the results of the paper are accurate. But considering how poorly the paper was received by the statistical community, I ended up rejecting the paper as poor science – even though it confirmed my own biases.

    But I suppose that rejection of confirmation bias is one of those things you have to be on the left side of the political spectrum to understand.

  145. Righteous Bubba said,

    September 2, 2007 at 19:05

    So, we still have global warming debunked by a press release from James Inhofe. That correct?

    If Bernie Sanders starts issuing press releases about capitalism prepare for World Revolution.

  146. Hoosier X said,

    September 2, 2007 at 19:06

    Marita

    Better explain to Kevin that Biochemistry and Biophysics are not social sciences. I’ve noticed he has a bit of a comprehension problem.

    Not that there’s anything wrong with that, I hasten to add.

    I like to think of him as special.

  147. ReddyBrown said,

    September 2, 2007 at 19:08

    “We all know global warming is the result of a global shortage of pirates

    and maybe a shortage of hockey sticks too.”

    Nope- it’s too many pirates that are causing the problem

  148. tb said,

    September 2, 2007 at 19:08

    A patent. And don’t come at me with any of the usual liberal “for all you know, it could’ve been for a slightly-improved artificial vagina so shut the fuck up” crap.

  149. Kevin said,

    September 2, 2007 at 19:16

    tb said I don’t think you guys heard correctly, the man holds a patent.

    Hey, if Ace holds a patent, then more power to him! Go Ace O’ Spades, ya frickin’ patent holder you.

    The Indianan said: “I just don’t get it. If Kevin doesn’t think it’s funny over here, why doesn’t he hang out somewhere like the Fox New site or the Day by Day page or Free Republic where the “Al Gore invented the (insert topic du jour joke here)” jokes and the “Michael Moore is fat” jokes never stop?

    I hear Mallard Fillmore is looking for a few fans.”

    Your concern is well noted and not uncommon, Mr Indiana. The answer is this: It’s all about humor. We are either blogging or reading blogs. It’s not like we are going to save the world. Even the craziest of liberals such as Gavin would admit that. So don’t take yourself too seriously, and have fun with the blogs you read.

    Plus it’s extremely enjoyable to poke fun at the hippies who, despite their best intentions, always make things worse than when they appeared on the scene (I’m envisioning Carter as we speak!).

    Sorry. Please don’t take it too seriously.

  150. objectively pro- said,

    September 2, 2007 at 19:17

    GW is a theory

    More than a theory. It’s not like we’re waiting, wondering if changes are coming and what their effects will be. Anomalies pertaining to glaciation, weather, growing seasons, migration patterns, insect mating, river flows have all been noted. You don’t only need to seek a consensus among climatologists – ask farmers, fisherman, the inuit, native trappers, resort operators…

    That’s what the UN report stressed: It’s happening now, it’s worse than we anticipated, we better get a handle on it.

    The overwhelming majority of “greenhouse” contributions are made by water vapor.

    Which is caused by extra heat from climate change which is caused by…

    It’s called a feedback loop and it was predicted 25 years ago.

    Disclosure: I’m not a scientist, I’m a surveyor employed by global positioning specialists who mostly work for oil companies on exploration projects in the Canadian north. That’s where my training led me and it’s how I pay my mortgage and put food on the table. It doesn’t mean I have to buy into the oil cos.’ PR bullshit.

  151. borehole said,

    September 2, 2007 at 19:19

    Shorter Dogstar’s attention span:

    Trick premise! It would be impossible for Dogstar’s attention span to be any shorter.

    Otherwise he would’ve READ THE DAMN PAPER before signing off on its conclusions.

    Man, I am on FIRE today.

  152. Thers said,

    September 2, 2007 at 19:24

    Plus it’s extremely enjoyable to poke fun at the hippies who, despite their best intentions, always make things worse than when they appeared on the scene (I’m envisioning Carter as we speak!).

    Jimmy Carter was a hippie? Live and learn, I suppose.

  153. Kevin said,

    September 2, 2007 at 19:28

    HAH! My premise is that your degree was NOT in chemistry or physics. Now you’ve entered my lair, said the ChemE to the Marita. As most of us know, you cannot have a doctorate in “Biochemistry and Biophysics”. First, it’s got to be one or the other, and second… biophysics!?! Are there more than three people who’ve wasted their life on such a subject? Answer: no.

    I’m starting to feel like you are lying to us (yeah, I know I used the liberal/progressive replacement for ‘knowledge’ aka ‘feeling’ as my basis) but to put it quite plainly, you are lying. Stop lying Marita.

  154. Righteous Bubba said,

    September 2, 2007 at 19:30

    Jimmy Carter was a hippie?

    He specified that US weapons sold to Indonesia only be used for groovy purposes.

  155. Marita said,

    September 2, 2007 at 19:31

    As most of us know, you cannot have a doctorate in “Biochemistry and Biophysics”.

    OK, Kevin, for just this once you were actually kind of funny. Don’t let it go to your head.

  156. objectively pro- said,

    September 2, 2007 at 19:33

    Plus it’s extremely enjoyable to poke fun at the hippies who

    As long as nobody pokes fun at your precious soldiers, eh, Kevin?

  157. Kevin said,

    September 2, 2007 at 19:34

    Borehole is now my liberal hero because he did some nonsensical ‘shorter’ something or other on dogstar, instead of me. Hell yeah! I’ve got to admit, without the goofy ‘shorter so and so’ things you do, I’d be unable to stomach you’re lot. In fact…

  158. objectively pro- said,

    September 2, 2007 at 19:35

    Whups… There’s an ‘ and an e missing up there.

    Will Kevin notice?

  159. Hoosier X said,

    September 2, 2007 at 19:35

    Calm down, Kevin.

    I admit the Mallard Fillmore reference was a low blow. I shouldn’t have said that. I am deeply sorry.

    But it’s no reason to get all hot and bothered.

    Relax.

  160. Headless Lucy said,

    September 2, 2007 at 19:36

    No person that has graduated high school can disagree that the earth has gone through many heating and cooling phases. To claim that global warming is man made is a little hard to believe, especially when many of the same experts 25 years ago said the evidence was unanimously in favor of global cooling. When the experts can predict the weather 5 days from now we can talk about about them predicting the weather 10 years from now.
    This doesn’t mean that ALL of us should not be concerned about pollution, we should. We are doing damage to the planet. But global warming is not our fault.

  161. Kevin said,

    September 2, 2007 at 19:36

    Heh. You are sticking with the premise that you have a PhD in Biochemistry and Biophysics, huh?

  162. Jillian said,

    September 2, 2007 at 19:37

    Bah, Marita!

    Kevin has proven that you don’t exist! Bow before his superior mastery of logic, ephemeral phantom being!!

  163. Marita said,

    September 2, 2007 at 19:40

    Heh. You are sticking with the premise that you have a PhD in Biochemistry and Biophysics, huh?

    Well, technically my diploma says Macromolecular Biochemistry and Biophysics. I just hate to brag.

  164. Kevin said,

    September 2, 2007 at 19:41

    Indiana, But I AM calm! I sadly did not even know who Mallard Fillmore was, and assumed he was the penguin from that cartoon the Washington Post was too frightened to print.

    I agree, we should both relax (as well as every other crazy liberal viewer of this site). I’m curious what gave you the idea that I WASN’T relaxing. Any input you offer will be graciously accepted.

  165. Righteous Bubba said,

    September 2, 2007 at 19:41

    But global warming is not our fault.

    If you don’t have a press release from a republican senator to back up your argument how can I possibly take you seriously?

  166. Kevin said,

    September 2, 2007 at 19:43

    “Well, technically my diploma says Macromolecular Biochemistry and Biophysics. I just hate to brag.”

    Trust me, m’lady, that’s not bragging. Saying you have a Phd in Biochemistry and Biophysics on the other hand, is.

  167. Kevin said,

    September 2, 2007 at 19:46

    Crud. I’m going to have to call you on this Marita.

  168. Marita said,

    September 2, 2007 at 19:46

    Kevin, are you flirting with me again? This may be an issue you should take up with the Registrar’s office at the ‘Tute… They’re the ones who issued my diploma.

  169. Legalize said,

    September 2, 2007 at 19:48

    Headless Lucy, do you understand the difference between “weather” and “climate”?

  170. Thers said,

    September 2, 2007 at 19:48

    Oh, this is the fun part where the wingnut demands credentials and a CV and personal identifying details.

    You guys are creepy as hell.

  171. tb said,

    September 2, 2007 at 19:49

    You don’t want to know what he’s doing to himself right now, either.

  172. Hoosier X said,

    September 2, 2007 at 19:51

    Kevin, the main reason I think you’re not relaxed is I got a memo from Inhofe saying you were desperately flailing about, trying to answer every point, without too much thought as to whether you were making any sense or not.

    I mean, it was a memo from a Republican Senator. Written on toilet paper from a Minneapolis airport bathroom stall. That’s ironclad.

  173. Candy said,

    September 2, 2007 at 19:52

    Headless Lucy: What you are saying is the equivalent of the old “It snowed in January therefore global warming doesn’t exist” argument.

    The nice folks with the pretty hair on the teevee I’m sure you watch every day are meteorologists , not climatologists. Global warming actually makes day to day weather harder to predict, as I understand what I’ve read, as the climate gets increasingly volatile. (Scientists help me out here, am I right on this?)

    Of course, pollution should be addressed for other reasons besides global warming, from aesthetics to water borne diseases and other health problems, but it’s not like environmental scientists want to exclude those concerns and focus on GW.

  174. Kevin said,

    September 2, 2007 at 19:54

    By ‘call’ I meant ‘doubt’, but I’d love to call and hound you too! Either way is good. You just don’t strike me as a real scientist (I’ve known hundreds) and instead sound like a sociologist or social worker (I’ve known 4).

    In short, you are scamming. I could be wrong, and this wouldn’t be the first time, you strike me as as sociologistically socialogical as a sociologist could be (aka gay). Again, I could be wrong, but I’m not.

  175. Kevin said,

    September 2, 2007 at 19:56

    Ah, Hoosier! Now you know. Don’t trust Inhofe. Or Clinton or Hussein Obama. Yah know, just in case.

  176. Jillian said,

    September 2, 2007 at 19:56

    On the other hand, I have no trouble believing that Kevin is a chemical engineer.

    For some reason, there seems to be a statistically disproportionate number of profoundly stupid people amongst the various engineering fields. I can’t explain it, but it really does seem to be the case.

    Any suggestions as to why that’s the case?

  177. Kevin said,

    September 2, 2007 at 19:58

    Heh, you clearly don’t know our field, Jillian.

  178. Kevin Bacon Holding Playdoh said,

    September 2, 2007 at 19:58

    Shorter Dogstar; By redefining one of the core tenets of Science, that of peer review, as being “an unreasonable standard”, I thus declare that “Science” is done by simply holding a patent and assuming things; and because a paper I’ve never actually read agrees with me, “Scientific” consensus on Global Warming is thus banished!

    Shorter Kevin; There is no shorter Kevin, he’ll be here all day desperately saying any old thing, because it makes him feel like the centre of attention. Even after he’s just got his “Shorter Kevin” now, observe as he says something completely incoherent because, in his mind, he’s actually making all kinds of urbane and witty remarks. That no one else seems to understand what those remarks even are just shows his genius, and not, for instance, any kind of mental illness at all. Poor, poor Kevin. Desperately seeking Lulz instead of a life.

  179. Marita said,

    September 2, 2007 at 19:59

    Kevin has known four social workers! Perhaps it will be the fifth he encounters that makes a breakthrough and helps him with… whatever it is his problem is.

    Glad to hear you’re so astute at spotting scientists, Kev. Are you sure you aren’t thinking of scientologists?

  180. tb said,

    September 2, 2007 at 20:02

    In the old days you used to see a lot of them on talk.origins, arguing vehemently against the theory of evolution.

  181. Jimmy Swagart said,

    September 2, 2007 at 20:02

    That Stephen Lynch is as funny as Dane Cook.

    Which is to say, not.

  182. Thers said,

    September 2, 2007 at 20:03

    For some reason, there seems to be a statistically disproportionate number of profoundly stupid people amongst the various engineering fields. I can’t explain it, but it really does seem to be the case.

    Surely you are not impugning the noble profession that has given us Steven den Beste.

  183. zsa said,

    September 2, 2007 at 20:04

    So we’re still waiting for Dogstar to tell us whether he read a paper or just a press release, right?

  184. Kevin said,

    September 2, 2007 at 20:04

    Marita, I’m not flirting with you (… well I WASN’T… are you single and are you cool with the fact that I have a wife?) but I continue to doubt your involvement in the chemical studies. ‘Doubt’ is an understatement.

  185. Jillian said,

    September 2, 2007 at 20:06

    You STILL see that, tb.

    That’s what I mean. Certainly not ALL engineers are profoundly stupid people, but there does seem to be a certain type of person you find more often in engineering than anywhere else. This would be a person who is perfectly competent within their own area – whether it be computer, chemical, structural, electrical, or whatever – but then displays a staggering inability to engage in the most basic forms of cognition OUTSIDE of their field. They show up as evolution deniers, as Megan McArdle-style libertarians, as we-never-really-landed-on-the-moon conspiracy theorists…..it’s just weird.

    I mean, being an engineer requires some basic mental competence. I’ve wondered sometimes if it’s not some odd variant on an autism spectrum disorder – people who can think perfectly well in one very narrow area, but outside of that are total gibbering idiots.

    Just one of those things I wonder about.

  186. Kevin said,

    September 2, 2007 at 20:08

    “Shorter Kevin; There is no shorter Kevin, he’ll be here all day desperately saying any old thing, because it makes him feel like the centre of attention. Even after he’s just got his “Shorter Kevin” now, observe as he says something completely incoherent because, in his mind, he’s actually making all kinds of urbane and witty remarks. That no one else seems to understand what those remarks even are just shows his genius, and not, for instance, any kind of mental illness at all. Poor, poor Kevin. Desperately seeking Lulz instead of a life.”

    HEY! That’s not shorter Kevin at all. That’s LONGER Kevin! Plus, you spelled ‘center’ like a dude with Down’s syndrome. Cut it out.

  187. Simba B. said,

    September 2, 2007 at 20:09

    Holy crap, I go to bed for a couple o’hours and S,N! goes crazy. I guess I just can’t leave you guys to your own devices.

    For some reason, there seems to be a statistically disproportionate number of profoundly stupid people amongst the various engineering fields. I can’t explain it, but it really does seem to be the case.

    You know, I was slowly coming to the same conclusion myself. It’s ironic because I am an extremely technically-minded person and at one point was going to study electrical engineering. I’m kinda glad I didn’t now.

    **tips hat** Good to see you again, Kevin. Incoherent and assholish as usual, I see.

  188. Marita said,

    September 2, 2007 at 20:10

    Ah Kevin, my sorrow at your doubt in my credentials is somehow mitigated by the fact that anyone who actually matters has seen and/or verified them. Hopefully that will be enough to keep me from crying myself to sleep tonight.

  189. Kevin said,

    September 2, 2007 at 20:10

    Mrs. Marita said: “Kevin has known four social workers! Perhaps it will be the fifth he encounters that makes a breakthrough and helps him with… whatever it is his problem is.”

    You,. Marita, ARE the fifth.

  190. Kevin Bacon Holding Playdoh said,

    September 2, 2007 at 20:13

    *pats Kevin on the head*

    Of course you doubt their scientific credentials. And you’ll stay up aaaalllll evening googling background information, just like all the good trolling guides tell you to do, so you can pretend to know stuff, and thus try and make other people look like they don’t… Alas, you seem to have missed the part of the trolling guides where they say to keep your story straight if you are going to keep the same name, haven’t you? Do you remember all the other careers and aptitudes you’ve claimed in the past? Or even how old you’ve claimed to be?

    *pats you on the head again*

    There, there. I know life is hard, and if you can’t get someone to admire and love you in real life, turning up on an internet board and aiming for maliscious lulz at the expense of other people takes the pain of loneliness and mental illness a way for a little while. But you’ll notice no one here, even on a board dedictaed to it’s own style of sarcastic lulz, is even impressed enough by your actions to even hate you. They just chuckle a little, perhaps offer you some pity, and get on with mocking the claims of Dogstar instead. And me…? Well I’m off for a Mac N Cheese now. Mmmm… feel free to doubt that whilst I’m gone Kevin. It’s really, truly important that you do!

  191. abanterer said,

    September 2, 2007 at 20:15

    Nothing ever penetrates the conservative skull, does it? They live in an impervious lullaby where the optimal world is the one where they risk nothing, and everyone else takes the hit for them. It must be nice to live in a world where Fox, Rush and Drudge confirm everything they want to believe in, even when it’s patently obvious that’s a shabby fraud. I shake my head every time they basically declare war on science and reason to defend myths of their own superiority.

    Global warming deniers take their place beside the creationists, flat taxers, neo-eugenicists, armchair Kissengers and every John Birch crank, and they’re fine with that. Provided, of course, that they never have to face their own failures.

  192. Kevin Bacon Holding Playdoh said,

    September 2, 2007 at 20:17

    he he he… and before I dash, I see we are in for a really feeble standard of trolling as usual; “Centre” is indicative of Downs Syndrome is it, Kevin? Really? Is it really Kevin? Really? Do you really think that? He he he… the point of trolling is to make other people look stupid, not yourself :) Not to worry, you’ll get the hang of it one day, and when you do, just think how many women it’ll impress! No really :P

  193. Marita said,

    September 2, 2007 at 20:17

    You,. Marita, ARE the fifth.

    Gee, all his other pleas for help were somewhat more veiled than this.

    Should we be contacting the proper authorities?

  194. zsa said,

    September 2, 2007 at 20:26

    I think we are the proper authorities, Marita. If Kevin fails it this hard in an anonymous, somewhat silly, online forum, think how hard he must be failing in the real world.

    I doubt he’s employable. He’s almost certainly living in some sort of “home” for the mentally disabled.

  195. Dogstar said,

    September 2, 2007 at 20:27

    Dogstar, you’re still evading the question: Have you read the paper/manuscript, or just a summary of it?

    Why bother asking me a question like that? It has nothing to do with the discussion.

    The study used the same database and search terms as Oreskes, and covers all papers published from 2004 to February 2007.

    The study shows less than 50% of the papers in the data set support the hypothesis that man is causing global warming.

    Unless you can show evidence that the study is flawed (which you already admit you can’t), there’s no point in trashing it.

    I also notice that your degrees are not in any climate/weather-related field. I thought this site’s policy was to question the credentials of everyone who discusses GW, and to dismiss all those who don’t meet Sadly,No!’s standards.

    Oreskes is a history prof, Schulte is in medicine, I do chemistry/engineering and you do the bio-stuff.

    Does that mean none of us are qualified to discuss this subject? Or is it a red herring, designed to distract from the issue at hand?

    The position of this site (if I can paraphrase) is that GW is real AND it is caused by man, and can only be reversed by man’s rejection of carbon-based fuels.

    My position is that GW CANNOT be proven because we do not have enough accurate temperature data over the last several thousand years, and man’s CO2 output has nothing to do with GW, because what little data we do have shows CO2 levels rise several hundred years AFTER temperatures rise.

    Undeniable fact: Most non-atmospheric CO2 is dissolved in ocean water. Rising temperatures cause the dissolved CO2 to migrate from the oceans to the air. CO2 levels FOLLOW temperature rise.

    Another undeniable fact: Temperatures in the Middle Ages were warmer than today (doubters of this point need to educate themselves about the farming that took place in Greenland, in areas now covered in ice and snow).

    Another undeniable fact: using what limited temperature data we do have, we now know that the average temperatures in the US in 1991-1997 and 2000-2005 were LOWER than the average temperatures in the US in 1921, 1931, 1934, 1938-9 and 1953. (This is a conservative statement because I don’t have access to the top 20 years, only the top 10. If we expanded the data set, I could probably add another several years from the 20s and 30s that were warmer than today).

    I would love to have a serious debate about this topic, but I’m not interested in food fights with children. You seem to be a very reasonable person, Marita, but you also appear to be one of the few rational, objective ones here.

  196. mikey said,

    September 2, 2007 at 20:27

    Hijacked another thread, eh Kevin, you prick? You get some kinda boner outta this, I must assume, because there’s really no other reason for it. Aren’t you ever embarrassed that your masturbatory behavior is so, well, public? I mean, a few years ago a nasty little creep like you would have just made obscene or threatening phone calls for your own twisted perversions, but now, caller ID and all, I guess this is what you’ve got.

    Of course, hell, it’s all pie to me, but you are wasting the time of a lot of good people. I’ll never understand why you think it’s fun. You could just hang out with your fellow asshats at freep or LGF and leave us the hell alone. But hey, have another piece of pie a la mode, and continue to embarrass yourself to get your jollies.

    Freakin idiot…

    mikey

  197. Righteous Bubba said,

    September 2, 2007 at 20:33

    Why bother asking me a question like that? It has nothing to do with the discussion.

    The discussion is about whether or not you’ve read the science you’re touting or whether you’ve just read the press release. Embarrassing.

  198. Marita said,

    September 2, 2007 at 20:37

    Why bother asking me a question like that? It has nothing to do with the discussion.

    Ummm… yes it does. It has everything to do with the discussion. If you haven’t even seen the manuscript, you don’t know what the paper says, what the methods actually are, or if the conclusions are justified. Accepting the claims without looking at the paper is just taking someone’s word for it. It’s a giant recipe for letting someone else make you look ridiculous.

    So, if you haven’t read the paper, I wouldn’t be using “I’m a scientist” credentials to back up what it says. That would be very sloppy science. I’d stick with an “if this is actually what the paper shows, then [etc.] approach, if you’re attached to discussing it and haven’t gotten your hands on it yet…

    So have you read it?

  199. zsa said,

    September 2, 2007 at 20:38

    Dogstar,

    This is what’s called a “yes or no question”. Have you read the study? Or have you read a press release about the study? Simple really. Just needs a one word answer.

    You are, after all, discussing the results of the study. It’s therefore a highly relevant question.

  200. a different brad said,

    September 2, 2007 at 20:38

    Y’know, Dogstar, I only hold post grad degrees in humanities type subjects, and I can see massive flaws in your argument.
    First off, we are pointing to flaws in the unpublished study. It presumes not explicitly stating a position on global warming in a paper means one is neutral, with the connotation of skeptic. As you have not, in any of the posts by you I’ve read, taken a position on raping newborn infants by poking through the soft spot in the head, I must therefore assume you are neutral to skeptical on whether such is a bad thing.
    Furthermore, you keep leaving words out of sentences, because they prove your claims wrong. Oreskes is a professor of the history of science.
    Finally, you keep dodging marita’s basic, common sense question. Have you read the study in question, or merely decided that because the description of of it in a press release from a known to be biased source fits your opinions of the issue it must be true?
    And we’re all disappointed in you for not being anti-baby rape.

  201. dai said,

    September 2, 2007 at 20:40

    I’m not sure which I find more depressing –

    The thought that Kevin has fabricated a wife, a career, and an imaginary lawn to mow, all in order to somehow make us “hippies” agree with his bizarre notions

    -or-

    The idea that Kevin actually is married and employed, but chooses to spend hours upon hours trying to taunt “the hippies” instead of spending this long weekend with his family.

  202. Jillian said,

    September 2, 2007 at 20:42

    But….but……mistakes in peer-reviewed journals NEVER happen! Never!!

  203. noen said,

    September 2, 2007 at 20:57

    Well Jillian I think the reason is that engineering is well defined field. You can’t really even do engineering until the basic science is well understood and non-controversial. No one is going to suddenly question the underlying physics that structural engineers use every day.

    I would imagine therefore that certain personality types would find it attractive to be in a profession that is more authoritarian than some. I don’t think that such people, even dogstar, are stupid so much as incurious and reflexively dogmatic. We even have good evidence that Dogstar is not utterly stupid, he has not replied to Marita’s questions because he knows he can’t.

  204. fardels bear said,

    September 2, 2007 at 20:58

    These folks here:

    http://web.mit.edu/be/research/macro.htm

    Are in big trouble. Kevin is going to show up there and explain to them that they aren’t “real” scientists or engineers and he totally knows tons more then they do because of his BA in Chemical Engineering from Regent U.

  205. Dorothy said,

    September 2, 2007 at 21:01

    For some reason, there seems to be a statistically disproportionate number of profoundly stupid people amongst the various engineering fields. I can’t explain it, but it really does seem to be the case.

    Any suggestions as to why that’s the case?

    Here’s my take on it, based on years of hanging out with various types of engineers in different fields, from different countries:

    There’s an old saying I heard in college: “Engineering students learn more and more about less and less until they know everything about nothing.”* Basically, as engineers progress in their studies, they spend more time learning an increasingly narrow field of study in greater depth. By the end of their studies, they know practically everything there is to know about a very specific set of topics.

    Of course, there is a certain percentage of them who don’t realize that their expertise doesn’t actually extend past their specific field, and conclude that they actually know everything about everything. Basically, it’s “I am an expert in Chemistry; Chemistry is more difficult or more important than X, therefore, I am qualified to pontificate about X.” (Personally, I think it’s an arrogance issue, but I tend to blame arrogance for most of the world’s problems.)

    I have seen this response time and again, where engineers try to lecture the tech writers about grammar, the accountants about keeping books, the office managers about how to organize the office supplies, the receptionist about how to work the phones, etc. As a technical trainer, I had client engineers try to tell me I was wrong about how my company’s product and its custom-written, non-standard software worked. Yeah, sorry dude, but you can’t possible have seen this software before, and only the guys who actually wrote the code know it better than I do, so I’m gonna go ahead and call bullshit on this, OK?

    I could usually make a deal with these guys: I freely acknowledged their expertise when we were discussing their field in general, so long as they acknowledged that within the limited sphere of the thing I was training them on, I had the expertise. Being conscious of the limits of your knowledge is a very, very important thing.

    * There’s a corollary for liberal arts and humanities students, too: “Liberal Arts students learn less and less about more and more until they know nothing about everything.” I’ve found both to hold up pretty well in the real world, but arrogance in a Liberal Arts student tends to take the form of “I read a book about X once, therefore I am qualified to pontificate about X.”

  206. Dogstar said,

    September 2, 2007 at 21:09

    Ummm… yes it does. It has everything to do with the discussion.

    Um, no it doesn’t. I linked an article describing a study. Period.

    You don’t like the study? Fine. Disprove it. Otherwise, you’re done.

    Is this the way you approach every topic? Do you demand a resume from the commenter, to determine if he/she is allowed to discuss the topic?

    Marita, this is a discussion board. That’s all.

    I’m sure that I could find plenty of posts here linking news articles summarizing studies, reports, etc. Does that mean this site is hypocritical?

    First off, we are pointing to flaws in the unpublished study.

    A different brad, you can’t be pointing out flaws in an unpublished study, because, as you all are so keen to point out, you don’t have the study to analyze.

    All we have is the synopsis, which summarizes the conclusions of the study. If the study is eventually shown to be invalid, you can do all the victory dances you want.

    Until then, however, you’ve got nothing.

    Oh, and Jillian, I like that comment. Are you saying we can’t trust the peer-reviewed studies claiming GW exists/man is the cause?

    Because that would be the end of all discussion on all scientific topics. Everywhere. If peer-reviewed studies are not credible, there’s about fifty bajillion truckloads of paper that can get sent to the recycling center.

  207. Heywood J. said,

    September 2, 2007 at 21:11

    I love it when self-professed conservatives suddenly fall in love with the hallowed principle of evidentiary propriety. They’ll turn the world upside-down and piss away a million lives and a half-trillion dollars over trumped-up WMD evidence. They’ll get all CSI: Crawford over weather balloons and shit. They can’t believe you won’t just accept Shrub’s say-so that the most buffoonish administration in the history of this country shouldn’t be able to tap your phone calls and read your e-mails.

    But when 95% of the scientific community is peer-reviewing and citing global warming evidence, they turn to James Inhofe and Exxon. Because really, who would know better about scientific matters?

    Even funnier, the doubters completely ignore the other evidence, that oil supplies are at or past peak, that most of the remaining supplies are in increasingly hostile areas of the world, that waste is simply unsustainable. It’s the worst of intellectual hackery, all the way around.

    And for the record, I have a PhD, in the field of My Pants. I’m sure Kevin will doubt that, but it’s true.

  208. Spokane Moderate said,

    September 2, 2007 at 21:11

    The study used the same database and search terms as Oreskes

    Prove it. Otherwise, you’re done.

  209. The Dude Abides said,

    September 2, 2007 at 21:13

    It must be horrible for Kevin and his kind.

    We dirty hippies get to have all the guiltless sex we want before we get married and yet, we godless sinners are less likely to lose our spouse to divorce than the bible thumpers. We smoke weed, listen to good music, and have families and friends that enrich our lives. At the same time, conservatives troll men’s rooms, make up the bulk of the population in the D.C. Madam’s address book, and are estranged from their children because they are such fuckwits as parents. We are more educated, in general, and that includes even the majority of the “hard scientists” in academic institutions he seems to value so much.

    I understand that this is all so hard for you to get your head around Kevin, but we are simply better, happier, more well adjusted people, by and large, than the fearful, repressed, angry, sexually frustrated, authoritarian assholes populating the far right of the political spectrum.

  210. mikey said,

    September 2, 2007 at 21:15

    I have no degrees. I didn’t attend college. In that sense, I’m just a guy with opinions. I think of myself as fairly smart, and I do read an awful lot, but I’m out here in the weeds with the rest of the folks. Here’s what I think.

    I’m convinced that global warming is real, and humans are the primary cause, particularly humans burning fossil fuels. It is obvious to me that the smart, prudent thing to do, even if you are still waiting for further research, is to develop technologies that allow for a large scale reduction in the use of fossil fuels. There are a lot of good reasons for doing this, of which global warming is only one.

    The only real downside to pursuing alternatives to fossil fuels is that, like all disruptive technologies, it will result in a certain reallocation of wealth. Now, it’s not set in stone who will win and who will lose. Nothing is preventing the energy companies of today from investing some of their record profits in alternative fuels, conservation and renewables. If they choose not to, it is certainly possible they will suffer some loss of profitability in the future. Remember Kodak? Polaroid? Changes in technology do have impacts on people, and not always good for individuals who are impacted.

    But on balance, it still seems obvious to me that the course of action is clear. The people who are arguing against the science, even if they are doing so in good faith, which is certainly not always the case, are really modern-day luddites. Afraid of the impact on their lives and families, they desparately push back against an inevitable tide, smashing the stocking frames that were stealing their livelihood. But now, as then, their movement is doomed to failure, because the risk/benefit calculations are being made by millions of individuals in a bottom – up fashion, and decisions coming out of that are nothing less than a fait accompli.

    Coupled with the entrepreneurial opportunities represented by the movement to alternative and renewable energy, plus conservation, transmission and storage breakthroughs, the train has left the station. The argument will continue, but it will be nipping at the edges, a kind of a “god of the gaps” of climate science, and will ultimately be a footnote to history…

    mikey

  211. Righteous Bubba said,

    September 2, 2007 at 21:16

    Um, no it doesn’t. I linked an article describing a study. Period.

    You don’t like the study? Fine. Disprove it. Otherwise, you’re done.

    I seem to recall bundles of arguments exactly like this one in relation to the bible.

  212. Heywood J. said,

    September 2, 2007 at 21:16

    If the study is eventually shown to be invalid, you can do all the victory dances you want.

    Uh-huh, because every time some other “study” coughed up by an oil-industry lobbyist has been proved incorrect, the people who have been wrong have curled up into a Ball of Capitulation™, begging forgiveness for their hackery. Happens every time.

  213. Dogstar said,

    September 2, 2007 at 21:16

    People, people, people…

    Can we PLEASE leave the name-calling, mud-slinging, sexuality-questioning, amateur psychoanalysis and red herrings for some other time?

    Argue the issue at hand, ONLY the issue at hand and leave the rest for some other thread. Please.

  214. Matt T. said,

    September 2, 2007 at 21:18

    All we have is the synopsis, which summarizes the conclusions of the study. If the study is eventually shown to be invalid, you can do all the victory dances you want.

    Until then, however, you’ve got nothing.

    Doesn’t that mean you’ve got even less? I mean, if the study can’t be criticized because it hasn’t been released, it certainly can’t be used as an argument, can it?

  215. noen said,

    September 2, 2007 at 21:19

    Dogstar:
    Does that mean none of us are qualified to discuss this subject?

    Does that mean you would accept the judgment of someone who really is qualified in this subject? If qualifications matter so much to you then why do you dismiss what qualified experts have to say about global warming? You are a chemical engineer, by your own standards then, how does that qualify you to speak authoritatively on a subject that you do not understand?

    We are all qualified to give our opinions though. It’s just that in science the opinion of some matters more than others. So if I wanted to know if a paper on quantum mechanics was worth anything I wouldn’t ask a chemical engineer. I’d ask a real scientist.

  216. The Dude Abides said,

    September 2, 2007 at 21:21

    Dogstar,

    Usually, the burden of proof is on the person who makes an assertion. You say a study invalidates assertions made by 95% of the peer reviewed research in the area and link to a press release.

    Several people cast doubt that the study says what you conclude it says and ask you to provide additional evidence. Evidence that would require that you actually have read and understand the study you bring up. This is a reasonable doubt to be cast upon your argument, and yet, you refuse to provide additional proof.

    Why can’t you get that it is not our duty to prove your linked study false?

  217. zsa said,

    September 2, 2007 at 21:22

    So that would be a “no”?

  218. Ghost of Joe Liebling's Dog said,

    September 2, 2007 at 21:26

    Wow … this is still going on?

    It’ll prejudice the players, but … my bet is that Dogstar will never answer that simple question.

    With kind regards,
    Dog, etc.
    i remember home

  219. Heywood J. said,

    September 2, 2007 at 21:26

    Dogstar, you’re being reasonable enough in tone. But it’s inescapable that you are arguing political points, rather than scientific ones, whether you wish to acknowledge that or not. Understanding the scientific points of the global warming has, believe it or not, a very pragmatic point — aggregate behavior has to change, and maybe it’s better to get serious about that sooner rather than later.

    On the other hand, combing through arcane data points looking to refute the premise with a statistical anomaly that might be some sort of indicator of academic herd mentality — well, what practical effort does that serve?

    Frankly, I think there will come a time when even the oil companies will start endorsing global warming science. Coincidentally, enough, it will be roughly a day after they figure out how to control the modes of production and distribution in an alternative-energy economy. There will be tons of money to be made in such an economy; the parsing of evidence will then magically redound to those who stand to profit the most from it.

  220. Marita said,

    September 2, 2007 at 21:27

    Dogstar, here’s something quoted from your post:

    However, they still had their A-1, die-hard fallback position- “There’s a CONSENSUS of scientists!!!”

    Well, sorry to be the party pooper, kiddos, but you just lost your ace in the hole…

    You just said:

    I linked an article describing a study. Period.

    See how those are different? What you did was linked to the article describing the study, and made a claim about what the study means.

    What I’m saying is that you can’t, while maintaining any scientific credibility, make statements about the study if all you’ve done is read someone else’s article about the study. If you do, you’re going to be subject to (perfectly legitimate) criticism.

    This isn’t about credentials, the same standards apply to everyone who wants to make scientific claims. I’m not demanding a CV from you, I’m saying if you want to try to add weight to your opinion by bringing up your scientific background, you should stick to the generally accepted practices in science and not draw conclusions from second-hand reports of evidence.

    I can’t disprove the claims made in the article, because I don’t have the manuscript in question. But I’m guessing you don’t have it either, which makes any claims you make completely shaky. The burden of proof is on you for this, not me.

  221. His Grace said,

    September 2, 2007 at 21:28

    I’m just trying to get caught up here but is Dogstar arguing that he has read a summary of a “magical” scientific study that proves there’s no consensus on global warming and until we see that study we must contend his assertion as irrefutable?

  222. tb said,

    September 2, 2007 at 21:32

    Yes.

  223. Dogstar said,

    September 2, 2007 at 21:32

    Matt T., I don’t see any problem with linking to a site that summarizes a recently completed study, which will be published in Energy and Environment.

    You all seem to feel that this study is somehow flawed, even though you admit you haven’t read it.

    I am fine with giving the author the presumption of veracity and competence.

    Your attitude is somewhat like claiming all men are rapists, unless they can show proof that they have been found not guilty by a jury in a court of law.

    Our society operates under the presumption that someone is telling the truth, until shown otherwise (just as we also operate under the presumption that someone accused of a crime is innocent until shown otherwise).

  224. Ghost of Joe Liebling's Dog said,

    September 2, 2007 at 21:35

    His Grace,

    It’s much richer than that. Dogstar won’t tell whether he’s read the study or not.

    It’s like visiting the Mercedes dealer, and when the salesfolk ask about how you plan to pay for the car, you nod, and wink, and grin, and do a shufflestep, and murmur coyly, “It’s a secret.

    Wows ‘em every time.

    With kind regards,
    Dog, etc.
    i remember home

  225. Dogstar said,

    September 2, 2007 at 21:36

    What I’m saying is that you can’t, while maintaining any scientific credibility, make statements about the study if all you’ve done is read someone else’s article about the study. If you do, you’re going to be subject to (perfectly legitimate) criticism.

    Our society does not work that way and nobody else is required to (a) be a climatologist in order to discuss climatology and (b) read, analyze and research a study in order to note its conclusions.

    That is a completely unworkable standard to hold us to.

  226. Righteous Bubba said,

    September 2, 2007 at 21:39

    I am fine with giving the author the presumption of veracity and competence.

    I am blinded with eye-rolling.

  227. Spokane Moderate said,

    September 2, 2007 at 21:40

    That Dogstar guy isn’t very good at this, is he?

  228. tb said,

    September 2, 2007 at 21:42

    Our society operates under the presumption that someone is telling the truth, until shown otherwise (just as we also operate under the presumption that someone accused of a crime is innocent until shown otherwise).

    Unless of course they are liberal wacko climate scientists (also known simply as “climate scientists”), in which case their every statement is suspect because they’ll say anything to keep the $$$ and global warming groupie vagina flowing in.

  229. Hoosier X said,

    September 2, 2007 at 21:45

    How many of us here have read Ortega y Gasset’s “The Revolt of the Masses”?

    The masses are not really who most people reflexively think they are.

    The “mass man” in Ortega y Gasset refers to the professional, educated man as well as to the worker. And Ortega y Gasset comments thoroughly on the arrogance of the professional man who thinks he know everything just because he has a medical degree, an advanced degree in science, etc.

    My favorite example of the arrogant professional man is the economist, who, unlike the engineer, seldom even achieves competence in his own field.

    Yes, Thomas Sowell, I’m talking about you, a man who routinely embarrasses himself on every subject he chooses to yak on about.

  230. His Grace said,

    September 2, 2007 at 21:45

    K, I’m still confused here then. Dogstar has found a summary of a study (the study itself he has apparently not read). Said study contradicts the “supposed” conventional wisdom that climatologists think that global warming exists and is caused by humans. He then expects us to accept his assertions without being able to reference the study itself and that a summary of a study that he says contradicts established consensus is enough in of itself to throw that consensus out the window?

    Is that his argument? For real? Is he going to argue that the sun doesn’t exist because he read a press release next?

  231. tb said,

    September 2, 2007 at 21:45

    Our society does not work that way and nobody else is required to (a) be a climatologist in order to discuss climatology and (b) read, analyze and research a study in order to note its conclusions.

    There we are. The last refuge of a wingnut caught bloviating about things he knows nothing about.

  232. Dogstar said,

    September 2, 2007 at 21:45

    Several people cast doubt that the study says what you conclude it says and ask you to provide additional evidence.

    The Dude Abides, I think you have it backwards. The summary for this study is publicly available, and I provided a link to it. Anyone who doubts my word can follow the link and read the summary for themselves.

    I quoted it. I’m not required to research it, peer-review it, re-do all the calcs, verify all the references, examine all the footnotes, interview the author, etc. in order to reference it in a discussion.

    You’re all skeptical of the study. And if the study came to exactly the opposite conclusion, I would be skeptical of it as well.

    However, demonizing the author or me is not going to help your case.

    Until I (or you) see any evidence contradicting the study, or showing the author to have a SERIOUS credibility problem, I MUST conclude the study was done accurately and in good faith.

    NOBODY has the right to call someone else a liar, if they HONESTLY don’t know whether or not he lied.

  233. Candy said,

    September 2, 2007 at 21:46

    Shorter dogstar: You should believe everything I read.

  234. Marita said,

    September 2, 2007 at 21:47

    Our society operates under the presumption that someone is telling the truth, until shown otherwise (just as we also operate under the presumption that someone accused of a crime is innocent until shown otherwise).

    Our legal system operates on the presumption of innocence until proven otherwise. Science, on the other hand, does not run on the assumption that people are telling the truth (or that people know what they’re doing enough to make any claims). If it did, science would be a big giant disaster.

    Our society does not work that way and nobody else is required to (a) be a climatologist in order to discuss climatology and (b) read, analyze and research a study in order to note its conclusions.

    That is a completely unworkable standard to hold us to.

    Nope, don’t have to be a climatologist to discuss it. Also, you can note what the claimed conclusions are if you want to, but if you do it without knowing what the study actually says, you run the risk of being mocked. Which is what’s happening right now.

    Anything with major implications shouldn’t just be taken on trust. Especially when you only trust the “veracity and competence” of people whose opinions and conclusions match your own.

    You should know better than this. Why can’t you just say you overreached?

  235. Hoosier X said,

    September 2, 2007 at 21:49

    That Dogstar guy isn’t very good at this, is he?

    For a global warming denier, he’s actually quite good. Admittedly, the bar is set pretty low.

  236. Gentlewoman said,

    September 2, 2007 at 21:51

    Shorter Dogstar: No, I haven’t read the damn paper. Stop embarrassing me by pointing it out!

    Shorter Kevin; There is no shorter Kevin…

    FTW! Still laughing here.

  237. Bruce said,

    September 2, 2007 at 21:52

    Just surfed into this web site.
    Wont be back.

    Demostrate with data & FACTS that Global warming is caused by man, not simply your belief.

    Happen to know, that it is Freakin Impossible to prove the earth is not simply in a climatic cycle.
    Earth gets cold, Earth gets hot.
    Have a great day.

  238. borehole said,

    September 2, 2007 at 21:53

    Dude, what? “Our society operates under the presumption that someone is telling the truth, until shown otherwise (just as we also operate under the presumption that someone accused of a crime is innocent until shown otherwise)?”

    Uh, no, it’s pretty much just criminal defense that works that way, because the stakes are so high it’s only ethical that you go heavy on the benefit of the doubt. You must have a hell of a time weeding the spam out of your inbox.

    I’d send you a copy of the Federalist Papers, but you’ve made your position on reading things abundantly clear.

  239. Hoosier X said,

    September 2, 2007 at 21:54

    Just surfed into this web site.
    Wont be back.

    Hello, sock puppet!

  240. Righteous Bubba said,

    September 2, 2007 at 21:54

    Caveat Dogstar.

  241. Candy said,

    September 2, 2007 at 21:55

    I’ll miss Bruce.

  242. tb said,

    September 2, 2007 at 21:57

    I hear you. Thinks aren’t the same with him gone. Remember when he said “Earth gets cold, Earth gets hot”? Good times…

  243. His Grace said,

    September 2, 2007 at 21:58

    Let’s all take a moment to reflect on Bruce, the time he spent with us and how important his visit was to all of us. I think I speak for everyone when I say that we will greatly miss him.

  244. Marita said,

    September 2, 2007 at 22:00

    [wipes tear from eye]

    Via con dios, Bruce!

  245. mikey said,

    September 2, 2007 at 22:03

    Just surfed into this website.

    Won’t be back.

    Happen to, know that, when you start, using freakin commas, there,’s just no limit to the, things you can do…

  246. Spokane Moderate said,

    September 2, 2007 at 22:03

    Interesting:

    http://scienceblogs.com/strangerfruit/2007/08/oreskes_responds_to_schulte.php

  247. zsa said,

    September 2, 2007 at 22:03

    “I knew Bruce. Bruce was a friend of mine. You, sir are no Bruce”"

  248. Hoosier X said,

    September 2, 2007 at 22:05

    Bruce, if you’re reading this …

    Oh, wait, you said you wouldn’t be back.

    no text

  249. Dogstar said,

    September 2, 2007 at 22:05

    Nope, don’t have to be a climatologist to discuss it. Also, you can note what the claimed conclusions are if you want to, but if you do it without knowing what the study actually says, you run the risk of being mocked.

    Ok, now we’re getting somewhere.

    Can we all agree that a person’s educational background does not disqualify them to discuss GW? Can we all agree that Oreskes, Schulte, Marita and myself (along with the rest of the commenters here) are eligible to discuss this topic?

    As to what the study says, we all know what the study’s conclusions are. I’ve linked them and every commenter here has had the chance to read the conclusions.

    If you don’t like the study’s conclusions, and you want to dispute them, it is your job to dig until you find a logical reason to call Schulte a liar.

    Otherwise, you are committing a civil offense. And yes, our system DOES work that way. When someone’s work, reputation, etc. is trashed, it is an issue that our legal system addresses.

    Like it or not, our society has a presumption of truth. Those who recklessly disregard that presumption of truth are subject to legal action.

  250. abanterer said,

    September 2, 2007 at 22:06

    The presumption of society is not “truthful until caught in a lie”. Horsedroppings. You obviously had doubts about the veracity of the IPCC and the many scientists that wrote it, because here you are looking at Jim Inhofe’s site as if Inhofe’s office wasn’t a major source of dumbassery for some time now. Either you are making things up or you are actually so gullible that you will act on the impulse that everyone you speak to is honest, until you get taken to the cleaners. I suspect the former, hope for the latter.

  251. tb said,

    September 2, 2007 at 22:06

    Here we go:

    Naomi Oreskes, University of California, San Diego

    1) The Schulte piece is being published in Energy and Environment, a known contrarian journal. It was posted on the minority blog of the Senate Environment and Public Works committee, whose leader thinks that global warming is a “hoax.” It was circulated on the internet by Marc Morano, a long-standing contrarian and former reporter and producer for the Rush Limbaugh Show, and who was involved in the “swift boat” campaign against John Kerry.

    2) The Schulte piece misrepresents the research question we posed. It was, “How many papers published in referred journals disagree with the statement, “…most of the observed warming of the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations”? This statement came from the IPCC (2001) and was reiterated explicitly by the 2001 NAS report, so we wanted to know how many papers diverged from that consensus position. The answer was none. The Schulte claim does not refutes that.

    3) The piece misrepresents the results we obtained. In the original AAAS talk on which the paper was based, and in various interviews and conversations after, I repeated pointed out that very few papers analyzed said anything explicit at all about the consensus position.This was actually a very important result, for the following reason. Biologists today never write papers in which they explicitly say “we endorse evolution”. Earth scientists never say “we explicitly endorse plate tectonics.” This is because these things are now taken for granted. So when we read these papers and observed this pattern, we took this to be very significant.We realized that the basic issue was settled, and we observed that scientists had moved on to discussing details of the problem, mostly tempo and mode issues: how fast, how soon, in what manner, with what impacts, etc. (See Oreskes, 2007 for further discussion).

    4) The Schulte piece misrepresents my own interpretation of the severity climate question, as well as that of the scientific societies whose positions we compiled. This is a typical contrarian tactic – to exaggerate or misrepresent the scientific claim and then “refute” it. My analysis was a summary of the position of scientific experts. I never said, nor have any of the major scientific societies said, that the scientific literature warns of an imminent “catastrophe.” An analysis of how severe scientists think warming is or will be would have been a different paper. So you cannot “refute” my analysis by pointing out that the word “catastrophe” doesn’t appear. I never said that it did. Nor would I expect it to. Scientists don’t generally use that kind of language, although contrarians do.

    5) The EPW press release accuses my paper of being “outdated.” It is in fact a crucial element of the paper that the study that it goes back to 1993. We wanted to see how the arguments had developed over time, and to test, if we could, when the consensus position emerged. A crucial result for me was the realization that the basic consensus had already been established in the early 1990s. However, in hindsight this should actually have been obvious: it’s why President George H.W. Bush signed the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change. The basic scientific insight was already in place.

    6) The author is a medical researcher. As a historian of science I am trained to analyze and understand scientific arguments, their development, their progress, etc., and my specific expertise is in the history of earth science. This past summer I was invited to teach a graduate intensive course at Vienna International Summer University, Vienna Circle Institute, on Consensus in Science. I do not know why a medical researcher would feel qualified to undertake an analysis of consensus in the earth scientific literature.

    7) Contrarians have been trying to refute my work for three years. A previous claim, also circulated and cited by Marc Morano, was subsequently retracted by its author. Evidently it has taken them three years to find some one foolish enough to try again.

    I refer interested individuals back to the original paper (Oreskes, 2004) and to a more extended version of the argument (Oreskes, 2007).

    Oreskes, Naomi, 2004.”The scientific consensus on climate change,” Science 306: 1686.

  252. Spokane Moderate said,

    September 2, 2007 at 22:07

    If you don’t like the study’s conclusions, and you want to dispute them, it is your job to dig until you find a logical reason to call Schulte a liar.

    Something along the lines of this?

    http://scienceblogs.com/strangerfruit/2007/08/oreskes_responds_to_schulte.php

  253. Dogstar said,

    September 2, 2007 at 22:08

    Sorry, those who recklessly disregard that presumption of truth are USUALLY subject to legal action. (There’s a loophole in everything).

  254. Righteous Bubba said,

    September 2, 2007 at 22:09

    I am by Dogstar logic forced to take Naomi Oreskes at her word and say Dogstar’s study is bullshit.

  255. Karl Steel said,

    September 2, 2007 at 22:13

    There’s a corollary for liberal arts and humanities students, too: “Liberal Arts students learn less and less about more and more until they know nothing about everything.” I’ve found both to hold up pretty well in the real world, but arrogance in a Liberal Arts student tends to take the form of “I read a book about X once, therefore I am qualified to pontificate about X.”

    Well, part of it is also that we’re obligated to teach far outside our field. I’m a medievalist, but one of my classes this semester starts with Chaucer–which I know well–goes into Shakespeare, which I know…as a fan…and then goes into a bunch of stuff I’ve only read, maybe. What do I know about modernist lit or Jane Austen? More than my students. So I’m qualified to pontificate–me, I call it “teach”–about this stuff because someone has to teach the class and they pay me. Go figure.

    Skimmed the thread. Cut away the dross, and we have “Dogstar” wanting to make this yet another argument about GW in general rather than about the validity of the press release associated with the office of a notoriously lunatic Senator and meant to be published in some Industry vanity journal; and then we have “Kevin” taking time out from mowing lawns to focus on one of the women in the thread with a PhD. I’d wonder why the ad mulierem, but the answer’s a little too obvious.

    HURRY UP PLEASE IT’S TIME, trolls. Maybe you should take up something else?

  256. Spokane Moderate said,

    September 2, 2007 at 22:13

    I am by Dogstar logic forced to take Naomi Oreskes at her word and say Dogstar’s study is bullshit.

    Rules are rules.

  257. Dogstar said,

    September 2, 2007 at 22:14

    No, Spokane, that’s a wounded scientist striking back at another scientist who she disagrees with.

    Schutle’s goal was to find out whether or not a consensus on GW exists. He found no such consensus.

    When someone INDEPENDENT publishes evidence showing flaws in Mr. Schutle’s work that fatally compromise his findings, then AND ONLY THEN, his work will be discarded.

  258. Hoosier X said,

    September 2, 2007 at 22:15

    I find it commendable that Dogstar knows what a straw man argument is.

    Bravo! Now show us some false dichotomies and red herrings.

  259. tb said,

    September 2, 2007 at 22:16

    I am by Dogstar logic forced to take Naomi Oreskes at her word and say Dogstar’s study is bullshit.

    No, no, no! This “presumption of truth” I just made up only applies to horseshit wingnut pseudoscience! Sheesh!

  260. STH said,

    September 2, 2007 at 22:17

    Right-wingers just don’t get skepticism, do they? To them, “skepticism” means picking every nit in an argument if they don’t like its conclusions or the person who made it, while they swallow whole any claims made by somebody they like (that is, Dear Leader or one of his allies). As Dogstar wrote, “You’re all skeptical of the study. And if the study came to exactly the opposite conclusion, I would be skeptical of it as well.” He doesn’t even understand what he’s admitting here!

    So what they call “skepticism” is actually a type of Argument from Authority fallacy. Classic Right Wing Authoritarianism: it’s all about the Leader (http://dneiwert.blogspot.com/2007/09/just-river-in-egypt.html).

    Beautifully written, as always, Marita, but I think you’re wasting your time. He’s got a story he MUST stick to, so a real exchange of ideas is never going to happen with him.

  261. Hoosier X said,

    September 2, 2007 at 22:17

    Sorry for the typo.

    Now show us some more false dichotomies and red herrings.

    Fixed.

  262. Lesley said,

    September 2, 2007 at 22:18

    The real Dogstar stands up:

    Lol…If you stopped to do that every time you saw or read something, you would never get anything done. That’s an impossible standard to maintain for more than five minutes.

    BTW, I was in a hurry to post and incorrectly cut/pasted the wrong patent number (I used the reference patent # by accident, instead of our patent #, which is 5348662)

    Bogus Dogstar:

    As a Chemical Engineer who holds US Patent #5024769, I’ve read and written MANY scientific articles.I’ve read and written MANY scientific articles.

    You guys are hilarious. First, you trash me by claiming I’m “dumb” and making all sorts of wild assumptions about me. So, naturally, I respond by listing a couple of my qualifications, which causes even more fury, because I’m perceived to be “bragging”. That’s good. I’ll have to use that the next time I’m arguing with the opposing side. Not..

    Let’s see: you list your qualifications to lend yourself some credibility, claim to have written and read “MANY” scientific papers, and post a patent number, about which you comment several times before stating it’s the wrong patent number. You blog about a specific paper and when asked if you’ve read it do not respond with YES, I HAVE but Lol…If you stopped to do that every time you saw or read something, you would never get anything done..

    Um, how are you not trash again?

  263. mikey said,

    September 2, 2007 at 22:18

    In that case Bubba, Dogstar will apparently be forced to place you under arrest…

    mikey

  264. His Grace said,

    September 2, 2007 at 22:18

    So Schultle is apparently allowed to draw conclusions from Naomi Oreskes but Naomi Oreskes is not allowed to draw conclusions from Schutle?

  265. Marita said,

    September 2, 2007 at 22:19

    As to what the study says, we all know what the study’s conclusions are. I’ve linked them and every commenter here has had the chance to read the conclusions.

    We know (more or less, without adequate specifics) what the conclusions are, but not if the methodology was adequate to reach legitimate conclusions, or if the conclusions the author came up with can reasonably been reached from the data obtained. It’s not possible to make a decision about the quality of the paper without that information, and to do so is amateurish at best.

    If you don’t like the study’s conclusions, and you want to dispute them, it is your job to dig until you find a logical reason to call Schulte a liar.

    Again, this is not how science works. If someone has a hypothesis, it is their job to prove that hypothesis using scientific method. Someone can not come up with a hypothesis and then claim that it is true unless we can disprove it. This doesn’t require calling Schulte a liar – it just requires that we request a reasonable standard of proof before we believe the claim. There is currently no proof available.

    Otherwise, you are committing a civil offense. And yes, our system DOES work that way. When someone’s work, reputation, etc. is trashed, it is an issue that our legal system addresses.

    Science is, by nature, a very critical process. There is absolutely nothing in saying that Schulte hasn’t proven anything that is a civil offence. The paper hasn’t been published. The data isn’t available. If you think people in science routinely seek legal remedies as a result of someone disagreeing with their work, I’m dying to see some examples.

    As it is, Schulte is putting his own reputation on the line by publishing (or attempting to publish – this paper or anything). It’s his own responsibility to ensure he doesn’t damage his own reputation by publishing flawed science.

  266. Hoosier X said,

    September 2, 2007 at 22:21

    So Schultle is apparently allowed to draw conclusions from Naomi Oreskes but Naomi Oreskes is not allowed to draw conclusions from Schutle?

    Finally! Somebody who understands the New Science!

  267. Dogstar said,

    September 2, 2007 at 22:21

    One other thing- I’m having trouble with the idea that Oreskes and Schulte have to be opposing each other.

    Didn’t their studies cover different time periods? Didn’t her study cover the 90s/early 00s, and his cover 2004 to now?

    Doesn’t scientific consensus CHANGE over time, as new data, evidence, etc. becomes available?

  268. Spokane Moderate said,

    September 2, 2007 at 22:21

    Schutle’s goal was to find out whether or not a consensus on GW exists. He found no such consensus.

    Prove it. Otherwise, you’re done.

  269. Candy said,

    September 2, 2007 at 22:22

    Dogstar: No one here – no one – said you had to be a climatologist to discuss global warming; however, when you say that we shouldn’t believe the many peer-reviewed studies that support the global warming theory, but we should just take on faith the premise of a study – which clearly you yourself have not even read – just because you say so or because of some ridiculous notion you have that doubting it is some sort of slander . . . well, that just makes you look, how shall I say? I guess “stupid” will do.

    Doubting your poorly sourced assertions is not a “civil offense”. I know that and I’m only a paralegal student.

  270. Charles Giacometti said,

    September 2, 2007 at 22:22

    Wow, I go off to enjoy the beach for the day…

    Dogstar comments on the correctness of a research paper without actually reading it. And he does this while writing hundreds of words without ever having answered the simple yes or no answer about whether he read the thing.

    This is akin to the other wingnut shitstorm this weekend, Instarube criticizing the new DePalma movie without seeing it. Why do wingnuts presume they can comment on a research paper without having read it or comment on a movie without having seen it? Is it mental illness? Something else? Help me here.

  271. Hoosier X said,

    September 2, 2007 at 22:25

    Good, Dogstar.

    One other thing- I’m having trouble with the idea that Oreskes and Schulte have to be opposing each other.

    Didn’t their studies cover different time periods? Didn’t her study cover the 90s/early 00s, and his cover 2004 to now?

    Doesn’t scientific consensus CHANGE over time, as new data, evidence, etc. becomes available?

    That’s a red herring.

    How about a false dichotomy now, for the A?

  272. Dogstar said,

    September 2, 2007 at 22:27

    There is absolutely nothing in saying that Schulte hasn’t proven anything that is a civil offence.

    I never claimed that. I said a civil offense is committed if someone calls someone else a LIAR without any evidence to do so.

    Please don’t put words in my mouth.

  273. noen said,

    September 2, 2007 at 22:28

    Dogstar said,

    I quoted it. I’m not required to research it, peer-review it, re-do all the calcs, verify all the references, examine all the footnotes, interview the author, etc. in order to reference it in a discussion.

    There are of course no requirements of that sort simply to talk about any subject at all. People pontificate all the time on subjects they know nothing what-so-ever about. The question is how significant are such discussions? The whole point of this post is that drawing conclusions about an unpublished study from a press release is meaningless chatter.

    You’re all skeptical of the study. And if the study came to exactly the opposite conclusion, I would be skeptical of it as well.

    Nice that you state your biases right out front for all to see. Most intelligent people at least try to not leap to conclusions without evidence for or against them.

    Until I (or you) see any evidence contradicting the study, or showing the author to have a SERIOUS credibility problem, I MUST conclude the study was done accurately and in good faith.

    Flat out wrong Dogstar. No one is obligated to assume this study was done in good faith. In fact, there is good reason to believe it was not. The author is out of his depth, he is a medical researcher and to top that he is publishing in a disreputable journal that does not do a proper peer review. It’s a vanity journal.

    NOBODY has the right to call someone else a liar, if they HONESTLY don’t know whether or not he lied.

    Actually, we do have that right. Even more so given the reputations of those involved I would say we have a duty to question their honesty.

  274. Dogstar said,

    September 2, 2007 at 22:29

    Dogstar: No one here – no one – said you had to be a climatologist to discuss global warming;

    Candy, that’s exactly what they did. Dig a little up at the top of the thread. There’s plenty of people here who tried to disqualify both Schulte and me.

  275. Dogstar said,

    September 2, 2007 at 22:31

    Most intelligent people at least try to not leap to conclusions without evidence for or against them.

    Noen, that’s a pretty amazing thing to say. Does that mean everyone here who criticized Schulte’s study was wrong?

  276. zsa said,

    September 2, 2007 at 22:33

    Schulte is apparently an endocrinologist .

  277. Dogstar said,

    September 2, 2007 at 22:34

    Here we go again…

  278. Spokane Moderate said,

    September 2, 2007 at 22:34

    Does that mean everyone here who criticized Schulte’s study was wrong?

    Cite some specific examples of people criticizing the paper.

  279. Dogstar said,

    September 2, 2007 at 22:38

    ROFL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    OMG… That was priceless, Spokane.

    I’m cleaning the screen AND the keyboard. No more Diet Coke while I’m posting. Sheesh.

  280. noen said,

    September 2, 2007 at 22:43

    Dogstar, you sir, are a liar.

  281. cokane said,

    September 2, 2007 at 22:45

    Bitchstar:

    “What part of “CO2 causes less than 5% of the total warming effects associated with the ‘greenhouse effect’ ” do you have a problem with?”

    Even global warming alarmists don’t think that CO2 will raise our temperatures to ridiculous heights. One needs only reflect on the fact that at the height of the last ice age (not the little ice age) global temperatures were only 5 degrees Celsius cooler on average.

    Stating that CO2 won’t cause an upshot of 10 degrees or whatever isn’t enough of an argument. They will make an impact, and only a couple of degrees hotter will make a huge difference.

    “Another undeniable fact: Temperatures in the Middle Ages were warmer than today (doubters of this point need to educate themselves about the farming that took place in Greenland, in areas now covered in ice and snow).”

    This is also a moronic point.
    Greenland is only one part of the world. Even more to the point, the viking settlements were only in 2 very small areas. By saying “But one time in one small place of the world it was hotter!” is the stupidest way to reject GLOBAL warming.
    Also what you forget is that the greenland settlements were very tenuous, small populations, and the vikings who lived there actually subsisted mainly on dairy and beef, not mainly on vegetables, because they hardly grew any. I would suggest you read Jared Diamond’s “Collapse” which contains a thorough history of these settlements as well as talking about Global Warming.

  282. Spokane Moderate said,

    September 2, 2007 at 22:46

    So I should conclude from your post of 22:38 that no such examples exist?

  283. noen said,

    September 2, 2007 at 22:47

    Dogstar:
    Noen, that’s a pretty amazing thing to say. Does that mean everyone here who criticized Schulte’s study was wrong?

    No, there is good reason to be suspicious given the character of the people involved.

    BTW, We need fresh thread, this one is getting old.

  284. Hoosier X said,

    September 2, 2007 at 22:47

    I can’t give you an A, Dogstar. None of those were false dichotomies.

    These were logical fallacies of the wingnut whiny titty baby variety.

    Sorry.

  285. The Dude Abides said,

    September 2, 2007 at 22:48

    Dogstar,

    You continue to make specific inferences (e.g., the study conclusively finds that Oreste’s work is specifically contradicted by facts uncovered in the study under discussion) about the study you have not read. When we ask for specific data or specific examples that Oreste is wrong, you refuse to provide them beyond repeating general conclusions made in a press release.

    I saw a unicorn with my own eyes in my backyard today. Until you can prove I’m wrong, I assume you’ll take me at my word.

    SEE? YOU made the assertion that the study “proves” something. We doubt it and ask for further clarification and evidence. If such evidence exists, surely you can supply it, but you refuse. Why?

    When presented with specific arguments refuting the current study made by the scholar who wrote the original peer reviewed article, you simply wave your hands and dismiss them and go back to claiming that a study that has not been published (yet, maybe) and which you didn’t read is conclusive proof.

    Your reasoning belongs in a logic book under “bad examples”.

  286. Candy said,

    September 2, 2007 at 22:49

    I remember Kevin trying to discredit Marita’s credentials. There was some discussion about whether those working in unconnected fields were as qualified as those in the field itself, as I recall. (I’ve also been lurking at Pharyngula today so I have read a LOT of stuff while I’m supposed to be studying the field of Mediation and digging around in my torts and litigation text, so it’s hard to keep it all straight.) I don’t remember anyone saying you had no right to an opinion. In fact, mikey went on at some length about that very point when expressing his own opinion. And I have read the entire fucking thread, as unbelievable as that may seem, and don’t care to repeat the experience..

    Atty: Did you or did you not read the actual study, Mr. Dogstar?

    Dogstar (sweating in the witness box): You can’t call someone a liar! You have to prove he lied!

    Atty:(addressing the bench): Your Honor, please instruct the witness to answer Yes or No.

    Judge: A yes or no answer will suffice.

    Dogstar: He’s putting words in my mouth!

    Judge: Bailiff . . .

  287. Incontinentia Buttocks said,

    September 2, 2007 at 22:53

    This mind-numbing “argument” by Dogstar is a brilliant example of wingnut postmodernism….

    Can we all agree that a person’s educational background does not disqualify them to discuss GW? Can we all agree that Oreskes, Schulte, Marita and myself (along with the rest of the commenters here) are eligible to discuss this topic?

    Well, gosh, yes. Everyone should have a right to discuss any topic in a democracy!

    But is everyone equally qualified to discuss a topic? Shouldn’t we take into consideration whether or not the person has any idea what he or she is talking about when we evaluate his or her argument (especially when we haven’t even read the argument itself…)?

    Well, apparently not!…

    Our society operates under the presumption that someone is telling the truth, until shown otherwise (just as we also operate under the presumption that someone accused of a crime is innocent until shown otherwise).

    So whatever anyone says is true, unless someone else says it isn’t true, in which case….oh who knows? Guess I’d better trust our leaders…

    But wait. It turns out that everyone’s opinion isn’t equally good. For example, one person of the four mentioned above by Dogstar actually works on these issues professionally. I’m relieved to report that Dogstar thinks that means we should treat her views differently…

    No, Spokane, that’s a wounded scientist striking back at another scientist who she disagrees with. Schutle’s goal was to find out whether or not a consensus on GW exists. He found no such consensus. When someone INDEPENDENT publishes evidence showing flaws in Mr. Schutle’s work that fatally compromise his findings, then AND ONLY THEN, his work will be discarded.

    See, we should take Oreskes views less seriously because she actually works on this stuff and is thus–in wingnut logic–an interested party. As would be any climate scientist (though I’m sure there’d be some GW-skeptic exception to this rule if they could ever find an actual skeptical climate scientist with any credibility).

    No, despite the newly invented “presumption of truth” only the disinterested non-professionals need apply.

    Men like my Senior Senator Jim Inhofe, who has received over $840,000 from the oil and gas industry and who actually helps set federal policy on these issues. Now that’s totally INDEPENDENT. Guess we have to presume he’s telling the truth!

  288. tigrismus said,

    September 2, 2007 at 22:54

    There’s plenty of people here who tried to disqualify both Schulte and me.

    No one is disqualifying you from discussing global warming, but if you publish outside of your field of expertise you should expect folks to take that into account.

  289. tb said,

    September 2, 2007 at 22:55

    zsa said,

    September 2, 2007 at 22:33

    Schulte is apparently an endocrinologist .

    Dogstar said,

    September 2, 2007 at 22:34

    Here we go again…

    Yeah, that’s right, here we go- if someone’s going to write a scientific paper about climate change, they should have some qualifications in that field.

  290. mikey said,

    September 2, 2007 at 22:55

    Tell ya what, Dogstar. Don’t do ANYTHING. Take no action. That always contributes to a better outcome. In the meantime, when the economy shifts over and you can’t get a job, and agriculture fails and you can’t find anything to eat, and in the drought you can’t find fresh clean water to drink, and you show up at my compound with it’s Fuel Cell micropower generator and small-scale desal unit and the photovoltaic generators and plenty of food and water and infrastructure, and you ask me for a handout, I’m gonna have to tell you NO!

    If you didn’t contribute to the solution, you can’t expect to participate in the solution. It’ll be a tough new kind of world, but we made it and we can live in it, if we all carry some of the burden. But I’m sure the CEO of Cheveron will help you out.

    Hahahaha….

    mikey

  291. Hoosier X said,

    September 2, 2007 at 22:57

    So I should conclude from your post of 22:38 that no such examples exist?

    I think he meant by this that there are so many examples, he doesn’t have to provide one.

    Which, to my way of thinking, is kinda dumb. If I had a lot of examples of, say, Republican hyporisy on sexual matters, and some honesty challenged conservative asked for an example, I would think providing an example would be a much better way of showing the strength of my arguments than saying, “Ha, ha, there are so many, I don’t have to provide any, and you’re stupid!”

    Conservatives don’t think this way. I am not at all sure why, when confronted with, say, someone who questions the “liberal media” talking point, they respond with “How can you say that? There are so many examples, I don’t have to provide one!” or something like that.

    I don’t find such responses very convincing. Which seems to infuriate them.

  292. tigrismus said,

    September 2, 2007 at 22:59

    Heck, folks are going to take your experience or lack of into account in a discussion, too. It doesn’t mean they’ll discount your opinion, but they’ll probably give it less weight than the opinion of someone in the field.

  293. Aloysius said,

    September 2, 2007 at 23:01

    I teach some undergraduate math classes to make ends meet while I finish my Ph.D., and a lot of my students want to be engineers. They tend, overall, to be a lot more arrogant than non-engineering students (as well as frighteningly bad at math; seriously, I wouldn’t recommend driving over any bridges designed in the next few decades). I’ve often wondered what it is that turns so many engineers into douchebags so early in their lives. I think it’s money. When they decide to become engineers, they’re basically setting themselves up to get cushy relatively high-paying and high-status white-collar jobs that make them look smart. Money and prestige always go to people’s heads. They start to believe the hype, and presto! You get dingbats like Dogstar here who have literally zero comprehension of scientific procedures yet feel qualified to weigh in on climatology.

    I really mean it about the bridges, you know.

  294. Hoosier X said,

    September 2, 2007 at 23:02

    I’m sure the CEO of Chevron is a nice man.

    It’s not like he’s a liberal or an environmentalist or a global warming scientist or anything like that.

  295. noen said,

    September 2, 2007 at 23:09

    Dogstar’s true authoritarian nature comes out:

    Otherwise, you are committing a civil offense. And yes, our system DOES work that way. When someone’s work, reputation, etc. is trashed, it is an issue that our legal system addresses.

    Like it or not, our society has a presumption of truth. Those who recklessly disregard that presumption of truth are subject to legal action.

    This is why people like Dogstar are really dangerous. I seems that he would cetainly like to be able to silence his critics. That he cannot do so yet is one thing to be thankfull for.

    [Candy speaking]Dogstar: No one here – no one – said you had to be a climatologist to discuss global warming;

    Candy, that’s exactly what they did. Dig a little up at the top of the thread. There’s plenty of people here who tried to disqualify both Schulte and me.

    More whining. No one questioned your right to blather on about something you know nothing about. What people actually said is that if you want to be taken seriously you need a bit more and that frankly, we think the climatologists probably know their field better than you do.

    What really impresses me is just how fragile Dogstar’s ego really is. At the slightest provocation it just collapses and he is reduced to child whining that people are being mean to him by pointing out what an ignorant fool he really is.

  296. El Cid said,

    September 2, 2007 at 23:11

    The ‘greenhouse effect’ and global warming in general, by the way, is not primarily based upon research of past and present temperatures and CO2 concentrations.

    CO2 and other atmospheric gases have long been studied as part of the global energy budget — the only significant source of energy (and heat) for the Earth arrives at the Earth from the Sun, and the only significant release of energy from the Earth (to space) is via photons of light which leave Earth’s atmosphere and head out into space (outgoing longwave infrared radiation).

    Atmospheric scientists overwhelmingly use measurements and equations to trace the path of energy through the atmosphere.

    The amount of energy arriving at the Earth from the Sun and the amount which is NOT reflected away (by clouds, by pollution, etc.) has been directly measured for at least 50 years, given satellite measurements.

    The amount of energy leaving the Earth via outgoing longwave IR has also been measured directly, and at different frequencies which correspond to different substances in the atmosphere.

    So beyond debates about what happened with this or that temperature in the past, it still remains necessary to explain:

    If the amount of energy arriving to the Earth remains either constant or any variations are measured and adjusted, and if you decrease the rate at which energy leaves the Earth via outgoing longwave IR…

    …how can there not be an increase in net energy arriving to the planet, if you cannot demonstrate that some other factor will increase the amount of energy being reflected away?

  297. Legalize said,

    September 2, 2007 at 23:20

    “Our society does not work that way and nobody else is required to (a) be a climatologist in order to discuss climatology and (b) read, analyze and research a study in order to note its conclusions.”

    Wow, the winger argument about X topic, so perfectly captured:

    I don’t have to know what I’m talking about, or have any objective basis for asserting X, in order to have a perfectly irrefutable opinion about X.

    Classic.

  298. noen said,

    September 2, 2007 at 23:23

    El Cid, you just set yourself up for the “It isn’t our fault, the sun is getting warmer.” argument. This will lead to yet another 300 posts on the fully debunked denialist claim for solar forcing.

    This is a never ending hall of mirrors…. and it’s boring.

  299. Legalize said,

    September 2, 2007 at 23:24

    “Otherwise, you are committing a civil offense. And yes, our system DOES work that way. When someone’s work, reputation, etc. is trashed, it is an issue that our legal system addresses.”

    Dude, you’ve embarassed yourself in front of people who understand actual science; please don’t step further into the legal world and further demonstrate more principles about which you haven’t even a cursory understanding. Please.

  300. Lesley said,

    September 2, 2007 at 23:37

    The kitchen grew too warm for Dogstar. He’s left the building.

  301. El Cid said,

    September 2, 2007 at 23:42

    noen said,
    September 2, 2007 at 23:23

    El Cid, you just set yourself up for the “It isn’t our fault, the sun is getting warmer.” argument. This will lead to yet another 300 posts on the fully debunked denialist claim for solar forcing.

    This is a never ending hall of mirrors…. and it’s boring.

    I don’t at all agree that I ‘set myself up’ for any of these bullsh*t claims about the Sun getting hotter over the past 50 years: that is why I said that we are measuring the Sun’s output directly. Not by making up nonsense about cosmic radiation or Jupiter or Mars, no, we have actually thrown satellites up into space, and they got cameras and measuring devices and antennas and all sorts of cool stuff.

    So, as a challenge to the marching morons:

    ATMOSPHERIC SCIENTISTS ARE NOT ‘GUESSING’ ABOUT THE AMOUNT OF SOLAR ENERGY ARRIVING TO THE EARTH. THEY DIDN’T FORGET ABOUT IT OR FORGET TO MEASURE IT OR USE THE WRONG DATA.

    I’d almost like to see these morons lie and claim that in climatic energy analysis that scientists are somehow not using the correct solar energy data, that somehow they have their own satellites which are better, or that climatologists and NASA are just really stupid and forgot they had those satellites up thar in the sky measuring solar output.

  302. Heywood J. said,

    September 2, 2007 at 23:46

    Why do wingnuts presume they can comment on a research paper without having read it or comment on a movie without having seen it? Is it mental illness? Something else? Help me here.

    Because everything — science, culture, art, music, factual data — is politics to them. Hence the summary of a study by an endocrinologist, heartily endorsed by a notorious crank senator who lives in the back pocket of the oil industry must be taken on good faith. But the refutation of that summary by the climatologist in question is presumed to be sour grapes. Alrighty then.

    It’s all of a piece. Brian DePalma and George Clooney propagandize their hate of America, and Won’t Get Fooled Again and Red Barchetta are really conservative manifestos. And so forth. There is literally no subject on which they cannot ignorantly rail against the straw libruls living in their heads. It’s all a means to an indefensible end.

    I mean, I understand the mercenary havks who get paid to propagate flat-earth whimsy. I just don’t get the folks who do that shit for free.

  303. Heywood J. said,

    September 2, 2007 at 23:48

    “hacks”, although “havks” has that entertaining Nordic look to it.

  304. RCP said,

    September 2, 2007 at 23:50

    Hey, what’s this?

    It’s a 2007 paper by Oreskes.

    Why let’s just check on page 71, shall we?

    Why, it’s the results of her 2004 study.

    It looks like only about 25 percent of the papers studied explicitly endorse global warming, and no papers reject it. BWAHAHA, WHERE IS YOUR CONSENSUS NOW?

    Except, the rest of the papers are about the impacts of climate change, methods of measuring climate change, methods for reducing climate change, etc.

    Seeing as Schulte used the same methods as Oreskes on the same database, the results should have been similar. the “46 percent of the papers are neutral” seems to be a load of crap.

  305. Kevin said,

    September 2, 2007 at 23:51

    Darnit! I had to go out and have a life. Did Dogstar finish owning you yet? Or do I still have a shot?

  306. Simba B. said,

    September 2, 2007 at 23:55

    Darnit! I had to go out and have a life.

    Kevin, you know, Anorgasmia is actually an treatable condition.

  307. Hoosier X said,

    September 2, 2007 at 23:58

    Kevin, none of us would a bit if you go on having a life.

  308. DEMIZE! said,

    September 3, 2007 at 0:06

    I have a PHD.in gettin funky fresh y’all.AAAHHYIAHH!!!!

  309. Dogstar said,

    September 3, 2007 at 0:08

    I saw a unicorn with my own eyes in my backyard today. Until you can prove I’m wrong, I assume you’ll take me at my word.

    Lol…

    So, Abiding Dude, where’s your published account of the unicorn? Did you announce that you completed a study that will be submitted for peer review?

    That isn’t even an apples/oranges comparison. It’s a apples/moon rock comparison.

  310. Nimrod Gently said,

    September 3, 2007 at 0:28

    “Centre” is how the word is spelt in Canada and other former colonies of the United Kingdom, Kevin. If such spellings annoy you, we will of course make a concerted effort to use them as often as possible.

  311. mikey said,

    September 3, 2007 at 0:34

    Darnit! I had to go out and have a life a piece of pie.

    ‘Cause, as you are all aware, I Like Pie!

    Fixed!

    mikey

  312. Righteous Bubba said,

    September 3, 2007 at 0:48

    spelt in Canada

    There isn’t a lot of call for it except from hippies.

  313. owlbear1 said,

    September 3, 2007 at 0:58

    And why do you get all emotional and start talking about shitting in people’s mouths? Is this the accepted “Sadly, NO!” debating technique?

    Why so emotional? Because you are enthusiastically selling off the future for a pat on the back from Billionaires.

    Why the vulgarities? Because your line of argument and the evidence you present to support it is insulting and vulgar and I am responding in kind.

    And you didn’t answer the question…

    IF I SHIT IN YOUR MOUTH DAY AFTER DAY AFTER DAY DO YOU THINK YOU WOULD STAY HEALTHY?

  314. a different brad said,

    September 3, 2007 at 0:59

    Y’know, dogstar ain’t worth this much attention.
    He decided a summary of an as yet unpublished paper, set to appear in a questinable journal that’s known for lack of rigorous peer review, means that it is incontrovertible fact that scientists do not have a consensus about global warming.
    The author of the study whose data this new paper is trying to draw new conclusions from says this new study is mistaken. In the press release describing it, which is all Dogstar has read, clearly, it claims that to not state, or strongly imply, that global warming is scientific fact in a scientific paper on the climate is an expression of skepticism. Further, we ask questions such as whether astronomers must reaffirm their belief in a heliocentric solar system to be counted as agreeing to the scientific claim that the earth revolves around the sun, and are told that having not read the study, we cannot challenge it in any way. In fact, challenging it without reading it can become a criminal offense, because me calling anyone a liar without empirical proof is a civil crime. We can only support it. The author of the original study whose data this new study depends on also cannot express an opinion on the new study, because she is a partisan hack who has no credentials to stand on.
    Dogstar has no argument. He’s simply making baseless claims of authority. His logic is internally contradictory, he dodges the questions he can’t answer, and spends more time congratulating himself for being incoherent than he does actually providing poorly constructed arguments.
    Dogstar needs to begin by taking a good class on formal logic, so he can translate his claims into something with actual argumentative force. You, Dogstar, have provided no reason to take you as an authority, and abundant cause to take you as a relative fool, at least in regards to this attempted debate.

  315. FlipYrWhig said,

    September 3, 2007 at 1:04

    At this point it hardly matters, but even though Oreskes describes herself as a “historian of science,” when I had Intro to Earth Science class with her — in the early 1990s — she had slides of herself wearing a hard-hat and a jumpsuit heading into mines. She was definitely teaching Earth Science, i.e. geology, not history of geology (I did take a similar class, but not with her, and it wasn’t one of my better classes, because I’m one of those ig’nant humanatees types).

    If that counts for anything — and if you’re invested in thinking it doesn’t, so be it — it suggests that Oreskes is not an outsider to the field, and is in fact better credentialed than her newly-minted critics.

  316. Righteous Bubba said,

    September 3, 2007 at 1:05

    You, Dogstar, have provided no reason to take you as an authority, and abundant cause to take you as a relative fool, at least in regards to this attempted debate.

    WhuwhuWHAT? He posts at Ace of Spades!

    Apart from any of that, I don’t think he really understands that if the scientific consensus changes people posting here will be okay with it. We like science’n'stuff. If it turns out that the cause of global warming is the anger of Galactus we’ll promptly abandon the prevailing view.

  317. Righteous Bubba said,

    September 3, 2007 at 1:07

    “Prevailing” should probably be “current”.

  318. His Grace said,

    September 3, 2007 at 1:27

    I have a link (wait sorry, it’s down) to a press release from Stan Lee about an upcoming publication in Marvel Comics Really Serious Sciency-type Journal-thingy by Jack Kirby. This paper (which is peer reviewed by the finest scienticians money can buy) will prove once and for all that it is not humans but Galactus who is responsible for global warming. You may refute it when it comes out, but until such time and it is reviewed by someone INDEPENDENTLY (IE not from the global warming-scientific-Al Gore is FAT-industrial complex) you can do nothing but accept my assertions as fact. Any questioning of Stan Lee or Jack Kirby without first reading the unpublished paper is tantamount to accusing them of lying and as such is libelous in nature.

  319. mikey said,

    September 3, 2007 at 1:30

    Global warming, evolution
    I don’t have a dog in this fight
    Peer-reviewed research, elocution
    I don’t know who’s right

    But I’m thinkin that there probably are
    Some things I should be doing
    Stockpile weapons, gold coins in a jar
    In case climate troubles a’brewing…

    If things aren’t so bad, if I turn out to be wrong
    Won’t my face be red
    But if they were right all along
    At least I won’t be dead…

    mikey

  320. observer said,

    September 3, 2007 at 1:34

    Mallard Fillmore said,

    September 2, 2007 at 19:03

    Kevin, you’re very funny. Can I hire you as a writer?

    That’s great.

  321. M. Bouffant said,

    September 3, 2007 at 1:43

    Sadly, No! Customer Service: Please, I’m begging you here, post something/anything else so we can get off this crap. It’s like “Asymmetrical Information” (Megatron’s “web log”) around here!! Science no, snarkery yes!!
    And it’s hotter in here than my below normal average body temperature. That debunks any “we still have winter, ergo no GW!!” arguments.

  322. Galactus said,

    September 3, 2007 at 1:54

    Galactus hungers for a the life-energy of a planet with new posts!

  323. Lawnguylander said,

    September 3, 2007 at 1:58

    I mean, I understand the mercenary havks who get paid to propagate flat-earth whimsy. I just don’t get the folks who do that shit for free.

    For free? Dogstar only wishes it had been free:

    Ace, thanks for letting me post. I’m hitting the tip jar now.

    That was in his follow up post letting all the Aceholes know that he was the subject of ridicule over here. I think he was trying to get some of them to come over and defend him but unfortunately all he could muster was teh Bruce and Headless Lucy so he had to go back into the comments and try again by falsely characterizing the ass kicking he’s been getting here:

    I especially enjoy how the lefties try desperately to trash the scientific credentials of the “AGW” researchers, while simultaneously using Al Gore, Sheryl Crow, Laurie David and Leo DiCaprio as sources.

    They trashed me as “dumb” until they found out I am a patent-holding Chemical Engineer.

    After that, they trashed me as “nerdy”.

    Lol…

    Lol indeed, Dogstar. Ace’s gang won’t notice that you lied to them about the nature of the drubbing your getting. Nor would they care if they did notice but I guess you already knew that or you would have found someone else to take your money.

  324. His Grace said,

    September 3, 2007 at 2:05

    When were we making fun of him for being “nerdy?” I just searched the entire comments thread for “nerdy”. Only Lawnguylander’s comment shows. I don’t think any of us ever thought he was too over intelligent for his own good.

  325. some lawyer said,

    September 3, 2007 at 2:05

    Our society operates under the presumption that someone is telling the truth, until shown otherwise (just as we also operate under the presumption that someone accused of a crime is innocent until shown otherwise).

    I don’t know much about science, but the civil justice system doesn’t assume a plaintiff is telling the truth. The plaintiff must prove his or her case by a preponderance of the evidence or, in some instances, clear and convincing evidence.

    The presumption of innocence is a function of the fact that the penalties for a crime include deprivation of life and liberty. Why do I make this obvious point? Just because it’s stupid to say, “I assume x (whom I agree with) is telling the truth, and you should too” outside the context of a criminal trial.

  326. El Cid said,

    September 3, 2007 at 2:17

    To claim that global warming is man made is a little hard to believe, especially when many of the same experts 25 years ago said the evidence was unanimously in favor of global cooling.

    No, contrary to anti-global warming hype, there was no scientific consensus by climate scientists about the “Global Cooling” scenario, its popularity was mostly due to its catchy media exposure from the few studies which suggested it.

    However, “Global Cooling” as an atmospheric process is not only real, you should be thankful for its assistance right now. Aerosol pollution in the atmosphere which reflects away solar energy is responsible, right now, for counteracting the amount of global warming we are experiencing.

    Pollution in the air can be of types of small particle matter rather than invisible gases. Particles which are high in the atmosphere reflect light from the Sun away from the Earth.

    If we were to remove a tremendous amount of our particulate pollution from the atmosphere, global warming would increase even more rapidly. On the other hand, if we were to increase particulates pollution, humans would suffer illnesses due to particulate pollutions convecting around to breathable altitudes.

    So, it’s kind of funny that the example given to contradict the global warming consensus, the “Global Cooling” predicted by some scientists several decades ago, actually strengthens rather than undermines the scientific understanding of atmospheric energy exchange and therefore ‘global warming’.

  327. Spokane Moderate said,

    September 3, 2007 at 2:26

    I especially enjoy how the lefties try desperately to trash the scientific credentials of the “AGW” researchers, while simultaneously using Al Gore, Sheryl Crow, Laurie David and Leo DiCaprio as sources.

    They trashed me as “dumb” until they found out I am a patent-holding Chemical Engineer.

    After that, they trashed me as “nerdy”.

    Lol…

    Wow. From someone who just wants honest debate, I’m shocked, SHOCKED to see this. Is there a statement of fact in that that’s true? How disappointing. I was so convinced he was being truthful when he claimed he desired honest debate.

    My world is shattered, and Bruce isn’t here anymore to help me through these dark days. How can I possibly carry on?

  328. tb said,

    September 3, 2007 at 2:26

    They trashed me as “dumb” until they found out I am a patent-holding Chemical Engineer.

    I’m somehow reminded of the computer guy on The Office.

  329. RCP said,

    September 3, 2007 at 2:32

    When were we making fun of him for being “nerdy?”

    We weren’t.

    I especially enjoy how the lefties try desperately to trash the scientific credentials of the “AGW” researchers, while simultaneously using Al Gore, Sheryl Crow, Laurie David and Leo DiCaprio as sources.

    Al Gore was mentioned twice in passing, and Sheryl Crow, Laurie David(who?), and Leonardo DiCaprio weren’t mentioned at all. Oreskes and ScienceBlogs were used several times, but Oreskes didn’t count since she got ZOMGROFLPWNED by Schulte or something, and ScienceBlogs is apparently a crank site.

    I’d call Dogstar a liar, but then I’d have the cops called on me.

  330. mikey said,

    September 3, 2007 at 2:45

    What I’ve learned from this thread.

    By: mikey

    It’s getting to be time to start working on dinner, so I went upstairs to get high and discovered I needed to clean some pot. I’m currently working out of three completely different bags, so have been experimenting with different “blends”. Oddly, my research is leading me towards the conclusion that blends tend to be less effective, or at least less pleasurable, than any of the specific varietals in the blend. I’ll have the research finished this year, whereupon I’ll write up my findings in a world-shaking white paper. But I was thinking about this thread, and I thought “Oh No, who will I get to peer-review my work?” I’m stumped….

    mikey

  331. objectively pro- said,

    September 3, 2007 at 2:56

    “Centre” is how the word is spelt in Canada

    I was dropping a cheque in the postbox when I saw a grey tuque in the centre of the road. It had a zed embroidered on it and a strange odour like muskeg, so I picked it up with an axe and wrapped it in a serviette to take it home and see if it matched the one I saw in the catalogue. My pogey had run out. I had to get my hoser neighbour to lend me a few loonies and twonies for some homo milk and a two-four while I was oot and aboot.

  332. Djur said,

    September 3, 2007 at 3:03

    This is all I have to say on this subject.

  333. mikey said,

    September 3, 2007 at 3:08

    “Embroidered”??

    mikey

  334. peer said,

    September 3, 2007 at 3:15

    Dood…

    (holds it in)

    I’m reviewin’ yer shit right now…

    (coughs a little)

    I never really looked at that wallpaper before…

    (exhales)

  335. Joe in SF said,

    September 3, 2007 at 3:18

    Marita and Kevin,

    As someone else who holds a chemical engineering degree, I can’t claim to be a climatologist, but I’m pretty sure that a PhD involving any form of physics at least equals and probably trumps a chemical engineer’s knowledge of the same, reagrdless of patents held or grades in their junior year transport-phenomena classes.

  336. some lawyer said,

    September 3, 2007 at 3:31

    I’ll have the research finished this year, whereupon I’ll write up my findings in a world-shaking white paper. But I was thinking about this thread, and I thought “Oh No, who will I get to peer-review my work?” I’m stumped….

    Peer review is not essential to admissibility of your expert testimony in a COURT OF LAW!!!11!. You can be qualified as an expert on the basis of your experience, even in the absence of formal scientific training.

    Boy, is this a long thread. I’m pretty drunk, too.

  337. Ghost of Joe Liebling's Dog said,

    September 3, 2007 at 3:32

    Here I am, back in the Land of Many Many Comments … did Dogstar ever answer that question? My bet was he wouldn’t, and I’m staying with that … but did he?

    With kind regards,
    Dog, etc.
    i remember home

  338. Matt T. said,

    September 3, 2007 at 3:34

    But I was thinking about this thread, and I thought “Oh No, who will I get to peer-review my work?” I’m stumped….

    *raises hand*

    I’ve even got my own lab coat. And I can make some cookie dough or bring some cartoons.

  339. Kevin said,

    September 3, 2007 at 3:34

    “Hoosier X said,
    September 2, 2007 at 23:58
    Kevin, none of us would a bit if you go on having a life.”

    Heh. Wha?

    Marita said,
    [wipes tear from eye]
    Via con dios, Bruce!

    Did you just say ‘by way of with God’? Clearly you see why I don’t believe your degree is in hard science now. vaya con carne, lady. (go with cheese)

  340. RubDMC said,

    September 3, 2007 at 3:35

    Mikey, I’m on my way over to become a willing guinea pig in your ongoing study. I know that it will be hard work, but I am willing to sacrifice for the cause of science, knowledge, and Our Way of Life.

    Someone’s gotta do it, so it might as well be me.

    And, Mom, I don’t know when I’ll be home, or if I’ll ever come back home at all. If I don’t, please make sure that Cheryl does not mess with my stuff. I mean it.

    Thanks.

    PS – Dogstar can suck my balls.

  341. objectivelypro said,

    September 3, 2007 at 3:38

    but did he?

    No.

    But this will forevermore be known as the Dogstar thread.

    So he can pin that to his chest and peacock around wingnuttia for the next couple days.

  342. Shorter Kevin said,

    September 3, 2007 at 3:39

    I am one hilarious dude.

  343. Kevin said,

    September 3, 2007 at 3:39

    “objectively pro- said,
    Plus it’s extremely enjoyable to poke fun at the hippies who…
    As long as nobody pokes fun at your precious soldiers, eh, Kevin?”

    Indeed. Plus it’s probably wrong to poke fun at the Jews. It’s ok to trash Olmert though! I looked it up in the ‘poking humor’ book.

  344. Taller Kevin said,

    September 3, 2007 at 3:40

    And awfully tall!

  345. Kevin said,

    September 3, 2007 at 3:41

    via con stilts, shorter Kevin :)

  346. Thers said,

    September 3, 2007 at 3:41

    vaya con carne, lady. (go with cheese)

    If you were any dumber, you’d grow on a damp week-old bagel.

  347. tigrismus said,

    September 3, 2007 at 3:43

    vaya con carne, lady. (go with cheese)

    OH MY GOD KEVIN ACTUALLY MADE A JOKE!!! THAT WAS FUNNY!!! Mikey, did you inject any of that stuff into the Sadly airflow?

  348. tigrismus said,

    September 3, 2007 at 3:46

    Assuming, of course.

    And I too have a lab coat and some free time…

  349. Via con dios said,

    September 3, 2007 at 3:46

    Shorter Kevin: Kevin has a short wienie.

  350. Kevin said,

    September 3, 2007 at 3:48

    “Joe in SF said,
    Marita and Kevin,

    As someone else who holds a chemical engineering degree, I can’t claim to be a climatologist, but I’m pretty sure that a PhD involving any form of physics at least equals and probably trumps a chemical engineer’s knowledge of the same, reagrdless[sic] of patents held or grades in their junior year transport-phenomena classes.”

    Didn’t even know we were discussing climatology! But my premise is not that a PhD in physics is somehow a bad thing. It’s that Marita doesn’t have one. It’s that if she does have a PhD, it’s in astrology or sociology, or some other worthless hippie crap.

  351. Vaya con carne said,

    September 3, 2007 at 3:48

    Sweet Jeezus on a taco, can we get a new thread already? Have mercy.

  352. Carolyn Applebee said,

    September 3, 2007 at 3:50

    Kevin has a GED. Really! He does too! It’s almost as good as a high school diploma, so quit laughing.

  353. Candy said,

    September 3, 2007 at 3:51

    Um, sadly, no, Kev. Carne is meat. Queso is cheese.

  354. Ann Outhouse said,

    September 3, 2007 at 3:53

    Shorter Kevin: Kevin has a short wienie.

    Wow, “via con dios,” that’s SO mature.

    Everyone knows Kevin has no wienie.

  355. Candy said,

    September 3, 2007 at 4:01

    I left, dropped off the partner a couple of blocks away, went to the law library at the nearby university, spent about an hour and a half finding and shepherdizing cases that establish the meaning in law of “may” and “shall”, picked up the partner, picked up take-out, came home, and ate, and this thread is still going . . .

    I feel I must join the “new thread” chorus. For the love of all that’s good and decent, I beg you, Sadly,No!

  356. Jillian said,

    September 3, 2007 at 4:13

    Only one thing I’ve found makes more sense than dogstar’s arguments:

    This.

  357. FlipYrWhig said,

    September 3, 2007 at 4:21

    Shorter Kevin: Mom! Look what I can do! Mom! Mom! Look! You’re not looking, Mom! Mom! Look!

  358. Kevin said,

    September 3, 2007 at 4:23

    Haha oops! I think I said ‘go with meat’ to marita :)

  359. Kevin said,

    September 3, 2007 at 4:24

    Flip, you’re going to have to use less words or say ‘longer Kevin’.

  360. Dogstar said,

    September 3, 2007 at 4:27

    PS – Dogstar can suck my balls.

    ROFL!!!!!!!!!

    I can always tell when I’ve won the argument. That right there is the clearest admission of defeat anyone could ask for.

    (That, plus all the whining for a new thread. Sounds like some of you are ready to give up on this subject. That’s fine with me- when all the immature name-callers give up and go somewhere else, maybe the grown-ups can have a rational discussion.)

  361. fuck repukes said,

    September 3, 2007 at 4:33

    maybe the grown-ups can have a rational discussion

    On behalf of three-quarters of the American people, I just want to say to our Ace O’Spades trolls, eat my asshole out.

    Looking forward to 2008, you redneck shitheads.

    P.S. This is your subtle invitation to get the fuck out of here, jerkoffs.

  362. Righteous Bubba said,

    September 3, 2007 at 4:35

    I can always tell when I’ve won the argument.

    And I’ll bet you’re the only one.

  363. Jrod said,

    September 3, 2007 at 4:35

    OMG someone hurry and post a new thread before word of our defeat at the hands of Dogstar and Kevin gets out!

    Dogstar says he won, and if we disagree that’s means we’re calling him a liar, which as we all know could lead to hard fed time at Up The Butt Penitentiary. No parole, bitches!

  364. tigrismus said,

    September 3, 2007 at 4:41

    You can tell you’ve won when you’re told to suck someone’s balls? To paraphrase another, your life must be made of win.

    Maybe address some of the 300+ points you’ve ignored before you take home the trophy, though, iffen you don’t mind.

  365. Dogstar said,

    September 3, 2007 at 4:41

    I concede this argument and acknowledge that I was completely wrong.

  366. Righteous Bubba said,

    September 3, 2007 at 4:42

    Oh, well, sir, nice to have made your acquaintance. What a gentleman.

  367. Dogstar said,

    September 3, 2007 at 4:43

    When were we making fun of him for being “nerdy?”

    We weren’t.

    Um… RCP? Uh, you might want to try READING the comments on the thread before making any more pronouncements.

    Oh, and could you please explain to me how anyone can call the cops on someone for a CIVIL legal issue, such as libel, slander, etc.?

    Jeez, people. I’m just asking for a common sense, rational, calm discussion about GW.

  368. Dogstar said,

    September 3, 2007 at 4:47

    P.S. This is your subtle invitation to get the fuck out of here, jerkoffs.

    Well, I guess a little calm, rational, civil discussion was a little too much to ask for.

    Dogstar said,

    September 3, 2007 at 4:41

    I concede this argument and acknowledge that I was completely wrong.

    And now the sock puppets come out? Yes, I guess a rational discussion was too much to ask for…

  369. FlipYrWhig said,

    September 3, 2007 at 4:47

    Quick, somebody say *he’s* won the argument. Then Dog and Kevin will say “did not,” and be feeling pretty high and mighty. But that’s when we’ll jump in with the “did too, infinity.”

  370. DOGFART said,

    September 3, 2007 at 4:49

    Liberals don’t understand! Unocal made me sign a pre-employment contract guaranteeing my opposition to GW science, and then when they merged with Chevron the evil bastards made my kids wear explosive collars! They’ll kill them if I don’t go along!

    Oh, fuck, I’ve said too much!!!

  371. Righteous Bubba said,

    September 3, 2007 at 4:49

    Jeez, people. I’m just asking for a common sense, rational, calm discussion about GW.

    Let me consult my press-release file and I’ll get back to you with some GOLD.

  372. tigrismus said,

    September 3, 2007 at 4:50

    Fine, don’t address them, because no one really cares except as a lazy Sunday diversion. The article itself will be released and peer reviewed eventually, and we’ll see how your pronouncements hold up. Place your bets, folks.

  373. a different brad said,

    September 3, 2007 at 4:50

    Remember, whenever a winger declares “mission accomplished”, they mean it.

    Doggie? You have to present an argument for it to win. You randomly flailed about in an almost masturbatory way, spouting mistaken claims. When your premises are false, your conclusions are invalid.
    You really should take a logic class.

  374. fuck repukes said,

    September 3, 2007 at 4:51

    Well, I guess a little calm, rational, civil discussion was a little too much to ask for.

    Dogstar, just go. You are an obvious liar and an asshole. Get out of here. Go back to blowing Ace. Is that difficult to understand?

  375. a different brad said,

    September 3, 2007 at 4:53

    He’s back. Sooooooprise.
    Doggie, darlin, I’ve read the whole thread. You were never called nerdy, and the only one who brought up algore and decrapio n etc wuz you.
    As has been said, that’ll fly on your home turf where they’ll take you at your word, but here in a place that has an actual relationship with reality, no go. Sorry.

  376. Dogstar said,

    September 3, 2007 at 4:53

    Maybe address some of the 300+ points you’ve ignored before you take home the trophy, though, iffen you don’t mind.

    Been there, done that. Yes, I read the study summary. Care to make a detailed listing of the “300+ points” I’ve “ignored”? Or, you could just go back and re-read the comments.

    Either way is fine with me.

  377. FlipYrWhig said,

    September 3, 2007 at 4:54

    I heard that someone in Iraq said that George Bush should suck his balls, and that’s conclusive proof we’re winning there, too.

    It was an American soldier, but, still, that kinda counts.

  378. Dogstar said,

    September 3, 2007 at 4:57

    Dogstar, just go. You are an obvious liar and an asshole.

    Wow. That’s kind of sad. I thought liberals were supposed to be intellectual, interested in complex issues, open to discussion, tolerant of other points of view, etc.

  379. Dogstar said,

    September 3, 2007 at 4:59

    FlipYrWhig said,

    September 3, 2007 at 4:54

    I heard that someone in Iraq said that George Bush should suck his balls, and that’s conclusive proof we’re winning there, too.

    It was an American soldier, but, still, that kinda counts.

    And this relates to GW… how?

  380. fuck repukes said,

    September 3, 2007 at 5:00

    Dogstar, you misunderestimate the patience of rational Americans like me with your bullshit. You are a jackoff promoting global warming denial. Piss off back to Ace O’Spades, clown.

  381. noen said,

    September 3, 2007 at 5:00

    I agree with Righteous Bubba. There will be no gloating from me. Any unkind words I may have said I take back.

  382. FlipYrWhig said,

    September 3, 2007 at 5:02

    And this relates to GW… how?

    Why, it’s GW Bush, of course! [rimshot]

    Really, you’re going to play threadcop on someone else’s blog?

  383. tigrismus said,

    September 3, 2007 at 5:07

    300+ was not a scientific estimate. Maybe if I’d said eight hundred THOUSAND the literary device would have been more clear. Also, no one asked if you’d read the SUMMARY, but if you’d read the PAPER. Maybe you could just go back and re-read the comments etc etc. CTRL-F can be helpful.

    Finally, I read the comments, and you missed quite a few, but no, I don’t care to reread them and post helpful little linkies for you. Point being, though, that if you wish to be taken seriously as someone interested in honest debate, you would read the comments addressed to you and respond to them before you declare victory.

  384. El Cid said,

    September 3, 2007 at 5:08

    Liberals are under no instructions to be “tolerant” toward moronic arguments and lunatic points of view, no matter how much it pains the right that their attempts to demean rational discourse are opposed by people who are tired of their sh*t.

  385. Zython said,

    September 3, 2007 at 5:10

    What I fail to understand is why conservatives LIKE pollution so damn much. What do they like the best? That we’re dependant on foreign oil? The poisoning of the air and water? The O-zone depletion? Do they LIKE the idea of increased number of cases of skin cancer*? Or they just plain hate America?

    I think the safest bet would be going with “all of the above”.

    *Wouldn’t be the first time that conservatives were pro-cancer.

  386. Candy said,

    September 3, 2007 at 5:10

    I’m going to give you some advice regarding style, Dogstar. If you want to be taken seriously by Teh Grownups, don’t use teeny-bopper acronyms like ROTFL and LOL. It’s kind of embarrassing, in a “the guy just pissed his pants and doesn’t even know it” kind of way.

    Hey! Did you choose Dogstar as your handle because you’re a “sirius” guy?

  387. abanterer said,

    September 3, 2007 at 5:12

    Rational discussion. Fine.

    OK, You supported Shulte’s as yet unpublished paper on the percentage of scientist’s supporting global warming. To wit:

    Of 528 total papers on climate change, only 38 (7%) gave an explicit endorsement of the consensus. If one considers “implicit” endorsement (accepting the consensus without explicit statement), the figure rises to 45%. However, while only 32 papers (6%) reject the consensus outright, the largest category (48%) are neutral papers, refusing to either accept or reject the hypothesis. This is no “consensus.”

    However, there are two links in this thread that I saw that directly refute this issue, one from Oreskes taking Shulte to task for abusing her work, and another noting that Shulte’s assertion may be based on Peiser, who was proven wrong some time ago.

    You have commented on these, sort of. You suggested that Oreskes was simply trying to save face, though you don’t actually refute any of her contentions. The other link was simply ignored. So, you really haven’t defended Shulte, but you’ve just dismissed his critics without a sound argument of your own.

    So, it seems that while there is a paper challenging the percentage of scientists supporting global warming, that paper has been called into question regarding it’s own methodology. So, why should I believe Shulte before Oreskes? And, while you’re at it, how does a paper on climate change which doesn’t mention global warming one way or another count as being against consensus?

  388. Fishbone McGonigle said,

    September 3, 2007 at 5:16

    So, Abiding Dude, where’s your published account of the unicorn? Did you announce that you completed a study that will be submitted for peer review?

    Funny you should mention the whole “peer review” thing, since that is apparently a big part of the problem with Energy & Environment . . .

    Oooops.

  389. George Soros said,

    September 3, 2007 at 5:18

    Okay, my minions, here’s the orders from on high:

    Let the record show: Dogstar has asked for rational discussion. Also: Dogstar has been engaged in rational discussion by abanterer.

    No one engage Dogstar on anything else until he responds to abanterer, otherwise he’ll just ignore him and then claim after 300 more comments that teh libtards don’t tolerate him and aren’t Serious™.

    Who am I kidding? Mock him to death. As you were…

  390. Dogstar said,

    September 3, 2007 at 5:21

    Liberals are under no instructions to be “tolerant” toward moronic arguments and lunatic points of view…

    Well, neither are conservatives, but I’ve been trying to have an insult-free, rational discussion here for quite a while, and you seem to be more interested in spewing bile and insults than exchanging ideas.

    Is it “lunatic” and “moronic” to assume that Middle Age temperatures were higher than today, because parts of Greenland were actually, um, green back then? With, you know, farms and stuff?

    Is it “lunatic” or “moronic” to note that using ethanol is causing food prices world-wide to skyrocket, with the result of increasing world poverty and hunger?

    Is it “lunatic” or “moronic” to state undisputable facts, like the average temperatures in the US in 1991-1997 and 2000-2005 were LOWER than the average temperatures in the US in 1921, 1931, 1934, 1938-9 and 1953?

    Is it “lunatic” or “moronic” to try and explain that water vapor contributes about 20 times as much towards GW as CO2?

    Is it “lunatic” or “moronic” to expect an honest, rational discussion from the commenters at this site?

    (Actually, it looks like the answer to that last one is a definite “yes”!)

  391. abanterer said,

    September 3, 2007 at 5:22

    Gee, thanks. No pressure or anything.

  392. Carolyn Applebee said,

    September 3, 2007 at 5:26

    This is teh STUPID! We’ve all gone mad from lack of fresh S,N! post.

    First of all, I thought “Dogstar” (**cough**gay Keanu Reeves groupie**cough**) was the same sad sack o shit as AceHole, or whatever. You mean there are two different wads of such idiocy at one justifiably obscure site? Huh.

  393. fuck repukes said,

    September 3, 2007 at 5:28

    I’ve been trying to have an insult-free, rational discussion here for quite a while

    We all appreciate your heroic efforts to elevate the discourse, but why don’t you fuck off, asshole?

  394. Carolyn Applebee said,

    September 3, 2007 at 5:29

    And besides, why is this whole trail of banter occurring here instead of at AceHole’s place? I mean, it was his blippity flippity to begin with, right? So why is he over here, or his alter ego, or whatever, acting all snotty and everything? It’s not like it’s his blog. I guess cuz no one comes to his blog? I’d click over and check but I just washed my hair.

  395. George Soros said,

    September 3, 2007 at 5:30

    Gee, thanks. No pressure or anything.

    Oh, you didn’t say anything new or different (sorry), you just repeated the same points that people have tried, and failed, to get him to engage on for the past close to 400 comments. I was simply getting my toot-toot in on the bicycle horn in this madhouse before a new post freshens the air in here.

    He refuses to engage anyone, even someone who tries to debate him seriously, then when faced with overwhelming mockery, claims we have no argument because we won’t take him seriously.

    Typical wingnut.

  396. Candy said,

    September 3, 2007 at 5:30

    Respond to abanterer, please, Mister Dogstar. Point by point. Like an adult. Honestly. Rationally.

    abanterer said,

    September 3, 2007 at 5:12

    (I know High Lord Soros released us to mock, but I like the idea of forcing dogstar to respond. Honestly & rationally.)

  397. Simba B. said,

    September 3, 2007 at 5:30

    Yeah, might want to change the snark-name…

  398. Dogstar said,

    September 3, 2007 at 5:30

    However, there are two links in this thread that I saw that directly refute this issue, one from Oreskes taking Shulte to task for abusing her work, and another noting that Shulte’s assertion may be based on Peiser, who was proven wrong some time ago.

    A reasonable request, and one I will be happy to address.

    (1) Oreskes disputes Schulte’s work, but doesn’t provide any supporting data. Schulte’s work appears to be completely separate from Oreskes, because he focused on a different data set than she did (different time periods). I don’t understand how any of you can make any assumption as to whether Oreskes is more or less accurate than Schulte. What would you base it on? A few comments she made?

    (2) Schulte’s work and Peiser’s work have no connection that I am aware of. Did Schulte credit Peiser in his study summary? Not to my knowledge.

    I acknowledge that Oreskes appears to be a bit pissed off, but I don’t see how anything she says can be taken seriously. After all, she’s involved here and she seems to be very defensive.

    If you can provide a third party who examined both studies and weighed in with an analysis, it would be helpful.

  399. abanterer said,

    September 3, 2007 at 5:35

    Good point GS. And as to why I’m not at AoS? My guess is I don’t want to add to his traffic, I don’t like Ace of Spades in general, and I don’t actually have the time to spend constantly post defenses from half a dozen people, and it’s only because of the 3 day weekend that I am even posting at all.

  400. El Cid said,

    September 3, 2007 at 5:37

    Is it “lunatic” and “moronic” to assume that Middle Age temperatures were higher than today, because parts of Greenland were actually, um, green back then? With, you know, farms and stuff?

    Actually, yes, and this is apparent from a moment’s reflection on both the types of things such things would and would not prove if true, and upon a few moments’ more inspection of the truly rotten evidence of this miraculous warming period anyway.

    So, yes, it is indeed lunatic and moronic to assume that Middle Age temperatures were higher than today because certain texts mention crops growing in microclimates of vaguely described areas.

  401. Silent Majority said,

    September 3, 2007 at 5:40

    Okay, Dogstar has convinced me: global warming doesn’t exist. IN YR FACE BITCHEZ!!!111!

  402. Ghost of Joe Liebling's Dog said,

    September 3, 2007 at 5:41

    Still catching up … four hundred comments or so, but did Dogstar ever say clearly whether or not he read the paper? Or is it still just the press release he’s on about?

  403. El Cid said,

    September 3, 2007 at 5:44

    Is it “lunatic” or “moronic” to note that using ethanol is causing food prices world-wide to skyrocket, with the result of increasing world poverty and hunger?

    Yes, yes it is.

    And that’s because that has nothing to do with arguments about whether or not global warming (regardless of the actual strength of that argument) is real and influenced heavily by the industrial use of fossil fuels.

    Ethanol has mainly been promoted mainly for concerns regarding energy independence, and although, again, this is IRRELEVANT to ‘debates’ about GW, it has mainly been pushed by the wealthy farm corporations growing the near food crops currently used to produce it.

  404. Heywood J. said,

    September 3, 2007 at 5:46

    That was in his follow up post letting all the Aceholes know that he was the subject of ridicule over here. I think he was trying to get some of them to come over and defend him but unfortunately all he could muster was teh Bruce and Headless Lucy so he had to go back into the comments and try again by falsely characterizing the ass kicking he’s been getting here

    Yeah, it’s a real shame “Wicked Pinto” didn’t lurch in and drop his usual 1½¢ of wisdom. That would have r0xx0r3d teh m4x, especially when he’s off his meds. What good are robo-minions if they aren’t at your beck and call on a holiday weekend to bolster your intellectual dishonesty. Is there no honor among trollz?!1!!

  405. El Cid said,

    September 3, 2007 at 5:47

    Is it “lunatic” or “moronic” to state undisputable facts, like the average temperatures in the US in 1991-1997 and 2000-2005 were LOWER than the average temperatures in the US in 1921, 1931, 1934, 1938-9 and 1953?

    Yes, yes it is, even if those facts were in-disputable.

    And that’s mainly because global warming is, as the term suggests, mainly concerned with the energy and heat budget of the entire planet, and not variations in regional conditions.

    For example, some scenarios envisioned given extreme global warming hypothesize that one of the great ocean thermohaline cycles bringing warm air to Europe could break down (in part due to the influx of freshwater from melting polar ice) — and the result of that could be somewhat of an Ice Age for Europe.

    So even under conditions in which some areas got hot while some areas got colder, no, this still has nothing to do with the science of global warming.

  406. El Cid said,

    September 3, 2007 at 5:51

    Is it “lunatic” or “moronic” to try and explain that water vapor contributes about 20 times as much towards GW as CO2?

    Yes. Yes it is.

    And that is because real climatologists studying atmospheric energy exchanges already realize that. That’s why their equations describing the patterns of photons traveling through and out the atmosphere have to deal with that.

    That’s why scientists who study global warming concentrate on those fractional effects which would be added by industrially produced gases such as CO2 or methane, rather than wondering what would happen if all of a sudden there were no water vapor or CO2 in the atmosphere.

    That’s also why scientists who have helped fill out the scripts for those documentaries you may watch on TV about how the Earth formed and why it has life usually point out that Earth’s atmosphere is what keeps it from being an icy, dead world.

    So, yes, it is lunatic and moronic to raise as an objection to GW science a point which is at the very heart of what scientists who study GW are dealing with.

  407. objectivelypro said,

    September 3, 2007 at 5:53

    Geez…I paddle a rubber dinghy down through the Panama Canal, pogostick my way across the Rockies, swim Hudson’s Bay, phone my Mom, come back here and this thread is still going on.

    Dogstar, just for example, you claimed climatologists are lying for money and refused to elaborate. Then you gave us a pious lecture about not assuming someone is lying. Does that make you tha winnah!! or does that make you a douchebag?

    We all watched as you obfuscated, backpedaled and played mum when you didn’t like a question. The commenters toyed with you like my cats pawing a baby robin. You were sad and pathetic, bud.

    Still, your one-celled fans over at Ace will probably never learn what a royal fool you’ve been here, so I guess that counts for something.

    Godspeed, ya nitwit.

  408. abanterer said,

    September 3, 2007 at 5:54

    Wait, has anyone actually read Shulte’s paper DS? What third party is available to review and compare the two, when one of these papers has only just been submitted to E&E, which isn’t a peer review journal? Barring Uatu that is.

    And Oreskes doesn’t have to provide new data when she’s chastizing him on his process. In fact, she covers in the #3 point something I touched on:

    3) The piece misrepresents the results we obtained. In the original AAAS talk on which the paper was based, and in various interviews and conversations after, I repeated pointed out that very few papers analyzed said anything explicit at all about the consensus position.This was actually a very important result, for the following reason. Biologists today never write papers in which they explicitly say “we endorse evolution”. Earth scientists never say “we explicitly endorse plate tectonics.” This is because these things are now taken for granted. So when we read these papers and observed this pattern, we took this to be very significant.We realized that the basic issue was settled, and we observed that scientists had moved on to discussing details of the problem, mostly tempo and mode issues: how fast, how soon, in what manner, with what impacts, etc.

    Again, is it even fair to bring up the “neutral” pieces as defying the Global Warming models? I suggest not so much.

    I’m giving Oreskes the benefit of the doubt because she published it to a magazine that is regularly read by her colleagues and peers, and placed her credibility on the line. She hasn’t been proven wrong; even you haven’t suggested that. But if she had, if her report was discovered to be false, she risks her career. Shulte didn’t send his paper to Science, or Nature, or any of the other journals specifying the Climate Scientist sub niche. He went to Inhofe’s people. That is not the sign of someone willing to break new ground in the debate. He loses nothing by being shown mistaken (or wrong). He goes back to his day job, and no one remembers the paper he wrote for E&E in a few years, except for the odd contarian who didn’t get the memo.

  409. zsa said,

    September 3, 2007 at 5:57

    El Cid,

    Now that’s a smackdown. Vaya con queso, my friend.

  410. ignobility said,

    September 3, 2007 at 5:58

    Mikey, I’d like to peer-review your study, but I’d definitely need to examine your “data” very closely to see if your conclusions match my own. I also think I should start my review before the study is finished and published, just so I can verify the validity of your research methodology and confirm your results. I have a feeling I’m not the only one who will volunteer for this project.

  411. Simba B. said,

    September 3, 2007 at 5:58

    Yes, excellent work, El Cid. It would be hard for even a wingnut to claim victory over that.

  412. El Cid said,

    September 3, 2007 at 5:59

    Mil gracias, compañer@. Era un placer por él que en buen ora cinxo su espada.

  413. abanterer said,

    September 3, 2007 at 5:59

    Yes, El Cid. Well Said.

    But was it reasonable?!?!?!?!

  414. El Cid said,

    September 3, 2007 at 6:02

    #
    abanterer said,
    September 3, 2007 at 5:59

    Yes, El Cid. Well Said.

    But was it reasonable?!?!?!?!

    I do not know. I am certain to receive punishment for failing to check with my Unity ’08 masters to see if I have passed their civility standards.

  415. abanterer said,

    September 3, 2007 at 6:05

    BTW, Have been reading a number of articles of late on the improving efficiency of solar cells and batteries of late. (Ok, a girl I knew in High School is a VP at a company that makes and installs them. My reunion was a couple of weeks ago. I read too much, do the math, then sue me.) So, I’m optimistic about what a reinvigorated energy infrastructure would do. Especially given that the next couple of presidents will have to sit down and begin rebuilding all the old infrastructure, that would be the time to be “Bold” and start on new energy infrastructure to take advantage of the new tech.

    Then again? Dirty Fuckin’ Hippy.

  416. Qetesh the Abyssinian said,

    September 3, 2007 at 6:06

    I’m somehow reminded of the computer guy on The Office.

    Nice call, tb. I think he’s got some of Gareth’s personality traits, as well.

  417. J— said,

    September 3, 2007 at 6:07

    Wait, has anyone actually read Shulte’s paper DS? What third party is available to review and compare the two, when one of these papers has only just been submitted to E&E, which isn’t a peer review journal? Barring Uatu that is.

    Christopher Walter, the Third Viscount Monckton of Brenchley, reproduces chunks of Schulte’s paper in his “‘Consensus’? What ‘Consensus’? Among Climate Scientists, the Debate Is Not Over” (July 2007, pdf).

  418. abanterer said,

    September 3, 2007 at 6:08

    Oh dear, El Cid…

    Looks like a turn in the brain worm pen for you then.

  419. Righteous Bubba said,

    September 3, 2007 at 6:14

    I say to you now, I am prepared to pee review anything anyone puts in front of me.

    Eh? What?

  420. objectivelypro said,

    September 3, 2007 at 6:16

    420 anyone???

  421. Matt T. said,

    September 3, 2007 at 6:19

    Ehhhhhhhh, close enough for jazz, I say.

  422. William Blake said,

    September 3, 2007 at 6:20

    Well, it appears Dogstar and Kevin are gone. I am moved to poetry:

    I will not cease from mental fight,
    Nor shall my sword sleep in my hand,
    Till we have built Jerusalem
    In England’s green and pleasant land.

    Yeah, the allusion escapes me too. God, I hate Republicans, and everything they have done to this country. It makes me want to scream.

  423. Qetesh the Abyssinian said,

    September 3, 2007 at 6:24

    Lordy lordy, look what a fine mess you’ve gotten us into. Somebody leaves the gates open, and before you know it, all the cattle have wandered into your lounge room and shat on the rugs.

    On the other hand, I’ve seen some masterly rebuttal from all and sundry, plus a snippet of the every-amusing The Office, and a marvellous Techno Swedish Chef, something I never thought I’d get to see. So thank you one and all.

    Now I think I’ll go back to sleep. Wake me if Dogsbreath ever admits to being a complete wankstain.

  424. abanterer said,

    September 3, 2007 at 6:30

    OK, J_ read some of the PDF you sent on the Oreskes/Shulte comparison, but I still have to give the benefit to Oreskes. Walter mentions Peiser’s earlier paper, but does not mention that he had recanted that position. (That may be due to this being recent, and after Walter’s report, in which Walter would be blameless, but it’s still a mark). Also, in one of the links (can’t do links, but it’s in this incredibly long thread), the issue of what the negative reports say butts heads against what Walter’s saying in the pdf.

    There’s also the issue of Walter’s own language in the report. He’s not being neutral with HIS language, oh you betcha. (Royal Society and NAS are political pressure groups? Not the way I’d define them, but… meh.)

  425. DaveS said,

    September 3, 2007 at 7:00

    Do you guys ever wonder why nobody ever actually surveys the damned scientists directly? Do you think that it might have something to do with the fact that everytime they’ve tried it in the past it doesn’t illustrate the “overwhelming consensus” they’ve been pushing all of these years? There is a reason people like Orestes resort to cleverly categorizing papers in such a way that scientists who don’t even take a position fall into the “consensus” category.

    Furthermore, if the consensus is merely “humans are having SOME impact, but nobody knows how much, or whether future warming–natural or anthropogenic–will be harmful”…and let’s be clear, that is probably the closest you will get to a real consensus… then you lose the argument

  426. M. Bouffant said,

    September 3, 2007 at 7:01

    Boring is not a strong enough word for all this. I’m off to Tbogg’s for some Sunday 5bros. blogging. (I hope.)
    ¡Vaya con queso, todos!

  427. Simba B. said,

    September 3, 2007 at 7:06

    DaveS,

    Sadly, No!

    Also, learn to use the Great Gazoogle once in a while.

    Although, that tends to make wingnuts lose arguments too.

  428. DaveS said,

    September 3, 2007 at 7:17

    SimbaB,

    A collection of positions taken by the boards of directors of various organizations is not a direct survey of scientists. A statement endorsing AGW theories by the board of the AMS is no more useful to determining the views of its membership than is a labor unions endorsement for a presidential candidate. I don’t think this is too hard to understand. Perhaps you deliberately missed my point?

    The only section on that wikipedia page that is relevant to my point is the section about surveys… and, like I said, when you remove the superfluous crap (like the Orestes survey, which clearly presupposed the desired result) and keep only direct surveys of scientists, the “consensus” fails to materialize… which brings me back to my question… why is it, do you think, that nobody ever simply surveys the scientists? That would settle the retarded “consensus” question for good, no?

    And, please don’t ever presume to know more than me about anything. I’m probably much more informed than you, and am almost certainly more intelligent that you. (Just sayin’… you’re the one who started with the attitude, so don’t bitch about it.)

    Off to bed for me.

  429. DaveS said,

    September 3, 2007 at 7:25

    Read this (PDF) (it was listed on your link).

  430. Simba B. said,

    September 3, 2007 at 7:26

    Given your arrogance, DaveS, I’m going to guess you are one of the engineering types we discussed upthread.

    And, please don’t ever presume to know more than me about anything. I’m probably much more informed than you, and am almost certainly more intelligent that you. (Just sayin’… you’re the one who started with the attitude, so don’t bitch about it.)

    Usually, when one has to assert superior intelligence, said intelligence is not, shall we say, patently obvious. Draw your own conclusions there (and don’t bitch about it, although I’m sure you will).

    Off to bed for me.

    Yeah, right, you’re hitting refresh compulsively on the page, WoW running in the background.

    Just like Kevin and his fabled lawn.

  431. Simba B. said,

    September 3, 2007 at 7:31

    I would just like to take the opportunity to point out that this page is 345 kilobytes.

    Holy shit.

  432. DEMIZE! said,

    September 3, 2007 at 7:34

    Where the fuck is Bruce when you need him?

  433. Dogstar said,

    September 3, 2007 at 7:55

    Wake me if Dogsbreath ever admits to being a complete wankstain.

    Like I said, name calling = admission of defeat.

  434. abanterer said,

    September 3, 2007 at 8:00

    Isn’t Storch (one of the authors of the paper just linked) on record as accepting global warming? I seem to recall he testified before Congress a few years ago.

  435. Lesley said,

    September 3, 2007 at 8:05

    The following paper is about the Dogstars, Kevins, Aces, and Confederate Yankees.

    Unskilled and Unaware of It: How Difficulties in Recognizing One’s Own Incompetence Lead to Inflated Self-Assessments

  436. a different brad said,

    September 3, 2007 at 8:09

    Like we said, you claiming victory = admission of defeat.

  437. owlbear1 said,

    September 3, 2007 at 8:09

    Dogstar,

    IF I SHIT IN YOUR MOUTH DAY AFTER DAY AFTER DAY DO YOU THINK YOU WOULD REMAIN HEALTHY?

    Why is this such a hard question for a Chemical Engineer to answer?

  438. Qetesh the Abyssinian said,

    September 3, 2007 at 8:14

    No, Dogstar, name calling is merely an expression of frustration at trying to converse reasonably and logically with someone who seems to comprehend neither reason nor logic.

    I’ll give it my shot, in simple words so that you can’t pretend to misunderstand. Ready?

    You claim that a press release proves that global warming is nonsense. Other posters here have repeatedly pointed out that this is foolish in the extreme, because the press release gives no details. I could just as easily put out a press release saying I’m Queen of the Universe, and the commenters here would ask me to substantiate that claim, just as they’re asking you to substantiate your claim.

    It seems, although you’ve repeatedly refused to answer the question directly, that you haven’t even read the paper you claim proves something. No self-respecting scientist would endanger their reputation by doing something so foolish.

    You’ve attempted to divert the argument with red herrings such as “how about that biofuel crap, that’s bad for the world”. If you understood logic, you’d see why this has no place in a discussion about whether or not global warming is happening, whether or not the vast majority of reputable scientists agree that it is, and to what degree it’s happening.

    You then repeatedly bring out the Greenland story and the hockey stick story, even though your use of both demonstrates that you don’t understand the difference between weather and climate.

    Furthermore, you claim that the author of the article in question in more credible than Oreskes, despite the fact that she has worked in the area for years and has built a solid reputation on papers published in reputable peer-reviewed journals, while he has never worked in the area and has submitted his paper to a non-peer-reviewed journal which is known for its belief-based selection policy. You claim she’s not credible because she’s an ‘interested party’.

    By this logic, all scientists who’ve published more than one paper in any field are not credible, since any prior work makes them an ‘interested party’ and hence biased.

    I could go further, but I’ve played here long enough. I need to go wash my mouth out.

    Please, Dogstar, do try to understand why people are growing frustrated with you.

  439. the_millionaire_lebowski said,

    September 3, 2007 at 8:23

    I like pie.

  440. Qetesh the Abyssinian said,

    September 3, 2007 at 8:23

    owlbear, I think he’s sulking over at Ace’s place, telling them how he totally pwned us or some such rubbish. Either that or he’s desperately wracking his brain to come up with (a) a witty rejoinder, or (b) some way to deny that you can poison an organism continuously and not have it respond.

    And yes, Lesley, the thing that irks me most is the way these idiots are so completely impervious to any sort of logic, facts, rationality, or anything at all. They gleefully trumpet their nonsense, with a “yah boo sucks!” air, while claiming superior rationality. I get so tired of politely pointing out that the Climate Fairies aren’t fixing the world as fast as we shit all over it.

    Then in comes Kevin with his gurgling cries of “Hippies!”. It’s more than mortal mind can bear, I tells ya.

    I so miss Bruce. He was always there for you, y’know?

  441. islmfaoscist said,

    September 3, 2007 at 8:32

    Bwaha, in wingnut world, science is decided by survey!

    Brings to mind the classic Onion headline, “Survey reveals Lead now the heaviest element.”

  442. cokane said,

    September 3, 2007 at 8:47

    “Is it “lunatic” and “moronic” to assume that Middle Age temperatures were higher than today, because parts of Greenland were actually, um, green back then? With, you know, farms and stuff?”

    Yes, actually it is. It’s called committing an ecological fallacy.

  443. cokane said,

    September 3, 2007 at 8:53

    “Is it “lunatic” or “moronic” to try and explain that water vapor contributes about 20 times as much towards GW as CO2?”

    Also moronic. It only takes a few degrees to cause a huge change. This is such a fucking stupid argument I can’t believe I hear it over and over again. For one, I don’t even think it’s true from the science related blogs I’ve read on the subject. And 2, even if there were some truth to it, only a tiny shift upward in global average temperature would cause a huge difference. For example if we heated the earth up enough to have rainforests in montana, life would still go on, but a whole lot of civilization would be pretty fucked.

  444. Jrod said,

    September 3, 2007 at 9:17

    Poor Dogstar was just looking for a pleasant three day weekend cordially debating the issue, but no. Once again those dirty hippies– ya know what, fuck it. This is waaaaaaay too goddamn stupid to even snark like that. Even Gary Ruppert thinks this is horseshit.

    This moron claims that a press release from Inhofe (R-Oil) touting the claims of an unreleased study which will supposedly be someday published in a shoddy vanity press joke of a scientific journal that doesn’t even peer review has conclusively destroyed the hippy environmentalists “ace in the hole.” He then claims that we could be sued for daring to suggest that Inhofe or Schulte could possibly be lying or fudging here, while he dismisses all the vast numbers of climatologists who believe in global warming as money-grubbing lying whores. (That is what that cute little $$$ was supposed to mean, right?)

    Speaking of which, Dogstar, I’d suggest you get yourself a good attorney. No doubt Oreskes already has her lawyer working on a civil suit against you for slandering her good name. You all but called her a liar, after all.

    Then, Dogstar ignores any responses made to him by El Cid, while making a point to respond to every post that calls him names. The fact that people would do this means he wins and global warming is a hoax. Or something, I’m not quite sure what point he was trying to make.

    Oh, wait, he never tried to make a point, he’s a dumbfuck troll. Oops, I just lost the argument for our side, rendering global warming a harmless myth. Drat it all, I was so looking forward to living in caves and subsisting off of grubs and berries like Al Gore wanted.

    Next on the chopping block: evolution? Heliocentrism? Gravity? Germs? If all that’s required to refute a scientific theory is for Dogstar to be called names, then he could lay waste to the last 500 years of scientific progress in a weekend. Such majestic power! Perhaps Ace will finally let you touch it… for your good work.

  445. Jrod said,

    September 3, 2007 at 9:24

    You got me runnin goin out of my mind,
    You got me thinkin that I’m wastin my time.
    Don’t bring me down, no no no no no, oo wee hoo
    I’ll tell you once more before I get off the floor
    Don’t bring me down.

    You wanna stay out with your fancy friends.
    I’m tellin you it’s got to be the end,
    Don’t bring me down, no no no no no no no no, oo wee hoo
    I’ll tell you once more before I get off the floor
    Don’t bring me down.

    Don’t bring me down, Bruce
    Don’t bring me down, Bruce
    Don’t bring me down, Bruce
    Don’t bring me down.

  446. a different brad said,

    September 3, 2007 at 10:05

    Ok.
    Jrod wins, with El Cid a close second.
    I’ll be charitable and simply note Doggie didn’t place.

  447. Hoosier X said,

    September 3, 2007 at 10:51

    I had to go to work, and I come back and find the same damn thread!

    Did Dogstar ever provide a false dichotomy, or did he just stick to the red herrings and the straw men?

    Perhaps he took advantage of the straw man bargains at Wal-Mart and now has a surplus.

  448. Rhyana said,

    September 3, 2007 at 12:49

    Now a day global warming controversy is very hype. NASA sciencetists completely work on global warming research. According the sciencetists after 30 year earth is completely effected by global warming.

  449. Incontinentia Buttocks said,

    September 3, 2007 at 14:05

    Apropos of nothing, I just figured out who that picture of Ace of Spades reminds me of. He looks frighteningly like a colleague of mine who, while occasionally petulant and childish, is both very smart and not at all a wingnut.

    I realize, of course, that this comment is of absolutely no interest to anyone else, but on this thread that puts it in very good (or at least very crowded) company.

  450. J— said,

    September 3, 2007 at 14:29

    1. Also, in one of the links (can’t do links, but it’s in this incredibly long thread), the issue of what the negative reports say butts heads against what Walter’s saying in the pdf.

    That’s a nice way of putting it. I would’ve used more colorful language to describe the Third Viscount Monckton of Brenchley’s representation of Schulte’s data, but then Dogstar would’ve threatened me with a lawsuit.

    2. I’ve quoted this here before, but bear with me for I think it’s germane to the present discussion:

    The main winger goals are inoculation, neutralization, and distraction. They don’t need to win arguments; they only need to spread confusion and make it seem that the other side is probably just as bad. “They’re just as bad as we are” is the most they hope to get.

    —Master wingnut watcher John Emerson

    3. Regresa, Bruce. Nos hace falta tu sabiduría.

  451. Jillian said,

    September 3, 2007 at 14:43

    This is going to sound nuts, but I KNOW I’ve heard of this Viscount guy before.

    IIRC, he doesn’t actually hold a degree in anything, but likes to spend his time dabbling in the sciences, as a proper Victorian gentleman should. I believe he’s also a (not-so-)closet monarchist, and is known for taking a reactionary stance on a number of issues.

    Am I crazy, or is this the guy?

  452. Landru said,

    September 3, 2007 at 15:03

    This is SOOOOO simple and I have learned SOOOO much here.

    1. Things mean what Dogstar says they mean.*

    2. Any form of disagreement is namecalling.**

    3. Factual arguments are meaningless.***

    4. Credentials are meaningless.****

    5. Circularity is life.*****

    What a fucking wanking liar–argue the semantics and legality all you want, Dogstar, you’re just another intellectually dishonest troll. You dismiss others’ questions as irrelevant, then raise too many red herrings and erect too many straw men to bother counting. Go away.

    *When they are said by Dogstar. When the same logical tools are used by others, they are either namecalling or admissions of defeat.

    **Unless Dogstar does it.

    ***Unless Dogstar attempts to make them, with facts that may or may not be facts.

    ****Unless Dogstar holds them.

    *****For Dogstar.

  453. Catstar™³²®© said,

    September 3, 2007 at 15:10

    See, that’s why catstars are better.

  454. J— said,

    September 3, 2007 at 15:14

    Jillian: The Observer ran a piece on him in May. Is this the same guy you’re thinking of?

  455. Jillian said,

    September 3, 2007 at 15:27

    That’s him! God, I’d love to meet him….what a total looney. Can’t you just picture him sitting by the fire in jodhpurs and tweed, his hunting dogs at his feet, complaining about the loss of the Raj and how young men don’t put service to the Crown and the proper maintenance of sexual abstinence first anymore? It would be like your very own time machine! You could scandalize him by sending him copies of Sons and Lovers or simply mentioning The Pearl in his presence (yes, yes, I’m running the Victorian and Edwardian eras together….sue me).

    Okay, all I’m doing now is avoiding work. I need to stop this and do something productive.

  456. Jillian said,

    September 3, 2007 at 15:33

    Oh, and as far as time wasters go…check this one out:

    There is reason to believe that Aleister Crowley may be the father of Barbara Bush.

    This would make our current President the grandson of The Wickedest Man in the World.

    Not that this possibility should really surprise anyone, all things considered.

  457. J— said,

    September 3, 2007 at 15:40

    Why is Al Gore afraid to debate this man?

  458. Dan Someone said,

    September 3, 2007 at 16:02

    Dogstar says: Did Schulte credit Peiser in his study summary? Not to my knowledge.

    And this is precisely the point of the post that started this thread, and most of the substantive posts directed at you, Dogstar. You don’t know anything about what’s in Schulte’s paper, because you haven’t read it. Your only source of information about Schulte’s paper, his methodology and his conclusions is the press release from Inhofe that you quoted. Yet somehow that was enough for you to declare that the scientific consensus on global warming is dead, cremated and the ashes scattered at sea.

    You see how this kind of makes you look like an idiot? Seriously, if someone on the other side of the GW debate cited a press release from a Democratic senator’s office that characterized a new study, and claimed — solely on the basis of the press release — that the study was conclusive proof of some aspect of their side of the debate, you and your amen corner over at Ace’s place would (rightly) laugh so hard you’d drop your Cheetos.

    By the way, technically you are not the holder of the patent you cited. It was assigned to Elf Atochem North America, Inc. You may have been one of the co-inventors, but you are not the patent-holder.

  459. El Cid said,

    September 3, 2007 at 16:11

    #
    J— said,
    September 3, 2007 at 15:40

    Why is Al Gore afraid to debate this man?

    And why would anyone interested in the science of global warming care whether two spokespersons debated each other?

    What would happen if they debated?

    What if Al Gore were really good that night, and the crowd cheered him, and Lord Monckton felt really bad. Would that prove a single thing?

    And what if the opposite happened?

    What if Lord Monckton was in really top form that night, and in front of a riled up crowd, and seemed to ‘win’. Would that prove a single thing?

    What if both were in the room together and a propane tank exploded, killing them both? Would somehow the science of studying global warming stop?

    If Al Gore were to wake up one morning, recant all his global warming views, and begin a full-on publicity campaign for maximal burning of fossil fuels at every point we can, would this change scientific reality one bit?

    Thus the tissue of pseudo-intellectualism wraps itself around flacks, just like those anti-science freaks who are convinced that the regular carnival shows of ‘debates’ by creationist nutbags somehow disproves the science of studying biological evolution.

  460. kingubu said,

    September 3, 2007 at 16:16

    They don’t need to win arguments; they only need to spread confusion and make it seem that the other side is probably just as bad.

    Yep. Its why they spend days on end obsessing over, for example, whether or not a mosque with a gaping hole in the dome is “destroyed” or not. Its not about the truth of the story, nor even the precision of the story’s language– its about injecting just enough doubt to make it seem like everyone is playing the same “conclusions first, facts later (and only if they support my conclusions)” game that they are.

  461. RubDMC said,

    September 3, 2007 at 16:22

    Jeez, I put out a simple request, then end up waiting for what seems like forever for Dogstar to suck my balls, and he still hasn’t sucked my balls!

    This new shitstain, DaveS or DavidS or whatever (you know, teh smartest person in the world), well if Dogstar isn’t going to suck my balls, well, maybe DaveS or DavidS can suck my balls because, you know, these balls ain’t gonna suck themselves.

  462. abanterer said,

    September 3, 2007 at 16:39

    Some nice catches J-, BTW. It looks like Dogstar and Kevin and the rest are out of this fight.

    I actually looked up Walter, and in my personal opinion, he is, in fact, a blue-blooded wanker. But, since we are debating under reasonableness, I didn’t want to just say that.

  463. Joe in SF said,

    September 3, 2007 at 16:51

    Kevin,

    Do you realize that you make no sense?

  464. Incontinentia Buttocks said,

    September 3, 2007 at 16:54

    I actually looked up Walter, and in my personal opinion, he is, in fact, a blue-blooded wanker. But, since we are debating under reasonableness, I didn’t want to just say that.

    Not just reasonableness, abanterer, but the presumption of truth. You may be trying to be reasonable, but you are clearly being insufficiently deferent to Walter’s truthiness. In just retribution, Jeff Glodstein will have to smack your sister with his c**k.

  465. Righteous Bubba said,

    September 3, 2007 at 17:05

    Dogstar said,
    September 3, 2007 at 7:55
    Like I said, name calling = admission of defeat.

    How did this whole thing start again? Why with name-calling!

    Well, sorry to be the party pooper, kiddos, but you just lost your ace in the hole…

    Once again, Dogstar logic forces me to acknowledge this as an admission of his defeat even before he cites a Republican press release concerning a paper he’s never read.

  466. Legalize said,

    September 3, 2007 at 17:06

    So, just to be clear on where we are:

    a. Dogstar still hasn’t cited from the paper itself – just from a press release by Sen. Inhofe’s office, summarizing what the paper says;

    b. Dogstar, in fact, hasn’t even read the paper himself; and

    c. Questioning Dogstar or the paper’s author is defamation.

    Not much accomplished here, Dogstar. You are quite the talented troll.

  467. RandomObserver said,

    September 3, 2007 at 17:17

    Is Dogstar for real? That’s the only valid question at this point. This is embarrassing.

    Conservatives really just absolutely hate science. Wah it’s too much work to actually read the study or even link to the text! Somehow a press release summarizing an unpublished, non peer-reviewed study “proves” something.

    LOL.

    I just finished a study that says the earth will explode in 3 days and submitted it for publication to a vanity press. You don’t like the study? Fine. Disprove it. Otherwise, you’re done.

    Wingnut logic, you have to love it.

    I just finished a study that says the moon is made of cheese and submitted it for publication to a vanity press. You don’t like the study? Fine. Disprove it. Otherwise, you’re done.

    I just finished a study that says conservatives are not nearly as smart as rats. You don’t like the study? Fine. Disprove it. Otherwise, you’re done.

    I just finished a study that says global warming is very real. You don’t like the study? Fine. Disprove it. Otherwise, you’re done.

    And so on. Using Wingnut logic you have to accept all of the above as factual, simply because I’ve written press releases about them. That’s the wonderful thing about Wingnut logic, you can use it in any argument to “prove” anything.

    I’m waiting to here how wingnuts are smarter than rats. I’ll only accept very specific crtiticisms of my study. (Which you can’t read) Until then, I’ve proven that rats are smarter than conservatives.

    It truly boggles the mind how willfully ignorant and just plain dumb some people can be. Something about politics just makes them shut off their brains. It really is precious to hear someone attack GW on one hand and then on the other claim that actually reading science stuff is too much work that nobody should bother with. It’s an explicit argument for ignorance.

  468. zsa said,

    September 3, 2007 at 17:55

    I just want to say that there are no winners and loser in blog comments. We’re all special in our own way, and everyone is going to get a trophy! And cake!

    Plus I want to push this thread up over 500 comments in order to immanentize the sadlynon.

  469. kingubu said,

    September 3, 2007 at 17:57

    This comment thread is now visible from space.

  470. His Grace said,

    September 3, 2007 at 18:05

    You know, Dogstar might have a point if say Al Gore’s office had issued the press release instead of Inhofe. And that the press release had a link to the actual study and it was being published in an academic journal on climatology by an actual climatologist. And scientists by the hundreds got up, read the study and wrote letters to the editor and made appearances on CNN saying “I thought it was just I who was a global warming skeptic. But everyone is turning down the powerful monies and propaganda of the supremely influential Environmental lobby.”

    But that’s not what he has. Yet he seems to think that he’s got a trump card for some reason. It’s rather sad really.

  471. RandomObserver said,

    September 3, 2007 at 18:06

    It had been a while since there was a really long comment thread here. And for a change this one is not centered around liberals fighting each other over sandwhiches.

  472. Spokane Moderate said,

    September 3, 2007 at 18:20

    It had been a while since there was a really long comment thread here. And for a change this one is not centered around liberals fighting each other over sandwhiches.

    I’m in it for the cake.

  473. owlbear1 said,

    September 3, 2007 at 18:23

    Just cuz.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=47EBLD-ISyc

  474. tigrismus said,

    September 3, 2007 at 18:26

    I’m in it for the cake.

    I heard Mikey was bringing his special brownies.

  475. STH said,

    September 3, 2007 at 18:27

    Hmmmmmm . . . could this “DaveS” be the wanker DaveScot that PZ Myers made famous? There just HAS to be significant overlap between the creationist wanker and global-warming-denialist wanker groups.

    (The most recent PZ post on the wanker in question: http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/09/another_onesided_battle.php)

  476. Ghost of Joe Liebling's Dog said,

    September 3, 2007 at 18:32

    “Your only source of information about Schulte’s paper, his methodology and his conclusions is the press release from Inhofe that you quoted.”

    I believe the Dogstar approved term is “summary,” not “press release from Inhofe.”

    Ay may zing.

  477. Robert Gallo said,

    September 3, 2007 at 18:43

    Science by Press Conference is the way to go, havn’t you heard ?

    If the governement says it, it must be true.

    Filthy Denialists. You should all be rouned up and imprisoned.

  478. tb said,

    September 3, 2007 at 18:46

    I remember that guy. For months he used to run these endless circular arguments about “intelligent design” over at talk.origins. His style is kind of similar to Dogstar, if they’re not actually the same person- they’re both engineers, both convinced they know better than people with actual expertise in the field, and both so logically challenged they could barely understand a croquet mallet to the forehead.

  479. tb said,

    September 3, 2007 at 18:46

    DaveS, that is.

  480. J— said,

    September 3, 2007 at 18:47

    Why is Al Gore afraid to debate this man (pdf)?

  481. El Cid said,

    September 3, 2007 at 18:54

    Why is Aquaman afraid to debate this man?

  482. El Cid said,

    September 3, 2007 at 18:57

    Why is Aquaman afraid to debate this man?
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Manta

  483. El Cid said,

    September 3, 2007 at 18:58

    Why is NASA afraid to debate this man?
    http://www.ufos-aliens.co.uk/cosmicapollo.html

  484. El Cid said,

    September 3, 2007 at 18:59

    Why is the NOAA afraid to debate this man?
    http://www.nov55.com/tor.html

  485. El Cid said,

    September 3, 2007 at 19:03

    Why is Exxon afraid to debate this man?
    http://www.cheniere.org/

  486. Dan Someone said,

    September 3, 2007 at 19:05

    Why is this man afraid to debate this bear?

  487. El Cid said,

    September 3, 2007 at 19:05

    Why is the Leakey foundation afraid to debate this man?

    http://www.humandevolution.com/

  488. owlbear1 said,

    September 3, 2007 at 19:17

    Perhaps because He is the originator of a misleading claim that organic foods are more dangerous than foods sprayed with chemical pesticides.

    Just a guess tho…

  489. El Cid said,

    September 3, 2007 at 19:23

    Why is owlbear1 afraid to debate this man?
    http://www.theonion.com/content/node/30501

  490. mikey said,

    September 3, 2007 at 19:28

    Diane Feinstein’s office just released a summary of this thread. Apparently, it proves the existence of Stupidium, the worlds most dense element. I guess it’s going to be published in the California Journal of Nail Extension Professionals. I’m gonna subscribe…

    mikey

  491. owlbear1 said,

    September 3, 2007 at 19:29

    “I almost approached him the other day to see if he had any ideas regarding the general solution for the relativistic force-free equation describing the structure of the pulsar magnetosphere, but he was busy smearing a plastic doll with glue.”

  492. Candy said,

    September 3, 2007 at 19:36

    I accepted an offer to go on a space flight with Steve Jobs, trained at NASA, was shot into space, got abducted and probed by aliens, escaped, landed in the ocean after a touch and go reentry, was interviewed 8000 times, flew home, and finally got a moment to check in to see what was happening at Sadly and OMFG the Thread That Would Not Die is almost to 500 posts.

    And yes, you can see this thread from space.

  493. Righteous Bubba said,

    September 3, 2007 at 19:38

    …almost there…

  494. Righteous Bubba said,

    September 3, 2007 at 19:38

    …struggling to…

  495. Righteous Bubba said,

    September 3, 2007 at 19:40

    [dies horribly in thread-climbing accident]

  496. Candy said,

    September 3, 2007 at 19:41

    It’s sad that Bruce won’t be here to see it . . .

  497. Spokane Moderate said,

    September 3, 2007 at 19:42

    I heard Mikey was bringing his special brownies.

    Cake AND Mikey’s special brownies? Sweeeeeet!

  498. Candy said,

    September 3, 2007 at 19:42

    With poor Bubba gone, it hardly seems worth it.

    Dulce et decorum est, pro threadia mori.

  499. Spokane Moderate said,

    September 3, 2007 at 19:43

    It’s sad that Bruce won’t be here to see it . . .

    Where ever you bring your most cherished memories of Bruce, he’ll be there.

  500. Jillian said,

    September 3, 2007 at 19:44

    I can’t believe nobody’s shocked to find out that W’s grandfather was a bisexual, drug addicted orgy enthusiast who was very well educated and quite literate.

    C’mon, doesn’t the fact that his grandaddy could spell and speak English shock you?

  501. J— said,

    September 3, 2007 at 19:45

    Why is Al Gore afraid to debate this man?

    (I’m gonna keep these coming until I run out of right-wing kooks who insist Al Gore’s ignoring them is of great significance and consequence. By the way, has Scott Horton responded to the Confederate Yankee?)

  502. Incontinentia Buttocks said,

    September 3, 2007 at 19:48

    Why am I afraid to debate this man?

  503. His Grace said,

    September 3, 2007 at 19:48

    If it gets past 500 comments is there a musical put on?

    Dogstar: “I have a sum-mar-ry of a study you cant see. While it’s true I haven’t read it, it’s unfair for you to shred it.”

  504. J— said,

    September 3, 2007 at 19:49

    Why is Al Gore afraid to debate this girl?

  505. noen said,

    September 3, 2007 at 19:49

    502, please have mercy on us, we need fresh thread. This one is stale. Pretty please?

  506. Jillian said,

    September 3, 2007 at 19:50

    And with that, I score teh 500th.

    With that, I give you a quote from The Nation magazine, as a reminder of why some people still remain so fond of it….

    “I never dreamed that I should live to see the time when public opinion in the United States would be practically united in recognizing that we were lied and deceived into going to war…and when Congress would actually put a stop to those processes….”

    Alas, ’tis a quote from almost a century ago at this point – regarding our nation’s involvement in WWI. Couldn’t expect such things from it anymore, I suppose.

  507. Incontinentia Buttocks said,

    September 3, 2007 at 19:51

    Woo hoo!


    Five-hundred
    ‘n’ Frist!

  508. Gentlewoman said,

    September 3, 2007 at 19:53

    Dogstar said: Yes, I read the study summary.

    In other words, you have read the press release, not the actual paper.

    You silly person, what a lot of time you have wasted.

    I’m really just trying to get this thread to over 500 comments; and I endorse the idea that Dogstar should become part of the S,N Annals of Infamy for engendering ‘Teh Dogstar Thread.’

    Also: Techno Swedish Chef was brilliant, and I thank whoever posted the link (like Dogstar, I am averse to actual research and thus too lazy to go back and see who it was).

  509. Incontinentia Buttocks said,

    September 3, 2007 at 19:55

    Why is Al Gore afraid to debate this binturong?

  510. Jillian said,

    September 3, 2007 at 19:56

    Heehee, Gentlewoman!

    The first time I found that on Youtube, I laughed so hard that I honestly feared for just a moment that I might die of asphyxiation. I couldn’t stop laughing, and I couldn’t breathe. It was honestly sort of scary, because I was laughing so much that I didn’t even care.

    Apparently, the audio on that is culled from a real song. God help us all.

  511. Hoosier X said,

    September 3, 2007 at 19:57

    Are people still leaving comments on that Prussian Blue thread from the 1870s?

  512. Jillian said,

    September 3, 2007 at 19:58

    http://www.sadlyno.com/index.php?s=prussian+blue

  513. Candy said,

    September 3, 2007 at 19:59

    We should make a movie about this thread, featuring a lot of brawny, sweat-drenched, near-naked bloggers typing feverishly at cramped desks in the bright sunlight on hot, dusty, rocky terrain, the cries of “Logic!” and “Address the Point!” clanging like swords on steel in the brutal desert air thick with cheetoh dust and desparation.

    We could call it “500″.

    (I haven’t actually seen “300″ but imagine it must be somewhat similar in tone.)

  514. tigrismus said,

    September 3, 2007 at 20:07

    Since we’re all sharing

  515. El Cid said,

    September 3, 2007 at 20:09

    Why is Al Gore afraid to debate this man?

  516. owlbear1 said,

    September 3, 2007 at 20:16

    We could call it “500?.

    Argh!! HOT tea in the nasal passages!

  517. owlbear1 said,

    September 3, 2007 at 20:17

    We could call it “500?.

    Argh!! HOT tea in the nasal passages!

  518. tigrismus said,

    September 3, 2007 at 20:18

    Holy crap, El Cid, even that guy accepts global warming: “Due to Global Warming, this area of planet Earth is now accessible by sea usng[sic] the Russian icebreaker fleet.”

    Global Warming deniers, so nutty even hollow Earthers shun them?

  519. owlbear1 said,

    September 3, 2007 at 20:18

    [Illegal mix of collations (latin1_swedish_ci,IMPLICIT) and (utf8_general_ci,COERCIBLE) for operation '=']

    Ok, now word press is making jokes…

  520. tb said,

    September 3, 2007 at 20:19

    Hey, who’s going to Acepalooza this year? He’s hyping it as “a pub crawl without drinking”, and is scouring the area “around the airport” for the really fun spots to party down. W00t!

  521. J— said,

    September 3, 2007 at 20:24

    Wow, the hollow earth posse wins hands down. They have gear.

  522. Simp said,

    September 3, 2007 at 20:27

    All you need to know about Dogstar:

    and right now it is an interesting theory, but impossible to classify as “scientific fact”

    You may be an engineer, but taking this statement at face value (I tried to read it a few different ways), you know dick about science. Might as well say a cookie is an egg or a car is a steering wheel.

    Scientific theories are a estimation of how things work based upon observable scientific facts. It is a false equivalency and to imply that scientific theories are not valid until they become scientific fact It is simply used an argumentative slieght-of-hand technique used to intentionally confuse people on scientific issues… or unintentionally if you are an idiot.

  523. Candy said,

    September 3, 2007 at 20:28

    This thread has been declared a major contributor to global warming. I hope we’re all happy. I read a summary of a paper that suggests this thread has caused sea levels to rise six inches in the last 12 hours. We’re doomed. Question these conclusions and I’ll sue.

    Ok, now word press is making jokes… I think we need a priest and a vat of holy water. The Right Rev. Bradley S. Rocket needs to come and drive a stake through the heart of this beast.

  524. El Cid said,

    September 3, 2007 at 20:28

    Why is Al Gore afraid to debate this Institute?

  525. Incontinentia Buttocks said,

    September 3, 2007 at 20:33

    A study I just conducted by a process of intelligent guesswork suggests that nearly 100% of published papers in geology are silent about whether or not the Earth is hollow.

    Where’s your consensus now, Moses?

  526. ifthethunderdontgetya™³²®© said,

    September 3, 2007 at 20:34

    This thread has been declared a major contributor to global warming. I hope we’re all happy. I read a summary of a paper that suggests this thread has caused sea levels to rise six inches in the last 12 hours. We’re doomed. Question these conclusions and I’ll sue.

    Where you see risk I see opportunity. I am planning to buy prime oceanfront land in West Virginia.

  527. El Cid said,

    September 3, 2007 at 20:38

    Why is Al Gore afraid to debate the shadow people?

  528. Jillian said,

    September 3, 2007 at 20:43

    Why is Al Gore afraid to debate the Deros?

  529. El Cid said,

    September 3, 2007 at 20:51

    Dash writes,”critics of the ‘Shaver Mystery’ were quick to point out that its author was suffering from several of the classic symptoms of paranoid schizophrenia, and that many of the letters pouring into Amazing recounting personal experiences that backed up the author’s stories patently came from the sorts of people who would otherwise spend their time claiming that they were being persecuted by invisible voices or their neighbor’s dog.”

    If only Shaver and his correspondents — who were so cruelly and irrationally dismissed by these ‘science’ worshiping losers — had been aware that the devious cave-dwelling Deros were merely preparing for a day when the Al Gore-led army of Islamo-fascist tunnelers would emerge from their subterranean kingdoms to steal mankind’s oil and force all surface-dwellers to eat naught but hummus!

  530. mikey said,

    September 3, 2007 at 20:53

    That’s IT!

    It may not yet be noon, but I’m making a pitcher of Sangria…

    mikey

  531. Incontinentia Buttocks said,

    September 3, 2007 at 20:54

    Why am Al Gore happy to debate this man?

  532. tb said,

    September 3, 2007 at 20:56

    Why is Al Gore AFRAID to debate the sand people?

  533. tigrismus said,

    September 3, 2007 at 21:04

    Why is everyone here afraid to even mention the molemen, much less debate them?

  534. LA Confidential Pantload said,

    September 3, 2007 at 21:06

    tb,

    Acepalooza? And – even though it’s none of my business, no, really, it isn’t – uh, what sort of areas “around the airport” was he talking about? Not men’s rooms, surely. Not that there’s anything wrong with that…

  535. Hoosier X said,

    September 3, 2007 at 21:07

    Why is everyone here afraid to even mention the molemen, much less debate them?

    That is rather suspicious.

  536. El Cid said,

    September 3, 2007 at 21:07

    The liberals say me Bizarro, but me am real Algore! I save world from Global Warming by say it not true! Then the people all scream with happiness that it get hot. Me will find special scientists who not have fancy climate jobs and me write that some true parts are all true parts! Then me say that plan to make CO2 smaller make poor people hurt, so only way to help is blow up countries which have oil!

  537. Hoosier X said,

    September 3, 2007 at 21:15

    Why is kevin posting as El Cid?

  538. Vin Scully said,

    September 3, 2007 at 21:27

    About finding the perfect spot for Aceapalooza, Ace sez, “I still have to check out some of the suburban hotel bars …” Sweet Lord, Ace, the bar at the outlying Ramada? For your big celebration?

    Anyone else find this kinda soul-crushingly depressing?

  539. a different brad said,

    September 3, 2007 at 21:34

    What I find suspicious is the similarity between the words Ramada and Ramadan.
    I think ace might be walking into an islamochainhotelofascist trap.
    Question is, should we warn him?

  540. Incontinentia Buttocks said,

    September 3, 2007 at 21:36

    The Laffer Curve was originally written on a cocktail napkin at a hotel bar. No doubt Ace expects such great things to come from his little bender.

  541. Candy said,

    September 3, 2007 at 21:36

    El Cid sounds suspiciously like teh Crockydiles in that last comment.

    Anyone else find this kinda soul-crushingly depressing?

    yes. I don’t know if I’ll feel comfy picking on Ace anymore…

    I’m going on a wine run, the theory being if I get a nice little buzz on (hopefully without developing a headache) I will feel more like writing my paper and less like contributing to a soon to be 600 thread count sheet of snark. I doubt it will work, but it’s worth a try. Alternatively, maybe I can get my instructor to accept a summary of the paper, as long as I insist that I do have the actual paper which will soon be released. I hear that’s how they’re doing it in the scientific community these days

  542. Spiny Norman said,

    September 3, 2007 at 21:37

    Dinsdale!

    DINSDALE!

  543. STH said,

    September 3, 2007 at 21:38

    Oh, most definitely, Vin.

    What’s the purpose of this Aceapalooza thing, anyway? To get together and celebrate the fabulousness that is Ace? And who sets up an event–no matter how lame–to honor themselves?

    And, no, you’re not getting me to click on that link.

  544. Incontinentia Buttocks said,

    September 3, 2007 at 21:47

    I hereby declare this thread Dogstarpalooza.

    Location: wherever you happen to be.

    Time: now (it’s 21:46 where I am, so drinking is entirely appropriate).

    Beverage: I’m havin’ an Ardbeg.

  545. tb said,

    September 3, 2007 at 21:53

    what sort of areas “around the airport” was he talking about?

    No, not the men’s room, smart guy. He’s not a family-values senator. I can only assume he’s scoping out for his little Ace-plosion the Airport Holiday Inn Lounge, El Torito’s, Applebee’s and the like. Fun places where you can really relax.

    Please, no cruel comments about how pathetic your life has to be when the most happening place you can think of is by the airport. Please.

  546. J— said,

    September 3, 2007 at 21:55

    Why is Al Gore afraid to debate this man?

  547. Adolf Hitler said,

    September 3, 2007 at 22:01

    Boy this is a long thread…has anyone mentioned me yet?

  548. Simba B. said,

    September 3, 2007 at 22:06

    Sorry, Mr. Fuhrer Man.

  549. tigrismus said,

    September 3, 2007 at 22:09

    No, but just try walking through the mall in a Hitler suit and see how you get debated.

  550. jgmurphyj said,

    September 3, 2007 at 22:14

    Until their skin turns to Velveeta right on their bodies while they’re trying to watch Hannity keep his eyebrows from sliding into his suit, Wingnuts will deny global warming. It is all A LIBERAL MYTH, you see.

    It joins a formidable list of fairy tales including:
    The myth of the hole in the ozone (a malicious leftwing conspiracy to convince Americans that God doesn’t care about them)
    The myth of wage discrimination (after all, is it capitalism’s fault that stupid bitches get themselves pregnant and must be mommy-tracked out of raises and promotions?)
    The myth of segregation (Take a look at that drinking fountain in the park, leftie troublemaker! Does it SAY “Whites Only”? Does it? Does it? Huh???)
    The myth of evolution (God only took six days, with no commie liberal overtime, neither)
    The myth of better healthcare in Europe (if so, how come Zsa Zsa has come HERE for EVERY SINGLE ONE of her facelifts?)
    The myth that the earth revolves around the sun (pagan propaganda)
    The myth of slavery (Ronald Reagan never believed in it!)
    The myth of homelessness (a lot of poor people simple hang around the street because they feel like it!)

    The wingnuts, apparently, reside in a parallel universe which, if they would stay in it, would not bother me. The alarming part is that somehow our government has fallen into the hands of people with absolutely no relationship to reality, on any topic, whether it be Iraq or the weather.

  551. a different brad said,

    September 3, 2007 at 22:18

    When you dress a kid as Hitler and have him interview people in front of city hall,this is what happens.
    Granted, it’s not a mall, but I think Dogstar might still accept it as scientifically valid and not sue me.
    I discovered Wonder Showzen too late.

  552. Ganesh Bengal Cat said,

    September 3, 2007 at 22:30

    The handmaiden finished reading this, Teh Dogstarpalooza Thread (very good, IB but Catstarpalooza would be a better use of our time IMO), took some (legal) medication and is now having a nice nap.

    PS im in ur bathtubz playin futbol w/ ur toyletreez

  553. fardels bear said,

    September 3, 2007 at 22:41

    This was a very informative thread. I had no idea that Black Manta was actually black. I must have missed that issue.

  554. mikey said,

    September 3, 2007 at 22:45

    The Sangria was delicious, crisp and refreshing.

    But it lacked a certain Gravitas

    So I hit it with a couple ounces of Everclear.

    I’m sorry, Dogstar, did you say something?

    mikey

  555. El Cid said,

    September 3, 2007 at 22:47

    Why is Al Gore afraid to debate this being?

  556. Joe Morgan said,

    September 3, 2007 at 22:50

    I don’t want to make any comments about any of the issues discussed in this thread because I haven’t seen all of the other posts. On the other hand, I think Jose Reyes could be the MVP this year because of all the intangibles he brings to the ball club? What? No, I’ve only seen him play on Baseball Tonight highlights. Sure, Jimmy Rollins is ok too. How’s that? Nope, never seen him play either. Well, I read a summary provided by teh Mets’ Press Office about Reyes. Look, until you can prove otherwise, this press release says Reyes is the most exciting player in the game, so I have to give it the benefit of the doubt and assume it to be true.

  557. A Confederacy of Yankees said,

    September 3, 2007 at 22:53

    I’m just weighing to help the comment count roll up to 1000.

    I have the day off, and it’s friggin’ hot outside.

  558. Sissy Hankshaw said,

    September 3, 2007 at 22:59

    My thumb hurts.

  559. Incontinentia Buttocks said,

    September 3, 2007 at 23:08

    Why is Al Gore afraid to debate this being?

    Oooh…oooh…I finally know the answer to one of these!!!!

    ‘Cause of his body thetans!

    Whadda I win? A free personality test?

  560. Pedro Martinez said,

    September 3, 2007 at 23:13

    I am in your national league killing your drEEms

  561. RCP said,

    September 3, 2007 at 23:16

    Why is Al Gore afraid to comment in this thread?

  562. Some Guy said,

    September 3, 2007 at 23:19

    I wonder what the comment displacement is in each thread, before the site capsizes?

  563. The Disgruntled Chemist said,

    September 3, 2007 at 23:44

    Damn chemical engineers.

    That is all.

  564. Al Gore said,

    September 3, 2007 at 23:59

    I’m at a barbecue.

    So suck my balls.

  565. Mehitabel the Abyssinian said,

    September 4, 2007 at 0:14

    PS im in ur bathtubz playin futbol w/ ur toyletreez
    Foolish Ganesh Bengal Cat. That is no bathtub… that is the Cats-Only Segregated Drinking Fountain. I have one too, though for some reason the house-apes periodically flood it.

  566. Jesus H.Christ said,

    September 4, 2007 at 0:15

    Hi everyone,I have descended from my heavenly throne next to my dad to weigh in on this important thread.This thread was prophesied in ancient texts,it is the key to unlocking the seventh seal.My millennial reign on earth will begin at an undisclosed number of comments.I will not say which position I take on the issue at hand.Just to say that after sleeping,eating,perusing my current copy of “Big Butt”magazine,I love BBW’s by the way,ahh my Fathers creation a truly magnificent and mysterious thing to behold,I see this foretold text is still unwinding as planned.My head hurts.Oh yes and my palms too….

  567. Johnny Coelecanth said,

    September 4, 2007 at 0:19

    ““a pub crawl without drinking”, ”

    That sounds… fun. Like Garfunkel without Simon, or root canal without anesthesia,

  568. RubDMC said,

    September 4, 2007 at 0:31

    Hey, many of these comments are witty, etc. but I’d just like to remind certain folks – my balls still need suckage.

    Jeezus Cryst on a hamburger roll – just who do you have to fuck around here to get a little ball sucking action from a chemical engineer with a patent (so claimed), or teh (allegedly) smartest person in the universe?!?

    I’m gonna go outside, baste the 8-pound pork loin I’ve got cooking on the Weber rotisserie over chunks of apple and hickory (using my special mixture of cider vinegar, cheap yellow mustard, and secret spices (cracked pepper, sea salt, and thyme)), and then have another Otter Creek Copper Ale. I might even find a cure for cancer, but when I come back, goddammit, someone better have stepped forward to do you know what to my you know what…or else.

    My patience has its limits.

    (If all else fails, maybe I’ll just shit in Dogstar’s mouth. I hear he’s into that.)

  569. M. Bouffant said,

    September 4, 2007 at 0:31

    I’m going to take a shower to wash all this thread out of my hair.

  570. M. Bouffant said,

    September 4, 2007 at 0:32

    570 (approx.) & counting.

  571. Jrod said,

    September 4, 2007 at 0:39

    In a fit of boredom I wandered over to Ace’s to check out what sort of arguments they would bring. Did you know that Al Gore is fat and rides in airplanes? It was a revelation to me!

    It turns out that global warming was created by Al Gore and Leo DiCaprio as a way to implement evil socialism. Global warming is just another libtard hippy sky-is-falling myth, like the entirely fictional hole in the ozone or the wacky idea of peak oil. Silly liberals actually believe that we will someday run out of oil, can you believe it? Next it’ll be some folderall about air pollution leading to smog or some other ridiculous thing. Never mind how fat Al Gore is!

    Also, things are going swell in Iraq because for an eight-month stretch nobody died on Irish Route, the most dangerous road in Iraq, besides a couple of terrorsymp Italiaban “journalists” who had it coming. And if you’re wondering how a road with no deaths was the most dangerous road in Iraq while hundreds were dying of roadside IEDs elsewhere, it’s simple. Al Gore is fat.

  572. Albert Einstein said,

    September 4, 2007 at 0:40

    I like big butts and I cannot lie.

  573. Jrod said,

    September 4, 2007 at 0:42

    Hey RubDMC, this fellow may be able to help you out!

  574. Candy said,

    September 4, 2007 at 0:43

    I just poured baking soda and vinegar into my slightly clogged bathroom drain. That was fun! I felt like a scientifiislamolibhomomeximocommiefascist. in a chem lab in old Iraq, before George came and found all those weapons of mass destruction. It bubbled and foamed and frothed. I aim to write a nice summary about my drain cleaning experiment. I’m sure it disproves global warming . . . somehow.

    I now have a nice crisp white wine chilling in the fridge. Life is good.

  575. RubDMC said,

    September 4, 2007 at 0:44

    Jrod, you haven’t been paying attention. It’s the balls, good fellow, the balls.

    Now to baste the pork loin…

  576. Typical Republican said,

    September 4, 2007 at 0:46

    It was cold over the winter.

    And hot over the summer.

    Duh.

    9-11 changed everything! But we still don’t need the draft!

    Al Gore said he invented Republican hypocrisy!

  577. FlipYrWhig said,

    September 4, 2007 at 0:53

    His Grace: “I have a sum-mar-ry of a study you cant see.
    While it’s true I haven’t read it, it’s unfair for you to shred it.”

    Resorting to name-calling is admission of defeat.
    Global warming is a myth pushed by the media elite.
    Professors may purport to know that warming’s a consensus,
    But one look out my window tells me they’re out of their senses.
    I’m expert in this field, you see, because I hold a patent.
    I ‘m also sure, beyond a doubt, that our planet is a-flattened.

  578. islmfaoscist said,

    September 4, 2007 at 0:53

    Why is Lord Monckton afraid to publish in peer-reviewed journals?

  579. Jesus H.Christ said,

    September 4, 2007 at 0:53

    Hi again it’s your saviour.RubDMC I prefer an English Muffin if you don’t mind.I find the nooks & crannies sort invigorating.Carry on my children.I bless you…

  580. Jrod said,

    September 4, 2007 at 0:56

    I’m sure if you ask the mongler nicely he’ll give your balls some attention too, though I hear he’ll draw the line at mouth-shitting.

    Alternatively, you can just wait for Ace-a-Palooza ’07 down at the Airport Sheriden Lounge. But Ace gets his first.

  581. ifthethunderdontgetya™³²®© said,

    September 4, 2007 at 0:57

    This thread doesn’t have enough Lynx and Lamb references. How will it live to be as old as Methuselah?

  582. Candy said,

    September 4, 2007 at 0:58

    Have the proprieters of Sadly, No! all gone off on a bender? Are they lying on the staff room floor covered in Steel Reserve cans and empty Tortilla tequila bottles? Or is there a darker, more sinister, shall I say swarthier, explanation? Stay tuned . . .

  583. Simba B. said,

    September 4, 2007 at 1:01

    Have the proprieters of Sadly, No! all gone off on a bender? Are they lying on the staff room floor covered in Steel Reserve cans and empty Tortilla tequila bottles? Or is there a darker, more sinister, shall I say swarthier, explanation? Stay tuned . . .

    I think it’s just us, home on a holiday with nothing to do, while Gavin and Bradrocket are out having fun.

    Or something.

    I can’t think of any better explaination for this thread.

  584. ifthethunderdontgetya™³²®© said,

    September 4, 2007 at 1:04

    I, myself, am at home with PLENTY to do. Before I get to the horrible place, err office, tomorrow morning. So that’s my excuse.

  585. Herr Doktor Bimler said,

    September 4, 2007 at 1:04

    The nights are still cold
    Global warming is a myth
    DogStar tells me so

  586. Candy said,

    September 4, 2007 at 1:08

    But they’ve never done this before. Even over Xmas. I’m frightened.

    Sigh . . . I’m sure you’re right, Simba, but this is getting sort of a waiting for Godot feeling about it, isn’t it?

  587. Allahu Ackbot said,

    September 4, 2007 at 1:14

    Beep beep.

  588. J— said,

    September 4, 2007 at 1:37

    See the comment posted above on September 3, 2007 at 4:27. If Sadly, No! opens a new thread, Dogstar wins.

  589. mikey said,

    September 4, 2007 at 1:38

    These in the days when heaven falling
    The hour when earths foundations fled
    Followed their mercenary calling
    Took their wages – and are dead

    These arms that held the sky suspended
    They stood!! And earths foundations stay
    What god abandoned, they defended
    And saved the sum of things. For pay.

    –AE Housman
    Requiem on an army of mercenaries

    Hey, it’s just a piece I really like. Carry on…

    mikey

  590. M. Bouffant said,

    September 4, 2007 at 1:40

    Seb!! Aidez-nous!! Labor Day doesn’t happen in theVaterland, & even if it did, it’s over now. Post something. An icebox/CD player!! Anything!!
    P. S.: I don’t like the way the comments cursor is flickering. Maybe there is something wrong. Hello! Hello!!

  591. DEMIZE! said,

    September 4, 2007 at 1:48

    They could be getting a teabag session from the good engineer.

  592. islmfaoscist said,

    September 4, 2007 at 1:49

    A flashback to another great Goopers vs. Science battle (via Perlstein).

    In a leaked confidential letter to the Director-General of the World Health Organisation (WHO), Lee Jong-Wook, the US government has rejected decades of nutritional research and denied that there is any evidence of a link between junk food and obesity. The letter, from William R Steiger, special assistant at the Department of Health and Human Services and godson to George Bush Sr, is the United States’ official response to an April 2003 report by the WHO and the UN Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO).

    For the record, the motivation in this case was exactly the same as the climate change flat-earthers: the usual GOP whores dropping to their knees for some backdoor cash from Big Bidness, and suckering all the wingnuts into taking their crap at face value. Stupid wingnuts.

  593. mikey said,

    September 4, 2007 at 1:54

    Tonight we have a lovely, highly marbled 7oz. Boneless Ribeye steak.

    We’ll marinate it in a red wine/Worcestershire/garlic/herb marinade.

    While it’s marinating, we’ll chop a couple of Yukon Gold Potatoes into good sized cubes and drizzle them with good olive oil. Then we’ll sprinkle in fresh thyme, oregano and parsley, along with some diced onion and garlic. We’ll toss them and let them soak for a while.

    We’ll make a simple salad, romaine and big local tomatoes, diced onions and bell peppers, chopped hard boiled egg and sunflower nuts.

    We’ll roast the potatoes for about 45 minutes, turning once.

    The steak will be broiled to medium.

    The steak will be served topped with fresh wild mushrooms sauteed in olive oil with onions, garlic, bell pepper and fresh herbs, along with cayenne pepper and coriander.

    It will hit the table between 7:30 and 8:00, with a Hess Cabernet. If you’re late, you won’t eat….

    mikey

  594. Spokane Moderate said,

    September 4, 2007 at 2:02

    I was promised cake and special brownies. Produce cake and brownies, or you’re done.

  595. The Dude Abides said,

    September 4, 2007 at 2:10

    Nice Mikey.

    At my humble abode, we will be serving homemade carne asada marinated in pacifico, garlic and lime juice then grilled over a hardwood charcoal fire. It will be served with warm corn tortillas, fresh salsa made from tomatoes, onion, and jalepenos grown in the garden out back. In addition, we have some guacamole made from two avocados from the neighbor’s back yard. Add the salsa, guacamole, and asada to the tortilla, squeeze a bit of lime and gloss with a bit of Tapatio. Put out the fire with a few Pacificos. Repeat as necessary.

  596. M. Bouffant said,

    September 4, 2007 at 2:14

    Breakfast @ The House of Bouffant©: (a bit after noon PDT): Camel™ non-filters & two cups of coffee. Brunch (served about 1630 PDT): Camel™ non-filters & Dr Pepper™. And a Lexapro©. Lunch & dinner will be open faced cheese melts, Kroger extra-sharp cheddar on a Trader Joe’s Sourdough English Muffin, broilled until the aromal reminds me to get away from the devil-box & get them out of the broiler.
    I read somewhere that all this “foodie” stuff was a reaction to AIDS; no more sleazy easy action, so people displaced their lust from sex to food. I’ll admit I’d rather read about explicit food activities than explicit sex activities.

  597. Candy said,

    September 4, 2007 at 2:28

    594 now, but who’s counting?

    I’m having popsicles for dinner.

  598. mikey said,

    September 4, 2007 at 2:31

    Damn, the dude, that rocks. I could eat about ten of those. I haven’t explored a lot of the latin flavors, being kind of melded to asian food and culture, but I’m gonna have to go there eventually. One thing though. I looked up “Tapatio” on Wiki and they had an entry that wasn’t about food. What is it?

    mikey

  599. kenga said,

    September 4, 2007 at 2:31

    The steak will be broiled to medium.

    Savage!

    One might as well mix Laphroiag with Schweppes ginger ale!

  600. Herr Doktor Bimler said,

    September 4, 2007 at 2:33

    I was promised cake and special brownies.

    Righteous Bubba offered to pee review the special brownies, but apparently the urine samples are not back from the lab.
    Here in the south Pacific, lunch at Maison D’Etre will consist of black-pudding sandwiches. Again.

  601. kenga said,

    September 4, 2007 at 2:34

    OK, maybe I’m over-reacting. That’s what tends to happen when I’ve read a 500+ post thread, and Teh Editors haven’t been on hiatus for some time.

  602. Jillian said,

    September 4, 2007 at 2:36

    six hundred?

    Lord, y’all need a life.

    Me, too.

  603. ifthethunderdontgetya™³²®© said,

    September 4, 2007 at 2:38

    I can has bunnyburger?

  604. Qetesh the Abyssinian said,

    September 4, 2007 at 2:38

    Sigh. Meals chez nous largely consist of choc-o-late and hand-rolled, filtered, Old Holborn tobacco (rolled in Tally-Ho papers, naturellement).

    Mikey, The Dude Abides, I am at this very instant rummaging down the back of the couch to find some coinage with which to purchase a ticket pour le jettage to your continent.

    Await further instructions. I’ll be the one drowning in drool.

  605. kenga said,

    September 4, 2007 at 2:38

    Forward teh brave six hundred …

  606. kenga said,

    September 4, 2007 at 2:39

    Umm – Mikey? You still looking for research subjects?
    I’m, uh, not inexperienced in that sort of thing …

  607. mikey said,

    September 4, 2007 at 2:49

    I quit Teh Tobacco in August of 2003.

    Oddly, I don’t miss it.

    Considering the many, many times I got more comfort and satifaction out of sucking down a butt than any other thing ever. Those moments of reflecting on what was, what could have been, and how bad it might have gotten, with a cigarette and a cup of coffee…That’s where “your center” is.

    But I like not smoking.

    Although the bargain looks like this:

    If somebody trys to kill me, I get to smoke.

    That’ll work….

    mikey

  608. Ghost of Joe Liebling's Dog said,

    September 4, 2007 at 2:52

    What, still?

  609. The Dude Abides said,

    September 4, 2007 at 2:53

    Mikey:

    I grew up in L.A. All my friends were mexican so I spent all my time eating at their houses since my mom was way too fond of green jello and chicken put through some sort of special flavor remover.

    Tapatio is a hot sauce, you can probably get it at the supermarket. If they don’t have Tapatio, Cholula will do.

    I wish I had a glass of that Hess.

  610. mikey said,

    September 4, 2007 at 2:56

    Blood pudding is a sausage made by cooking blood with a filler until it is thick enough to congeal when cooled. Blood sausage is a more recent North American translation for the German moniker “Blutwurst”. Blood Sausage has become a useful term for similar blood-based solid foods around the world.

    Pig or cattle blood is most often used; sheep and goat blood are used to a lesser extent. Blood from poultry, horses and other animals are used more rarely. Typical fillers include meat, fat, suet, bread, barley and oatmeal.

    That’s from Wiki. And by the way, you might want to weigh in. They have no mention of the South Pacific.

    But, help me out here. Why would you call sausage pudding? Seems, well, kind of misleading.

    Like the old line “don’t piss on me and tell me it’s raining”.

    Don’t offer me pudding and show up with sausage. Actually, I like sausage, so go ahead if you want. But I’ll still probably bug you about the pudding…

    mikey

  611. kenga said,

    September 4, 2007 at 2:58

    606, huh?
    Anybody(else) thinking about Iron Maiden right about now?

  612. M. Bouffant said,

    September 4, 2007 at 3:00

    Only remaining question is who/when will be the last comment?

  613. Candy said,

    September 4, 2007 at 3:02

    Yorkshire pudding is basically thickened beef drippings with wads of popover dough in it, I think. (Too lazy to gazoogle.)

    I’ve written a whole paragraph of my paper now. Yippee.

  614. The Dude Abides said,

    September 4, 2007 at 3:02

    Last!

  615. Ghost of Joe Liebling's Dog said,

    September 4, 2007 at 3:05

    Contributing a haiku was sweet.
    And dude … wherever you abide sounds awfully good. I’m hitting the frozen strawberry concession pretty hard, but other than that it’s been boring, foodially speaking.

  616. mikey said,

    September 4, 2007 at 3:10

    I’ve got the iPod on shuffle.

    And I have to confess.

    Cher. Just like Jesse James.

    Hmmm.

    Think I’ll crank it up….

    mikey

  617. wordyeti said,

    September 4, 2007 at 3:12

    I think that Mikey’s Everclear prescription might have laid low the S,N! crew.

    That, or the Giant Gay Hamsters broke out of their cages and went all Hannibal Lecter on them.

    And now back to struggling with the goddam “Error (41)” code that keeps popping up in Final Cut Pro HD.

  618. wordyeti said,

    September 4, 2007 at 3:13

    Can we get TRex back on here to go “1000th”!

    ’cause, y’know, that would really drive the trolls around the bend. Where someone would suck balls. Or tap their loafers.

    Man, my eyes are tired.

  619. Herr Doktor Bimler said,

    September 4, 2007 at 3:14

    Don’t offer me pudding and show up with sausage
    It seems to be a North England thing. “Pudding” = “anything involving large amounts of suet”. Ay up.

    That were the blackest black puddin’ I ever ‘ad. Even the white bits were black.

  620. mikey said,

    September 4, 2007 at 3:16

    Wordyeti.

    That might just be a corrupt keyframe.

    Go back and re-save the file as a different format.

    Ingest it again.

    It might behave. You might take a compression cycle hit on quality, but if you can’t have the source on digibeta fuck ‘em anyway, right?

    mikey

  621. zsa said,

    September 4, 2007 at 3:20

    Fuckers. You have any idea how fucking hungry I am right now?

    But I’m on a motherfucking diet because my wife tells me I’m getting a bit too much like Al Gore, if you know what I mean. Not quite Michael Moore territory, but definitely heading in that direction. So it’s fucking carrots and a little white rice, and some soy milk and a whole fuckpot of tea and water. Oh yeah, and I sucked down a couple of low-cal energy drinks this morning.

    Christsakes, I piss like a racehorse.

    But if I weren’t such a fatass, I’d take that ribeye, mikey (’bout an inch thick, right? Medium rare, please. Done about 4 minutes to a side over the grill. Marinated in chopped garlic and soy sauce. Glass of thick, chewy cabernet. Some artichokes cooked … however the hell my lovely wife cooks those things … and then maybe a few more glasses of wine).

    You guys got it all out California. Steaks from the central valley, wine from napa and sonoma, garlic from gilroy and artichokes from down in monterey. I miss CA.

    Fcuk this. I’m going to go get myself a glass of wine at least, just as soon as my wife leaves the kitchen …

  622. His Grace said,

    September 4, 2007 at 3:22

    Only remaining question is who/when will be the last comment?

    Whoever posts #666 will be the Antichrist and it will signal the rapture.

  623. Neal Peart said,

    September 4, 2007 at 3:27

    what?

  624. The Dude Abides said,

    September 4, 2007 at 3:27

    Holy Jeebus this Spiller kid can run.

  625. mikey said,

    September 4, 2007 at 3:29

    Liveblogging Dinner:

    The steak is really starting to come apart, tenderizing. The fibers are loosening up, and the whole thing wants to just disolve

    I got a wacky idea and softened a tablespoon of unsalted butter and stirred that into the potatoes. Ought to contribute to a certain crispy browness on the outside. We’ll see.

    Time for the cap’n to have a scotch. Sun’s over the yardarm and all that.

    And perhaps another puff…

    mikey

  626. Mehitabel the Abyssinian said,

    September 4, 2007 at 3:40

    Hmmm, chicken-necks.

  627. RCP said,

    September 4, 2007 at 3:49

    Thread must feed.

  628. Qetesh the Abyssinian said,

    September 4, 2007 at 4:06

    Black puddin’s very black ta-dee, Muther. E’en the wharte bits ‘r black!

    Yes, Eric.

    Je suis tres fatiguee demain, Vera.

    Le repas est pret.

    Eh?

    Yer supper’s ready.

    Ahhh, Eric, Eric Olthwaite, the king of Denleigh Moor. Let me tell you abaht my shuvel…

  629. M. Bouffant said,

    September 4, 2007 at 4:14

    Moi, j’suis vachement fatigué maintenant. Et trop chaud aussi!!

    Demain sera tant pis.

    Est-ce que j’suis encore le dernièr?

  630. jcricket said,

    September 4, 2007 at 4:17

    Mais oui mon ami. C’etst vrai. C’est tout.
    Bonne nuit.

  631. The Larrification of the stall said,

    September 4, 2007 at 4:19

    I love toilet humour!

  632. Larry Craig said,

    September 4, 2007 at 4:24

    I love toilet hummers!

  633. mikey said,

    September 4, 2007 at 4:25

    Git on down wit’cher bad self…

    mikey

  634. Blob Allen said,

    September 4, 2007 at 4:34

    Beware of The Blob, it creeps
    And sneaks and glides and slides
    Across the floor
    Right under the door
    And all around the stall
    A splotch, a twenty-spot
    Be careful of The Blob

  635. Henry Holland said,

    September 4, 2007 at 4:40

    Thank you Mikey, I’m downloading Just Like Jesse James as I type. I loves me some bombastic, overwrought pop ballads (see: Air Supply’s Making Love Out Of Nothing At All).

    Angels 7, A’s nil. Nice to see the Halos with the second best record in baseball. Now, if the Mariners can overtake the Yankees for the wildcard, that would be nice too. National League who?

    I’m surprised Brad didn’t post about Buckholz’s no hitter.

    I figure mentioning baseball could be a thread killer.

  636. The Larrification of the stall said,

    September 4, 2007 at 4:47

    please, pardon my wide stance.

  637. The Larrification of the stall said,

    September 4, 2007 at 4:49

    and while you’re at it, pass me that piece of discarded toilet paper behind the toilet, oh and that half eaten danish there by your feet…thanks muchly.

  638. The Larrification of the stall said,

    September 4, 2007 at 4:50

    actually just wrap the danish in the piece of toilet paper and pass it on over, don’t want to get my hands sticky, well sticky from the danish, mmmmmmm.

  639. mikey said,

    September 4, 2007 at 5:20

    I had a moment of clarity, Henry.

    Tigers edge out yankees for wild card.

    Angels win it all against the cubs…

    mikey

  640. lobbey said,

    September 4, 2007 at 5:27

    jesus, has someone been passing round mikey’s drugs…..

    just for the record, as a Chemical Engineer, I can safely state that we are not all wankers, although there is a higher percentage than in the population at large

  641. Candy said,

    September 4, 2007 at 5:46

    Does Teh new thread mean the efforts to reach 666 are to be abandoned? We should not cut and run, dammit!

  642. M. Bouffant said,

    September 4, 2007 at 6:41

    No 666, but Candy gets the last place prize. (We’ll just discount this one. And everything that’s happening, as they say.)

  643. Candy said,

    September 4, 2007 at 6:59

    Yay! I came in last!

    It’s a happy, happy day in Candyland!

  644. Dogstar said,

    September 4, 2007 at 18:14

    Candy, you had the best line of the whole thread.

  645. Rufus said,

    September 4, 2007 at 22:29

    Bruce wanted me to tell you all that he’s not coming back but he has a message for you:

    Every “scientific” discovery made in the last 2000 years was the result of a criminal conspiracy, the sole purpose of which was to increase the material wealth of the conspirators. Anyone who disagrees with this assertion is a moron. End of message.

  646. Dogstar said,

    September 5, 2007 at 0:22

    Jrod said,

    September 3, 2007 at 9:17

    Poor Dogstar was just looking for a pleasant three day weekend cordially debating the issue, but no. Once again those dirty hippies– ya know what, fuck it. This is waaaaaaay too goddamn stupid to even snark like that. Even Gary Ruppert thinks this is horseshit.

    This moron claims that a press release from Inhofe (R-Oil) touting the claims of an unreleased study which will supposedly be someday published in a shoddy vanity press joke of a scientific journal that doesn’t even peer review has conclusively destroyed the hippy environmentalists “ace in the hole.”

    See, this is why teh reading comprehension skillz are so important when debating on-line.

    What everyone has been claiming to be a “press release” is nothing more than a link to http://www.dailytech.com, which is the media site that originally published the story about the report.

    Unbelievable. You whipped yourselves into a latherous frenzy for nothing, and not a single one of you had the snap necessary to notice and acknowledge that the “press release” was actually nothing more than a link.

    HAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!

    For *THREE* days!!!

    Oh man, what an amazing conclusion to this story.

  647. Simba B. said,

    September 5, 2007 at 0:27

    I love how wingnuts claim a win on some stupid technical detail. Generally they can’t win on, you know, the merits of the argument.

    I will point out to you for the last time that you are engaging everyone here on everything except the core of the debate. Several people have debunked your challenges, one by one, and you’ve ignored them. This is to be expected of course, because you are arguing on bad faith, just like all wingnuts.

    Nice try, Dogstar. But don’t let me ruin your whoop-de-whoop there. Go post to at Ace’s place. Maybe you’ll provide us with some more subconscious gay-sex metaphors, which is always fun.

  648. Dogstar said,

    September 5, 2007 at 0:36

    I thought the article being a “press release” was the core issue.

    See, that’s because IT’S IN THE FRICKING TITLE!!!

    But if you want to tell me what the “core issue” is, I’ll be happy to fart in its general direction, so it will collapse like a house of cards.

    “Ewe Englishe pigge!!! I break winde in your zseneral directone!!! Now go away before I am forced to taunte ewe a seconde time!!!”

  649. Dogstar said,

    September 5, 2007 at 0:37

    P.S. Let’s plan this just right. I want to end at 666.

  650. Simba B. said,

    September 5, 2007 at 0:42

    But if you want to tell me what the “core issue” is, I’ll be happy to fart in its general direction, so it will collapse like a house of cards.

    No you won’t. You were given several opportunities to do this in the thread when it was much more active, and I’m not going to give you the satisfaction of bullshitting this community once again with your dishonest tactics.

    You’re either a real jerk and you know exactly what you’re doing or you don’t and you’re really fucking stupid.

    Either way, it doesn’t look good for you.

  651. Spokane Moderate said,

    September 5, 2007 at 0:57

    A press release touting a blog post is still a press release. Nice try though. It took you three days to come up with that one?

  652. Dogstar said,

    September 5, 2007 at 1:02

    So does that mean every pro-GW study that was ever linked to by a politician is a “press release”? What about the thousands of studies linked to, by current and former Democratic Congressmen and women?

    Are all of those merely “press releases” that cannot be considered of any value when arguing for/against GW?

    (Honestly, this is like shooting fish in a barrel.)

  653. Spokane Moderate said,

    September 5, 2007 at 1:06

    You didn’t link to a study; you linked to a press release. Thanks for playing.

  654. amh said,

    September 5, 2007 at 1:08

    So long as those press releases were about studies that were actually published in respected journals and the authors were found credible, they’d probably be fine. Whereas you took a press release linking to a summary about a study that hasn’t even been published yet and went “Suck on that, GW alarmists!! Where’s your consensus now?!”

  655. tigrismus said,

    September 5, 2007 at 1:08

    And the press release you linked to didn’t even link to a study, it linked to a blog post. NOBODY linked to the study, which was the point.

  656. El Cid said,

    September 5, 2007 at 1:50

    Why is Stephen Hawking afraid to debate this man?

  657. a different brad said,

    September 5, 2007 at 2:28

    Doggie, dude?
    You lost. We here all know and recognize it. The debate was not about where you found a brief summary of a study you haven’t read, it was about your actual knowledge of the study, and its validity. (Tho you’re lying. You linked to a press release. We read your post at ace’s place.)
    You have no actual knowledge of the study, save that it supports what you believe. Even humanities majors like me have read the same study summary and found a massive methodological problem, namely that it considers silence on the issue of global warming to be an expression of skepticism. Actual scientific practice is to not dwell on, or even necessarily mention, those theories which have gained general acceptance, as Oreskes mentions in her rebuttal.
    You haven’t answered this challenge, merely dismissed it as partisan. That’s fucking stupid.
    Neither, btw, have you seemingly read the summary you trumpet. This new study is based entirely on the data collected by Oreskes. You repeatedly claimed it was a new study based on new data, making her response totally unfounded. Further, you repeatedly called her a professor of history, again, ignoring the “of science” that follows, and questioned her credentials. This means that the study you now trumpet is either based on faulty data, or you think she did her job. Either she’s capable and the new study is based on valid data which she raises legitimate objections to the misuse of, or she’s incompetent and this new study is meaningless.
    You’re fucked, in other words, Doggie.
    N yes, I know you’ll ignore this or focus on my shocking use of profanity, but that is an admission of defeat on your part.

  658. El Cid said,

    September 5, 2007 at 2:57

    Dogstar said,
    (Honestly, this is like shooting fish in a barrel.)

    Yes, but I just linked to a Wikipedia entry describing a blog post referencing a wall graffiti which included a page number for a book whose publisher’s web page leads you to a press release which proves that the barrel-fish-shooting theorists are completely wrong.

  659. Dogstar said,

    September 5, 2007 at 4:09

    Whereas you took a press release linking to a summary about a study that hasn’t even been published yet and went “Suck on that, GW alarmists!! Where’s your consensus now?!”

    Lol… You people just keep getting yourselves in deeper and deeper…

    If the study was never published, how did Oreskes get ahold of it? I mean, you guys kept linking some complaint she wrote about it, didn’t you?

    HAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    Oh man, this is like swordfighting with blindfolded kindergardeners in straightjackets.

    Please tell me this isn’t the best you can do.

    659!!! Almost there.

  660. Simba B. said,

    September 5, 2007 at 4:13

    Please tell me this isn’t the best you can do.

    Please tell me this isn’t the best you can do because I’m leaning towards really fucking stupid as per my earlier comment.

  661. Spokane Moderate said,

    September 5, 2007 at 4:17

    If the study was never published, how did Oreskes get ahold of it?

    So now you’re claiming it HAS been published? What are you smoking, and why hasn’t Mikey offered us some?

  662. Spokane Moderate said,

    September 5, 2007 at 4:20

    FYI, from the blog post in the press release to which you linked:

    The results have been submitted to the journal Energy and Environment, of which DailyTech has obtained a pre-publication copy.

  663. a different brad said,

    September 5, 2007 at 4:36

    You haven’t read it, and that means you can be certain of its absolute infallibility. Oreskes hasn’t read it, but has read the summary you skimmed and found elements to respond to.
    How old are you, Dogstar? I’m starting to wonder if you’re the adolescent son of the person you’re pretending to be.

  664. El Cid said,

    September 5, 2007 at 4:40

    Dogstar said…
    Oh man, this is like swordfighting with blindfolded kindergardeners in straightjackets.

    No, even better! This is like using a Case CX800 Tracked Excavator to hold comatose elderly patients up to the full afterburnered exhaust of an F/A18E!!!

    Wait, wait, this is like dry raping a drugged purebred Great Pyrenees pup with a thigh-support 18″ silicone dildo!!!

    No, no, wait, wait, way, way better!!! This is like having your own patent for a process by way of which you refer to a blogged summary of a press release for a study you haven’t seen which nevertheless proves your controversial theory!!!

    Man that would raaaaawk!!!

  665. a different brad said,

    September 5, 2007 at 4:42

    I wonder if this is going to be like an ebay auction, and Dogstar has been sitting, waiting, to strike at the last possible moment to snag 666.
    Pffffft.

  666. a different brad said,

    September 5, 2007 at 4:44

    In any case
    here’s an overhyped number.
    not with a bang
    but a whimper

  667. Spokane Moderate said,

    September 5, 2007 at 4:45

    I wonder if this is going to be like an ebay auction, and Dogstar has been sitting, waiting, to strike at the last possible moment to snag 666.

    Well, someone should point out that the number of the beast is actually 616, not 666.

    http://www.religionnewsblog.com/11134/beasts-real-mark-devalued-to-616

  668. El Cid said,

    September 5, 2007 at 4:52

    Why is MIT afraid to debate this man?

  669. Dogstar said,

    September 5, 2007 at 6:23

    *sigh*

    The dream is dead. Viva la dream.

    El Cid, can I ask you a question?

  670. The Larrification of America said,

    September 5, 2007 at 6:23

    I picture America as one continental sized stall, and you’re all within in my stance. God Bless the stall.

  671. Dogstar said,

    September 5, 2007 at 6:28

    Spokane Moderate said,

    September 5, 2007 at 4:17

    If the study was never published, how did Oreskes get ahold of it?

    So now you’re claiming it HAS been published? What are you smoking, and why hasn’t Mikey offered us some?

    *blushing*

    Yeah, I have to admit that I am (and have been) extremely, um, whatever for the past 24+ hours.

    We made a run over to my bud’s step-bro, who’s one of those DIY home gardeners, if-you-know-what-I-mean-and-I-think-you.

  672. El Cid said,

    September 5, 2007 at 6:31

    Dogstar said,
    El Cid, can I ask you a question?

    I dunno — will it be like swinging a pickaxe into the soft spot of a sleeping 10 month old?

  673. El Cid said,

    September 5, 2007 at 6:31

    And why is Stephen Wolfram afraid to debate this man?

  674. Dogstar said,

    September 5, 2007 at 6:34

    This is like using a Case CX800 Tracked Excavator to hold comatose elderly patients up to the full afterburnered exhaust of an F/A18E!!!

    PFFFFFFFFFFTTTTTTTTT!!!!!!!!!!!

    (Reaching for napkins…)

    I don’t have a hat within reach, but if I did I would be tipping it in your direction.

  675. Dogstar said,

    September 5, 2007 at 6:35

    Dude! The Force is strong with you tonight.

  676. Candy said,

    September 5, 2007 at 19:11

    Looks like I celebrated my last place finish too soon. It seemed a safe bet at the time.

    I can’t hear the number 666 without thinking about this young guy I used to work with in the claims entry department of Big Insurance Company. He was peculiar in many ways, but as this is not unusual in low-level corporate jobs, he might have stayed employed if not for a quirk he had about the number 666, to wit, he would not speak or type the number – at all. If it came up in some person’s social security number, which it frequently did, he would not type that claim. Since this would throw the entire batch out of sequence, it was a major problem. He would try to get the unfortunate coworkers sitting next to him to step over to his desk and type it. Needless to say, this issue did not enhance his job performance and he was soon gone.

  677. Dogstar said,

    September 5, 2007 at 19:27

    I, being Dogstar, have nothing more to say, that is, I have nothing more to say now.

    ahem…

  678. psycholinguist said,

    September 5, 2007 at 21:56

    No way dogstar gets to go last. Me me!

  679. mikey said,

    September 6, 2007 at 2:53

    Back in the early nineties we had pagers. Remember pagers? Anyway, when you paged somebody you’d put in your number and a code so they’d know who you were. My code was always 666. That just meant mikey…

    mikey

  680. hey that wasn't him said,

    September 6, 2007 at 7:59

    n/m

  681. El Cid said,

    September 6, 2007 at 9:13

    Why is Al Gore afraid to debate these theorists?

  682. Science » Blog Archive » Science (journal) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia said,

    September 7, 2007 at 19:01

    [...] Why is the NOAA afraid to debate this man? http://www.nov55.com/tor.html. …more [...]

  683. The Larrification of America said,

    September 8, 2007 at 23:46

    you all reside within my stance.

  684. Sadly, No! » Oh Dear said,

    September 14, 2007 at 6:07

    [...] that Schulte paper that supposedly refuted the claim that there’s a scientific consensus on global [...]

  685. Matt said,

    January 30, 2009 at 6:51

    Hi, just hopping around WP and came across your posting. Some of us have gotten together and started an article website, http://www.SayItAloud.com that pays writers when we get advertisers for their works. We have a good little family going while we are still young and I was wondering if you would be interested in contributing.%d%a%d%aRegistration is simple and free and you can write just about anything. When your articles go live (they have to be original, not what you posted anywhere else), we have a sales staff who go to work trying to sell the space on your article. If you have a two page, well written article, you can make $135 each piece when they sell the space.%d%a%d%aIf you?ffff92re not interested, no worries. If you are you can read the FAQs for most questions or feel free to drop me a line.%d?ither way, good post and catch you later.

  686. Glororstora said,

    December 19, 2012 at 11:58

    Glororstora

  687. cheap payday loans said,

    June 21, 2013 at 12:06

    Interestingness rates on these kinds of big fiscal loans
    could not familiar with the nomenclature of Payday Loans.
    http://www.paydayperfection.co.uk Utmost workweek, we rolling out digital subscriptions to our readers in your wage
    and your yesteryear chronicle, so that you will easily return the
    borrowed sum of money in time without any difficulties.

Leave a Comment

  • Things of Interest

  • Meta Goodness

  • Clunkers

  • httpbl_stats()