News From Around The Blogosphere 11.29.09

1. Michael Egnor & the Discovery Institute expose their anti-science bias – I’ve blogged about Egnor before, linking to the blog debate where Steven Novella refuted his every flawed, ridiculous argument in favor of a “soul.” Now he’s jumping on the so-called “ClimateGate” fiasco, where he insists, like so many other denialists, that a whole lot of private, innocuous emails climate scientists is somehow the smoking gun evidence that global warming is false. Of course he doesn’t pinpoint any statements in any of the emails that would lead any rational person to this conclusion. But who needs facts when you’ve got faith? Egnor proves once again how egnorant he can be.


Is that a serious headline?

2. Uganda proposes death penalty to HIV-positive gays – It suddenly becomes very clear why Uganda is known for having the best medical care in the world. Oh wait. No, it doesn’t. The positive news is that this suggests that maybe not all the Neanderthals did die out after all. Though it’s not really fair to blame Uganda. Stupidity this large can only come from one source:  the U.S.’s own THE FAMILY. I’m looking at you Sen. John Ensign, Rep. Bart Stupak and Rep. Joe Pitts. Can we please lock these psychopaths up now?

3. Ray “The Banana Man” Comfort gave a full interview to the Friendly Atheist – You can read the whole thing in all its idiocy in the link above.

4. The first honest homeopathy product? – As you can clearly read on the packaging, homeopaths have developed the first ever non-drowsy sleep aid. May I be the first to congratulate them on this amazing breakthrough. Good job, guys. Good job.

5. The official wine of woo – Age of Autism took some time off from shilling bogus autism treatments for profit to shill some silly wine site called “Wines For Autism.” Now at first the site might seem fine. It’s supporting autism awareness after all. So how bad could it b–oh:

From witnessing my son’s significant progress I have made it my goal to spread awareness of the effectiveness of biomedical interventions while supporting charities that share my beliefs.

In other words, she wishes to promote those who support her particular delusion and no actual scientific organization researching autism will receive a dime. In other words, she’s going to exploit autism pseudoscience to make money.

It’s sort of like my business where I sell used cars and give some of the profits to cancer research (please note:  cancer research means those promoting trepanning as an effective cancer treatment). Actually, now that I think about it, this whole story makes me feel like bludgeoning my skull with a large stick so that all that stupid can seep out of my brain.

6. Iron Jesus!


3 Responses to News From Around The Blogosphere 11.29.09

  1. Mark P says:

    “Of course he doesn’t pinpoint any statements in any of the emails that would lead any rational person to this conclusion”

    You don’t have to look very hard to find the incriminating stuff. Go and look. You might be horrified.

    Actually though, the e-mails are not the danger for the Climate Warming crowd. We’ve known for a long time that they block access to certain journals for results they don’t like. And they ignore the journals which routinely publish evidence the world is not warming.

    What is dangerous in the leaked documents is that the methodology of making up the warming is exposed. When a programmer states that the data is hideously corrupted, there is a problem. When a programmer states that he is going to make up some values to fill a hole, there is a problem.

    Funny thing is, the behaviour of the global warming crowd has many traits of medical wackos. A complex system is reduced to one cause (in this case CO2) whereas anyone saying “hang on, this is a complicated system” is ridiculed. World climate is far too complicated to be reduced to one low percentage chemical.

    Another key behaviour is that they refuse to allow their material to be viewed. They keep their models secret in particular. That is usally a red flag in science, because no-one can verifty the accuracy.

    Another behaviour which should sound the warning bells is that the warming predictions fail to come true. We were promised accelerated warning this decade. Ooops, no warning at all. We were promised rising water levels. Damn, not happening. Like a psychic, they just issue new predictions on top of the old ones, and hope no-one notices their abysmal strike rate.

    Finally the ad hominens. Anyone who denies the CO2 thesis (say me) is ridiculed as a global warming “denier”, even when we make it abundantly clear that we accept the planet is warming. Just not their ridiculous “it’s all the carbon” argument.

    I was horrified when I read what the climate scientists are doing with the data. I have seen the records for my country (New Zealand) and they show the last century has seen a very, very slow warming. The temperatures are on record, and not in dispute. But somehow flat temperatures become evidence of massive global warming, because they need to be “adjusted”. I’ve not been able to work out the need for the adjustments: we have to believe.

    Don’t trust me? You shouldn’t. Go find the temperature records for your area, preferably a long running set taken from the same place and not now in a large town (to avoid urban heat effects). I bet (and I don’t need to know where you live) that they do not show a massive recent increase in average temperature.

    Don’t go “I trust the science, blah, blah, blah ..”. Go and check the data. Then ask yourself how that fits with the rapidly warming theory.

    • mjr256 says:

      Incriminating only if one mis-quotes and cherry-picks passages out of context. Now I’ve only personally read a small portion of the emails but every objective news source I can find that has gone through all the emails finds nothing incriminating, controversial, or even all that interesting in the emails. And I haven’t found anyone of any scientific credibility who’s changed their minds on the issue from having accepted climatologists’ findings on global climate change in the past to now rejecting those findings in light of these emails. The only people who seem to think there’s anything more here are those who already believed global climate change research was all an elaborate conspiracy. The response to the emails seem to say more about the views of those reading them than about the science itself.

      As far as I’m aware, no serious climatologist suggested that CO2 was the only factor in climate change, so that’s a straw man. And the so-called climate change “skeptics” say a lot more than, as you put it, “this is a complicated system.” This is textbook crank downplaying. Ben Stein’s just saying “teach the controversy” about evolution. Joe Rogan’s “just asking questions” about the moon landing. David Irving is just looking to get a more accurate figure on the number of Jewish deaths during the Holocaust. Jenny McCarthy’s “not anti-vaccine, just anti-toxin.” Glenn Beck is “just asking questions” about whether or not Obama’s a racist, socialist, Nazi. And Bill Maher’s just calling for more public debate about the efficacy of medicine. You and I both know the so-called “skeptics” of climate change tend more often than not to promote baseless conspiracy theories and have done so for years. The science remains sound and the claims of the “skeptics” have been debunked one by one.

      And claiming that individual failed predictions of some climatologists that were always considered controversial anyway is proof that the whole science is just a giant hoax is no better than suggesting that any particular finding that changes our our understanding of evolution is sufficient evidence to disprove the whole thing. Like any other accepted science, there have been far more correct predictions made with the warming hypothesis than incorrect.

      Additionally, I’m not the arbiter of who is a denialist. The experts are. Skeptics put their opinions aside and respect the scientific process. Denialists, on the other hand, refuse to accept a particular conclusion no matter how compelling the evidence. Again, as far as I know, no one of any consequence is saying CO2 is solely responsible. And saying you accept that the planet is warming, only the CO2 component is like a creationist insisting they accept only microevolution, but not macroevolution. The evidence of CO2’s involvement is overwhelming and easily available.

      You may not like it when laypeople choose to “trust the science” instead of embracing an arrogance of ignorance position of assuming they’re smarter than the experts despite no background in the science, but at the end of the day, it comes down to trusting the process. Even if I stopped everything right now and devoted my life to studying climate science, I’m not likely to ever know more about it than the consensus of experts in the field. That’s just the way it is. And it is the height of arrogance to assume otherwise. So until I see real smoking gun evidence of the evil conspiracy or until new evidence comes to light that fundamentally changes the scientific understanding of climate change, I’m standing behind the scientific process.

  2. […] Rick Warren Won’t Condemn Proposed Ugandan Law To Kill Gays – Yesterday, I blogged about the proposed law in Uganda that would put HIV+ gays to death and how it was linked directly […]

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: