Open mike 24/11/09

24 comments on “Open mike 24/11/09 ”

• Comments are now closed

1. gitmo 1

   24 November 2009 at 7:54 am

   The standard appears to have become a nesting ground for 911 nutters……… danger Wil Robinson danger.
2. outofbed 2

   24 November 2009 at 8:01 am

   The standard appears to have become a nesting ground for 911 nutters danger Wil Robinson danger.

   Yes lets not forget the evil Dr Smith
   
   [lprent: I’m not too concerned provided it doesn’t spill over into rational topics, and it is always interesting observing obsessional behaviours. Eventually it will die out. ]
3. toad 3

   24 November 2009 at 9:04 am

   At least it’s not climate cranks.

   Wingnuts Wishart and Whaleoil have wet themselves several times in the last few days over the mail file stolen from the University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Centre’s mail server.
   • Doug 3.1

     24 November 2009 at 9:22 am

     Toad:
     Take Two minutes and watch this.
     
     • toad 3.1.1

       24 November 2009 at 10:05 am

       Ah, you mean the same Tim Ball who fronted on the thoroughly discredited Great Global Warming Swindle and is Glenn Beck’s tame climate “scientist”.
       • Doug 3.1.1.1

         24 November 2009 at 10:21 am

         Toad you can find some excellent reading here.

         450 PEER-REVIEWED PAPERS SUPPORTING SKEPTICISM OF AGW-CAUSED GLOBAL WARMING.

         http://nzclimatescience.net/images/PDFs/450_peer_reviewed_papers.pdf
         • lprent 3.1.1.1.1

           24 November 2009 at 12:03 pm

           The real question is who they are ‘peer-reviewed’ by. For instance papers from Climate Research are notoriously ummm suspect at best. Fraudulent tends to be a word that really springs to mind.

           Most of the other papers I’ve seen quoted are questioning some specific bits of the models by finding data that contradicts it in some way. Needless to say this is part of the scientific process and is used to refine the models. Of course CCDs like you are incapable of evaluating what is said or written about, so you think that scientific debate is skepticism.

           To date I haven’t seen a paper after the mid-90’s by anyone reputable (my first degree was in earth sciences) that has seriously posed a problem with the overall agreement of process of human caused climate change.

           CCD == wishful thinkers.
   • lukas 3.2

     24 November 2009 at 9:30 am

     Toad, are you taxpayer funded?

     Have you read the e-mails in question?

     Do you ever take on the substance of an argument without stooping to petty name calling?
     • toad 3.2.1

       24 November 2009 at 10:13 am

       lukas, if you had read my post at g.blog properly, you would see that I stated I have not read all the emails. I simply don’t have time, and would suggest that Wishart and Slater don’t either. What I have read are a selected few of them that have been seized upon by the deniers as supporting their case that there is some vast conspiracy, and have discovered they do not support their case at all.

       All they show is good scientists doing good science – and getting a bit tetchy with the deniers from time to time.
       • lukas 3.2.1.1

         24 November 2009 at 10:39 am

         oh so you can’t really make an informed comment on the e-mails and write them off completely?

         Are you taxpayer funded via the “green” Party?

         [lprent: This site isn’t. Currently I pay for it with a few donations from the Donate button on the left. ]
   • Andrei 3.3

     24 November 2009 at 9:47 am

     At least it’s not climate cranks

     I’ve got news for you buddy – are you sitting down. The climate cranks are the global warming cultists such as yourself. Not much different from the 9/11 truthers, indeed I have been amused by the synchronicity between the two belief systems evidenced on this blog over the past few days.

     Meanwhile as the leaked data, data not E-mails, from the CRU is being slowly analyzed it is becoming more and more apparent how the scientific process has been perverted to promote the AGW agenda.

     It reminds me of how Lysenko wrecked biology in the Soviet Union many years ago and also caused famine.by insisting his half backed theories were applied to agriculture.

     Lesson: Keep leftist ideologues away from serious science

     [lprent: How do we explain you in that case – definitely not left. Could it be that we really just need to keep nutters (regardless of political persuasion) away from science because they are incapable of understanding it. You and Wishart definitely qualify on the nutter front for science (and probably everything else as well). Of course that is just my opinion, but I’m infinitely more qualified in earth sciences than you appear to be. ]
     • NickS 3.3.1

       24 November 2009 at 10:45 am

       I’ve got news for you buddy are you sitting down. The climate cranks are the global warming cultists such as yourself. Not much different from the 9/11 truthers, indeed I have been amused by the synchronicity between the two belief systems evidenced on this blog over the past few days.

       Yeap, because pointing out the flaws in your arguments, particularly the fact CCD’ers are taking the emails out of context, aka “quote mining” means we must surely be engaging in the pathetic ad hoc, arguments from ignorance and other fallacy containing bullsh*t from the truthers.
       /thumbs up + cheesy grin

       You know, there is a growing body of work looking at these shorts of human stupidity which involve denying evidence per a priori beliefs. I can’t remember the name of Tara Smiths paper on HIV denialism, but the guys at the denialism blog have a helpful summary of standard denier tactics:
       What is Denialism?

       Which surprise, surprise, you engage in quite a bit, particularly on the conspiracy front, and of course with a liberal whipping of fake experts in climatology. Of course, we could always put yours, and others burning stupidity down to the Kruger-Dunning effect…

       Meanwhile as the leaked data, data not E-mails, from the CRU is being slowly analyzed it is becoming more and more apparent how the scientific process has been perverted to promote the AGW agenda.

       Hello grandiose delusional, evidence free claim, you know, given the previous failures of septics to actually do data analysis, as seen on RC, open mind and a few other places, it’s fairly easy to express robust scepticism that CCD’s wont make further morons of themselves.

       And further more on the emails:
       Climate change Deniers hoax themselves again.

       It reminds me of how Lysenko wrecked biology in the Soviet Union many years ago and also caused famine.by insisting his half backed theories were applied to agriculture.

       Lesson: Keep leftist ideologues away from serious science

       History of Science, you fail at it.

       The only reason Lysenko was able to get anywhere was because he had Stalin’s support, the majority of Soviet plant scientists & geneticists actually recognised that Lysenko’s “miracle” was just vernalisation, and wouldn’t cause the sort of long-term changes Lysenko claimed it would. Since Lysenko embraced a modified form of Lamarckicism, which even before the modern evolutionary synthesis emerged, was well known to be wrong, even by the saltionists ideas that were mainstream in genetics in the 1920’s-30’s iirc.

       So it pretty much Stalin’s fault Lysenko gained so much power, as scientists who didn’t toe Lysenko’s bs got demoted, fired or sent to the Gulags. Meaning that without Stalin’s help, nothing would have happened, since even under the influence of communist ideas, Soviet genetics and plant bio where on similar trajectory to that of genetics etc in the rest of Europe and the USA. Thus making the claim “Keep leftist ideologues away from serious science” a naive historical analysis, that ignores significant parts of the history of Lysenkoism in the USSR, and instead frames it via the constraints of political ideology and also frames climatologists as “extreme leftists” without critically examining their political beliefs, let alone look at the role of such beliefs as studied in social studies of science in terms of introducing biases into analysis. Which from memory, the generally critical nature of science takes care, though gender is one of those things that slips through…

       Anyhow, in summary, you clearly do not know the history of Lysenko, and Soviet science or are lying, and combined with your already exposed inability to understand science, leads you to produce a really stupid argument. Which a few minutes of checking wikipedia and maybe looking at other online resources from academics would have possibly prevented you from making such dumb arguments.

       Though one suspects you’d probably go look at conservapedia instead, due to it being “non-liberal”.

       Or tl:dr, Andrei is still a complete delusional idiot when it comes to history of science and how science works.
     • NickS 3.3.2

       24 November 2009 at 12:11 pm

       Also, methinks Andrei is conveniently ignoring the effects of right-wing extremism on science, e.g. Deutsche Physik and much of the drivers behind young earth creationism and (un)intelligent design.
       • Pascal's bookie 3.3.2.1

         24 November 2009 at 12:19 pm

         Please don’t get him started on ID.

         Or maybe it would be a nice change, he’s been a bit reticent on that front these days.

         C’mon Andrei, share.
         • NickS 3.3.2.1.1

           24 November 2009 at 12:44 pm

           Ooooh, I haven’t had an IDiot to cut my teeth on in some time.

           And I have many, many sharp teeth of science that need to be made use of.
           /muwahahahahaha

           Particularly if he goes the “information theory…” way.
4. Pascal's bookie 4

   24 November 2009 at 9:31 am

   Garth McVicar’s BFF.

   The very same night of her arrest, Chacon went into labor and found herself afraid and alone, being rushed to a local hospital with her hands and legs chained in shackles.

   Once she reached the hospital, nurses repeatedly begged the Sheriff’s staff to allow them to unchain the mother, but they refused and Chacon was forced to give birth while still shackled to the bed. At one point, the nurse asked for them to release her so that she could be escorted to the bathroom for a urinalysis, but even that request was denied. But the worst came once Chacon gave birth to her baby girl.

   Still chained to the bed, Arpaio’s police staff refused to allow Chacon to hold her newborn baby and then warned her that if no one came to pick up the child within 72 hours, she would be turned over into state custody.

   McVicar keeps talking about this small town Arizona sheriff, some journo should ask Garth what he thinks about the more interesting aspects of this guy’s day to day law enforcement operation.
5. Tigger 5

   24 November 2009 at 10:59 am

   http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10611249

   Name suppression hijinx! Creepy in so many ways. Key is perverting the very order that he is claiming is useless.

   They make it appear like Key is ‘so powerful he can find out secret names’. My 15 year old niece knows the damn name!
6. Bored 6

   24 November 2009 at 12:36 pm

   Funny headlines on MSM and Herald, paraphrased “John Key knows identity of entertainment figure accused of sexual abuse’ .begs a few questions:

   1.Since when was a criminal matter already before the courts something a Prime Minister should be asking a colleague who was “in the know’ what the suppressed name of the accused is?

   2.Why is it of such interest to Key that now “knowing’ he lets the press know he “knows’?

   3.Has Key not got better issues to deal to (such as addressing imminent climate catastrophe)?

   4.Is this a new low standard that our journalists and press have reached when this type of non story can pass for news in the face of far more important and monumental issues?

   5.Are the public so indifferent to trash news, or possibly addicted to it to the exclusion of anything real or important?

   One could become very cynical.
   • felix 6.1

     24 November 2009 at 1:44 pm

     All good questions but they’re all raised, not begged.
     • Bored 6.1.1

       24 November 2009 at 4:41 pm

       Not to these bastards, you have to beg to get an answer, or pay for it if asking Wodders….
       • Tigger 6.1.1.1

         24 November 2009 at 4:52 pm

         And of course this was bound to happen…
         http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10611349

         The PM knows so I should know…Key is a peanut-head. A scary peanut-head.
7. Herodotus 7

   24 November 2009 at 5:06 pm

   H1 favoured gossip as per a teenager to her favoured media people (keeping the hacks on her side, if you broke away from her, exclusion resulted), J K perfers to use the little boys I know something that you dont (With a twinkle in his eye), different MO but the same immaturity. What is worse the media think this is great. Why not just place cameras everywhere in parliament and we can have reality TV. Problem at least now for a few months every 3 yrs we are capitivated, it we had wall to wall 24 hrs. No one would vote !!!
8. Steve 8

   24 November 2009 at 7:51 pm

   Hands up who does not know the name of the high profile entertainer?
   I have never heard of this person, most of NZ has never heard of this person.
   Wreck his career? This is a pedistal for no-hopers. The Judge is pathetic
   • lprent 8.1

     24 November 2009 at 7:59 pm

     It took 5 minutes of searching when I got interested enough. Much the same as when I wanted to know the outcome of the judgments on the validity of the ‘search warrants’ on the Oct 15 ‘terrorism’ case.

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS