Buy

Books
Click images for more details

Support

 

Twitter
Recent comments
Recent posts
Currently discussing
Links

A few sites I've stumbled across recently....

Powered by Squarespace
« BBC apologises to CRU | Main | Bolivian cold snap »
Saturday
Aug072010

More evidence of changing GW narrative

Interesting to see the success of the Our Climate iPhone app - Anthony reports that it has made the front of the US iTunes store, despite efforts to denigrate it at the Guardian.

All I need now is for Graun to print a really bitchy review of HSI to send my sales stratospheric...

PrintView Printer Friendly Version

Reader Comments (45)

Do we infer from this that Tamino's review hasn't resulted in a marked increase in sales? But then, RC is becoming something of a fringe advocacy site.. ;)

Aug 7, 2010 at 5:13 PM | Unregistered CommenterSimonH

Sorry.. becoming RECOGNISED as. It always was an advocacy site, but I think recognition of this is beginning to be properly and fully understood.

Aug 7, 2010 at 5:14 PM | Unregistered CommenterSimonH

It has always been true that the more strident and arrogant the tone of a message the less attractive that message is to those with open minds who want truth not dogma.

What is strange is how the alarmists and the alarmist press - in particular The Guardian want to continue to use such arrogant and strident words aimed at "denialists". Are these “words” supposed to impress newcomers to the AGW fold or are they just platitudes and a comfort blanket to the AGW=Catastrophe believers?

Seriously - how many times does it have to be said that we sceptic do not "deny" that Climate Changes. Thus labelling people as "Deniers" and publishing frankly rather bitchy, puerile, foot stamping articles in the likes of The Guardian because the moderate and well mannered sceptical viewpoint is being taken up more widely, as demonstrated here, is not doing any favours to the Alarmist viewpoint.

Not that I am complaining!!

I just think it interesting how their minds work.

Aug 7, 2010 at 5:28 PM | Unregistered CommenterDoug

Bishop

All I need now is for Graun to print a really bitchy review of HSI to send my sales stratospheric...

You might threaten to cancel your subscription if they don't! Even if you don't have one. :)

I think it is absolutely hilarious about what happened -- Apple Store top 40! Brilliant!

Aug 7, 2010 at 5:35 PM | Unregistered CommenterDon Pablo de la Sierra

The narrative seems to be changing in front of our eyes (or ears in this case). Whilst in the car today I listened to Radio 4's Any Questions, and the panel were asked about climate change. The tone of the conversation was much less hysterical than of late but we now appear to be moving on to "it doesn't matter whether global warming is a myth, we should be doing x,y and z anyway" territory.

Listen here:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00t7kyq#synopsis

The relevant discussion was about 20 minutes in I think.

Aug 7, 2010 at 5:51 PM | Unregistered Commenterwoodentop

The Greenland glacier calving story has been on the news on the BBC for most of the day. No mention of Climate Change and I've not heard any forecast of impending eco doom. Refreshing really. Or did I just happen to miss the gloom and doom report?

Aug 7, 2010 at 9:11 PM | Unregistered CommenterSteve Crook

“The Greenland glacier calving story has been on the news on the BBC for most of the day. No mention of Climate Change and I've not heard any forecast of impending eco doom. Refreshing really. Or did I just happen to miss the gloom and doom report?

Aug 7, 2010 at 9:11 PM | Steve Crook”

Agreed Steve - I have been looking out for the hysterical "this is further proof that God is going to smite us via climate change" comments but surprise surprise - not one.

Definitely a change in reporting bias here.

Aug 7, 2010 at 9:26 PM | Unregistered CommenterDoug

woodentop: That was because Dominic Lawson was on the panel. The others had no answers to his logic.

Bish: I thought your sales were stratospheric?

Aug 7, 2010 at 9:39 PM | Unregistered CommenterPhillip Bratby

Phillip

Good but not stratospheric. At least, Bill Bryson and Ben Goldacre will not be looking to their laurels just yet.

Aug 7, 2010 at 9:42 PM | Registered CommenterBishop Hill

Interesting little cameo at RC right now.

They've got a guest post from one Barry Bickmore who has apparently become a self-styled scourge of Christopher Monckton.

RC of course is where Roy Spencer was roundly reviled and denounced as a "creationist" because of his religious beliefs.

Bickmore himself happens to be a devout fundamentalist Mormon missionary, who is not only a creationist but believes that Jesus visited the ancient Incas and had their scriptures written on golden scrolls and delivered by an angel to their founder Joseph Smith in 1830 something.

http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/review/?vol=12&num=1&id=332

Unlike Spencer however - this apparently doesn't detract from his scientific credentials .

Is it 'cos he's a warmist?

Aug 7, 2010 at 10:48 PM | Unregistered CommenterFoxgoose

Have been reading HSI this week and, halfway through, am enjoying it very much. It took a week to reach me here in Virginia going through the Royal Mail as it did, but the wait was worth it. I certainly hope Mr. Montford is encouraged to continue publishing. The style is very even, and the narative is easy to follow. I speak as someone for whom writing on narrow scientific topics is a daily part of his job and I admire (also envy) the linear and apparently effortless progression through complex detail and the clarity of the discourse. I know it was not really effortless (as if) but actually the product of carefull planning, execution and revision. Admirable. Next book, please... and, please, make it soon!

Aug 7, 2010 at 11:22 PM | Unregistered Commenterpluck

Just listened to BBC Any Questions?, as per woodentop's and Phillip Bratby's comments above - Dominic Lawson got some resounding applause from the audience, too. And even Tom Holland wasn't sold on the assertion from the questioner that the floods in Pakistan were attributable to (man-made) climate change: "The jury's out on that."

Aug 7, 2010 at 11:26 PM | Unregistered CommenterAlex Cull

Adversity makes strange bedfellows FoxGoose.
Creationism is only deserving of denigration when secular beliefs are challenged.
On this occasion Bickmore is supportive of Gavinology and thus exempt from criticism.
Go for it Mr S. now you've spoilt the picnic by admitting that historical climates are irrelevant, and that we should focus on physical matters upon which you're as qualified to pontificate upon as myself, or more charitably, Kermit the frog.
As much as I admire your new-found aspirations of ascent to Heaven, gav old fruit, I'm no more willing to grease the pseudo-scientific pole of your redemption than when you were a secular scoffer of viewpoints that proferred a sufficiency of proof but failed the test of suspended incredulity.
Give up this pointless defence of Mann and his discredited band of acolytes. Get stuck into the
Science and regain credibility. Otherwise, old bean, your contribution in life will be somewhat unflattering.
Or just keep digging. It's your choice.

Aug 7, 2010 at 11:33 PM | Unregistered Commenterroyfomr

Foxgoose '...in 1830 something'.
Wasn't it on a Tuesday, just before tea-time?

Aug 7, 2010 at 11:47 PM | Unregistered CommenterTony Hansen

According to P.G. Wodehouse, who knew something about book sales, getting denounced by an English Bishop in the pulpit was the next best thing to getting banned in Boston.

Now, this might suggest a course of action, but you might get accused of talking your book in that case.

Aug 8, 2010 at 1:56 AM | Unregistered CommenterThucydides

royfmor, this is exactly what belies Gavins, M.T.'s, et als stance. They keep on chirping that Mann's work is really not that important or interesting, yet they cannot stop defending it! On Lucia's site a few months ago, MT was going on about this, and when I posted that the hockey stick was the biggest attention getter for non-scientists regarding AGW, he mumbled on about how he couldn't understand why people thought it was so important.... !

But ask any of them to talk to Prof. Mann about his mistakes and act like a Man, and admit them, we get back "there are either no mistakes, just Deniers trying to dupe the public, or it really isn't that important".

Obviously it is VERY important to their case, or they would be pushing Prof. Mann to Man-Up!

Aug 8, 2010 at 2:23 AM | Unregistered CommenterDeNihilist

The broken glacier in Greenland and the Pakistan floods make an interesting conundrum for the Alarmists.

You can see that they are dying to bring out the old tin trumpet and big bass drum and herald them both as Positive Proof of Impending AGW Doom. But, whilst ever they are reporting that "this is the biggest ice island since 1962" (which was twice as big), and that the floods are the "worst for 80 years", then there is a very obvious and inconvenient question that arises from blaming either on CO2.

Don't worry, they will find a way. Probably using the aproach "Scientists have found that the recent [event] was the result of the systemic failure of the UK population to turn off their TV standby lights". Or whatever.

Clearly the decimation of the population of France by the 2003 heat wave, long used as PROOF of AGW, is looking tired now.

I think we'll find the the Russian heatwave will be their new icon.

Aug 8, 2010 at 8:54 AM | Unregistered CommenterMartin Brumby

"royfmor, this is exactly what belies Gavins, M.T.'s, et als stance. They keep on chirping that Mann's work is really not that important or interesting, yet they cannot stop defending it!"

This is entirely typical of cult thinking. The fact that the two defences are to some extent inconsistent in terms of behavior does not prevent the believer from feeling obliged to offer both, because he is engaged in defending two quite different things, one of which may be sacrificed at any time.

The Stick has to be defended because it is a proposition Ex Cathedra of a Party luminary. Whatever a member of the Politburo in good standing says must be defended. This is because what is at stake here is the credibility of the Party. That is what is being defended. This is why the most implausible things that Stalin had ever said were articles of faith until he died.

If the Party member ceases to be in good standing, you will then discover that the Stick was wrong all along and was always known to be wrong. For this however we have to wait for the coming purges. They will come, and Mann and Jones will be purged. Just be patient.

The second thing that has to be defended is not the Party, but the general doctrine. For this, it is necessary to find some way of minimizing the damage done by the obvious falsehood, without actually acknowledging it. So the tactic here is to argue that it 'doesn't matter', is not central, and so on.

We thus arrive at the position that the Stick is both correct in every detail, and completely unimportant to the debate.

This is not unknown in either politics, religion, or even literature. A classic early example in literature is found in Marlowe, in the Jew of Malta:

'Tis true, I have committed fornication
But that was in another country, and besides, the wench is dead.

Aug 8, 2010 at 10:14 AM | Unregistered Commentermichel

The Sun -Herald here in Sydney hasn't been able to resist blaming climate change for the floods & fires:
http://www.smh.com.au/environment/climate-change/climate-change-whips-up-floods-fire-and-ice-20100807

Aug 8, 2010 at 11:17 AM | Unregistered CommenterRobyn Chee

Steve


The Greenland glacier calving story has been on the news on the BBC for most of the day. No mention of Climate Change and I've not heard any forecast of impending eco doom. Refreshing really. Or did I just happen to miss the gloom and doom report?

No they are upgrading their populism with the insights of Cialdini : It gives a much stronger rinse, if you "inform" the populace up to but not including the inevitable conclusione "it's all the fault of climate change!". It leaves the easily deluded the feeling they have now reached the desired conclusion themselves, form independent thinking. Which gives much more satisfaction and impregnation.

Anything that comes out of the BBC has a self-interest purpose

Aug 8, 2010 at 2:01 PM | Unregistered Commenterphinniethewoo

Of interest in the "ice island" story is that it is the biggest such event in 50 years. That means it happened last 50 years ago, well before the melting of all the North Pole and such.

So why not the biggest ever? You would expect that, would you not?

Aug 8, 2010 at 2:34 PM | Unregistered CommenterDon Pablo de la Sierra

Einstein's famous quote " God does not play dice with the Universe" was a summary of his position against the then and now widely accepted Copenhagen probabilistic interpretation of Quantum Mechanics. It would be interesting to know whether those in the MSM who regard people who challenge AGW as " AGW Deniers" would similarly consider Einstein as a Quantum Mechanics Denier.

Aug 8, 2010 at 5:53 PM | Unregistered CommenterSidF

SidF

Einstein as a Quantum Mechanics Denier.

He most definitely was. He wanted nothing to do with it, but he did have the little question of "Okay, so where is gravity in this messy little theory that fills four or five pages with complex equations?"

The Standard Model of Quantum Mechanics is very definably seriously incomplete if not outright broken. Of course, that also leaves the question of what happens if tachyons make an appearance. And I for one would like him (metaphorically) to explain exactly what is the speed of light, why my eye glasses work (I have new ones on order) as well as why there can't be anything faster. Yet it has been clocked at 38 MPH in 1999. HERE and even slower at IBM, but I can't find a good reference.

And it would be nice to understand just how gravity effects photons which have no mass, but Newton describes it as F = G(m1m2/r*r). Obviously, this must be wrong, because time/space is warped. But why did the apple fall?

The science of physics, which is far far more solid than Climate Science -- whatever that may be -- is far from settled. However, I think I can trust Newton's calculations to get me to the moon, and some distance beyond. Climate Science can't tell me what the weather will be next month, let alone 10 years from now.

And yes, I am a fan of M-theory. It makes so much more sense that quantum mechanics and particles magically appearing in new shells. Think outside of the three dimensional box.

Aug 8, 2010 at 7:53 PM | Unregistered CommenterDon Pablo de la Sierra

pablo,
I agree none of the settled science is settled by far.

however i am not sure your questions are er reasonable ? :)

Below Feynman talk is majestic
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wMFPe-DwULM

I like Eric Lerner (focusfusion) his stance on black holes. why would they indeed exist?

Aug 9, 2010 at 1:55 AM | Unregistered Commenterphinniethewoo

phinniethewoo

All my questions are reasonable, and generally do not have reasonable answers -- yet. Just where does the argument that light is the fastest thing around come from? Why, it is the fastest thing we have seen. That is all. There is the theoretical tachyon, but nobody has seen it. Thus is does not exist. Or so they claim. But does it?

Question: IF a tree falls in the forest and nobody hears it, does it make noise? I say yes. How would you see a tachyon if it existed? Probably with light, which is slower. But does that make sense? Perhaps. Perhaps not. Hopefully someday someone with catch one and show it off.

In the case of light, which has a nominal speed of about 300 km/sec in vacuum, it travels more like 200 km/sec through most media, but varies a good deal. In fact, my eyeglasses work because of the refractive index of the glass, which is the inverse of the speed of light through them. Look it up.

My question is how does it work? How does the photon know it is in a speed zone? Obviously it does, but how?

Then we get to the absurdity of Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, which says, roughly, you can know where a particle is or how fast it is moving but not both. Perhaps you don't now where it really is, perhaps it is in a fourth or fifth spatial dimension. Or perhaps you simply don't have the technology to do the job. Pure medieval black magic thinking -- "I can't do it so it is impossible."

I might also add that his thinking screwed the Nazi's out of building an atomic bomb before the Americans did. He got his math all wrong.

That is what I love about M theory. They got out of the 3-D box. It may turn out to be wrong, but the Standard Model of Quantum Mechanics is pathetic and should be scrapped. Unfortunately, it is the Holy Grail of physics and so they keep on spending billions on hunting the Higgs Boson with the Large Hadron Collider. So far, nothing. Of course they should continue if it helps them to finally decide to move on, but it is just pig headedness keeping them going at it in CERN.

And when it comes to the Post Normal Science of Climategate, I just roar with laughter. At least the Quantum Mechanics have something that kinda-sorta, almost works. And most of what they discovered over the last 50 or so years will play a part in whatever follows it much like Newtonian Physics is still useful. But the crap done in "Climate Science" is just a waste of money.

I have a hat I wear. Had it for 30 years, so it is worn and dirty with use. It says: "Question Authority".

Aug 9, 2010 at 2:50 AM | Unregistered CommenterDon Pablo de la Sierra

No let up in the Times on Saturday. After a double-page alarmist spread which was thrust under my nose by my 'warmist' partner, (Pakistan ,Russia, tiny mention of Peru, none of Bolivia) Paul Simons starts rationally enough with a mention of 'climategate', but then concludes -
'We are running out of excuses. Blaming it on natural vagaries of the weather is stretching coincidence. The only suspect that fits the crime is carbon dioxide and its greenhouse effect. If the predictions of more intense heatwaves, monsoon floods and other extremes come true, the climate change theory will be proved true. The problem is, it may be too late'

Aug 9, 2010 at 9:24 AM | Unregistered Commentertoad

pablo

watch the feynmann clip
your questions are excellent as F would say, but they are not reasonable in that they lack a comprehensive frame/context where to put the question in.

I think. I am not a physicist myself but ok what is a physicist.

Speed of light there is/was an interesting discussion on the QM experiments whereby linked particles must exchange information immediately over long distances??

I am not sure the Heisenberg uncertainty principle is absurd? Is it not fact of life that you cannot have all at the same time? Go to the movies miss the picnic. Anyways we must refrain from interpreting (and calling absurd) from an anthropological point of view.

You think it is normal you cannot put your arm through an armchair do you? anything else would be "absurd". watch the clip.

Aug 9, 2010 at 1:42 PM | Unregistered Commenterphinniethewoo

in fact it was JH Poincare who first came with the odd idea of introducing a limiting light speed in our world. His collaboration with Lorentz confirmed that from this invariants could be written down so electrodynamics remained valid within such frame. It has not yet been experimentally falsified, as Popper would say.

Aug 9, 2010 at 1:45 PM | Unregistered Commenterphinniethewoo

Can we not make an iPhone app from the Stick schtick?

A game whereby people can tweak various proxies to any end result they desire :)

Aug 9, 2010 at 2:17 PM | Unregistered Commenterphinniethewoo

Here in France there are more signs that the tide is turning. 'C'est dans l'air', an early evening chat show, had a piece on the Russian fires last week. The conversation went something like this:

Russian specialist: Local mayors used to be responsible for clearing the undergrowth round their towns. They've stopped doing it because they have no money.

Senior Pompier officer: Maybe, but the main reason is that Russian firefighting equipment is antique. Besides, they don't have any early warning systems.

Forestry specialist: Possibly, but don't forget that Putin privatised the forests and the new owners are only interested in making a quick buck.

Climatologists: Here's a map of temperature anomalies. You can see there's a big red area over western Russia.

Chairman: So, it's due to Global Warming.

Climatologist: Look, I'm convinced that Global Warming is real and if it continues you will see more of this, but in this case the heat is due to the fact that an anticyclone has been sitting over Russia for weeks.

Chairman: Oh. Here's a report on how the Pompiers measure just how dry the forest is..............

Aug 9, 2010 at 2:21 PM | Unregistered CommenterDreadnought

greece has been warmer without the fires : their fires had all to do with insurance schemes and builders property developers forcing clearances. Same in Australia.
In Russia you used to be capitalist when you owned a matchbox, now people have stuff do things , so cause fires.

Aug 9, 2010 at 2:42 PM | Unregistered Commenterphinniethewoo

QM do not get me wrong I think it is interesting to have questoins discussions on physics there is far too little of that on the net (certainly not ted.com or grist.org where they orgasmically run after each other new fashionable cry in the most effeminate way sniff on the new "it" then dash after the next orgasmically new cry)

I like the relentless feedback and updating in Wikipedia but it could be built out even more. They should try to make money.

While I/most people know to shut up when someone gives a talk out of his lifelong experience and knowledge,we mustn't give credit to most: certainly the present lethargic crowd in academia , all worked up and promoted following kafkaesk political correct rules and small kingdoms pathetic political mongering, should be pestered out of existence by questions from the students. Why? Why must we believe you. Google says different. Why what is wrong with Lerner's views on black holes? Why would we need to learn your black hole crap? why? Why an ITER why? where is it proved to work, all? make them answer the questions, the fxxing pseudo erudites.

Aug 9, 2010 at 2:52 PM | Unregistered Commenterphinniethewoo

phinniethewoo

I do not believe that any of my questions are unreasonable nor lack a comprehensive frame/context. They can't be tested because nobody knows how to test them -- YET.

To say that a "question is unreasonable because I can't test it" is just an excuse.

As for Feynman, I am very familiar with him and his wit. I re-read Surely You're Joking, Mr. Feynman! every few years and his more serious Six Easy Pieces less frequently. He is one of my heroes.

Yes, Henri Poincaré probably was ripped off by Einstein, but that's life. Alexander Bell didn't invent the telephone, Elisha Gray did; he had his patent in two weeks earlier and Bell's lawyer got the patent clerk to predate Bell's application. I believe he paid the clerk $50. Such is life.

I think the important issue here for the rest of you is not the physics we are discussing, but the fact we are discussing it. Of all the sciences, physics is one of the most rock solid, and certainly useful. Yet it is far from "settled". In fact, it evolves every day. Right now, they are working at CERN to find the "God Particle" the Higgs boson. Maybe they find it, maybe they don't. If they do, then the Standard Model gets better. If they don't, maybe they will look at something new. The issue is they are looking.

Now when you compare that to "Climate Science", which is "settled", you can see why I and others find "Climate Science" and those promoting it so distasteful. There certainly should be a climate science, but not as a political party.

Aug 9, 2010 at 3:45 PM | Unregistered CommenterDon Pablo de la Sierra

Don Pablo -
In the interests of accuracy (precision?) I would like to correct your statement that "light ... has a nominal speed of about 300 km/sec in vacuum." The value is near 300 Mm/sec.

P.S. This information does not advance you one whit towards your understanding of physics, and is therefore a totally useless reply to your post.

Aug 9, 2010 at 6:15 PM | Unregistered CommenterHaroldW

HaroldW

I am blinded by your brilliance. You are absolutely correct for sufficiently large enough values of mm. :-)

Aug 9, 2010 at 8:17 PM | Unregistered CommenterDon Pablo de la Sierra

Pablo do not worry about Poincare did not need the 50quid. He belonged to one of the most prominent families in France, all generals presidents prefects etc. He was well known and much admired in his day the French used a saying related to him in his time:"Qu'est ce un circle? Ce n'est point carre". (What is a circle? it is barely square.)
He was a bit like the English architect of Crystal Palace who was also very popular.

If I just can opinion why did they not divide the Cern scientists in 2 groups , and told one group "we found the boson!, off you go" and the other group the opposite "we did not found the boson!". Would have saved a lot on digging and clunking copper in the ground.

A good onset to solve the conundrum of what is matter was set by Perelman who solved Poincare his conjecture recently.

I think it very doubtful that the observations brought by GHC will bring a lot. There are more interesting observations to be made in physics. Plasmas is exciting. ITER and JET "so" plasmas, just don't think they observe a lot on them, just building junk ..

Aug 9, 2010 at 8:28 PM | Unregistered Commenterphinniethewoo

phinniethewoo

I assume that GHC is LHC. If so, I agree. It is a social welfare system for middle class physicists much like the F-22 is a welfare system for middle class American aeronautical engineers. Gives them something to do.

But who knows, maybe they will get lucky and find something. The down side is they might create a black hole that eats up the earth. Except for that, it is better than spending the money of wars and killing people, an activity too many governments employ to keep people busy.

And yes, the money could be much better spent on dozens of other projects. Sadly, one of those actually chosen is "Climate Science." Or what they pretend to be "Climate Science." Perhaps if the spent the money on doing proper atmospheric weather research we might know what the weather will be more than a week out.

Aug 10, 2010 at 3:33 AM | Unregistered CommenterDon Pablo de la Sierra

HaroldW

In the interests of accuracy (precision?) I would like to correct your statement that "light ... has a nominal speed of about 300 km/sec in vacuum." The value is near 300 Mm/sec.

It took me sometime to figure out your post and now that I have, I must say, my bad on several issues, Harold. First, I made the very obvious mistake of saying 300 instead of the 300,000 km. The second I failed to see it. Age, I guess. However, I must admit that I have never seen anyone use Mm for Megameters before, and although your use is correct according to ISO notation, most people fail to use the convention of capitalization for numbers larger than one and lower case for smaller. For example, most people use km and not the "correct" Km. I thought that you had mistakenly typed a capital "M" for mm. I often see "MM" used in place of "mm" for millimeter. In short, you are correct and I made several silly mistakes.

My apologies. Had you said 300,000 Km/sec, which is the generally accept way of presenting the nominal speed of light, I would have see my original mistake immediately.

Aug 10, 2010 at 6:18 AM | Unregistered CommenterDon Pablo de la Sierra

For example, most people use km and not the "correct" Km.

Lower case k is the standard abbreviation for "kilo", not upper case.

Aug 10, 2010 at 7:15 AM | Unregistered CommenterMartin A

And upper case K is used to indicate 2^10.

Aug 10, 2010 at 8:38 AM | Unregistered CommenterMartin A

That's why a 200 gb HD in my PC is less than 200Gb, i guess.

the LHC at least the venue "there is no Gibs boson found" can be worked out before the results come in? I think it inconceivable that scientists are waiting 10years for a likely negative result?

Suppose that for billing-overtime reasons, the LHC cannot come with a definite conclusion within the next 50years on the gibs boson..Is it only in year 51 there will be a scientist thinking, what an eventual theory without Gibs bosons will look like ? madness.

Aug 10, 2010 at 11:15 AM | Unregistered Commenterphinniethewoo

phinniethewoo

Perhaps I am missing something (again!) but isn't it Higgs?

As for the payback, you forgot to add in all the money all those otherwise unemployed scientists would pull in on the dole.

Aug 10, 2010 at 2:10 PM | Unregistered CommenterDon Pablo de la Sierra

pablo

perhaps perhaps

the Biggs Hosons in the Ulitmate Haddock Collander will remain ever elusive.
Their bills , tho, will remain all the more clear for it.

Poincare, if his opinion would have been asked on the whole matter would describe it as madness. Mad red ticks have taken over the asylum, having diversity and H&S meetings presided by old women with speshul sexhul proclivities.

Aug 10, 2010 at 6:00 PM | Unregistered Commenterphinniethewoo

You asked where will you see the various bosons and hadrons?

Eventually someone will point you to some computer screen and say : here it is, be happy now. And you'll see a very unsatisfying blip or curl , maybe with some animation.

Asking more info on it will of course be tantamount to racism, because they'll have a multiculti nincompoop doing that annoying PR job.

Aug 10, 2010 at 6:03 PM | Unregistered Commenterphinniethewoo

For the record, I'm just a regular Mormon, not a "fundamentalist Mormon." (There's a difference.) Also, I'm not a "Creationist" in the sense that most people mean it. Like Roman Catholics, Mormons are free to believe that God created life via evolutionary processes. In other words, at least in this case, my religious views aren't at odds with the mainstream scientific narrative.

So your only real objection to my post on RealClimate is that I'm religious, and hence believe in stuff like angels and Jesus being resurrected. Well, so what? If I were proposing some supernatural explanation for variations in climate, maybe my religious convictions would be worth bringing up.

Aug 14, 2010 at 4:30 PM | Unregistered CommenterBarry Bickmore

PostPost a New Comment

Enter your information below to add a new comment.

My response is on my own website »
Author Email (optional):
Author URL (optional):
Post:
 
Some HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>