Submitted by Thomas Swift on August 2, 2012 - 12:23pm.
it claim some legitimacy. But as long as it relies on flawed
computer models which are kept under lock and key by financially and
ideologically motivated academics, it will remain a psuedo-science.
The very fact that it has a group like National Center for Science
Education dragging it around by the belt-loops proves AGW belongs
alongside alchemy and astrology.
Submitted by Bill Gleason on August 2, 2012 - 2:00pm.
Exactly who are you to be making demands that someone show you a
fossil record before you will accept AGW? By the way, it would be
helpful to non specialists for you to define AGW: anthropogenic global
warming. Meaning man-made.
"AGW belongs alongside alchemy and astrology."
Hardly. Would you mind giving me your scientific qualifications for making such a claim?
In the meantime, I'd suggest you have a look at the recent
recantation of your position by a Koch-funded professor of physics at
See for example:
I was a Climate Change Denier -
Call me a converted skeptic. I'm now convinced that it's happening and caused by human activity. Richard A. Muller
[Richard A. Muller is a professor of physics at the University of
California, Berkeley. He wrote this article for the New York Times]
"Science is that narrow realm of knowledge that, in principle, is
universally accepted. I embarked on this analysis to answer questions
that, to my mind, had not been answered. I hope that the Berkeley Earth
analysis will help settle the scientific debate regarding global warming
and its human causes."
Submitted by Thomas Swift on August 2, 2012 - 3:45pm.
is consistent with most warmers Prof. When asked for concrete
evidence, the psuedo-scientists that conduct the "research" behind
warmer theory will always point you in the direction of a fellow warmer
for supporting opinions.
I could provide you a tit for tat list of competing experts, but as I say, I prefer concrete, verifiable, repeatable evidence.
Submitted by Neal Rovick on August 2, 2012 - 4:24pm.
The list of "your" experts is pretty damn small. Or "your" definition of "expert" become pretty contorted.
97 % of climate scientists are in agreement. If you prefer a TV weather guy (Mike Fairborne, anyone?), it's not science.
Submitted by Thomas Swift on August 2, 2012 - 6:06pm.
and with all due respect, I have to wonder if someone who
recently claimed human beings reproduce asexually is really best suited
to be criticizing what is taught as science in schools, or quite frankly
to question anyone else's credentials for doing so.
Submitted by Bill Gleason on August 3, 2012 - 7:17am.
You have seen this comment before. Readers may find it in the discussion section of:
Former Priests Against Marriage Amendment...
Here on Minnpost, link = http://bit.ly/O5Kn0b
The process is called parthenogenesis, Mr. Swift
It has been known for some time and is usually taught in high school biology courses.
Here is some background, hopefully at your level:
Teaching Biology: Parthenogenesis
Apparently the "credit" for doing this with human cells goes to the
now discredited Korean scientist, Woo Suk Hwang, as verified in a 2007
paper cited in the first link below.
An article that might be at a level you could understand is:
Scientific American: Korean Cloned Human Cells Were Product of "Virgin Birth"
Of course human parthenogenesis is of no relevance to the marriage amendment.
Many heterosexual couples are happily childless or marry after
reproductive age. And it is always possible for a woman in a same sex
marriage to become pregnant by artificial insemination, as I assume you
are aware. Gay couples who wish to become parents can also adopt.
Please stop your deliberate distortion of what I have written. Thank you.
I note that you have still failed to respond to my questions about
your qualifications to make scientific judgements, nor have you provided
any citations to any of your published scientific work.
Submitted by Thomas Swift on August 3, 2012 - 12:22pm.
You cite some research in a lab, Prof., so I let you off the
hook, but you, in fact stated that you *were* claiming human beings
In fact, from your link the verbatim quote:
"And I DID claim that humans are capable of asexual reproduction."
Please stop your deliberate distortion of human biology, Prof. Thank you.
Submitted by Bill Gleason on August 3, 2012 - 1:14pm.
Your dissembling is obvious to anyone who cares to take the time to read what you have written.
The reference that I gave you clearly demonstrates that humans are capable of asexual reproduction.
Capable is the operative word Mr. Swift.
Deliberate distortion of human biology? Hardly Mr. Swift. But I leave
that for our readers to judge. Your uninformed opinion really doesn't
matter to me.
Submitted by Thomas Swift on August 3, 2012 - 1:32pm.
and WE CAN FLY LIKE BIRDS!! (inanairplane), WE CAN BREATH UNDERWATER LIKE FISH!! (withasupplyofcompressedair).
I've raised children, Prof. I know how to play these games.
The troubling aspect is that most kids are just "kidding"...I do believe you're serious.
Submitted by Thomas Swift on August 2, 2012 - 3:53pm.
"The ICSC receives no donations from corporations, foundations or government."
Thanks Tom. You obviously have the big picture in clear focus. This
readership in particular could benefit greatly with a look through your
Submitted by Bill Gleason on August 2, 2012 - 11:25pm.
would be like looking through the wrong end of a telescope.
See the report outlining the disinformation skills of Mr. Harris:
Climate Change Denial in the Classroom
An audit of a course Mr. Harris taught at Carleton University: "Climate Change: An Earth Sciences Perspective"
"This course was run by an instructor who has been actively involved in climate change denial for many years."
Submitted by Bill Gleason on August 2, 2012 - 5:05pm.
This does not appear to be the case.
From SourceWatch: http://bit.ly/turhdd
"According to the ICSC website,
"Since its formation in 2007, ICSC has been funded and supported
exclusively by private individuals... We have never received financial
support from corporations, foundations or government."
Yet ICSC received $45,000 from the Heartland Institute in 2007, according to Heartland's Form 990 for that year..
ICSC unwilling to resolve discrepancy
Requests that ICSC resolve this apparent discrepancy between IRS records and the ICSC assertions have been rebuffed."
There exists a report on a course that Tom Harris taught at Carleton University, Climate Change Denial in the Classroom.
From that report:
"This report details an audit of a course taught at Carleton
University in the 2010/11 academic year. The course, "Climate Change: An
Earth Sciences Perspective" (ERTH 2402) provides an unbalanced and, in
many cases, factually inaccurate view of anthropogenic global warming
which detracts from the high quality of teaching at Carleton University.
We highlight 142 incorrect or equivocal claims and cite the relevant
scientific literature to correct those statements. While the principle
of academic freedom remains paramount, it is nonetheless imperative that
university students be presented with accurate scientific information."
We have demonstrated that the Earth Sciences Department at Carleton
University has until recently run a course which down-plays and
contradicts the overwhelming scientific consensus on dangerous, man-made
climate change. This course was run by an instructor who has been
actively involved in climate change denial for many years."
The report is approximately one hundred pages with 171 references and
detailed explanation of the 142 incorrect or equivocal claims made in
the course. I highly recommend it to those interested in climate change
and its denial.
Submitted by Thomas Swift on August 2, 2012 - 3:29pm.
I make a very comfortable living relying on proven scientific
fact Rachel. The decisions I make every day rely upon the precision of
the data others have proved out.
That's why I don't trust data that cannot be verified. And I don't trust sources that refuse to provide the means to verfiy it.
Those that don't have the means are called hucksters. Those that fall for hucksters are known as rubes.
Those that have the means, but refuse to share it because it cannot
stand up under scrutiny are called psuedo-scientists. Those that believe
in psuedo-science are known as uneducated.
Submitted by Bill Gleason on August 2, 2012 - 11:10pm.
"The careful analysis by our team is laid out in five scientific
papers now online at BerkeleyEarth.org. Four of our papers have
undergone extensive scrutiny by the scientific community, and the
newest, a paper with the analysis of the human component, is now posted,
along with the data and computer programs used. Such transparency is
the heart of the scientific method; if you find our conclusions
implausible, tell us of any errors of data or analysis."
Richard A. Muller is a professor of physics at the University of
California, Berkeley. He wrote this article for the New York Times
Hucksters, rubes, pseudo-scientists, uneducated?
I submit that you are not a scientist and that you have no background
in climate science sufficient to believe you rather than a Berkeley
physics prof working in the area.
Have you ever published a scientific
paper? Have you ever reviewed one? Your naivete in discussing science
leads me to believe that you have not, but if I am wrong please provide
Interested readers who follow our little discussions will remember
the Regnerus discussion and how that one turned out. You've bet again on
the wrong horse in this case.
Mr. Harris is not actually a scientist either and publishes, when he
does, in newspapers. He has had a long and storied history as a PR
person for the energy industry. His connection with the right wing
Heartland Institute is certainly nothing to brag about. You remember
Heartland? The folks who put up the billboard in Chicago with the
picture of Ted Kaczynski that claimed he was typical of people who
believed in AGW? The billboard that they were forced to take down in
disgrace as their corporate sponsors dropped like flies?
Better luck next time.
Submitted by Thomas Swift on August 3, 2012 - 12:18pm.
Perhaps I am naive in discussing science, but, using the
standards you set forth I question whether you are qualified to make
that observation, Prof.
You have no background in climate science. It appears that you have
never published a scientific paper of your own, and haven't even been
named as third seat on one in more than 10 years. If I am wrong please
provide citations....perhaps the Director of your department would
provide some support? Maybe not.
Also, I find it highly amusing to see that you note Harris'
connection to the "right wing" Heartland Institute (which is a
scientific variable I'm unfamiliar with) as a bad thing, but in Muller's
case ("Koch financing") the connection changes to become "good".
Outcome influenced observation, Prof? Really?
Darndest "scientific method" I've ever run across.
Submitted by Bill Gleason on August 3, 2012 - 1:13pm.
We've still not heard about your background in science, let alone
climate science, that qualifies you to set yourself up as an expert on
What are your qualifications? You have degrees in exactly what?
And of course you know my scientific background. Suffice it to say
for our readers information that I do have a PhD in chemistry which, the
last I heard, was an important component of climate science.
And I do have extensive experience in doing original research,
publishing peer reviewed papers, reviewing for scientific journals, and
directing the Ph.D, M.S., and undergraduate Latin honors theses for many
I have more than eighty scientific papers - Google is your friend. http://bit.ly/T6A811
But you know all this.
Submitted by Thomas Swift on August 3, 2012 - 1:28pm.
Erm, are you playing another hair splitting game, Prof? You are
named as a contributor, not author on those papers. As you know, the
order names appear on papers matters. I *did* note that I made a mistake
on the date of your last "helper" acknowledgement...
...it's been 18 years.
Twitter does keep a fellow busy, doesn't it?
Submitted by Bill Gleason on August 3, 2012 - 1:55pm.
about scientific publication practices...
Again, I ask - Have you ever published or refereed a scientific paper?
All of those listed at the beginning of a paper are authors.
"Contributors" would be listed in the Acknowledgments. The order in
which authors is listed is often difficult to decipher, but that is a
nicety beyond your current comprehension, obviously. Do a little
research. Google is your friend.
Here's a start: Publication Etiquette: Who (Co)Authors a Paper
You are embarrassing yourself, Mr. Swift. You have passed the point
where I can justify wasting further time on you today. I've tried to be
patient. But there are limits.
Good-bye for now.