Friday, August 3, 2012

 Thomas J. Swift

Further Rants from the Right




When AGW has an unassailable "fossil record" to display..

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.

Mr. Swift

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 Berkeley.
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."

Your outraged response

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.

Competing experts?The list

Competing experts?
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.

By the way...

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.

Mr Swift, you are again being intellectually dishonest

You have seen this comment before. Readers may find it in the discussion section of:
Former Priests Against Marriage Amendment...
Here on Minnpost, link =
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.

With all due respect....

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 reproduce asexually.
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.

Please Mr. Swift

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.

We can reproduce asexually...

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.

"The ICSC receives no

"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 lens.

Doing so, Mr. Swift,

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."

The ISC receives no donations from corporations, foundations or

This does not appear to be the case.
From SourceWatch:
"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.

Curiously enough

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.

Here's a little homework, Mr. Swift

"The careful analysis by our team is laid out in five scientific papers now online at 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 link:
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 citations.
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.


Luck has nothing to do with the topic, Prof.

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.

The ever-evasive Mr. Swift.

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 global warming.
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 students.
I have more than eighty scientific papers - Google is your friend.
But you know all this.
Rant on.

I have more than eighty scientific papers

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...'s been 18 years.
Twitter does keep a fellow busy, doesn't it?

Again you display your naïveté

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.

No comments:

Post a Comment