Alan Colmes, Simpleton

27Nov/093

Alan Colmes, Simpleton

It's not that you didn't already know this, but Alan Colmes' response to the revelations contained in the leaked CRU information provides a salient reminder of how insipidly gullible warmist supporters can be, simply repeating the crippled mystifications supplied by RealClimate.org.

Alan's intellectually lazy, so he doesn't bother to try to offer up an explanation for the annotations to the algorithms explaining how to torture the data into the required form. Nor does he consider the newly disclosed evidence of similar practices in New Zealand.

I have news for you, Alan: honest scientists don't conspire to avoid FOI requests, or backdate correspondence, or delete raw data, or subvert the peer review process. If you had more common sense, or more care for your reputation---which you would have if your audience weren't as blinkered as you---you'd know this. But since you cast yourself as an expert and mistake your infernal myopia for vision, I intend to remind you that you are a dullard and an unwitting accomplice to fraud, over a long, long time.

UPDATE: Cui bono?

Dan Collins

Dan Collins is a dude who blogs. He used to blog elsewhere. Now he blogs here.

Website - More Posts

Filed under: Too Lazy to Categorize Leave a comment

Comments (3) Trackbacks (0) ( subscribe to comments on this post )

meep
November 27th, 2009 - 07:24

Real scientists will share their raw data and models [after being published, of course... I'm not expecting anybody to do data collection and let a rival publish before you get to.]

These guys have been published starting a long time ago. They had no excuse of not releasing their original data. If you won’t release the details of your data or models – if no one can check your work – how can this be science?

If it’s not falsifiable, it ain’t science.

And if you have decided on the conclusion before even looking at the data, that’s religion, not science. How is this different from what creationists do? [except I've not heard of creationists getting multi-million dollar government grants, or not sharing their data and models. Of course, no one particularly cares to look at their stuff [because it would be a waste of time] and they’re not driving any sort of government policy. Even in the Bush years, they weren’t.]

Like or Dislike: 0 0
( REPLY )
SDN
November 27th, 2009 - 19:26

Too many people forget that religion and science don’t address the same questions. Science answers “what” and “how” and “when” and “where”, as far as it can; religion is the attempt to explain “why”. This is why St Augustine and others refer to God as the First Cause. Likewise, science addresses “can we do this?” while religion addresses “should we”.

Both sides forget this at their peril.

Like or Dislike: 0 0
( REPLY )
Bob Reed
November 27th, 2009 - 20:42

As meep pointed out, real scientists that are confident in the honest work they’ve published don’t have any problem releasing their data sets, mathematical models, and methodology. Indeed, there are professionals that measure gravitational attraction hear on earth daily, regardless of the fact that it has been well known, understood, and has varied little for a few hundred years.

Speaking for myself, I’ve never had any problem reconciling my scientific understanding with my religious beliefs; though I’ve never written as a conclusion to any papaer that God brought about the phenomenon I was studying, the performance of a material being tested, or a flight vehicle’s performance!

But it is also factual to say that many scientists that study the origins of the universe will admit that the widely accepted models can only be reversed in a reasonable and consistent way to a few milliseconds following the event known as “The Big Bang”; no one can say, based on a mathematical model or workable theory, with metaphysical certitude, just what caused that singular event…

Some of the more courageous scientists are willing to admit the strong possibility that God was the prime mover of this event.

Like or Dislike: 0 0
( REPLY )