Comments on: WaPo: Global warming deniers are just like those damn creationists

By: Wesley Bruce

Wesley Bruce — Sat, 09 Jan 2010 11:25:05 +0000

Yep it wont take links. Just tried one. Interesting How do you carry on a debate without being able to cite evidence via links. Mmmm.

By: Wesley Bruce

Wesley Bruce — Sat, 09 Jan 2010 11:07:16 +0000

How come you can post away but when I post it fails? My failed attempts to post made me think this comments string was closed. I bet this on just works to spite me. lol. Maybe its blocked by html tags. I tried on in the post.

By: JOHN

JOHN — Fri, 08 Jan 2010 15:48:16 +0000

Wow….I’ve seldom seen two people have such a self-congratulatory, condescending fit.

By: Steve Mennie

Steve Mennie — Fri, 08 Jan 2010 07:26:42 +0000

Hi Mandas..
Yeah, it’s an eye-opener to actually interact with Glenn Beck’s audience. Sometimes spending time here feels like being in the bar scene in StarWars. I am so naive..I didn’t know they really existed. You’ve certainly given it a good shot and I commend you.

Yes, I’ve been unable to really find anything about John O’Sullivan other than that he is a self labelled ‘legal advocate’. I scanned one of his short stories and it is written in the full blown purple prose style that he fancies here. I figured the jig was up when he pointed me to Prison Planet to get the ‘facts’ regarding AGW and the international socialist plot to take over the world. I actually know a few lawyers and none of them would reference Alex Jones and Prison Planet for anything and definitely not to glean information regarding international governmental corruption. And this offering of money for whistleblowers to come forward at Penn State..pretty slimey in my book.

I surfaced from these depths for a day today and read some normal blogs that show a reality based interest in the subject..man it’s scary returning to the asylum to attempt to wrestle something approaching sense from CottShop. It has been instructive tho’…in a weird and twisted sorta way.

cheers back

By: mandas

mandas — Fri, 08 Jan 2010 03:06:28 +0000

Hi Steve
Nice to see someone else having fun shooting fish in a barrell. Wish they would give us a challenge.
I know I should base all my opinions in evidence, so this will just be a hypothesis – untested but based on observation – its not yet a theory.
John O’Sullivan is not a lawyer at all. He has written a couple of short crime stories, but that’s as far as his legal experience goes. As for being a ‘legal advocate’ – I have absoulutely no idea what that means, and he won’t say either. I’m going with someone who spends a lot of time complaining about legal issues on blog sites.
Cheers

By: Steve Mennie

Steve Mennie — Fri, 08 Jan 2010 01:29:47 +0000

So..it appears that John O’sullivan has left the building. And we still don’t know if he really is a bonafide lawyer.

By: Steve Mennie

Steve Mennie — Thu, 07 Jan 2010 21:46:22 +0000

…”Blocking creationist papers in peer review has been the norm for 100 years. We have our own journals now…”

The creationists have their own journals now..isn’ that ducky. I think I’ll start a journal to publish ‘peer reviewed’ papers supporting my thesis that black is white..sorta like ‘the new red is green’..

By: mandas

mandas — Thu, 07 Jan 2010 04:12:50 +0000

Thank you Wesley, for this wonderful gift……
Creationists are climate sceptics? Really? I’m a sceptic, but even I’m 100% sure we have a climate. What are you actually sceptical about? Do you require evidence before you accept something as true? What are your standards for evidence?

“Data manipulation is the norm in dating circles, embarrassing dating results are never published. Only those that fit the paradigm see publication.” Never has a phrase been more aptly written!!
So tell me about your creationist journals.
Could I read some of them?
Could I get a paper published on Hubble etc about observations of galaxies from over 13b light years?
How about a study of Australian Aboriginal culture and the Lake Mungo burials of 30,000 years ago?
What about something on coral reef growth rates?
Metamorphic rocks? Sedimentation?

Or, would that not fit the paradigm and contain embarassing dating results?

By: Wesley Bruce

Wesley Bruce — Thu, 07 Jan 2010 01:55:36 +0000

Actually most creationists have been climate sceptics for decades but they have their own battles to fight so stayed quiet. I’ve recommended caution to a few creationist leaders my self. Yes I’m a young earth creationist. The dating errors stuff up both sides longer data sets and all the tree ring work. However until the negative feed backs came out we could not assess which side was more adversely effected.
Data manipulation is the norm in dating circles, embarrassing dating results are never published. Only those that fit the paradigm see publication.
Blocking creationist papers in peer review has been the norm for 100 years. We have our own journals now.
Several people have proposed new peer review systems to deal with the Climategate peer review manipulation. The creationist journals have been using these tools for about a decade. I can vouch that they work. Generally we’re on your side. Please be nice to us.

By: ColinM

ColinM — Thu, 07 Jan 2010 00:59:52 +0000

Gofer, I read an “Creation” explanation of how eyes came about and it sounded like something a psychotic lunatic made up. This incredible, omnipotent being just willed them into being (along with everything in the entire universe of course) and then became obsessed with petty feuds between Middle Eastern tribes and smiting (and sometimes BLINDING – there’s irony for ya!) those who didn’t bow down to his will. I’ll take the evolution version any day thanks.