Scientific Consensus Goes Into New Territory

The world is observing something unprecedented. Within a few short months the international scientific consensus has unraveled! It began with hacked e-mails being leaked over the internet which became known as “climategate.”

Science daily reported…

“Public concern about global warming has dropped sharply since the fall of 2008, according to the results of a national survey released January 27 by researchers at Yale and George Mason universities…Only 50 percent of Americans now say they are “somewhat” or “very worried” about global warming, a 13-point decrease.”

The University where “climategate” began and provided damaging evidence that the hacked documents revealed. They  were found to have breached the terms of the freedom of information act.

The BBC reported…

“In a statement, Deputy Information Commissioner Graham Smith said it was an offence under section 77 of the Freedom of Information act “to prevent intentionally the disclosure of requested information”. He said the requests were made by a climate change sceptic in the 2007-2008 period and as the case was more than six months old “the opportunity to consider a prosecution was long gone” under existing legislation.”

The article admitted which is new territory within itself, that the University of East Anglia had damaged public interest by withholding information. What’s even more interesting, the mainstream media which advocated global warming has been publishing more skeptical articles, for example in Science Daily

“Glaciologists at the Laboratory for Space Studies in Geophysics and Oceanography (LEGOS — CNRS/CNES/IRD/Université Toulouse 3) and their US and Canadian colleagues (1) have shown that previous studies have largely overestimated mass loss from Alaskan glaciers over the past 40 years. Recent data from the SPOT 5 and ASTER satellites have enabled researchers to extensively map mass loss in these glaciers, which contributed 0.12 mm/year to sea-level rise between 1962 and 2006, rather than 0.17 mm/year as previously estimated.”

And one of the most critical pieces that questions what scientists really know was previously unheard of a few months ago…

“The notion that scientists understand how changes in Earth’s orbit affect climate well enough for estimating long-term natural climate trends that underlie any anthropogenic climate change is challenged by findings just published.”

More unraveling includes the Himalayan glaciers where the IPCC claimed the glaciers would disappear by 2035. It took two months after the chairman was informed to correct it. The chairman alluded to his busy schedule for his slowness. This is not all, in another story

“IPCC experts calculated that 55 percent of the Netherlands was below sea level by adding the area below sea level — 26 percent — to the area threatened by river flooding — 29 percent — Vallaart said…Correcting the error had been “on the agenda several times” but had never actually happened, Vallaart said.

Was the IPCC too busy to correct this problem too? Not even a well known science journal believes that! In fact, they have a their own take on it which called for integrity in science!

Another error in IPCC studies claims that global warming could cut rain fed north African crop production by up to 50% by 2020. A remarkable change in such a short period of time. But Professor Chris Field, says there is no evidence to support such a claim and he is right.

What is all this telling us about global warming and practicing science? How reliable is the scientific consensus? Who polices them? There is a wider disconnect between big science and the public at large. Also, more papers challenging man-made global warming are being published and the consensus itself is being looked at much closer than ever before. What we are observing is so unprecedented and so refreshing!

Advertisements

7 thoughts on “Scientific Consensus Goes Into New Territory

  1. Although peripheral to the subject of this blog, global warming is the most important topic that Michael presents. Evolution continues; all the creationists can do is move a few thousand high-tech jobs to China. The anti-vaxxers have thus far managed to kill only 400 people. But global warming has already annihilated hundreds of thousands of people, and displaced millions more.

    Ironically enough, evolution plays a major role. The race to survive causes every species to blindly outrun its resource base. Coneys, kudzu, and zebra mussels come to mind; Diamond[1] offers many more examples. Then there are those who interpret the biblical injunction to subdue the Earth to justify raping, pillaging, and burning it along the way.

    Also ironic is that you don’t even have to believe the evidence for man-made global warming—or even for warming from natural causes—to generate concern for the way we have been treating our home planet.

    Coal and oil are consumed at a rate hundreds of millions of times faster than their formation. It doesn’t take a math whiz to calculate that we will run out of them some day. Some say the oil-production peak has already arrived. Long before anyone had heard of oil crises, an expert said that using oil for anything except feedstock is ridiculous. Metals and other minerals can be recycled, yet almost all of the oil that the Sun has created for us has tumbled down the entropy chain to unusable waste. Not only unusable, but deleterious, in the form of CO2 and air pollution. That’s just dumb, by anyone’s standards.

    We spend billions of dollars to fight terrorism, yet we pay terrorists billions of dollars in oil revenues to finance their attacks on us. Saudi Arabia may be our nominal ally, but their Wahhabi provide most of the terrorists that attack us. Did I mention Hugo Chavez? Why do we engage in this self-destructive behavior?

    One sees TV ads advocating oil reserves “right here in the US.” Why do they spend all that money to convince us? Does the slender supermodel tell you that the local farmers, ranchers, and residents object that recovering oil shale requires 100 gallons of water for every gallon of oil—or that the Ogalala aqueduct is already permanently depleted from current usage. No.

    Roller-coaster oil prices prevent investors from bankrolling renewable energy projects—they may get clobbered next year if prices decline. Meanwhile, even the wind turbines we do have in the US are purchased from Denmark. China is quickly developing a major wind-energy capability, mostly for their own use[2] but also for sale to the poor dumb US, when we finally get around to deciding it was really a Good Idea all along.

    Only about 1% of solar energy that reaches the Earth is utilized for anything except heating it up. What is needed to capture more is technology. Solar cells. Photosynthesis research. American technology has always been good at technology. But, again, the uncertain investment climate forestalls putting our ingenuity to work to advance the economic interests of our country.

    Conservation can be costly and invasive, but it can also be cheap and easy. Recycling aluminum saves 95% of the electricity required to produce it from bauxite. Forget recycling every scrap of newspaper. Just recycle your pop cans.

    As a patent attorney, I can tell you that American innovation is still the best in the world. Even though we do not encourage it. Farming: Our ancestors 8,000 years ago made a fundamental mistake in domesticating annual crops. Sure, they evolve faster, and thus improve faster. Yet perennial varieties of crops erode the soil less, promote beneficial microbe growth, and retain nutrients and fertilizer much better. A recent Scientific American article proposed urban farms—30 story block-sized buildings that produce as much food as many acres of farmland area. American ingenuity. If encouraged, we can sell it to the world. If not, we will buy from the world. At high prices dictated by our dire need.

    When my son goes to Shanghai, he packs face masks against the air pollution. We’ve already cleaned up a lot of acid rain and smog. Why don’t we sell this technology to China?

    So what would it take?

    Fixing up our long-neglected infrastructure would work wonders. A train uses only 0.6 horsepower to haul a ton of freight. Road surfaces can be made from old rubber tires, solving two problems at the same time.

    Some solutions are fall-off-a-log simple. Why do we subsidize Brazil for destroying Amazon rainforest? Merely subtracting the value of Brazil’s depleted resources from its annual GDP, would have a major effect, financial experts say.

    Stabilizing the oil market with a small tax to maintain a set price would allow investors in alternative technology to face less risk, and also provide a fund for infrastructure repair. Europe has better roads than we do; that’s why.

    We pay farmers subsidies to plant—or not plant—crops in ways that destroy the environment. Why do we do that? It takes 3/4 gallon of gasoline—and 5 gallons of fresh water—to produce a gallon of ethanol. This gallon of ethanol yields 30% less mileage than a gallon of gasoline. Why do we do that? (Probably the same reason we subsidize tobacco growers to encourage lung cancer.)

    The government doles out billions to create new jobs. The same type of jobs that technology is making obsolete.[3] Jobs that will go away as soon as the government money dries up. Private industry will figure out what to do, if we provide a stable playing field.

    Some are beginning to talk about “zoning” the ocean. No one wishes to destroy their own livelihood. But, if my neighbor starts over-fishing, I’ll be left out if I don’t do the same. That’s what rules are for.

    I haven’t even mentioned the polar bears, have I? There are many other things that cost less and have more effect. If we do the other things right, the bears will thank us too.

    Forget man-made global warming. Making the environment more sustainable will take care of global warming almost as a byproduct. Add a carbon tax, and you just about have the whole package.

    Why do we not make a start? You don’t even have to believe in man-made global warming to realize that the present course is unsustainable. The dinosaurs didn’t go extinct because they “couldn’t adapt.” Thy died because they were at the top of the food chain when it went away. Now we are at the top of the food chain, and it’s going away—there are areas where 70% of the resources available for all life forms put together are devoted to support humans alone. Start with the easy things. Start by changing the things that everyone knows are stupid. Start by allowing businesses to do what they already want to do, but fear the risks.

    =================

    [1] Jared Diamond, “The Third Chimpanzee” (1994) Predators usually prevent a species from achieving this goal. Humans now face no (non-microbial) predators to limit their avarice.

    [2] They read the handwriting on the wall, and act upon it. One advantage of an authoritarian government….

    [3] If manufacturing jobs are moving from the US to China, then why are manufacturing jobs not increasing in China? They’re just going away, victims of increased productivity. (And if jobs are gong to China because of lower labor costs, why are they not moving to Africa, where labor costs are half of China’s?)

  2. DOM POST PART 2 OF 3

    [cont. from commenst on prev. Blog Post ‘SETI Demostrates Faith With Fiction’
    at
    https://thebibleistheotherside.wordpress.com/2010/02/05/seti-demostrates-faith-with-fiction/#comment-1836%5D

    Finally, I wish you would stop saying ‘put up or shut up’ about my comments about your manner and comments, Eelco. I think I have referred you about two or three times to specific examples I have presented. Is it that you do not wish to read that post? Or that you cannot be bothered to check the specific instances I referred you to? Or that you just wish to deny the existence of the instances I cited?

    Why do you decree ‘links to comments’ are inadmissible, Eelco? That seems a perfectly straightforward way to refer to things you have said.

    But, tell you what, just to show willing, as you seem to be having so much trouble finding your way round the comments here and elsewhere, I shall now undertake to not only (1) provide again, right here and now, what I said in the post above, but shall even go so far as to (2) provide further examples.

    (1) Here is what I said above (February 11, 2010 at 10:49 am) –

    ‘And concerning your coyness about your manner, you need look no further than your pompous, derisive ticking off of Michael above in dismissing his figures.

    And a look through your comments on previous posts soon reveals a consistently dismissive arrogance and derisive tone.

    You constantly present interpretative theory and opinion as absolute fact; you get stroppy when any opinion differing with yours is afforded any credibility; you feel yourself perfectly free to make derisive and insulting comments like ‘Personally I find the fact that there are still so many religious people around quite mysterious’

    (https://thebibleistheotherside.wordpress.com/2009/05/06/gravity-cosmology-has-plunged-into-a-major-crisis/#comments)

    which are based entirely on the fact you yourself evidently subscribe to a Naturalistic worldview; you persistently try to admonish others in a patronising way; I think you called Michael completely ignorant twice and said he was talking nonsense twice in the space of just a few posts here –

    https://thebibleistheotherside.wordpress.com/2009/09/29/the-progressive-figments-of-cosmological-imagination/#comments

    Indeed, calling Michael ignorant seems to be becoming something of a pastime of yours, here are just a couple of other examples –

    https://thebibleistheotherside.wordpress.com/2009/08/29/models-are-not-meeting-expectations-in-the-universe/#comments

    https://thebibleistheotherside.wordpress.com/2008/10/07/physicists-suggest-dark-matter-is-an-illusion/#comments

    Altogether, your whole manner is confrontational and condescending; patronising, derisive and insulting in tone and in specific comments.’

    Okay, so there we have a general description of your manner and five specific examples –

    1- your initial comment on this post (February 9, 2010 at 3:27 am) which was derisive and dismissive in tone.

    2 – your comment ‘Personally I find the fact that there are still so many religious people around quite mysterious’ which is a derisive, dismissive, condescending and insulting thing to say.
    August 6, 2009 at 6:54 am
    at
    https://thebibleistheotherside.wordpress.com/2009/05/06/gravity-cosmology-has-plunged-into-a-major-crisis/#comments

    3 – calling Michael ignorant twice within a few posts

    ‘shows your complete ignorance of this theory’
    October 4, 2009 at 5:48 am

    and

    ‘You keep on displaying a complete ignorance’
    October 5, 2009 at 1:08 am

    at
    https://thebibleistheotherside.wordpress.com/2009/09/29/the-progressive-figments-of-cosmological-imagination/#comments

    4 – another example of calling Michael ignorant –

    ‘your post again shows complete ignorance on this topic’
    September 2, 2009 at 2:50 am
    at
    https://thebibleistheotherside.wordpress.com/2009/08/29/models-are-not-meeting-expectations-in-the-universe/#comments

    5 – – another example of calling Michael ignorant –

    ‘You are again displaying severe ignorance in physics’
    January 31, 2009 at 7:56 am
    at
    https://thebibleistheotherside.wordpress.com/2008/10/07/physicists-suggest-dark-matter-is-an-illusion/#comments

    Okay, so those are five specific examples I gave on my previous post. They were a sampling; not meant to be exhaustive; just some specific examples of your manner and comments.

    Next, let me provide further specific examples.

    POST CONT. IN PART 3

  3. [Cont. from Comments under Blog Post From ‘SETI Demostrates Faith With Fiction’]

    DOM POST PART 2 OF 3

    Finally, I wish you would stop saying ‘put up or shut up’ about my comments about your manner and comments, Eelco. I think I have referred you about two or three times to specific examples I have presented. Is it that you do not wish to read that post? Or that you cannot be bothered to check the specific instances I referred you to? Or that you just wish to deny the existence of the instances I cited?

    Why do you decree ‘links to comments’ are inadmissible, Eelco? That seems a perfectly straightforward way to refer to things you have said.

    But, tell you what, just to show willing, as you seem to be having so much trouble finding your way round the comments here and elsewhere, I shall now undertake to not only (1) provide again, right here and now, what I said in the post above, but shall even go so far as to (2) provide further examples.

    (1) Here is what I said above (February 11, 2010 at 10:49 am) –

    ‘And concerning your coyness about your manner, you need look no further than your pompous, derisive ticking off of Michael above in dismissing his figures.

    And a look through your comments on previous posts soon reveals a consistently dismissive arrogance and derisive tone.

    You constantly present interpretative theory and opinion as absolute fact; you get stroppy when any opinion differing with yours is afforded any credibility; you feel yourself perfectly free to make derisive and insulting comments like ‘Personally I find the fact that there are still so many religious people around quite mysterious’

    (https://thebibleistheotherside.wordpress.com/2009/05/06/gravity-cosmology-has-plunged-into-a-major-crisis/#comments)

    which are based entirely on the fact you yourself evidently subscribe to a Naturalistic worldview; you persistently try to admonish others in a patronising way; I think you called Michael completely ignorant twice and said he was talking nonsense twice in the space of just a few posts here –

    https://thebibleistheotherside.wordpress.com/2009/09/29/the-progressive-figments-of-cosmological-imagination/#comments

    Indeed, calling Michael ignorant seems to be becoming something of a pastime of yours, here are just a couple of other examples –

    https://thebibleistheotherside.wordpress.com/2009/08/29/models-are-not-meeting-expectations-in-the-universe/#comments

    https://thebibleistheotherside.wordpress.com/2008/10/07/physicists-suggest-dark-matter-is-an-illusion/#comments

    Altogether, your whole manner is confrontational and condescending; patronising, derisive and insulting in tone and in specific comments.’

    Okay, so there we have a general description of your manner and five specific examples –

    1- your initial comment on this post (February 9, 2010 at 3:27 am) which was derisive and dismissive in tone.

    2 – your comment ‘Personally I find the fact that there are still so many religious people around quite mysterious’ which is a derisive, dismissive, condescending and insulting thing to say.
    August 6, 2009 at 6:54 am
    at
    https://thebibleistheotherside.wordpress.com/2009/05/06/gravity-cosmology-has-plunged-into-a-major-crisis/#comments

    3 – calling Michael ignorant twice within a few posts

    ‘shows your complete ignorance of this theory’
    October 4, 2009 at 5:48 am

    and

    ‘You keep on displaying a complete ignorance’
    October 5, 2009 at 1:08 am

    at
    https://thebibleistheotherside.wordpress.com/2009/09/29/the-progressive-figments-of-cosmological-imagination/#comments

    4 – another example of calling Michael ignorant –

    ‘your post again shows complete ignorance on this topic’
    September 2, 2009 at 2:50 am
    at
    https://thebibleistheotherside.wordpress.com/2009/08/29/models-are-not-meeting-expectations-in-the-universe/#comments

    5 – – another example of calling Michael ignorant –

    ‘You are again displaying severe ignorance in physics’
    January 31, 2009 at 7:56 am
    at
    https://thebibleistheotherside.wordpress.com/2008/10/07/physicists-suggest-dark-matter-is-an-illusion/#comments

    Okay, so those are five specific examples I gave on my previous post. They were a sampling; not meant to be exhaustive; just some specific examples of your manner and comments.

    Next, let me provide further specific examples.

    POST CONT. IN PART 3

  4. [This cont. from Comments under Blog Post From ‘SETI Demostrates Faith With Fiction’]

    DOM POST PART 2 OF 3

    Finally, I wish you would stop saying ‘put up or shut up’ about my comments about your manner and comments, Eelco. I think I have referred you about two or three times to specific examples I have presented. Is it that you do not wish to read that post? Or that you cannot be bothered to check the specific instances I referred you to? Or that you just wish to deny the existence of the instances I cited?

    Why do you decree ‘links to comments’ are inadmissible, Eelco? That seems a perfectly straightforward way to refer to things you have said.

    But, tell you what, just to show willing, as you seem to be having so much trouble finding your way round the comments here and elsewhere, I shall now undertake to not only (1) provide again, right here and now, what I said in the post above, but shall even go so far as to (2) provide further examples.

    (1) Here is what I said above (February 11, 2010 at 10:49 am) –

    ‘And concerning your coyness about your manner, you need look no further than your pompous, derisive ticking off of Michael above in dismissing his figures.

    And a look through your comments on previous posts soon reveals a consistently dismissive arrogance and derisive tone.

    You constantly present interpretative theory and opinion as absolute fact; you get stroppy when any opinion differing with yours is afforded any credibility; you feel yourself perfectly free to make derisive and insulting comments like ‘Personally I find the fact that there are still so many religious people around quite mysterious’

    (https://thebibleistheotherside.wordpress.com/2009/05/06/gravity-cosmology-has-plunged-into-a-major-crisis/#comments)

    which are based entirely on the fact you yourself evidently subscribe to a Naturalistic worldview; you persistently try to admonish others in a patronising way; I think you called Michael completely ignorant twice and said he was talking nonsense twice in the space of just a few posts here –

    https://thebibleistheotherside.wordpress.com/2009/09/29/the-progressive-figments-of-cosmological-imagination/#comments

    Indeed, calling Michael ignorant seems to be becoming something of a pastime of yours, here are just a couple of other examples –

    https://thebibleistheotherside.wordpress.com/2009/08/29/models-are-not-meeting-expectations-in-the-universe/#comments

    https://thebibleistheotherside.wordpress.com/2008/10/07/physicists-suggest-dark-matter-is-an-illusion/#comments

    Altogether, your whole manner is confrontational and condescending; patronising, derisive and insulting in tone and in specific comments.’

    Okay, so there we have a general description of your manner and five specific examples –

    1- your initial comment on this post (February 9, 2010 at 3:27 am) which was derisive and dismissive in tone.

    2 – your comment ‘Personally I find the fact that there are still so many religious people around quite mysterious’ which is a derisive, dismissive, condescending and insulting thing to say.
    August 6, 2009 at 6:54 am
    at
    https://thebibleistheotherside.wordpress.com/2009/05/06/gravity-cosmology-has-plunged-into-a-major-crisis/#comments

    3 – calling Michael ignorant twice within a few posts

    ‘shows your complete ignorance of this theory’
    October 4, 2009 at 5:48 am

    and

    ‘You keep on displaying a complete ignorance’
    October 5, 2009 at 1:08 am

    at
    https://thebibleistheotherside.wordpress.com/2009/09/29/the-progressive-figments-of-cosmological-imagination/#comments

    4 – another example of calling Michael ignorant –

    ‘your post again shows complete ignorance on this topic’
    September 2, 2009 at 2:50 am
    at
    https://thebibleistheotherside.wordpress.com/2009/08/29/models-are-not-meeting-expectations-in-the-universe/#comments

    5 – – another example of calling Michael ignorant –

    ‘You are again displaying severe ignorance in physics’
    January 31, 2009 at 7:56 am
    at
    https://thebibleistheotherside.wordpress.com/2008/10/07/physicists-suggest-dark-matter-is-an-illusion/#comments

    Okay, so those are five specific examples I gave on my previous post. They were a sampling; not meant to be exhaustive; just some specific examples of your manner and comments.

    Next, let me provide further specific examples.

    POST CONT. IN PART 3

  5. [This is continued from Comments under Blog Post From ‘SETI Demostrates Faith With Fiction’]

    DOM POST PART 2 OF 3

    Finally, I wish you would stop saying ‘put up or shut up’ about my comments about your manner and comments, Eelco. I think I have referred you about two or three times to specific examples I have presented. Is it that you do not wish to read that post? Or that you cannot be bothered to check the specific instances I referred you to? Or that you just wish to deny the existence of the instances I cited?

    Why do you decree ‘links to comments’ are inadmissible, Eelco? That seems a perfectly straightforward way to refer to things you have said.

    But, tell you what, just to show willing, as you seem to be having so much trouble finding your way round the comments here and elsewhere, I shall now undertake to not only (1) provide again, right here and now, what I said in the post above, but shall even go so far as to (2) provide further examples.

    (1) Here is what I said above (February 11, 2010 at 10:49 am) –

    ‘And concerning your coyness about your manner, you need look no further than your pompous, derisive ticking off of Michael above in dismissing his figures.

    And a look through your comments on previous posts soon reveals a consistently dismissive arrogance and derisive tone.

    You constantly present interpretative theory and opinion as absolute fact; you get stroppy when any opinion differing with yours is afforded any credibility; you feel yourself perfectly free to make derisive and insulting comments like ‘Personally I find the fact that there are still so many religious people around quite mysterious’

    (https://thebibleistheotherside.wordpress.com/2009/05/06/gravity-cosmology-has-plunged-into-a-major-crisis/#comments)

    which are based entirely on the fact you yourself evidently subscribe to a Naturalistic worldview; you persistently try to admonish others in a patronising way; I think you called Michael completely ignorant twice and said he was talking nonsense twice in the space of just a few posts here –

    https://thebibleistheotherside.wordpress.com/2009/09/29/the-progressive-figments-of-cosmological-imagination/#comments

    Indeed, calling Michael ignorant seems to be becoming something of a pastime of yours, here are just a couple of other examples –

    https://thebibleistheotherside.wordpress.com/2009/08/29/models-are-not-meeting-expectations-in-the-universe/#comments

    https://thebibleistheotherside.wordpress.com/2008/10/07/physicists-suggest-dark-matter-is-an-illusion/#comments

    Altogether, your whole manner is confrontational and condescending; patronising, derisive and insulting in tone and in specific comments.’

    Okay, so there we have a general description of your manner and five specific examples –

    1- your initial comment on this post (February 9, 2010 at 3:27 am) which was derisive and dismissive in tone.

    2 – your comment ‘Personally I find the fact that there are still so many religious people around quite mysterious’ which is a derisive, dismissive, condescending and insulting thing to say.
    August 6, 2009 at 6:54 am
    at
    https://thebibleistheotherside.wordpress.com/2009/05/06/gravity-cosmology-has-plunged-into-a-major-crisis/#comments

    3 – calling Michael ignorant twice within a few posts

    ‘shows your complete ignorance of this theory’
    October 4, 2009 at 5:48 am

    and

    ‘You keep on displaying a complete ignorance’
    October 5, 2009 at 1:08 am

    at
    https://thebibleistheotherside.wordpress.com/2009/09/29/the-progressive-figments-of-cosmological-imagination/#comments

    4 – another example of calling Michael ignorant –

    ‘your post again shows complete ignorance on this topic’
    September 2, 2009 at 2:50 am
    at
    https://thebibleistheotherside.wordpress.com/2009/08/29/models-are-not-meeting-expectations-in-the-universe/#comments

    5 – – another example of calling Michael ignorant –

    ‘You are again displaying severe ignorance in physics’
    January 31, 2009 at 7:56 am
    at
    https://thebibleistheotherside.wordpress.com/2008/10/07/physicists-suggest-dark-matter-is-an-illusion/#comments

    Okay, so those are five specific examples I gave on my previous post. They were a sampling; not meant to be exhaustive; just some specific examples of your manner and comments.

    Next, let me provide further specific examples.

    POST CONT. IN PART 3

  6. [Continued from Comments under Blog Post From ‘SETI Demostrates Faith With Fiction’]

    DOM POST PART 2 OF 3

    Finally, I wish you would stop saying ‘put up or shut up’ about my comments about your manner and comments, Eelco. I think I have referred you about two or three times to specific examples I have presented. Is it that you do not wish to read that post? Or that you cannot be bothered to check the specific instances I referred you to? Or that you just wish to deny the existence of the instances I cited?

    Why do you decree ‘links to comments’ are inadmissible, Eelco? That seems a perfectly straightforward way to refer to things you have said.

    But, tell you what, just to show willing, as you seem to be having so much trouble finding your way round the comments here and elsewhere, I shall now undertake to not only (1) provide again, right here and now, what I said in the post above, but shall even go so far as to (2) provide further examples.

    (1) Here is what I said above (February 11, 2010 at 10:49 am) –

    ‘And concerning your coyness about your manner, you need look no further than your pompous, derisive ticking off of Michael above in dismissing his figures.

    And a look through your comments on previous posts soon reveals a consistently dismissive arrogance and derisive tone.

    You constantly present interpretative theory and opinion as absolute fact; you get stroppy when any opinion differing with yours is afforded any credibility; you feel yourself perfectly free to make derisive and insulting comments like ‘Personally I find the fact that there are still so many religious people around quite mysterious’

    (https://thebibleistheotherside.wordpress.com/2009/05/06/gravity-cosmology-has-plunged-into-a-major-crisis/#comments)

    which are based entirely on the fact you yourself evidently subscribe to a Naturalistic worldview; you persistently try to admonish others in a patronising way; I think you called Michael completely ignorant twice and said he was talking nonsense twice in the space of just a few posts here –

    https://thebibleistheotherside.wordpress.com/2009/09/29/the-progressive-figments-of-cosmological-imagination/#comments

    Indeed, calling Michael ignorant seems to be becoming something of a pastime of yours, here are just a couple of other examples –

    https://thebibleistheotherside.wordpress.com/2009/08/29/models-are-not-meeting-expectations-in-the-universe/#comments

    https://thebibleistheotherside.wordpress.com/2008/10/07/physicists-suggest-dark-matter-is-an-illusion/#comments

    Altogether, your whole manner is confrontational and condescending; patronising, derisive and insulting in tone and in specific comments.’

    Okay, so there we have a general description of your manner and five specific examples –

    1- your initial comment on this post (February 9, 2010 at 3:27 am) which was derisive and dismissive in tone.

    2 – your comment ‘Personally I find the fact that there are still so many religious people around quite mysterious’ which is a derisive, dismissive, condescending and insulting thing to say.
    August 6, 2009 at 6:54 am
    at
    https://thebibleistheotherside.wordpress.com/2009/05/06/gravity-cosmology-has-plunged-into-a-major-crisis/#comments

    3 – calling Michael ignorant twice within a few posts

    ‘shows your complete ignorance of this theory’
    October 4, 2009 at 5:48 am

    and

    ‘You keep on displaying a complete ignorance’
    October 5, 2009 at 1:08 am

    at
    https://thebibleistheotherside.wordpress.com/2009/09/29/the-progressive-figments-of-cosmological-imagination/#comments

    4 – another example of calling Michael ignorant –

    ‘your post again shows complete ignorance on this topic’
    September 2, 2009 at 2:50 am
    at
    https://thebibleistheotherside.wordpress.com/2009/08/29/models-are-not-meeting-expectations-in-the-universe/#comments

    5 – – another example of calling Michael ignorant –

    ‘You are again displaying severe ignorance in physics’
    January 31, 2009 at 7:56 am
    at
    https://thebibleistheotherside.wordpress.com/2008/10/07/physicists-suggest-dark-matter-is-an-illusion/#comments

    Okay, so those are five specific examples I gave on my previous post. They were a sampling; not meant to be exhaustive; just some specific examples of your manner and comments.

    Next, let me provide further specific examples.

    POST CONT. IN PART 3

  7. [This is continued from Comments under Blog Post From ‘SETI Demostrates Faith With Fiction’; struggling to get these posted]

    DOM POST PART 2 OF 3

    Finally, I wish you would stop saying ‘put up or shut up’ about my comments about your manner and comments, Eelco. I think I have referred you about two or three times to specific examples I have presented. Is it that you do not wish to read that post? Or that you cannot be bothered to check the specific instances I referred you to? Or that you just wish to deny the existence of the instances I cited?

    Why do you decree ‘links to comments’ are inadmissible, Eelco? That seems a perfectly straightforward way to refer to things you have said.

    But, tell you what, just to show willing, as you seem to be having so much trouble finding your way round the comments here and elsewhere, I shall now undertake to not only (1) provide again, right here and now, what I said in the post above, but shall even go so far as to (2) provide further examples.

    (1) Here is what I said above (February 11, 2010 at 10:49 am) –

    ‘And concerning your coyness about your manner, you need look no further than your pompous, derisive ticking off of Michael above in dismissing his figures.

    And a look through your comments on previous posts soon reveals a consistently dismissive arrogance and derisive tone.

    You constantly present interpretative theory and opinion as absolute fact; you get stroppy when any opinion differing with yours is afforded any credibility; you feel yourself perfectly free to make derisive and insulting comments like ‘Personally I find the fact that there are still so many religious people around quite mysterious’

    (https://thebibleistheotherside.wordpress.com/2009/05/06/gravity-cosmology-has-plunged-into-a-major-crisis/#comments)

    which are based entirely on the fact you yourself evidently subscribe to a Naturalistic worldview; you persistently try to admonish others in a patronising way; I think you called Michael completely ignorant twice and said he was talking nonsense twice in the space of just a few posts here –

    https://thebibleistheotherside.wordpress.com/2009/09/29/the-progressive-figments-of-cosmological-imagination/#comments

    Indeed, calling Michael ignorant seems to be becoming something of a pastime of yours, here are just a couple of other examples –

    https://thebibleistheotherside.wordpress.com/2009/08/29/models-are-not-meeting-expectations-in-the-universe/#comments

    https://thebibleistheotherside.wordpress.com/2008/10/07/physicists-suggest-dark-matter-is-an-illusion/#comments

    Altogether, your whole manner is confrontational and condescending; patronising, derisive and insulting in tone and in specific comments.’

    Okay, so there we have a general description of your manner and five specific examples –

    1- your initial comment on this post (February 9, 2010 at 3:27 am) which was derisive and dismissive in tone.

    2 – your comment ‘Personally I find the fact that there are still so many religious people around quite mysterious’ which is a derisive, dismissive, condescending and insulting thing to say.
    August 6, 2009 at 6:54 am
    at
    https://thebibleistheotherside.wordpress.com/2009/05/06/gravity-cosmology-has-plunged-into-a-major-crisis/#comments

    3 – calling Michael ignorant twice within a few posts

    ‘shows your complete ignorance of this theory’
    October 4, 2009 at 5:48 am

    and

    ‘You keep on displaying a complete ignorance’
    October 5, 2009 at 1:08 am

    at
    https://thebibleistheotherside.wordpress.com/2009/09/29/the-progressive-figments-of-cosmological-imagination/#comments

    4 – another example of calling Michael ignorant –

    ‘your post again shows complete ignorance on this topic’
    September 2, 2009 at 2:50 am
    at
    https://thebibleistheotherside.wordpress.com/2009/08/29/models-are-not-meeting-expectations-in-the-universe/#comments

    5 – – another example of calling Michael ignorant –

    ‘You are again displaying severe ignorance in physics’
    January 31, 2009 at 7:56 am
    at
    https://thebibleistheotherside.wordpress.com/2008/10/07/physicists-suggest-dark-matter-is-an-illusion/#comments

    Okay, so those are five specific examples I gave on my previous post. They were a sampling; not meant to be exhaustive; just some specific examples of your manner and comments.

    Next, let me provide further specific examples.

    POST CONT. IN PART 3

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s