William M. Briggs

Statistician to the Stars!

This Is Why Jesus Will Separate The Sheep From The Goats

And all nations shall be gathered together before him, and he shall separate them one from another, as the shepherd separateth the sheep from the goats: And he shall set the sheep on his right hand, but the goats on his left.

Since today is usually the slowest blogging day of the year, we may as well discuss those nasty creatures, goats. The video proves it’s no wonder they butt into so many cheesy jokes. Tasty in tacos, though—and in spiritual metaphors, too.

The sheep-and-goats figure-of-speech reminds me of the latter big experiments in parapsychology during its heyday. A long string of negative results, bust after painful bust, in the late 1970s led some ingenious fellow to birth the theory that skeptics (goats) harnessing evil psi-dampening rays were quashing the psychic elements of the mentally gifted (sheep). How, nobody knew. Oddly, skeptics could do this without even knowing they were so engaged. Peer-reviewed papers were written on the subject. Incidentally, all used statistical arguments.

Reminds you of global warming research, does it not? The closer skeptics look, the faster the CO2 signal recedes into the distance. And so true believers, unable to discern any other cause of their failures, lash out and gibber at their enemies. “Denier!” “Science has spoken!” Are these folks better classes as unruly unpleasant goats or easily led sheep? Have to sort that one out.

The beast at time marker 3:27 reminds me of the ship Surprise’s irascible goat Aspasia, who one day gave Dr Maturin the stink eye and “defecated with intent”. The Surprise is the ship often featured in the greatest novel of (in?) the English language by Patrick O’Brian, written in 20.2 installments starting with Master and Commander and ending with an unfinished holograph owing to the death of the author. I cannot praise this novel too highly. I’m not sure anybody else can either.

And this remarks reminds me of Thursday’s post in which, in respect of Little Big Man, and a sentiment repeated again here, that you should skip the movie, which has almost no relation to the book except for a vague similarity in names of some of the characters. No movie can be a book, but no movie should express the opposite intent and moral of its parent book. The movie had too many anachronisms.

The directors of these films are thus goats. Which reminds me that calling somebody a “goat” is an insult. Strangely, goats are people in the doghouse. Figure that one.

Speaking of being in the doghouse, this reminds me of yesterday’s news that James Watson, winner of the prize which civilians see as the pinnacle of scientific achievement, who announced “he is selling the Nobel Prize medal he won in 1962 for discovering the structure of DNA because he has been ostracised and needs the money.”

Ostracized? Yes, sir. “…[the journalist] somehow wrote that I worried about the people in Africa because of their low IQ — and you’re not supposed to say that.” No, sir, you’re not.

Which reminds me of another goat insult from this curious movie: son of a motherless goat. If anybody ever notices the racial connotations of this movie, watch out. The three actors would become instant goats. Purged forevermore. I’m not sure if any of them have won Oscars, but they’d have to put them into the same auction as Watson’s Nobel.

And this reminds me that the opposite of a goat is a lamb. And thus, given his metaphorical nature, we see the affinity our Lord has with other sheep. Don’t be a goat. Unfortunately, what the World thinks is a goat is often a sheep. Don’t become confused.

53 Comments

  1. You have to love the creativity of the true believer. Create an argument that cannot be verified, except by wee-p values of course, to make sure no one can touch your belief with something so silly as evidence. This works well in climate science where any variable that cannot be directly measured can be blamed. Repeating “It WILL happen” in a shrill voice is also good.

    Ah, yes, science is objective and good and kind–as long as you keep your mouth shut, agree with everything you are told is true, and tow the line. Sounds a lot like politics to me. Wait, I may have violated the rules of science there. We can always hope!

  2. Briggs said: And this reminds me that the opposite of a goat is a lamb (God incarnate). And thus, given his metaphorical nature, we see the affinity our Lord has with other sheep. Don’t be a goat. Unfortunately, what the World thinks is a goat is often a sheep. Don’t become confused.

    Confusing (not necessarily conflicting) metaphors:

    Then there’s the wolf (the devil incarnate) in sheep’s clothing. Are the ones following the wolf, the goats?

    For whatever that is worth.

    I heard someone remark this morning about Scientism. “The Scientific Method cannot prove the Scientific Method.

  3. Briggs wrote:
    “The closer skeptics look, the faster the CO2 signal recedes into the distance.”

    I don’t know what planet you’re living on. It’s certainly not Earth. (Or Venus.)

  4. Terry Pratchett, in Small Gods, one of his Discworld novels, claims that “Sheep are stupid, and have to be driven. But goats are intelligent, and need to be led.” And then goes on to say that the character of religions often depends on which predominates in the host culture.

  5. Sheri wrote:
    “This works well in climate science where any variable that cannot be directly measured can be blamed. ”

    Many variables cannot be directly measured, yet have a part in scientic explanations. It’s true in physics (Uncertainty Principle). Harm from tobacco. In geology. Inner structure of the Earth. Mass of the electron. Mass of the Earth. Existence of exoplanets. Existence of black holes. Dark energy. Dark matter. Acceleration of the expansion of the Universe…..

    Is this kind of science too hard for you?

  6. David

    Venus/Earth

    Appells/Oranges

    Sheep/Goats

    With Venus’ extraordinarily thick atmosphere (compared to Earth’s thin envolope) …

  7. John: I don’t know what your point is, but how do you think Venus’s atmosphere got so thick?

  8. Mr. Appell believes in intergalactic or interplanetary communication. Cool. I had no idea we were up to that level.

    As to Venus’s atmosphere, I thought it was corn starch.

  9. Sheri wrote:
    “Mr. Appell believes in intergalactic or interplanetary communication. Cool. I had no idea we were up to that level.”

    Try reading again — this time for meaning.

  10. So, let me get this straight – God wants unregulated, unlimited volumes of pollution spewed into the air and water, right? Do you get a trip to Vegas for saying that? If so, let me know if you can spot God there.

    JMJ

  11. JMJ: No, God wants you to use the brain he gave you. Unless, of course, you were on sabbatical when it was handed out.
    (Do you give yourself extra points for the outlandishness of your leaps in illogic? One has to wonder.)

  12. Sheri wrote:
    “JMJ: No, God wants you to use the brain he gave you.”

    To me it looks like Jersey McJones is using his brain plenty. Nice to see here.

  13. You are wasting your time with such opponents, Sheri. The reason is given quite clearly in the following article.

    http://dailysignal.com/2014/11/18/msnbc-shrill-accident-liberals-really-think/

    It is scary how close the fit is. I particularly like “…what economist Bryan Caplan calls the “ideological Turing test,” which requires characterizing a viewpoint you disagree with so discerningly and scrupulously that an adherent of that position finds your summary of it as clear and persuasive as any provided by a true believer.” I certainly don’t see any of that here, but let’s make an effort folks.

  14. Scotian: If you note carefully, I am not replying to said opponents. I am commenting. Not replying, except to those who are not wasting my time. The article was interesting, though I would argue that the defining feature of liberalism is projection–convincing everyone that they are guilty of the sins liberals are committing. In reading the article, it seems to be the major theme. (I refuse to try representing the liberal side–it would be very disturbing if I could do so with such extreme accuracy to the point that people thought I was a liberal. I have been called a liberal on blogs at times, but that was based on a single comment.)

    The Turing test is interesting, though a more interesting test would be to see if a machine can identify when a human is speaking and not another machine. A reverse Turing test, if you will.

  15. Sheri wrote:
    “Scotian: If you note carefully, I am not replying to said opponents. I am commenting.”

    though earlier Sheri wrote:
    “Mr. Appell believes in intergalactic or interplanetary communication. Cool. I had no idea we were up to that level.”
    http://wmbriggs.com/blog/?p=14835#comment-134369

  16. Scotian wrote:
    “You are wasting your time with such opponents, Sheri. The reason is given quite clearly in the following article.
    http://dailysignal.com/2014/11/18/msnbc-shrill-accident-liberals-really-think/
    It is scary how close the fit is. ”

    Those who can’t win the science must instead try to win the politics.

  17. Scotian: That’s a very good example of the kind of lying Anthony Watts does. He took an innocuous blog headline and warped it into some imaginary personal attack on his dead mother, when it knew it had nothing to do with his mother.

    What kind of person does that? The lying kind:

    http://davidappell.blogspot.com/2013/12/anthony-watts-lying-again.html
    http://davidappell.blogspot.com/2013/12/watts-fesses-up.html

  18. Sounds like Watson’s been reading Charles Murray.

  19. All the silly arguments aside, all this really boils down to some heavy polluting industries try to get away with as much as possible, interests who want in on the game, and people who want to breath and drink water, arguing over limitations on pollution.

    There are strong arguments for some problems with the climate being caused by pollution. The climate is beginning to deal with another industrial age , and on a far greater scale than was the West’s.

    Any idiot knows if you set a tire on fire in a closed garage you’re only going to last so long. It’s not like the atmosphere goes on up for millions of miles. You can argue about how to go about it, but arguing that it should be ridiculed and ignored requires corruption.

    JMJ

  20. Matt, I gather from your comments you are not a capraphile, which is a shame. Actually goats are much more intelligent than sheep (I would class warmists as sheep, not goats). We live in a semi-rural area where folks (slash that…too reminiscent of that awful man in the White House) where people keep sheep. There are six in neighboring places. One is named Cecil and follows the owner around like a dog. They keep the acreage exceeding tidy. And of course there is that great science-fiction trilogy, “Helliconia Spring (Summer and Winter) by Brian Aldiss in which an intelligent capra-type species contests humanoids.

  21. PS–Sheri, I think your policy of commenting ON rather than TO is ok, but perhaps one should be more stringent. I’ve decided to ignore those who don’t know anything about science and pollute threads in this blog. Coventry for the evangelical warmists! If they don’t get a response they’ll go away.

  22. PPS–the possession of a degree in a scientific discipline is not nowadays either a necessary or a sufficient condition for a person to know what science is about.

  23. Bob Kurland commented:
    “Actually goats are much more intelligent than sheep (I would class warmists as sheep, not goats).”

    Bob: Didn’t you say you were a physicist, or a physics teacher for 50 years, or something like that?

    I haven’t seen any evidence yet that you know much at all about climate science. Like Willis E, you run away as soon as anyone starts citing actual data and actual science, which I’ve done more of that all of you put together. Running away is how you maintain your delusions about the subject. Your aversion to discussing climate change makes it clear to me that your opposition has _nothing_ to do with the science, because none of you seems to know much of any of it. Briggs thinks he can disprove AGW by sniffing with his nose held high at how anyone dare someone do statistics in a way he doesn’t approve of. But if you notice — I have — he hasn’t (in the last ~two weeks I’ve been reading) actually confronted any evidence, examined any time series, or any of the physics. He thinks sniffing at the idea is enough — the exact opposite of science.

    And you Tom, didn’t you say you had a PhD? You think you can dismiss climate science by referring go people who understand it as “sheep?” Sheri knows she can’t compete on the science, and has quickly bowed out of the meat of the scientific discussions. Willis Eschenbach ran away with his tail between his legs. And you, Tom? You have yet to actually discuss any science, present any data, or give any indication at all that you understand much of anything.

    It simply proves yet again that you all’s opposition to AGW is not based on anything to do with the science — it’s all ideological. Which is a seriously dumb way to do science — like this guy:

    http://davidappell.blogspot.com/2014/11/its-never-been-about-science.html

    Keep making your juvenile jokes and your snide remarks. If you ever want to really discuss the science, let me know.

  24. “PPS–the possession of a degree in a scientific discipline is not nowadays either a necessary or a sufficient condition for a person to know what science is about.”

    Attacking the person, Bob, instead of the science? I’m surprised you can’t do any better — but then, I haven’t seen any evidence here that you know much science at all.

  25. Bob Kurland wrote:
    “I’ve decided to ignore those who don’t know anything about science and pollute threads in this blog. Coventry for the evangelical warmists! If they don’t get a response they’ll go away.”

    I think you’re afraid, Bob. You’re afraid others here know more climate science than you do, so you try to take the high road — try — instead of actually defending your views on climate change.

    When are you going to actually present any science to support your view, “Dr Kurland?”

  26. Oh look Mann’s hagiographer is paying us a visit. Nuff said.

  27. One final word for those who would engage with evangelical (atheists, warmists, liberals,_____ … fill in the blanks). You’ll be very much in the position of the customer in the Monty Python dead parrot skit. There’s no rational discourse possible with those who ignore facts or logic.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e6Lq771TVm4

  28. david eisenstadt

    November 30, 2014 at 8:46 am

    “PPS–the possession of a degree in a scientific discipline is not nowadays either a necessary or a sufficient condition for a person to know what science is about.”
    david…i, as do most us know that you often appear to behave like a thin skinned propagandist…however, for the edification of hoo poloi like us…where is the personal attack in that quote? reads like an opinion…not an attack on anyone in particular.

  29. Sander van der Wal

    November 30, 2014 at 8:53 am

    Who cares about separating goats and sheep when you can have cows and pigs?

  30. JMJ: I thought calling the earth a greenhouse was ludicrous enough, but now you add a “closed garage” for comparison. Seriously???
    Again, I have to ask about where you brain is on vacation. You constantly jump from people not believing in AGW to the liberal “conservatives want dirty air, dirty water, to kill Grandma, kids left on the ground without wheelchairs, etc”. There is NO argument or evidence to support that belief in any universe or galaxy anywhere. Can I be more clear?

    So, here’s a series of questions to answer:
    1. Do you recycle?
    2. What kind of car do you drive?
    3. Do you ever fly on an airplane?
    4. Do you compost?
    5. How much electricity do you use?
    6. Do you own your home?
    7. If you own your home, do you keep up on weather-proofing, etc?
    8. Do you have a vegetable garden?
    9. Do you use pesticides or herbicides?
    10. Do you kill bugs in your house?
    11. Do you shop at chain stores?
    12. Do you buy more than is absolutely necessary for your survival?
    Answer these, and I will continue to discuss this. Otherwise, I’m done. If you can’t learn to be honest and back up what you say, answer questions, etc, you’re wasting my time.

    Bob: I have been ignoring those who are not interested in anything but confrontation, with the exception of Mr. Appell’s comment on John B’s original comment (sorry but I just could not resist—I’m weak when it comes to tempting retorts). I can see where that could somewhat encourage Mr. Appell to continue. Beyond that, I have completely ignored two individuals and am considering doing so with a third if he fails to answer my questions. However, I will just ignore the two problem children from here on out. It will only help, however, if everyone ignores them. Each person eventually reaches the point where they consider answering a waste of time, but it takes a while before all reach that level. I’m at that point, as are several others. (I agree with your comment on scientific degrees.)

    Sander: Good point!

  31. DavidE, did you not know its all about me

  32. Oh and Appel and JMJ as usual outstanding juvenility.

  33. Do you ever fly on an airplane?

    Don’t know about you but I always fly on an airplane. The other way is too hard on the arms. Just sayin’. 🙂

  34. DAV: Actually I was trying to make sure no one thought I meant flying with chemical assistance. I hadn’t even thought about flapping my arms!

  35. Davy apple,

    “Many variables cannot be directly measured, yet have a part in scientic explanations. It’s true in physics (Uncertainty Principle). Harm from tobacco. In geology. Inner structure of the Earth. Mass of the electron. Mass of the Earth. Existence of exoplanets. Existence of black holes. Dark energy. Dark matter. Acceleration of the expansion of the Universe…..

    Is this kind of science too hard for you?”

    This type of science is exactly hard enough for you spoiled children who don’t have the patience for real science and just make stuff up when it gets difficult.

  36. Bob Kurland commented:
    “PPS–the possession of a degree in a scientific discipline is not nowadays either a necessary or a sufficient condition for a person to know what science is about.”

    So only people who got their degree 50 years ago know anything?

    Didn’t you just write ” I’ve decided to ignore those who don’t know anything about science and pollute threads in this blog.”

    Tell me, Bob, are you in this league?

    “255 National Academy of Sciences members, including 11 Nobel laureates, defend climate science integrity,” May 7, 2010
    http://www.pacinst.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/21/2013/02/climate_statement3.pdf

  37. Hans Erren commented:
    “Oh look Mann’s hagiographer is paying us a visit. Nuff said.”

    Nuff said by you. Mann et al’s work has held up to scrutiny, and by now has been replicated and reproduced by completely independent mathematical techniques. People who follow science know that.

  38. Bob Kurland commented:
    “One final word for those who would engage with evangelical (atheists, warmists, liberals,_____ … fill in the blanks).”

    Bob, you’ve been threatening to pull out of the AGW debate here about 10 times now. `How many more passive aggressive comments from you should we expect?

  39. Sheri wrote:
    “I thought calling the earth a greenhouse was ludicrous enough.”

    It’s a metaphor, not an actual claim. (Did you know that?)

    Do you have a better suggestion for naming it?

  40. Sheri wrote:
    “Answer these, and I will continue to discuss this. Otherwise, I’m done.”

    Like Dr. Bob, you’re been threatening to leave the debate several times now. But you can’t resist trying to get the last word in.

    “If you can’t learn to be honest and back up what you say, answer questions, etc, you’re wasting my time.”

    I’ve provided more data to back up my claims than anyone else here. (Including especially Dr. Bob, science expert.)

    What is your list of questions supposed to mean — that anyone concerned about AGWd is a hypocrite for not living barefoot in a tent? The solution to AGW won’t come, and cannot come, from people living in tents — it will come from generating the energy we need in a way that doesn’t emit carbon. That requires change at the institutional and societal level. Otherwise, small individual action could actually make things worse off, by lowering demand, thus lowering price, enticing carbon emitters to buy even more FFs.

    Everyone needs energy to live a healthy modern life. That doesn’t mean it has to come from fossil fuels, which have large negative externalities that contrarians like to pretend do not exist.

  41. KuhnKat commented:
    “This type of science is exactly hard enough for you spoiled children who don’t have the patience for real science and just make stuff up when it gets difficult.”

    Just one thing — you didn’t list anything that has been made up.

    That’s not unusual for this blog, where everyone has their mind made up but never actually discusses the data and the evidence.

  42. Bob K: I made a quick check of blogs Mr. Appell is still allowed to post on. My contention that ignoring him will only work if everyone does was born out by evidence. One person can keep Mr. Appell going ad nausem. Also, as suspected, the absence of a response is not as much a deterent as one would think. Mr. Appell will post 3 to 5 comments in a row with no response. I suspect he would keep going for quite a while after everyone left.

  43. Sheri, I know a lot of people who have been banned from denier blogs — it’s kind of a mark of honor. This usually happens after you show you know some science and can cite it. At that point you are threatening these blogs raison d’être, which is not about discussing science but about constructing an alternate reality for other deniers. Take WUWT: they make it a point to have a “rebuttal” to every finding that comes out. That gives others a place to link to, if they don’t like what the real science says. Except the WUWT-like blogs do a poor job of presenting the science; they tend to make big errors that are obvious to anyone who knows anything. That’s why they almost all moderate their blogs. (You too, clearly.) Their not-banned readers don’t care — they nod their heads in blind agreement, then rant yet again about Al Gore and the putrid hippy liberal communists who are destroying their country and the world.

  44. Briggs

    December 2, 2014 at 12:28 pm

    Sheri,

    Notice the claim: banned for being a bore as a mark of honor.

    Sheesh.

  45. Banned for not sticking to their party line.

  46. Briggs: Yes, I noticed. I’d like to say I can’t believe it, but I can………Some people just are clueless.

  47. Sheri, thank you for your kind thoughts. It’s difficult not to respond to a barrage of ad hominem attacks, but that is the penance I have to take for the venial sin of criticizing Mr. Appel’s expertise. You know it is strange that warmists do not criticize arguments or dispute facts in general but when their backs are to the wall, criticize the person. What difference to the argument does the character of the proponent make? Warmists attack Professor Singer because of his one-time minimal association with a tobacco company but do not refute his scientific arguments. Schrodinger was a womanizer and Heisenberg was a Nazi, but their theories stand. As it is said of the sinful priest in the act of consecration, “ex opere operato”, the consecration is valid by the words uttered, not by the character of the priest.
    And with respect to reputation of scientists for and against AGW–Steven Chu, Nobel Laureate was Obama’s Secretary of Energy and an AGW advocate; Freeman Dyson (not the vacuum cleaner Dyson) is an AGW skeptic (see:
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/04/05/freeman-dyson-speaks-out-about-climate-science-and-fudge/)
    As for my own scientific reputation–well, it’s nice to have an equation with your name in it that doesn’t need a footnote (Google Kurland-McGarvey equation), but that’s irrelevant to what I might say about AGW.
    What I deplore most about the evangelical warmists is their inability to examine the evidence critically. I did after reading what Lindzen, Singer and other climate scientists had to say about the issue.

  48. With Dyson, I found it fascinating that he apparently voted for Obama. This goes against all the stereo-typing of skeptics. Some of his other comments seem more like a conservative than someone who would vote for Obama. You never know. And, of course, his political views have nothing to do with the accuracy of global warming science, though Mr. Appell will loudly screech that it does as he has elsewhere.

    I, too, made up my mind after reading much on the subject. If someone has a convincing case for the opposite view, I would revise my beliefs. So far, no one has.

    (I did check Google. You have a lot of interesting things come up on Google! I mean that in a nice way, of course.)

  49. Let me expand (again) on the nature of scientific validity. Theory/hypothesis —> quantitatively verifiable test
    Test fails? Theory/hypothesis to the trashcan or restricted to a domain where it does not fail (e.g. Newton’s theory of gravitation vs General Relativity tested by the advance in the perhelion of Mercury).
    Not possible to test quantitatively Theory/hypothesis? Then theory/hypothesis is really bad, “Not Even Wrong” (Pauli’s epithet for a very bad paper). This is where I see AGW.
    Theory/hypothesis quantitatively confirmed… Theory held until further theories/experiments change domain of validity for theory/hypothesis.
    (e.g. finding evidence for the Higgs boson to validate the Standard Model.)

  50. Bob Kurland wrote:
    “Not possible to test quantitatively Theory/hypothesis? Then theory/hypothesis is really bad.”

    Climate is an experimental subject, like physics. It is much more complex than Newton’s law of gravitation or General Relativity. There is no dual planet which we can experiment with — this is the only one. So any results have to untangled from other changes. That’s just the way it is, but that doesn’t mean we can’t know anything about climate.

    And that’s what climate scientists have done. AGW makes predictions — such as a cooler stratosphere — and that’s observed. Solar warming predicts the opposite, which isn’t observed.

    Untangling the enhanced greenhouse effect from other factors isn’t easy, but a lot of progress has been made on it, whether you sniff at it or not. Some of the most telling observations are:

    “Increases in greenhouse forcing inferred from the outgoing longwave radiation spectra of the Earth in 1970 and 1997,” J.E. Harries et al, Nature 410, 355-357 (15 March 2001).

    http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v410/n6826/abs/410355a0.html
    “Comparison of spectrally resolved outgoing longwave data between 1970 and present,” J.A. Griggs et al, Proc SPIE 164, 5543 (2004).
    http://spiedigitallibrary.org/proceedings/resource/2/psisdg/5543/1/164_1

    “Spectral signatures of climate change in the Earth’s infrared spectrum between 1970 and 2006,” Chen et al, (2007) http://www.eumetsat.int/Home/Main/Publications/Conference_and_Workshop_Proceedings/groups/cps/documents/document/pdf_conf_p50_s9_01_harries_v.pdf

    “Radiative forcing – measured at Earth’s surface – corroborate the increasing greenhouse effect,” R. Phillipona et al, Geo Res Letters, v31 L03202 (2004)
    http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2003GL018765/abstract
    “Measurements of the Radiative Surface Forcing of Climate,” W.F.J. Evans, Jan 2006
    https://ams.confex.com/ams/Annual2006/techprogram/paper_100737.htm

    “A method for continuous estimation of clear-sky downwelling longwave radiative flux developed using ARM surface measurements,” C. N. Long and D. D. Turner, Journal of Geophysical Research, vol 113, D18206, doi:10.1029/2008JD009936, 2008
    http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2008JD009936/abstract

    “Satellite-Based Reconstruction of the Tropical Oceanic Clear-Sky Outgoing Longwave Radiation and Comparison with Climate Models,” Gastineau et al, J Climate, vol 27, 941–957 (2014).
    http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/JCLI-D-13-00047.1

    All show about as directly as possible that the greenhouse effect is growing. Where, Bob, are the observations that show something different? Please try to be specific, without the grumbling and sputtering.

  51. Sheri wrote:
    “And, of course, his political views have nothing to do with the accuracy of global warming science”

    I have no idea what Freeman Dyson’s political views are, nor do I care. Some of his ideas about climate change are wrong. This sometimes happen to old physicists who venture outside of their area of expertise.

    “I, too, made up my mind after reading much on the subject.”

    What did you read? What did you read to try to get a well-rounded view?

  52. Bob Kurland commented:
    “You know it is strange that warmists do not criticize arguments or dispute facts…”

    In the time I’ve been here, I have yet to see you present a single scientific fact, argument, or cite a paper. Nor made a scientific case against AGW. I don’t think you have one.

    “Warmists attack Professor Singer because of his one-time minimal association with a tobacco company but do not refute his scientific arguments.”

    Wrong. A great many people have refuted Singer’s “science.” You could start here (but I doubt you will):

    http://davidappell.blogspot.com/2011/05/fred-singers-lecture-at-portland-state.html
    http://davidappell.blogspot.com/2011_05_01_archive.html
    http://davidappell.blogspot.com/2011/08/another-lie-from-fred-singer.html
    http://davidappell.blogspot.com/2011/05/fred-singers-lecture-at-portland-state.html
    http://davidappell.blogspot.com/2013/10/fred-singer-i-dont-like-saying-theyre.html
    http://davidappell.blogspot.com/2011/05/fred-singers-lousy-prediction-on-oil.html
    http://davidappell.blogspot.com/2011/05/more-abysmal-fred-singer-predictions.html

    “What I deplore most about the evangelical warmists is their inability to examine the evidence critically.”

    That inability is what you’re been showing here all along. You don’t engage in the science at all. So who’s not examining the evidence critically? You.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

*

© 2016 William M. Briggs

Theme by Anders NorenUp ↑