"A cruel debate opponent" "Pagan blasphemer" "Reverse-iconoclast" "don't get pissed at him b/c he pwn yalls whiney asses"
My Photo
Location: Indiana, United States

Miscellaneous meanderings and philosophical ramblings. The title from a spiral notebook I used to jot down my thoughts on religion and other matters some years ago. I like to write, think and express my views on various issues. Robust discussion is welcome.

Chris of Rights and Charles Martin <-- Lists of debunked Sarah Palin rumors

"Lan astaslem."
I will not submit. I will not surrender.
Choose your language: Francais/French Deutsch/German Italiano/Italian Portugues/Portuguese Espanol/Spanish 日本語/Japanese 한국어/Korean 中文(简体)/Chinese Simplified

Thursday, November 29, 2007

Unfinished business and global warming

It's taken me some time to respond to a particular blogger who had something to say about one of my posts. Considering the lack of substance, let alone his missing the point of my article, I really wasn't sure a reply was worth the effort. It didn't help that my eyes ached a bit from rolling them after reading what he had to say. But since I'm bored, and his knee-jerk reaction, arrogance and stupidity make it so easy, I thought I would now address his comments here.

I suppose I could have simply referenced his blather, as it says nothing positive about him on its own, but I tend to lean towards being thorough when I have time and resources. Also, a related exchange occurred after his post, that I include here in my reply, so this post will be longer than usual, hence the click to expand it.

This began with my post, Time travel has actually occurred. Therein, I commented on the changes NASA had to make to US temperature records recently. Did I deny that global warming has occurred? Nope. Did I say it was nothing but a conspiracy? No on that as well. As should be obvious to those with even average reading comprehension and no axe to grind, I emphasized the media hyping 1998 as the hottest year and wondered if they would report with the same enthusiasm, that it no longer was. I also included from the post at HotAir, Allah's comment about how this will hopefully change for the better, the way earth science is reported to the public.

For that, I get the following from Shawn Wilkinson:

Spengel's Confusion and Whig Whag Over 1934

I can't help myself. I'm such a masochist that I actually read the writings of idiots for my own self-pleasure. Perhaps its a reflection of my arrogance, or perhaps I have some deep doubt of my own self-confidence and need reassurance that I'm more intelligent compared to the average Joe.

There are three topics that I am knowledgeable in that my masochistic side comes out: historical criticism, global climate studies, and the theory of evolution. These three topics come up with various frequency on my favorite baboon's web log, Mark Sprengel.

Recently, he commented on the recent hub-bub surrounding the 1998 temperature readings. For the full scoop beyond Sprengel's comprehension, read RealClimate's comment.

And don't worry. I expect fully well that everything will continue to fly over Sprengel's head.

I didn't provide a link, as that's the entire post, and I would rather not reward such foolishness with traffic.

click for more

It's probably obvious that this twit and I have some history, so I'll briefly explain. We've butted heads a few times in several groups on Myspace, mostly over religion. He's an atheist and quite certain of his position despite having his views knocked down a few times by several articles I've referenced from apologetics sites. Such arrogance is typical of the new atheists and he's certainly one of those, having defended the (ir)Rational Response Squad on several occasions. Having seen his Photobucket account I can attest to some of the contents only serving to emphasize his membership in this group of arrogant anti-theists, who far too often think mere rhetoric and "humor" are sufficient arguments against the faith.

I only ran across that post of his because he brought it up in a thread on Myspace, as I haven't bothered to keep track of his blog. It really isn't that interesting to me and it doesn't bother me that he might be disappointed that his apparent ongoing obsession is unrequited. My initial reaction to his latest ejaculation was to show it to some friends and note that I needed more impressive "enemies", to which they agreed. Beyond that and much eye-rolling all around, I didn't see the need to respond to his comments. I later changed my mind when he brought me up in another thread on Myspace, which I had yet to participate in. He decided to respond to someone else's comment in that thread with this:

Ice cores. A true critic at least knows the entirety of the opposition's side. It is the nitwit who grasps onto his position with a complete disregard of learning what he's actually arguing against.

He was oh so clever at bringing me into the discussion by making nitwit a link to my blog. Yes, impressive that. Since I'm a regular in the group, I thought it was about time that I responded to the fool:

*rolls eyes*

True nitwittery is displayed by someone who not only had the point of my blog post about this go over his head, but then popped a blog post out of his ass displaying his own idiocy and then decided to repeat nearly the same here.

As for knowing the entirety of the opposition's side. I don't think you're much of an authority when you toss "your" arguments around about the trial accounts in the NT or try to claim the cosmological argument merely assumes God is uncaused.

He then flippantly replies:

lol! You're referring to the one which I point you in the proper direction of the 1934 tidbit? Sorry if it hurt your feelings to refer you to a more proper source on climatology than your blogosphere circle jerk.

His claim of a more proper source would be RealClimate in his original post, which I'll come back to in a moment. Let's get my reply in that thread out of the way first. His original blather in bold, my reply in regular text.

lol! You're referring to the one which I point you in the proper direction of the 1934 tidbit?

Yes, the one in which my actual point went over your head and apparently still is.

Sorry if it hurt your feelings

Don't flatter yourself. My first reaction was to raise an eyebrow and show some friends and note that I needed more impressive "enemies", to which they agreed. The reaction overall consisted of *rolling eyes*

to refer you to a more proper source on climatology than your blogosphere circle jerk.

Which wasn't very relevant to the point I was making. Do try and pay attention next time you read my blog.

As for circle jerks, that's rather funny coming from the guy who tosses around typical arguments from and Doherty droppings.

I suppose you'll spin your non-response to my other points but what I said still stands regarding your lack of knowledge of the other side's arguments, either that, or you just spin them to attack straw men.

And now what of this, as he claims, proper source? I'll refer to Steve McIntyre's comments concerning that. An excerpt from his blog:

In less hysterical tones over at realclimate, Hansen’s colleague and NASA spokesman, Gavin Schmidt, has also minimized the error:

Another week, another ado over nothing.

Sum total of this change? A couple of hundredths of degrees in the US rankings …

NASA spokesman [Gavin] Schmidt also went to the trouble of misrepresenting my role in identifying the specific error. Both at the blog and in my email to Hansen, I specifically identified the error as probably coming from use of one USHCN version prior to 2000 and another version for 2000 and later - a diagnosis confirmed by NASA. Unwilling to even concede me this gruel, Schmidt denied that I even “speculated” as to the cause of the error”

Steve M pointed out where the error came from in his blog posts and his email notifying GISS of the problem. The GISS people simply confirmed that he was correct.

[Response: Not so. He saw the jump but did not speculate as to the cause. - gavin] (source)

He goes into more detail regarding the downplay of this matter compared to how it was treated in the past. Be sure to read it all and keep his blog in mind on the global warming issue. A more recent post on the matter here is also interesting. He isn't extreme on the issue, from what I can see, and really is trying to make sure we're working with accurate data when making such potentially huge decisions regarding public policy.

As for circle jerk, it's rather interesting while attacking me for that, this kid referenced a source that's a colleague of the scientist who's data was in error (nice circle there) and also happens to be a NASA spokesman. That last point further illustrates the shallow thinking of Shawn Wilkinson. If he had only taken the time, he could have clicked on the link to HotAir in my post and read this:

That said, there were people within NASA’s earth science groups like Dr. Michael King who said that they found the agenda-driven science frustrating, an in particular the effect that overzealous public affairs officers were having on the way the science was being reported to the press. In one story relayed during a meeting I attended at Goddard in 2005, several of the scientists and visualizers talked about public affairs reporting on some Landsat (iirc it was Landsat) imagery of Mt. Kilimanjaro and its icecap. The satellite photos showed the moutain’s ice cap receeding due to seasonal change; public affairs reported the photos as evidence that global warming was causing the ice cap’s retreat. Public affairs was hyping the stories to the press, which in turn added even more hype. The public has been getting earth science reporting that’s hyped, squared.

McIntyre also has an excellent essay, here, concerning due diligence and disclosure in the climate science field.

Taking all this into account, I have some additions to the original misguided comments criticizing my post, to make it a bit more accurate. My improvements in bold.

In a rare moment of honesty Shawn Wilkinson says:

I can't help myself. I'm such a masochist that I actually read the writings of idiots for my own self-pleasure. Of course by this I mean my own blog, The Natural Skeptic. Perhaps its definitely a reflection of my arrogance and ignorance, or perhaps I have some deep doubt of my own self-confidence and need faux reassurance that I'm more intelligent compared to the average Joe. Unfortunately, I've failed again, only proving that I'm still just an arrogant fool. My only recourse is to continue with chest beating rhetoric and hope nobody actually notices.

Finally, his additional stupidity was to think that when I said "enemies" I meant that literally or that I was commenting on his view of me. I think most people understand my use of quotation marks there and that my view of this individual is merely dismissive, and for good reason.

Ah the Internet. Ain't it wonderful, the special people we can run up against?

roll it up


Filed under: NewsPolitics -- Misc. -- 4GrinsNGiggles

Trackposted to: Outside the Beltway, Blog @, The Virtuous Republic, Perri Nelson's Website, Rosemary's Thoughts, guerrilla radio, Right Truth, Adam's Blog, Leaning Straight Up, The Bullwinkle Blog, Big Dog's Weblog, Cao's Blog, The Amboy Times, Chuck Adkins, Conservative Cat, Pursuing Holiness, Allie is Wired, third world county, The Crazy Rants of Samantha Burns, The World According to Carl, Pirate's Cove, Blue Star Chronicles, The Pink Flamingo, Republican National Convention Blog, Dumb Ox Daily News, High Desert Wanderer, Right Voices, and The Yankee Sailor, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

Trackback URI                             Submit this post on! width=                     View blog reactions
<< Home

Click for Latest Posts

Creative Commons License

As defined and limited by the license, any use of work from this blog, must be attributed to Mark K. Sprengel and include a link back to this blog.

Get updates by e-mail:

Delivered by FeedBurner

Widgetize! Subscribe Social Bookmark Blogs that link here
My Technorati profile

Also, follow me on Twitter

Search this blog:

powered by Aditya

Recent Comments: