Click to get your own widget

Friday, September 30, 2011

"Scienceblogs" - Greg Laden

     The Greg Laden site on the string of related American sites called "Scienceblogs" is arguably the most prominent.

     Greg is a catastrophic warming supporter, which is his right. He censors opposing views or even questions put courteously which is his right because, as he explains its his site, though incompatible with any claim to "science".

   He has claimed to be opposed to censorship. saying "Censorship is the second to last refuge of tyrants, the last is violence" (#23) a refreshingly liberal (in the true meaning of the term) viewpoint on "scienceblogs" where 9 sites, at last count, promote censorship. Rather than answer the 7 questions any climate alarmist should be able to easily answer if it is true, he simply censored them.

    Note that he does not delete ad homs or indeed obscenity, which are clearly, after all, the stock in trade of climate alarmist "scientists", particularly those "peer reviewed and published in the finest journals" http://scienceblogs.com/illconsidered/2011/07/ever (#5) (although he did censor some criticisms made in return, neither ad hom nor remotely obscene since I don't find that persuasive). Indeed, while censoring me, he recently passed a comment that I should be glad Greg hasn't come round to my house and cut off my head which is the last argument he allegedly disapproves of.

   It is his choice to run his site that way. However he does worse than that.
   Greg has also claimed to be the sole scientist anywhere in the world who supports warming catastrophism and is not paid by the state. Not one single cent.

   He has also claimed to be a "climate scientist".

   Indeed he has been given numerous opportunities to say the "misspoke" (a la Clinton), panicked or that the claim needs "clarifying" (a term often used by British politicians caught lying). He has, repeatedly, stood by his claim.

But
Greg Laden is a Biological Anthropologist, studying human evolution, with degrees from Harvard University. He has taught at several universities, including Harvard and is currently a part time Assistant Professor at the University of Minnesota. He is an independent scholar who blogs athttp://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/.  http://myudaily.com/volblogs/newscommentary/religionspirituality/greg-laden-an-interview-with-a-biological-anthropologist-and-blogger/

  Not a wise move when elsewhere claiming to be a climate scientist receiving not one cent from government. Though his "scienceblogs" bio is replete with "did I mention Harvard"'s it is astonishingly less forthcoming about his present role as a part time assistant teacher at Minnesota U.

    University of Minnesota, Twin Cities (U of M) is a public research university and A public university is one that is predominantly funded by public means

    So the alleged only scientist anywhere in the world who supports warming catastrophism while receiving not a cent from the government  is actually an assistant teacher of anthropology, largely or entirely paid by said government (at what I understand Americans call a "cow college" rather than Harvard).

     Laden has clearly, deliberately and continuously lied and if the entire "scienceblogs" site and anybody connected is not to it is not to be wholly discredited as not being in any way connected to scientific principles it is impossible he could remain on it.
========================

   Knowing a little about anthropology in academe in Britain I can say that it is largely a matter of keeping ones tongue between the cheeks of those above you on the ladder while refusing to notice any scientific evidence which does not suit the politically correct paradigm (admittedly difficult to do otherwise in such a position). Rather than being a real science it is very much the sort of "science" Richard Feynman described in his "Cargo Cult Science" lecture.

     Perhaps American anthropology is totally different and a real science.

     Perhaps his interest in (and possible limited understanding of CAGW) is inspired by coworkers, friends and neighbours. I haven't visited Minnesota and it may be a warm place with a large coastal area which would explain the local's interest in the possible bad effects of warming. Indeed it must be so because pathetic as it is to lie on the subject it would be unbelievably pathetic to lie in a way that will not impress coworkers and neighbours.

Labels: , ,


Comments:
Neil Craig, your incompetence and delusion is manifest yet again.

1. Greg Laden had nothing to do with the discussion on science blogs you cite.

2. Your link doesn't even work.

3. Your questions were only censored after you cut and pasted them again and again and again and responded to pointed answers with preposterous gibberish. (E.g. "prove your question is honest" and other such stupidity.)

4. You never answered direct questions.

5. You were caught lying.

You lied about David King, because you're an illiterate who saw *The Great Global Warming Swindle* and believed those idiots.

You lied about no one answering your questions.

You showed grotesque incompetence on the simplest scientific issues, such as tree ring proxy data and simple statistical significance.

You exhibited the spelling and editing skills of a brain-damaged clam.

You and your idiotic Big Seven questions are not considered a threat to anyone in the intellectual and scientific community, Mr. Craig. Both are regarded as running jokes.

But by all means keep us laughing.
 
This is once ahain the "climate scientist" published in the finest journals calling himself Skip on "scienceblogs". He demonstrates the level of honesty expected among such faux "scientists" and anathema to the real sort. To answer:

1 - How silly. Anybody can check the link and see it is to a discussion, invilving him, on his site.

2 - See answer to 1

3 - I had asked the question on several blogs and not had them answered. Anybody with any respect for scientific principles wopuld know that "Mr Einstein you asked that question about light before and we didn'dn't answer it so shouldn't asl it again" is an idioic answer.

4 - That is, of course, a lie. See answers on 1,2 & 3.

5 - That is, of course, a lie.

Skip is claiming that I am lying when I say Sir DFavid king saod that by 2100 "Antractica will be the only hobitable continent".

One of the finest things about the net is that anybody can eacan check such things and find that while this denial does indeed represent a stanrard of honesty matching any "environmentalist"'s claims it is a total and deliberate lie. http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/why-antarctica-will-soon-be-the-ionlyi-place-to-live--literally-561947.html
He subsequently said it would, instead be 3 C. The BBC, demonstrating the very highest standard of honesty to which that corrupt ogrganisation aspires described the later statement as his "strongest warning yet".

I told the absolute truth about nobody giving a responsive answer to all the questions. In each case where 1 or 2 were answered the answerer proved to themselves that they couldn't answer them factually without blowing the scam out of the water. It will be obvious to all readers that if such answers had been produced you could cut and paste them here easily. You don't.


Your assertion that continuing to ank a question after it hasn't been answered is legitimate grounds for censorshiop in the ecofascist movement, while expecting me not to censor you when caught not asking questions but merely making dishonest statements which have been answered time & again shows merely that you know I am infinitely more supportive of freedom (and able to thrive in it) than youself Skip.
 
1 - How silly. Anybody can check the link and see it is to a discussion, invilving him, on his site.

So link it, Beil.

You can't.

I repeat: Link the discussion. You won't find it because it isn't there.

Now, Beil:

I *dare* you to find where David King said Antarctica would be the only habitable region by 2100 as you so mendaciously asserted.

Oh, right. that doesn't exist either.

You're a liar, Craig. I caught you and you have no answer but censorship and lies.
 
Idiot.
What point do you thinnk you are making as a "peer reviewed climate scientist published in the finest journals" by lying in a way anybody can see?
 
Post a comment

<< Home

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?

British Blogs.