Friday Funny: Hilarious Letter To the Editor

I’ve been writing letters to my local newspaper to try to calm some of the eco-worriers and zealots that think AGW is the end-all for the Earth and demand “action now”. Of course, there’s always a couple that provide entertainment beyond my wildest dreams. One guy, “Jorge Smirnoff” provides the most hilarious rebuttal ever.

Pro tip: If you are going to laud Michael Mann as a “world class climatological expert”, you should at least spell his name right. Mann’s ego can’t handle such things.

This appeared in today’s Chico Enterprise-Record. Link here. Seriously, it’s my best birthday present evar. In fact, I’d go so far as to call it “unprecedented”.


Letter: Choose reliable sources on global warming

I am certain Martha Claudio was being facetious when she wrote “Seeking more info on weather highs and lows” Aug. 3.

Martha clearly understands that asking Anthony Watts to expound on MMGW (Man Made Global Warming) is like asking a fox the best way to guard a chicken coop.

Readers interested in obtaining the real story on MMGW ought to seek out information from world class climatological experts like Michael E.Man, director of the Earth System Science center at Penn State University at: https://time.com/6088531/ipcc-climate-report-hockey-stick-curve/ 

or James E.Hansen a retired 30 year NASA Scientist and currently a professor at Columbia University’s Department of Earth and Environment Sciences at: https://www.earth.columbia.edu/users/profile/james-e-hansen

Another way of obtaining accurate MMGW information from reliable sources is to Google,  renowned institutions of higher learning or well-known scientific establishments followed by the words “Global Warming”

Examples:

Google “Stanford Global warming” – “MIT Global warming” – “NASA Global warming”- “Woods Hole Global Warming” etc.

Do not rely on pseudoscientific blogs, they spread disinformation and are the least reliable sources of the latest information on the greatest existential threat facing our planet today.

— Jorge Smirnoff, Chico


The poor guy suffers from the belief that climate scientists are pure and infallible. Of course, we all know better; particularly where Mann is involved.

I’ll leave it to my readers to either offer their most hilarious rebuttals in comments, and/or if you wish, submit your own to letters@chicoer.com (250 word limit)

I’ll share my own rebuttal here soon, replete with scientific integrity tales of air conditioner follies in the hearing room in June 1988, the “underwater” West Side Highway, plus data stories of “upside down Mann” and “hide the decline”.

Enjoy!

UPDATE: I just sent Jorge a gift wrapped copy of Mark Steyns excellent book, A Disgrace to the Profession

4.8 52 votes
Article Rating
307 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Dr Ken Pollock
September 17, 2021 4:21 am

I have just finished reading Professor Mann’ latest book “The New Climate War” and posted a review on Amazon. One point I made was that Mann uses the word “unprecedented” to mean “I have not heard of anything worse and will not look up weather records in case I find something that contradicts my prior belief” – or some such sentence. He was in Australia in the recent bush fires and claims they were “unprecedented”. I filmed the aftermath of the 1983 bushfires for the BBC and they were worse! So much for academic integrity…

Nottoobrite
Reply to  Dr Ken Pollock
September 17, 2021 5:39 am

Mann made global warming is ok IF you don’t read history!!!

Tom in Florida
Reply to  Nottoobrite
September 17, 2021 6:03 am

Perhaps Mann uses the name “Griff” on this blog.

Scissor
Reply to  Tom in Florida
September 17, 2021 6:18 am

I don’t think so. Griff at least seems to be sincere, ignorant yes, but sincere nevertheless.

Mann knowingly lies and the propensity for him and his colleagues to do so was especially revealed within the Climategate emails.

MarkW
Reply to  Scissor
September 17, 2021 6:40 am

griff repeats the same lies over and over again.
With the number of times he’s been corrected, I find it most difficult to believe that he doesn’t know that he is lying.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  MarkW
September 17, 2021 6:55 am

To be charitable, there are some people, such a creationists, who vehemently deny evolution. No matter what evidence they are provided with, they insist that evolution doesn’t exist. I don’t believe they are consciously lying; they are denying facts that are contrary to their beliefs and therefore undermine their belief system. I think that griff falls into the same category. It is difficult to be certain because he so rarely attempts to defend his unsupported pronouncements. However, I think that he or she is just a deluded zealot.

Pamela Matlack-Klein
Reply to  Clyde Spencer
September 17, 2021 7:42 am

I no longer even try to educate people who refuse to accept the concepts of evolution. It is just too frustrating to try and conduct a rational argument with them.

john
Reply to  Pamela Matlack-Klein
September 17, 2021 10:24 am

I took this “nuclear sunrise” pic this morning at Moosehead Lake, Maine…

comment image

Pop Piasa
Reply to  john
September 17, 2021 2:27 pm

Thanks! Photographic evidence of water at work in the atmosphere.
Too bad Griffy can’t post a picture of CO2 at work other than some ten foot tall maize or a 500 year old Banyan tree.

John Larson
Reply to  Pamela Matlack-Klein
September 17, 2021 8:46 pm

I don’t know of anyone “who refuse[s] to accept the concepts of evolution”, but it frustrates me that so many who supposedly skeptical of some “consensus science” seem downright close minded when it comes to what I sometimes call Grand Origin Story evolution.

A universe just popping existence? That just so happens to be ultra “fine tuned” to facilitate what we can observe? (to the point of many scientists embracing the “multiverse” concept, to explain away that ultra fine tuning).

Living things, the simplest of which are vastly more sophisticated and orderly that anything humans have ever devised, just sort of self assembling on a sterile planet?
I’ve seen polling that showed 80+% surveyed believe that scientists have made simple one celled organisms, with college educated responders being oversampled, when in truth no such thing has ever been done, and Origin of Life researches don’t even attempt such things. Because what has been discovered about even the simples forms of life (particularly in the last few decades) is far beyond the ability of even the most advanced current technology wielders to even bother wasting time trying to assemble, even if given ALL the component ingredients in the purest of forms.
(And 40% believe scientists have fabricated “simple” animals, like mollusks and amphibians! Why would people be so ignorant about such a thing, do you figure?)

Just a couple of essential parts of GOS Evolution theory, that are routinely treated as no big deal . . the consensus has it, anyway.

And I might very well get booted off this cite (as I was a few year ago), just for responding to your derogatory comment about me (for one). Because the consensus folks in this GOS Evolution realm don’t like “skeptics” anymore than the “MMGW” consensus clan does. I actually believe the later got the idea of “strong tonging” all skeptics and shoving this down everyone’s throats, so to speak, from the former . . Monkey see monkey do, you might say ; )

Rational_Db8
Reply to  John Larson
September 17, 2021 11:45 pm

There are several obvious major problems with your line of reasoning here. First – and the biggest – is that any other answer for how things came to be is even more complicated than the Big Bang and evolution. Anything which could design/create all of these things would have to be vastly more complicated than the Big Bang & evolution.

Then you still are stuck with the problem of “what created the creator?’ Obviously an even more difficult question.

The other problem you’ve got is the hubris of thinking that man is so sophisticated and capable that anything which is beyond our ability to create therefore cannot have arisen over time on it’s own. However, man has only been around for a few hundred thousand years, which is the blink of an eye (far less really) compared to the time the Earth has been in existence, let alone the universe. And we were essentially in the dark ages up until just the last couple of hundred years or so. But the Earth has been here for over 4,600,000,000 years. Look at how incredibly fast the non-thinking, really not even living viruses manage to mutate into different variants… From one virus strain, you can wind up with many many very different variants in only months… But yet you think that in 4.6 billion years life couldn’t arise and become very complex?

In other words, you are trying to imply that the Big Bang and evolution can’t possibly be the “right” answer because life is far too complex for that to occur – but your answer is even MORE complex and unexplainable. You’re also comparing apples to rocks, but trying to say that because the one doesn’t grow, the other one can’t either.

Oh, and we unquestionably have documented unquestionable evolution in both created ourselves in lab studies, and outside the lab.

John Larson
Reply to  Rational_Db8
September 18, 2021 7:03 pm

Oh, and we unquestionably have documented unquestionable evolution in both created ourselves in lab studies, and outside the lab.”

You mean mutations/small changes, right?

Consider animal breeding, please. All manner of changes have occurred due to “selection” by humans. Which is to say the “coding” that became “operative” in the sense breeds that evolved already had that coding in there genetic repertoire.
No one was waiting around for fortuitous mutations to occur, yet we can see substantial evolution occurred. From Whippets to pugs, toy Poodles to Mastiffs, the genetics require were already in the “canines” involved from the beginning of this evolution. And coyotes can interbreed with dogs, as can wolves . . No new coding required.

What I just described IS the observable evolution that we have to speak of. That’s what has actually been observed. “Radiative” evolution, as it is often put, not “creative” evolution.

On GOS evolution, a planet went from zero “coding” to being awash in distinct functional codons. Each and every one having to have come into existence at some point by random chance, effectively. This is not a likely thing to happen, of course, so lots and lots of time is appealed to . . not anything we can actually observe (temporally limited critters that we are ; )

And the vast time span is assumed by the Evolutionists . . based on faith in what some other scientists have proposed has passed (but did not observe, being so temporally challenged, so to speak ; )

So no, it’s not true that “we unquestionably have documented unquestionable evolution in both created ourselves in lab studies, and outside the lab”, of the sort that fills the bill, so to speak. We have extremely limited examples of mutations/small changes, that no one I am aware of denies can happen.

“Then you still are stuck with the problem of “what created the creator?’

True, in a sense, but we have no way of knowing what sort of “world” this hypothetical Creator came to be, in. Not the universe we exist in, if It created our “world”. It could be that It came to be in some sort of “world” that involved harmonic resonances which eventuated in a consciousness that arose “spontaneously” (no creator involved), and time itself began at the moment It became self aware. This would roughly correspond to what we see in the Book, in regards to what “the ancient of days One” says of Himself. Uncreated, and existing for all of time (eternal). But, I can only speculate of course.

Shawn Marshall
Reply to  John Larson
September 18, 2021 6:03 am

The Intelligent Design folks James Tour, John Lennox, Stephen Meyer, Michael Denton, Michael Behe, Douglas Axe and many others are highly educated and present very sound data for their inference that a Mind is behind Creation. They really don’t care about evolution except to debunk the absurdity of neo-Darwinist evolution. Darwin thought a cell was a blob of goo. Even a one celled organism is far more complex than anything ever created by the science of man. These are plain facts as a few moments with James Tour vids will convince. Some people ‘believe’ in evolution to proof their disbelief in God. Good luck with that.

Keith
Reply to  John Larson
September 29, 2021 4:56 pm

I bear witness to the creator, I met him, conversed with him on numerous occasions about significant problems I was facing in the process of helping a friend.

He taught me, through a regular audible conversation, how to help a friend suffering from 30 or more co-morbid mental health conditions including DID/MPD, and over a period of 3 years of coaching, my friend was healed of over 102 phobias, and 40+ personalities were merged. Every single thing He taught me how to do to help my friend worked. DID/MPD is the most complex and tangled web of emotional damage, that the secular world barely knows how to start with. I documented over 1000 therapy sessions that were 100% effective wrt the specific issue that was being addressed, but it took 1000s of sessions and a lot more besides. In each of these sessions Jesus himself (aka. God) exposed the problem bringing it to the surface, spoke specifically to the problem and fixed it. Measurements were taken wrt. to the size and manifestation of the problem before and after.

Put this another way, as scientists we design experimental apparatus to observe and measure the phenomenon in question.

So if you have not assessed the nature and character of the creator, and you have not designed a device or mechanism with which to measure His presence, or the effects of his presence, you cannot claim to have looked at the question seriously.

My specific interest, as an engineer with a scientific background has been to find how to make the process of enabling God to speak and heal people repeatable. Once a phenomenon is repeatable it can be subjected to scientific enquiry.

This is perfectly possible and evidence abounds. Unless of course you assume that it doesn’t; such assumptions are not very scientific.

Last edited 21 days ago by Keith
pigs_in_space
Reply to  Pamela Matlack-Klein
September 17, 2021 11:53 pm

Apart from, there are NO link fossils.
None at all, – only extinctions.

All we see are extremely diverse species with no sign of evolution whatsoever, so we are constantly at a loss to explain why.

It follows the 2nd law of thermodynamics, evolution cannot work, ie. all ordered systems break down into maximum entropy not the reverse.
Darwin could not square this at all with his own observations.

Federico Bär
Reply to  Pamela Matlack-Klein
September 19, 2021 11:24 am

Yes. Plus, they will probably even try to educate you. I see a parallel with (particularly religious) believers and unbelievers. Pointless explications and discussions.
.+

griff
Reply to  Clyde Spencer
September 17, 2021 8:13 am

I frequently provide links to articles which in turn refer to scientific papers and research, or actual renewable energy schemes in operation.

I had hoped you were clever enough to follow those threads?

should I post pictures?

Alan the Brit
Reply to  griff
September 17, 2021 9:31 am

Hey Griffy baby, still waiting for your response to the fact that the current Inter-glacial is colder than the previous four dating back over half a million years, trust me in comparison, it’s jolly cold!!! Next Ice-Age just around the corner, by shares in thermal underwear ASAP you’ll make a fortune come selling time!!!!!!!!!

Richard Page
Reply to  Alan the Brit
September 17, 2021 11:13 am

Ask him in the same sentence why a pendulum or metronome will eventually slow down to completely confuse him – he won’t have a clue why you’re putting both things together. Griffy is a bear of very little brain.

Reply to  griff
September 17, 2021 11:06 am

How about a pic of all those North Sea wind turbines that are not turning? LOL!

Chaswarnertoo
Reply to  griff
September 17, 2021 11:28 am

Pity you don’t comprehend any of them.

HotScot
Reply to  griff
September 17, 2021 4:18 pm

Articles are nothing more than scientific theory (assuming those you post are published) and not conclusive in themselves.

They are evidence, of that there is no doubt, but one needs to understand the concept of evidence before they can be included in the global puzzle.

Citing individual scientific papers (as you do, but you are not alone) as some sort of proof is not a scientific, nor evidential endeavour.

Science is a refutable phenomenon, it’s designed thus, by nature, not man. Nature is a balance of innumerable conflicting objectives, few of which mankind understands, never mind the interplay between those objectives.

Please go and play with your trains.

jtom
Reply to  griff
September 17, 2021 5:17 pm

Hey, Griff, lately I haven’t seen you touting how much power Europe has been getting from their renewables. Is this getting you down?

“Energy Prices in Europe Hit Records After Wind Stops BlowingHeavy reliance on wind power, coupled with a shortage of natural gas, has led to a spike in energy prices”https://www.wsj.com/articles/energy-prices-in-europe-hit-records-after-wind-stops-blowing-11631528258

Perhaps they should build some coal burning power plants. Or buy a lot of candles…

Reply to  griff
September 17, 2021 10:40 pm

Considering where griff keeps his head hidden, he should have no trouble finding a natural gas deposit we can all ignite.

nyolci
Reply to  griff
September 18, 2021 4:33 am

should I post pictures?

🙂 or superhero type cartoons, I think that would match the deniers’ level of sophistication.

Last edited 1 month ago by nyolci
LdB
Reply to  nyolci
September 19, 2021 12:17 am

There are a few good ones of nyolci and his bike and helmet around 🙂

Reply to  griff
September 18, 2021 4:41 am

Always amused by the “woke again” flock that worships the government(the Church of Warming is a denomination of the main religion) posting their sermon from the government clergy they believe without question.

Leo Smith
Reply to  Clyde Spencer
September 17, 2021 8:46 am

I don’t think you understand Creationism. It is a perfectly valid hypothesis, as is, say, materialism.

In any given metaphysic you have to start with one thing that is ‘indisputable fact and more real than anything else’. In Materialism it is the presumed existence of the physical world as ‘revealed by the senses’. In Creationism it is the Will of God as revealed by the One True Bible. (Usually King James version)

Mutatis mutandis, either supplies a fully consistent picture of the world: To a creationist, the world was created about 6000 years ago in one large supernatural event which placed all the false evidence of evolution and much greater age, on the Earth to tempt man away from the One True Path.

The narrative is self consistent and logical. Neither narrative is demonstrably true, and neither is demonstrably false. Which one you pick is, if you believe one or the other to be true, an article of Faith, or, if you accept that they are in the end simply metaphysical positions, whichever one is more useful or appealing to you.

Science is the detailed analysis of the Materialist world view. That science seems to work, is not irrefutable evidence that the assumptions on which it is based are correct.

Hoyt Clagwell
Reply to  Leo Smith
September 17, 2021 9:05 am

 “To a creationist, the world was created about 6000 years ago in one large supernatural event which placed all the false evidence of evolution and much greater age, on the Earth to tempt man away from the One True Path.”

Why would God plant false evidence if he wanted one to follow the “one true path?” If God created the evidence for you to believe the world is billions of years old and creatures evolved from microorganisms, then wouldn’t it be a blasphemy to not believe as much?
I don’t see the consistency or logic you claim Leo. Not trying to start a whole discussion on religious belief, just addressing your assertion.

Pat Frank
Reply to  Leo Smith
September 17, 2021 9:31 am

Science is the detailed description of what we know about what we have observed, Leo. There’s no necessary inclusion of a materialist assumption.

Science would be the same if we were all brains in vats suffering an illusion.

Science is not Philosophy.jpg
Carlo, Monte
Reply to  Pat Frank
September 17, 2021 9:50 am

Somewhat ironic with regard to the title of the article, is that philosophy once contained all knowledge, including science, at least up to the time of Isaac Newton. To this day, the highest academic degree conferred by universities is the PhD, which of course is short for doctorate of philosophy, even for subjects such as cosmology or mathematics.

Pat Frank
Reply to  Carlo, Monte
September 17, 2021 1:58 pm

Carlo, Stillman Drake wrote a great short biography of Galileo, in which he points out that as soon as Galileo made physical theory contingent upon experiment, he freed science forever from philosophy.

No assumptions about nature or essence allowed.

Galileo understood that perfectly. So did the Aristotelian academics who persecuted him for it.

whiten
Reply to  Pat Frank
September 17, 2021 7:08 pm

The main three lines (chained domains) of science:

First essential and initial – Philosophy
Second – Theoretical and/or Analytics
Third – Experiment/Engineering.

cheers

whiten
Reply to  whiten
September 17, 2021 9:04 pm

I am in some special treatment here at WUWT.
Am not complaining about it, only state it as it is.
While I understand to have been fare, still it is not just.
And lately is showing to be wholly unfair and unjust.

Some comments of mine blocked lately and not allowed without any justification.

Pat Frank
Reply to  whiten
September 17, 2021 10:13 pm

Philosophy is superfluous to science, whiten. The verdict of experiment over theory is definitive.

whiten
Reply to  Pat Frank
September 17, 2021 10:42 pm

Pat, I just stated my understanding about science.

Ok, the “Ph” of the PhD must be superfluous to that title, Dr. Pat… if you say so.

Let see;

“A particle can be in two different point in space at the same moment”

The essential initial thread of Quantum Physics.

It is not a product of Quantum Theoretical/Analytics… or Quantum Experiment/Engineering.

Am I wrong there, Pat?

whiten
Reply to  whiten
September 18, 2021 4:31 am

Besides, the verdict in the science overall, including philosophical aspect of it also, rests with the the scientific validation method;

Falsification-Nullification-Cancellation.

Which by the way happens to be essential but still within philosophical domain of science.

cheers

Last edited 1 month ago by whiten
Jim Gorman
Reply to  whiten
September 18, 2021 9:33 am

Sorry dude, you’ve gone a bridge too far. Your three “Falsification-Nullification-Cancellation” components have nothing to do with philosophical reasoning to determine the correct answer. They are associated with the firm connection of math and predicting actual physical, real world consequences.

Current climate models are nothing more than playing with numbers as is trying to predict the future by calculating a non-physical Global Average Temperature. Neither fit the three things you mention.

Pat Frank
Reply to  whiten
September 18, 2021 6:04 pm

Experimental falsification has no philosophical content, whiten.

whiten
Reply to  Pat Frank
September 18, 2021 7:06 pm

Falsification is not experimental and it is a philosophical content.

Pat Frank
Reply to  whiten
September 19, 2021 8:22 am

Falsification is not experimental and it is a philosophical content.”

Falsification occurs when the results of experiment contradict the prediction from physical theory.

There isn’t a smidgon of philosophy in either side of that.

whiten
Reply to  Pat Frank
September 19, 2021 10:29 am

Pat,
an experiment has no meaning or value outside
the application of:

Falsification – Nullification – cancellation method.

There is no possibility of verification, validation or any value that can be assigned to a given experiment, unless the experiment itself subjected to the above method mentioned.

That method is priory and independent to experiment.

cheers

Pat Frank
Reply to  whiten
September 19, 2021 3:29 pm

Experiment takes its meaning in the strict context of a falsifiable prediction from physical theory. And from nowhere else, whiten.

Your Falsification – Nullification – cancellation is no part of science.

Pat Frank
Reply to  whiten
September 18, 2021 6:03 pm

Ph is an archeological remnant, whiten.

QM says the quantum state of any particle extends over the entire universe.

The quantum state of two particles emergent from a single point remains entangled until the particles scatter. Schrodinger’s equation is symmetric in time, meaning the unperturbed quantum state of any particle extends forwards and backwards in time.

The transactional interpretation of QM solves the problem of entanglement by noting that the evolving two-particle quantum state remains coherent across time.

So, a particle cannot be in two places at a single time. Until it scatters, its quantum state is everywhere all at once.

whiten
Reply to  Pat Frank
September 18, 2021 7:11 pm

Dr. Pat,
Really sorry, but you arguing now Quantum physics, and it seems to me that you confuse “time” with “moment”.

Pat Frank
Reply to  whiten
September 19, 2021 8:26 am

You brought up QM in your comment at September 17, 2021 10:42 pm, whiten.

“it seems to me that you confuse “time” with “moment”.

No I don’t.

Jim Gorman
Reply to  Pat Frank
September 18, 2021 9:25 am

The only place for philosophy in science is in ethics. Otherwise physical measurements reign supreme. Kind of like the difference between playing with numbers and actually creating math that accurately predicts what experiments do measure.

whiten
Reply to  Jim Gorman
September 18, 2021 11:48 am

Jim,

Physical measurements,
either through observations or experiments or engineering do not consist as a determine of
verdict of validation.

That verdict rests with the scientific validation method… which happens to be not a product either of the Theoretical/Analytics domain or Experiment/Engineering domain of Science.

But whatever, you entitle to believe whatever you must.

But still, Pat’s claim of verdict of experiment over theory been definitive is wrong as far as I can tell.

cheers

Pat Frank
Reply to  whiten
September 18, 2021 6:11 pm

Feynman on the essence of science: if it disagrees with experiment, it’s wrong.

Everything I’ve done in my career has hewed to that standard, whiten.

whiten
Reply to  Pat Frank
September 18, 2021 7:18 pm

I do not see where I dismissed experiment as a domain of science!

Pat Frank
Reply to  whiten
September 19, 2021 8:28 am

You removed experiment from science when you wrote, “Falsification is not experimental…” whiten.

whiten
Reply to  Pat Frank
September 19, 2021 9:22 am

You must know that you being ridiculous now.

Pat Frank
Reply to  whiten
September 19, 2021 3:30 pm

The problem here, whiten, is that you do not know you’re being nonsensical.

I didn’t use your ridiculous purposely, as ridicule is not part of my method.

Pat Frank
Reply to  Jim Gorman
September 18, 2021 6:07 pm

I’ve suspected for a long time, Jim, that the physics of self-organization can provide a scientific basis for ethics.

Manfred Eigen wrote a terrific paper about self-organization back in 1972.

One of his laws was that self-organizing systems select for the optimum power of selection. Once one realizes that every human being is a self-organizing system, the door opens to ethics.

MM from Canada
Reply to  Pat Frank
September 17, 2021 9:50 am

“Science is the detailed description of what we know about what we have observed, Leo.”

Nobody has ever observed macro-evolution to have occurred. The theory of macro-evolution is not a detailed description of observation – it is, quite literally, speculation. There have been no discoveries of the so-called “missing links” – the great gaps in the fossil record are just as large as they were when Darwin came up with his theory.

The observation of fruit flies in a lab evolving into different species (while still remaining fruit flies) does not prove that fish evolved into amphibians which evolved into reptiles which evolved birds and mammals.

Rory Forbes
Reply to  MM from Canada
September 17, 2021 10:33 am

There is evolution. Macro is a straw man. The idea of “missing links” is no more than confusion about how diffuse empirical evidence can become over very long time periods. Gradually they are disappearing. Creationism is just formalized appeal to ignorance. A perfect example is ‘irreducible complexity’ a mainstay of creationism. It was easily falsified with a more complete understanding of available examples to show the evolution of complex structures.

Janice Moore
Reply to  Rory Forbes
September 17, 2021 10:57 am

1) evidence that disappears before it is observed is not evidence. It is conjecture.

2) as of today, irreducible complexity as evidence for a design inference, e.g., the IC of the bacterial flagellum, has never been refuted or falsified.

Rory Forbes
Reply to  Janice Moore
September 17, 2021 11:17 am

“Irreducible complexity” was falsified in court by providing a simple, earlier structure than the more complex flagellum Behe relied on in his book; ‘Darwin’s Black Box‘. “The court found that “Professor Behe’s claim for irreducible complexity has been refuted in peer-reviewed research papers and has been rejected by the scientific community at large.”

Janice Moore
Reply to  Rory Forbes
September 17, 2021 1:05 pm

Provide even one cite to bona fide research refuting irreducible complexity.

Meh, I will save you some time. There are none.

Rather, so far, all the research either fails to falsify
or
supports the irreducible complexity of the bacterial flagellum

as this one does:

“…a strongly conserved structural core was observed in all 11 bacteria… .”

(Songye Chen, et. al, “Structural Diversity of Bacterial Flagellar Motors,” The EMBO Journal 30, no. 14 (2011): 2972-2981.)

Rory Forbes
Reply to  Janice Moore
September 17, 2021 2:49 pm
Pat Frank
Reply to  Janice Moore
September 17, 2021 3:22 pm

Janice, modern bacteria have a 3.8 billion year evolutionary gradient behind them.

There’s no reason to think that the bacterial flagellum would not be conserved among them. It reached something close to its modern state likely more than 3 billion years ago. After that, it won’t change much.

Religion is about faith, not physics.

Janice Moore
Reply to  Pat Frank
September 17, 2021 4:14 pm

Dear Dr. Frank (I realize you gave me permission to call you Pat, but, unlike many (most?) of the Ph. D.’s featured on wattsupwiththat, you merit the title and I want to give you the respect you deserve),

First, good to “see” you. 🙂

Next, given the faith necessary (note your conjecture-like terms “no reason to think” and “likely”) to believe the bacterial flagellum is not irreducibly complex, I would say, rather:

science is about physics, not faith.

And, yes, you are wise to advise me to leave such a discussion to a private conversation.

I will do my best to do that.

Hoping all is well with you,

Janice

Pat Frank
Reply to  Janice Moore
September 18, 2021 6:35 pm

Hi Janice 🙂 I should have said hello first, on replying to you, and that I’m glad to see you here again. 🙂

You’re always a pleasure. And thank you for your kind words. 🙂

You probably know, better even than many scientists, that nothing in science is proven. So, we all have to be very careful with our use of “is” and be content with ‘evidence supports that,’ or the data show, … and so forth.

The “no reason to think” means that all the data and all the valid theory we have support one conclusion over any other.

There’s no finality in that, but a due respect for reason disallows one to entertain the speculative over the coherent.

Regarding flagella, nothing is simple, but that doesn’t mean it’s impossible. Wasn’t it Augustine who advised his followers to avoid theological disputes about science?

My best Janice. 🙂

Janice Moore
Reply to  Pat Frank
September 19, 2021 4:37 pm

Aw, Dr. Frank. 🙂 Thank you!!

And thanks, too, for the back-up vis a vis the misinformed (about God and the Bible) w..

YOU “get it.” I realize (smile) you do not agree with “it,” but you comprehend my logic.

Kind of amusing how he or she keeps signing off “Cheers” after, often, being pretty rude. (chuckle and head shake)

Reply to  Janice Moore
September 17, 2021 7:12 pm

Janice,

https://www.amazon.com/Lifes-Ratchet-Molecular-Machines-Extract/dp/0465022537

I’m a life-long atheist, and that book is very much an anti-creationist tome, but the fact that in this universe atoms spontaneously self-organize into molecules, then molecular robots, then cells, then organisms, got me to thinking that maybe there is a God.

I wonder how many Big Bangs the Old Broad had to make before she came up with one that would self organize to form living organisms?

In this universe, life is an inevitable consequence of entropy. And that is weirdly wonderful.

: )

Janice Moore
Reply to  Thomas
September 17, 2021 9:42 pm

Dear Thomas,

Thank you for your gracious honesty.

“I wonder… .” Keep on wondering. Keep seeking, truth. Someday, I believe you, too, will see….

….. see that you are loved by Someone…… Someone whose intelligence is surpassed only by His-Her love.

“In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth….

….”God so loved the world… .”

God loves you.

Even if you don’t believe in Her-Him. Even if (as some do) you do believe in God, but, hate Her-Him for allowing us to choose to bring evil into the world.

You are fully known and fully
LOVED.

With admiration and warm regards and prayers for you (along with many other atheists I know of) till the day I die,

Janice

P.S. It’s also pretty amazing how our intricately configured solar system just, BAM!, started spinning and progressing, precisely synced up with the stars which appear in Earth’s night sky — just — so…..

whiten
Reply to  Janice Moore
September 17, 2021 10:11 pm

Janice,
Sorry to put it this way,
but
according to the scripture of your Religion,
God is portrayed as Him the Father.

Even while there is only two genders there considered as coupled in the God Religion, still in all translations, still God is portrayed as the Father, Him.

Also, in many passages there, in the scripture, while God presence among humans as a “human”, it is still a Him.

You should know that.

Janice Moore
Reply to  whiten
September 18, 2021 10:30 am

I know that the Hebrew term “abba” includes both male and female meaning. I also know that throughout the Bible, God is compared to females, a mother hen, for instance. Finally, I know that I, too, was created in the image of God.

Therefore: God must have both all the “male” and “female” characteristics.

Our loving Abba, our Mother-Father God….

whiten
Reply to  Janice Moore
September 18, 2021 12:11 pm

Janice,

It pains me to see or experience the reality of the faillure form the good and the kind.

No one can please and/or appease all others, Janice.

One of the most simple and basic points of the Religion you uphold, Janice, especially when it comes to your God,
it happens to be the firm upholding of ‘equality of opportunity’,
and the totall rejection of
‘equality of outcome’.

Sorry, Janice, but no matter how wrong you think I may be, still got to consider an advice that I may offer;

“Try to keep observing closely the Scripture of your Religion… and keep up with faith.”

🙂

cheers

Pat Frank
Reply to  whiten
September 18, 2021 6:37 pm

If you believe god is in and of all things, whiten, then god is as much in females as males.

If you believe god provides the essence of creation, then god has the essence of females as much as of males.

If you believe, you can’t escape that.

whiten
Reply to  Pat Frank
September 18, 2021 7:40 pm

Pat, now you being plainly philosophical. 🙂

I simply was pointing to Janice how God is portrayed in the Holy Bible… completely independent of my belief and or my philosophical stand.

Only thing there that I offered in consideration of my belief and or my philosophical position in that regard is that “equality of outcome” is invalid and false.

cheers

Jim Gorman
Reply to  Rory Forbes
September 18, 2021 9:38 am

Consensus science! Neither are provable thru measured existing fossil evidence. Therefore, acceptance of either is based on FAITH!

Rory Forbes
Reply to  Jim Gorman
September 18, 2021 1:02 pm

Therefore, acceptance of either is based on FAITH!

Nope! Evolution is founded on testable theories and reproducible experiment.

Pat Frank
Reply to  Janice Moore
September 17, 2021 2:08 pm

Don’t get into this argument, Janice. Religion is about faith, not about proof.

Francis Collins, head of the NIH, is a born-again Christian, and accepts evolution. I attended one of his lectures and heard him say so, on both counts.

whiten
Reply to  Pat Frank
September 17, 2021 8:02 pm

Big Bang is not an evolution hypothesis.
It is purely creationist one, Dr. Pat.

Born or born-again Christian is basically creationist, non evolutionary.

Both the concepts above not supported and also discarded by the Religion that you address… especially in Christianity.

cheers

Pat Frank
Reply to  whiten
September 18, 2021 6:43 pm

whiten, big bang theory evolved from the discovery that the universe was expanding in all directions. Playing time backwards led to deduction of a point source for the entire universe.

The physical theory derived from that realization led to the correct prediction of the ratios of hydrogen, helium, and lithium in the universe.

Prior to that complex of experiment and theory, hte dominant thought was that the universe was constant and unchanging.

The original theory proved wrong by observation. The replacement theory predicted observables that turned out to be correct. All the pure workings of science, whiten.

whiten
Reply to  Pat Frank
September 18, 2021 7:53 pm

Pat, you still missing the point.
Still no matter how brilliant or beautiful or sound the theory of Big Bang is;
it is still a theory of creation.

I my self have no any problem with the term or the concept of creation… or formation or evolution.

cheers

Pat Frank
Reply to  whiten
September 19, 2021 8:31 am

Big bang is a theory of origins, whiten, not of creation. The theory includes no agency.

whiten
Reply to  Pat Frank
September 19, 2021 10:41 am

Oh, well you have lost me completely now.

Pat Frank
Reply to  whiten
September 19, 2021 3:31 pm

So, your state of understanding is unchanged, then.

whiten
Reply to  Pat Frank
September 20, 2021 12:56 am

Yes, my state of understanding in this particular(s) remains unchanged.

I am not going to start cancelling out concepts, words, well defined terminology because these touched by Religion-Theology or
culture-tradition-history or a way of thinking/understanding that may not be politically correct or/and not contemporary/fashionable correct these days.

As I said earlier, no problem there for me at all when it comes to words/concepts and their utility, like for example;
creation, formation, evolution, or origin, or faith or gender,
morality-imorality or amorality, philosophy, science…theology, history, electrolytes or crystals or crystal balls… God or gods or godes or
god complexity… race-discrimination… opportunity or/and exploitation….etc.

I am not going to embrace ‘cancel culture’.
In that regard my understanding remains unchanged.

By the way, so you know. I very much appreciate your engagement and conversation with me, regardless of disagreement that may be there between us.
Thank you Dr. Frank. 🙂

cheers

John Larson
Reply to  Pat Frank
September 17, 2021 10:36 pm

The faith verses evidence/science is just silliness to me. You believe virtually everything your believe about science, by faith, I suggest. You didn’t (I assume) observe that all objects of mass accelerate at the same rate (in a vacuum) when released in a gravitational field, so you believe by faith that they do, etc., etc. etc. The climate change modelers employ physics, but you have no faith in them, it seems to me.

And you can’t know what others have observed/experienced which if you observed would give you Faith in a Creator too. I can tell you about what I experienced (as what we used to call a ‘strong agnostic’, in my early forties), but I can’t ‘prove’ what I observed happened.

IF a being vastly more intelligent and capable than we are, were to design and generate a “time-space continuum”, as we can now do (digitally), and we are in that continuum, then there is no imaginable limit to what could have been designed and created in it.

And IF that being wished to “test” us, individually, for suitability as an entity it wanted to spend endless time with, then it makes perfect sense that it would place us in a situation wherein we have to believe some things by faith. Which is to say it would not necessarily make it’s existence and nature blatantly obvious. It might use such things as part of the “testing” process/circumstances.

Pat Frank
Reply to  John Larson
September 18, 2021 6:48 pm

Regarding the first, John, if the equations of energy and momentum were not correct, nothing else would work as they do. All of physical theory is logically coherent. If some basic part fails, the error propagates right through all of science.

Accepting such things on the merits is not faith. It’s not a matter of faith, for example, that our car is not in the garage where you put it, when you’re not there to observe it directly. Physics says it’s there. That physics is well-validated.

Regarding the second, what happens in the universe that god has not willed?

If your answer is ‘nothing,’ then what’s the point of a divine test?

John Larson
Reply to  Pat Frank
September 18, 2021 9:26 pm

“Regarding the first, John, if the equations of energy and momentum were not correct, nothing else would work as they do. All of physical theory is logically coherent.”

Who said it wasn’t? I’m not arguing against “the equations of energy and momentum”, I’m suggesting your “philosophy” is not the only one that can account for this coherence.

You said (to Janice) “Janice, modern bacteria have a 3.8 billion year evolutionary gradient behind them.”

You don’t know that, it’s just a belief. NO ONE OBSERVED 3.8 billion years pass, obviously. (I tire of having to remind the ever so scientifical that observation means observation, not merely clever/coherent imaginings based on some things that are observable.)

Note how “climate science” operates these days, please. Some things that are observable are used to generate conclusions that are treated as if observable. Day after day we can see this happening, and people on this cite argue against what is purported to be observable, based on some things that are observable. The distinction is important to bear in mind, it seems to me.

Your proclamations about what happened 3.8 billion years ago are clearly in the category of conclusions based on some things that are observable. Not in the observable category, which you are purporting when you speak as though this is not a belief, but a scientific fact.
And you are by no means alone in this “habit”, and I suggest Science, in the establishment/community sense, has all but guaranteed the appearance of things like “climate science” by failing to “hold the line” on this distinction between the observable and the conclusions humans can draw based on the observable (beliefs).

Pat Frank
Reply to  John Larson
September 19, 2021 8:57 am

John, you wrote, “You believe virtually everything your believe about science, by faith” in your September 17, 2021 10:36 pm.

I pointed out why your claim is wrong in my September 18, 2021 6:48 pm

When I wrote, “All of physical theory is logically coherent.” you answered, “Who said it wasn’t?” You said it wasn’t John, when you claimed I took science on faith. I don’t. I credit science on the evidence of demonstration.

You wrote, “I’m suggesting your “philosophy” is not the only one that can account for this coherence.

Science is not philosophy.

You wrote, “You don’t know that, [modern bacteria have a 3.8 billion year evolutionary gradient behind them.] it’s just a belief.

No. My view is based on the discovery of metabolically processed carbon in 3.8 billion year old strata.

You wrote, “NO ONE OBSERVED 3.8 billion years pass

I hope you don’t deny radioisotope dating.

No one observes a sperm penetrating an ovum, John.

Do you dismiss that fact of reality preceded any given pregnancy on the grounds that the fertilization event was not observed?

That’s the logic of your argument denying the reality of events not directly observed. Applying it leads one into nonsensical positions.

You incorrectly summarized the climate science debate here.

The debate is not about competing observations, or even competing interpretations. The argument is that AGW studies are demonstrably not science at all. Demonstrably not, John.

The argument continues because the AGW crowd ignores the falsifications of their position. They get away with that because there are no consequences to their malfeasance.

In that last — the science establishment not holding the line against professional malfeasance — you are correct.

John Larson
Reply to  Pat Frank
September 19, 2021 6:08 pm

I doubt you give a crap what I say about anything, but just as one example of what to me is borderline crazy thinking;

When I wrote, “All of physical theory is logically coherent.” you answered, “Who said it wasn’t?” You said it wasn’t John, when you claimed I took science on faith.”

Sir, this is logically coherent;

If Pat Frank is a man, and all men are marshmallows, then Pat Frank is a marshmallow.

I can only guess what you think the word ‘faith’ means, but to me it means what the dictionary says it means:
(From the Webster’s)

1aallegiance to duty or a person LOYALTY
lost faith in the company’s president
b(1)
fidelity to one’s promises

(2)sincerity of intentions
acted in good faith

Hence, when I said; “You believe virtually everything your believe about science, by faith, I suggest.” and then gave an example, I hoped you would realize what I meant. Unfortunately you seem to be utterly incapable of grasping simple English, when something “threatens” your faith is science. Pity, you seem to be an intelligent person to me . .

Pat Frank
Reply to  John Larson
September 20, 2021 8:36 am

Here is what you wrote about faith, John. “The faith verses evidence/science is just silliness to me. You believe virtually everything your believe about science, by faith, I suggest. You didn’t (I assume) observe that all objects of mass accelerate at the same rate…

It’s very obvious from your own usage that you didn’t mean “faith” to convey loyalty or fidelity. Your use of “faith” meant to convey 2b(1) : firm belief in something for which there is no proof.

So nice try to shift the ground of your argument, John. Shifting ground in the middle of a debate is an admission of defeat.

The on-line Merriam-Websters has re-ordered their definition of faith. In my Unabridged, the first definition of faith is “1a. the act or state of wholeheartedly or steadfastly believing in the existence power and benevolence of a supreme being…

In the Unabridged, the entire definitional series for faith under 1 has to do with religious belief.

Only with definitional series two do we find, 2a(1):firm or unquestioning belief in something for which there is no proof.”

Loyalty and fidelity don’t appear until definitional series three.

Dictionary definitions are guided by rates of usage. It is not possible that the primary use of “faith” among American speakers is to convey fidelity or loyalty. The religious context is primary.

The online Merriam-Websters violates the rules of usage in putting loyalty as the primary definition of faith. The violation seems to me evidence of professional malfeasance.

My criticism of climate modelers derives from their misuse of physics, not from their use of it. Their studied misrepresentation of precision as accuracy reveals them to be practitioners of pseudo-science.

John Larson
Reply to  Pat Frank
September 20, 2021 2:42 pm

(I appreciate your response, thank you)

It’s very obvious from your own usage that you didn’t mean “faith” to convey loyalty or fidelity. Your use of “faith” meant to convey 2b(1) firm belief in something for which there is no proof.”

Sir, what is obvious is that you assumed that was was what I meant. I’m the author, and that’s not the definition I had in mind, which I say should have been blatantly obvious if you simply read the next sentence;

You didn’t (I assume) observe that all objects of mass accelerate at the same rate (in a vacuum) when released in a gravitational field, so you believe by faith that they do…”

Clearly I was focusing on the difference between you observing something yourself, and you trusting someone else’s report/description of their observation(s). Whenever you do that, you are exhibiting faith in the other person(s).

In my Unabridged, the first definition of faith is “1a. the act or state of wholeheartedly or steadfastly believing in the existence power and benevolence of a supreme being…

And you interpreted my example as relating to that?

And I followed that example with an example of some people you don’t (seem to) have faith in . .

And, the very next thing I wrote pertains to evidence/proof with regard to the potential meaning I anticipated you might become fixated on. As in, you imagining I have not seen very strong evidence (such as might convince you), is just you imagining things, basically put. Again, the observation vs faith in what others report having observed and concluded meaning being strongly implied, I felt.

It appears I would have had to not only anticipate that you would have become fixated on a particular potential meaning, but also have literally told you I didn’t mean that particular meaning, or it was pointless for me to attempt to discuss anything at all about ‘faith’ with you.

My (tentative) conclusion? You are somewhat intellectually incapacitated by anything that challenges YOUR faith. Your personal assessments/beliefs about anything at all. Though possibly just about things pertaining in some sense to the concept of God in particular. But you not grasping something as simple as having or not having faith in something/someone other than God, strongly suggests to me that this has at least begun to “eat away” at your “freedom of the mind”.

(“The online Merriam-Websters violates the rules of usage in putting loyalty as the primary definition of faith. The violation seems to me evidence of professional malfeasance.”

I agree wholeheartedly. Simply replacing that term with ‘trust’ and/or ‘confidence’ would have vastly improved the clarity of even the example they gave. It appears to be intentional to me, it’s so unusual . . I have literally never seen the term ‘faith’ used to mean ‘loyalty’ before.)

Pat Frank
Reply to  John Larson
September 20, 2021 4:00 pm

John, you wrote, “Clearly I was focusing on the difference between you observing something yourself, and you trusting someone else’s report/description of their observation(s). Whenever you do that, you are exhibiting faith in the other person(s).”

Right. So by “faith” your usage clearly implied belief in something not in evidence; different from every definition you posted.

That is the meaning I took.

Then you presented your preferred definitions of faith — loyalty and fidelity — whieh were entirely inapt.

I provided the Merriam-Webster’s Unabridged defnition of faith only to show the contrast with the extraordinarily poor definitions you posted from the online version.

And now you’ve blamed me for not realizing that what you had in mind was different from what you wrote.

But in any case, you asserted definitions from Webster’s online and now have disowned them.

To reiterate, crediting of unobserved physical behaviors does not take faith, given the monosemous explanations, the predictive success, and the logical coherence of physical theory.

My dismissal of climate modeling is based in demonstration, not faith. As I noted above, climate modelers abuse, not use, physics.

Think as you like about me, John. You’ve been wrong in every particular, except in agreement that the online Webster’s presents a false order of meaning.

John Larson
Reply to  Pat Frank
September 20, 2021 11:03 pm

Right. So by “faith” your usage clearly implied belief in something not in evidence; different from every definition you posted.”

Before I posted it? When it’s got a twist neither you nor I were expecting? This is not logically coherent ; )

I posted it only because it was from the Webster’s, and had to “untwist” the ‘loyalty’ thingy, by applying very broad implication stretching thought processes. Basically, confidence implying a sort of “loyalty” to the other’s standing as a credible source. The last time I checked that definition, I didn’t have to perform such mental gymnastics, so I didn’t have that “twist” in mind when I wrote the earlier comment . .

I’m glad I did post it though, and consider your failure to realize you couldn’t have anticipated a literal interpretation of something alien to you, before you saw it, a “tell” of sorts. As in, you’re BSing me, or yourself there. Again that apparent intellectual incapacitation when the God concept is/could be involved I mentioned, looms large to my mind . .

To reiterate, crediting of unobserved physical behaviors does not take faith, given the monosemous explanations, the predictive success, and the logical coherence of physical theory.”

It takes faith to be deeply “loyal” to one explanation, so as Believe there are no other explanations that would similarly conform to the physics, predictive success, and logical coherence aspects, doesn’t it?. You know, in contrast to the way science has proceeded since it began? (Bingo! ; )

My dismissal of climate modeling is based in demonstration, not faith. As I noted above, climate modelers abuse, not use, physics.”

That’s just you saying you have no faith in them, to me. The same as if you said you would lone one person some money, but not another, because you don’t trust, have confidence in, faith that the second will to repay you.

(From the first result when I searched “synonyms for faith”

faith
[fāTH]
NOUN

  1. complete trust or confidence in someone or something.
  2. “this restores one’s faith in politicians”
  3. synonyms

trust · belief · confidence · conviction · credence · reliance · dependence · optimism · hopefulness · hope · expectation

(Bingo! ; )

John Larson
Reply to  Pat Frank
September 20, 2021 3:24 pm

P.S. Upon further consideration, this strange (to me, and clearly to you as well) first definition insertion of ‘loyalty’ into the notion of faith in general, might be a reflection of contamination in terms of the “critical race theory” stuff being “preached” in all manor of organizations now.

The crux being, that “we” ostensibly have “faith” in this new ‘loyalty’ sense, in things like the founding documents of the U.S. because of our loyalty to the founders who were “white”, and/or some supposed privileging we are enjoying due to our racial similarity.

We do live in troubled times, no doubt.

John Larson
Reply to  Pat Frank
September 20, 2021 3:58 pm

PPS – I would like to point out the similarity between this new “loyalty” meaning of ‘faith’, and your first thoughts about the term ‘faith’. You basically (it seems to me) also read into the term a loyalty, to God, as the primary reason one might see things like current “consensus science” with regard to the Grand Origin Story evolution being “preached” to virtually all children for decades now (including me).

I believed it most of my now long life, even after I came to believe in the God of that particular Book . . and it was only after I told a Christian woman I was engaged in a conversation with online who said she did not believe it, that I would go get clear evidence that should convince her too, that I became skeptical of the GOS evolution meta-theory. When I couldn’t find any that would convince me . .

ATheoK
Reply to  Janice Moore
September 17, 2021 9:52 pm

Yes it has. At least twice.

Pat Frank
Reply to  MM from Canada
September 17, 2021 2:06 pm

MM, the observed presence of a poly-A sequence in the middle of human chromosome #2 is direct evidence that humans and chimpanzees had a common ape ancestor.

That’s about as smoking a gun as it’s possible to find.

Further, if you recognize a macro-evolutionary difference between cheetahs and lions, you’ll have to admit to the same (a built-in reproductive barrier) between chihuahuas and great danes.

Last edited 1 month ago by Pat Frank
MM from Canada
Reply to  Pat Frank
September 17, 2021 6:46 pm

“MM, the observed presence of a poly-A sequence in the middle of human chromosome #2 is direct evidence that humans and chimpanzees had a common ape ancestor.
That’s about as smoking a gun as it’s possible to find.”

It doesn’t prove – or even address – the fish > amphibians > reptiles > birds and mammals sequence.

“Further, if you recognize a macro-evolutionary difference between cheetahs and lions, you’ll have to admit to the same (a built-in reproductive barrier) between chihuahuas and great danes.”

Chihuahuas and Great Danes are both Canus familiaris – same genus and species – so the only reproductive problem between them is the relative size of the breeds.

Cheetahs (Acinonyx jubatus) and lions (Panthera leo), however, aren’t even the same genus, never mind the same species – so I don’t see how your example is relevant to my point either.

Pat Frank
Reply to  MM from Canada
September 18, 2021 6:54 pm

The poly-A in chromosome 2 addresses the reality of evolution. The fist-amphibian transition follows.

Chihuahuas and great danes were derived recently. The common ancestor of lions and cheetahs lived long ago; perhaps 10 million years.

If left in nature, chihuahuas and great danes would have a reproductive barrier, the definition of a species. Give them 10 million years of reproductive isolation, and they’d become very different, too.

Reply to  Pat Frank
September 17, 2021 7:16 pm

This discussion is about as likely to resolve into underfunding as an argument between two people, one of whom speaks only Japanese, and another who speaks only English.

We can’t speak science to faith, or faith to science, and have any hope of being understood.

whiten
Reply to  Thomas
September 17, 2021 9:14 pm

Then, what genre would you classify “Quantum”?

Pat Frank
Reply to  Thomas
September 18, 2021 9:51 pm

You’re right Thomas. But I can’t stand by in silence as people inject faith into science.

It’s not for the contestant, it’s for the reader.

Steve Reddish
Reply to  Pat Frank
September 17, 2021 10:43 pm

Did I miss something? The apparent fusing of human chromosome 2 didn’t add or delete anything, did it? How could no change in the coding result in so many positive changes to a species. The only real change would have been a failure of both genes 1 and 2 to align properly, which should have been catastrophic to succesful conception of offspring.

Pat Frank
Reply to  Steve Reddish
September 18, 2021 9:52 pm

The fusing into chromosome #2 demonstrates our descent from a common ancestor with the chimpanzee, Steve.

Demonstration of the evidence of evolution was the point.

John Larson
Reply to  Pat Frank
September 20, 2021 5:37 pm

MM, the observed presence of a poly-A sequence in the middle of human chromosome #2 is direct evidence that humans and chimpanzees had a common ape ancestor.”

That would be indirect evidence, wouldn’t it? Consider please, the potential (which cannot be ruled out if one accepts the current “consensus” that life arose through materialistic processes, and so could have arisen elsewhere(s), on how life arose at all.
Which is to say this planet may have been “seeded” by hyper advanced an “extra terrestrial” life form, which used genetic coding that was developed for use here, in much the same way we use advancements on/in something like automotive or aviation technology for use here. (If we see similarities in automotive design and components, we do not assume that this and that automobile are both descendants of an earlier model, because they share common characteristics/parts. Not in the biological sense anyway, because we know they did in the mechanical/design sense.)

Hence, the possibility exists that chimps and humans share a common designer/conceptual “evolver” source, which could explain what you refer to as direct evidence for sharing a common ape ancestor.

(And, obviously, a Creator God would be a hyper advanced “extra terrestrial” life form, technically speaking ; )

Richard Page
Reply to  Leo Smith
September 17, 2021 11:23 am

My view is that the King James bible is the English translation of the Latin bible, which was an amended, pared down and (consensus based) reimagining of the earlier Latin bible which was a translation of the Greek bible which was itself probably a translation of the original Hebrew bible which was a combination of the Jewish Torah plus later additions. We know the various mistranslations in the bible relating to it’s being run through several language versions so why is the King James one viewed as the ‘one true bible’? That is something I’ve never, ever understood.

BallBounces
Reply to  Richard Page
September 17, 2021 11:59 am

My view is that the King James bible is the English translation of the Latin bible”. It is not.

Richard Page
Reply to  BallBounces
September 17, 2021 1:08 pm

Please elucidate as the King James bible contains several mistranslations that appeared in the Latin version, most notably the one confusing the Greek word for ‘poisoner’ with ‘witch’; easily done as there is only one letter different, apparently – the earlier Greek version has the line “suffer not the poisoner to live” in Greek. Can you tell me where the King James bible originated or from what original source it was produced please?

Janice Moore
Reply to  BallBounces
September 17, 2021 4:40 pm

Why did someone minus BB?

While I believe there are better English translations of the original Hebrew and Greek than the KJV, BB simply stated a fact. The KJV is a translation of the original Hebrew and Greek, not a translation of a translation.

Richard Page
Reply to  Janice Moore
September 17, 2021 6:10 pm

As I pointed out, there are quite a few mistranslations that appear in the Latin versions that don’t appear in the Greek. That they also appear in English in the King James version is a clear fingerprint that the King James version is (in the main) an English translation of the Latin bible.

jtom
Reply to  BallBounces
September 17, 2021 5:40 pm

The Old Testament is translated from Hebrew, the New Testament from Greek and the Apocrypha from Greek and Latin. 

Reply to  Richard Page
September 17, 2021 7:17 pm

Richard: It was probably Aramaic, not Hebrew.

ATheoK
Reply to  Thomas
September 17, 2021 11:05 pm

The Dead Sea Scrolls as well as scrolls unearthed in North Africa graves, show that the majority of Old Testament scrolls were written in Hebrew. Though, not all.

Aramaic is a Semitic language which was the lingua franca of much of the Near East from the 7th c. BC until the 7th c. AD, when it was largely replaced by Arabic. Classical or Imperial Aramaic was the main language of the Persian, Babylonian and Assyrian empires and spread as far as Greece and the Indus valley.”

Scribes in that region were also well trained with Greek and Hebrew. Official documents were usually written in Greek.

Aramaic was more often used for New Testament stories and gospels.

North Africa scrolls were frequently written in either Hebrew, Greek or Punic (Phoenician, i.e. Carthaginian).

The whole attempt to claim the bible is a simple translation of one language to one language is false. The languages involved were many as were/are the translations.

Nor should one ignore that most of the apostles were likely illiterate and did not write. It is estimated that less than 3% of Israel was literate. Which indicates the farmers and fishers were very unlikely to be literate.

So much for their writings. Fortunately, they had devotees and the Council of Nicaea to correct such shortcomings.

ATheoK
Reply to  Richard Page
September 17, 2021 10:35 pm

Include Aramaic into that mix.

Plus the Hebrew Torah was oral for centuries before it was written down.

Then there is Constantine’s Council of Nicaea that collected/rejected proposed ‘books’ into/from the bible and rewrote inconvenient books/stories.

Comparisons of the modern Hebrew Torah to unearthed/recovered Dead Sea Scrolls or even earlier scrolls recovered from North Africa graves show minimal differences over thousands of years.

Jews assiduously strive to keep their religious texts true to original content through use of strenuously trained Sofer (scribes), plus stringent independent reviews by other Sofer.
As the the Dead Sea Scrolls prove, this method mostly works, if not 100%.
Not bad for religious books written without vowels.

Whereas, each edition of the King James Bible contains transcription, spelling and translation errors along with many errors sourced from author’s trying to translate concepts with modern life, words and morals.

Origins of the written Hebrew language stems from Phoenician script and until 9th century BCE, Hebrew texts were in Phoenician script, but written in Hebrew.

“In his study, Christopher Rollston distinguishes between purely Hebrew script and other visually similar alphabets while examining relationships between alphabets and languages. Not only can a single language be written in various scripts, but a single script can be used for dozens of languages. English shares the Latin script with most Western languages; finding Latin letters does not necessarily mean that a text is English.”

That said, writing experts studying the writings contained in the Hebrew Tanakh identify, depending upon the book, multiple authors. Which is unsurprising given all of the scribes involved.

Only people ignorant the bible’s actual history plus of all the difficulties and travails scribes, readers and translators have gone through in copying and printing these books, are able to assign absolute belief to the tales within.

Especially when they’re supposed to focus on the concepts, messages and morals.

Last edited 1 month ago by ATheoK
John Larson
Reply to  ATheoK
September 18, 2021 12:09 am

“Plus the Hebrew Torah was oral for centuries before it was written down.

How do you that? How could know that? I mean, where’s the “I think”, or “from what I’ve read/heard”. It’s not like humans can’t be misled by other humans, is it?

Then there is Constantine’s Council of Nicaea that collected/rejected proposed ‘books’ into/from the bible and rewrote inconvenient books/stories.”

How do you know they didn’t just consolidate what writings were available that corresponded to what was being widely treated as “Inspired” around the Cristian world/churches at that time, as they claimed they were? Just accepting any old texts that anyone was claiming were “Inspired” makes no sense, does it? Why assume there was any malintent involved? I mean, that is just assuming the “church” was not established by God, isn’t it? As in, circular reasoning of a sort?

ATheoK
Reply to  John Larson
September 18, 2021 9:03 am

The Torah’s oral history if part of the Hebraic teachings included in the Talmud.

Looking at the books/chapters themselves, before Abraham, everything is oral history from the dim past without direct ties to living persons. Names are derivations of basic word definitions, e.g. Adam is ‘man’, Eve is ‘woman’.
From Abraham onward, people are real people, Pharaohs, Kings and countries are real and time can be closely determined.

Jewish home life is matriarchal with patriarchal governing. Learning, including reading and writing, is open for the women as well as the men. Women were prohibited from priesthood and rituals in the presence of the Ark.

The early Christians included women leaders.

The Council of Nicaea was under strictly patriarchal Roman governing. Women were stricken from any book giving them any authority.
That may not be malintent, but it is biased and prejudicial. Anything that the council felt inconvenient was similarly changed or stricken.

There are historical references to religious writings, books, gospels and documents that are lost to history. Whether burned in the library of Alexandria, purged by the Romans or excommunicated by the Roman Catholics, they are for the most part lost.
Some of those scrolls found in graves in North Africa have identifiable portions that come from some of those writings.

The Council of Nicaea was the central meeting that formed Christianity into a model based upon Rome and Romans. There were meetings before and afterwards.

Not everyone who attended the council was a bishop. Constantine allowed each bishop to bring up to two priests and three deacons, so using Athanasius’ count, there could have been as many as 1,908 church leaders, plus Constantine and whoever accompanied him.”

Before these councils, there was no such thing as a bible. Various sects, churches and groups had their own selections of religious writings.
After these councils, there was significant movement towards one book for all.
Churches and sects that refused were considered heretics by the Romans and wiped out.

John Larson
Reply to  ATheoK
September 18, 2021 5:31 pm

The Torah’s oral history if part of the Hebraic teachings included in the Talmud.”

So what? Why would you treat such things as if authoritative? Why would expect me to care what the Talmud has to say about anything, any more than I would care what Koran says, or Bhagavad Gita? I’m a Christian . .

“Women were stricken from any book giving them any authority. That may not be malintent, but it is biased and prejudicial. Anything that the council felt inconvenient was similarly changed or stricken.”

How exactly do you know that? What happened to the possibility that I suggested? (How do you know they didn’t just consolidate what writings were available that corresponded to what was being widely treated as “Inspired” around the Cristian world/churches at that time, as they claimed they were?)

“There are historical references to religious writings, books, gospels and documents that are lost to history.”

Because they were not included in the Bible? Look, people can write things, religious writings, books, gospels and documents. But the ostensible object of that effort was to compile what was “being widely treated as “Inspired” around the Cristian world/churches at that time.”

Why this is/was important, has to do with what the Apostles had done, under the guidance of Christ himself, (and the “Holy Spirit”) which was establishing HIS “church” in the world, according that Book.
All powerful Gods can do such things, by definition, and IF one dismisses the possibility that He did, then naturally everything that is in the Book would logically be the mere handiwork of men. You’re essentially dismissing that possibility, and treating it all as the mere handiwork of men, right? (Trust me, I am not at all shocked ; )

But none of this renders you able to read the hearts and mind of people long dead (or alive ; ) and I suggest you’re treating your imaginings as though it does. (again, trust me, I am not all shocked ; )

Otway dreamer
Reply to  Richard Page
September 18, 2021 4:30 pm

Which themselves were based on previous “myths” from all over the place.

Sumerian tablets from around 4000 BC in particular contain a whole different slant on where we come from .. very interesting that a lot of their writings pop up in the old testament …. tweaked of course

whiten
Reply to  Leo Smith
September 18, 2021 1:48 pm

Leo,

Where according to you,
flatearthers should belong,
at what genre;

Science or Religion?
😶

bubbabird
Reply to  Leo Smith
September 18, 2021 5:39 pm

You sound reasonable; however, you fall into the same pattern of thinking into which you were conditioned. For example, I am a working research scientist. And a born-again Christian. You have been taught to view creationists in one “straw man” way. It is knee-jerk. It is a form of ad hominem fallacy.

My scientific positions are not belief, but my best reasoning based on the evidence. That is how I do Scientific Method. Most of which we argue cannot be verified, since controlled experiment about the past cannot be performed. One position I hold very strongly, for example, is that the universe was created 13.78 billion years ago based on best evidence. Most Christians I know hold close to my position. I don’t know what you believe you have understood which says that Christians hold to what a medieval bishop first wrote centuries ago. It was the best Usher had to go on at the time, I guess. But Galileo Galilei held that Jupiter only had 3 moons! That is what he had to go on. Nice job, Gally!

It is really funny about the Big Bang. As an atheistic scientist, way before I became a Christian, I was taught in textbooks that the universe was steady state! That it always existed. Most scientists held that position, so now it could explain how all of the organisms “evolved”. Of course, in that way of belief, life had eons and eons for the statistics to be robust enough to speculate how a million monkeys banging on a million typewriters could compose the dictionary. It was a strange argument, but I believed that.

When the Big Bang was proposed and mathematically verified (bad term, BTW—there is no Bang in a vacuum), it showed that there was “A Beginning”. The first words of the Bible (Not King James—Old Hebrew, BTW) are “In the Beginning”. It threw all the “Science” of Steady State out the window. When Job said “He stretches out the heavens” (stretches is in the continuing imperfect tense, meaning action in the past continuing on), we now find that the universe is expanding at accelerated rate. Who knew? Haha!

Anyway, as God said, “Come, let us reason together”.

John Larson
Reply to  bubbabird
September 18, 2021 10:43 pm

One position I hold very strongly, for example, is that the universe was created 13.78 billion years ago based on best evidence.”

Well, what you feel is the best evidence, right? But you didn’t say what that evidence is, which is kinda strange if your intent is to convince a another Christian, it seems to me . . We’re not sposa be treatin’ humans as in if gods, I’m sure you agree.

I’ve looked fairly closely (for a worm such as I ; ) into some arguments against what I suspect you may be calling the “best evidence’, but since you didn’t say what you were referring to, I’m left with no way to respond, with what I find to be pretty good evidence . . for at least being skeptical of some things I’ve seen referred to as very strong evidence.

Keith
Reply to  Leo Smith
September 29, 2021 5:20 pm

I disagree, science is the application of the scientific method a detailed analysis of any repeatable phenomena, there is no requirement that science be limited to material entities.

MMontgomery
Reply to  Clyde Spencer
September 17, 2021 9:38 am

Much of this creation vs. evolution discussion has evolved, as we would expect, from even this analysis. It’s amazing how the discussions lag the science in this day and age. Evolution is discovered in certain (not all) lower animals, but Anatomically Modern Humans (us) have remained unchanged for 200,000 years with no link to any predecessors (yet). So there’s that. Given the tremendous archeological finds in recent decades that point to a far different history of earth’s major civilizations, I think we need to at least keep open about the human origins question. For sure, the 6,000 year creationist is ridiculous and I frankly have not heard that one come up for a long time. But also Darwin always had a caveat in his analysis, which has largely been ignored, and turns out he was right to do so.

Ozonebust
Reply to  Clyde Spencer
September 17, 2021 1:13 pm

Griff does it for sport, to cause a reaction.

ATheoK
Reply to  Clyde Spencer
September 17, 2021 9:37 pm

No.

Creationists believe because it is part of their utter faith in their specific religions.
Especially, when most of them are convinced their religious texts are absolute; as are their religious leaders.

That doesn’t make them malicious liars. Nor does it make them truthful or change their beliefs into truth.

giff purposely lies, maliciously and repeatedly. Just as Manniacal does.

There are religions where the young are expected to perform missionary work, spread the word and to proselytize nonbelievers.
Making it possible that young missionaries to be assigned the difficult task of spreading the word at a blog of unbelievers.

Only that task would be strictly limited in time and psychological impact. Meaning that the assigned missionary assignment very limited, especially where facts are in evidence.

giff is not acting as a believer seeking proselytize, just as manniacal is not.
Both seek to demonize, demean and maliciously mislead.
Both are paid for their performances.

Steve B
Reply to  Clyde Spencer
September 17, 2021 11:16 pm

And how do you know that maybe it is the evolutionists who are the deluded zealots Uhmm? Just as an example. Flying reptiles supposedly came from walking reptiles on the tree of life. Please explain the mechanisms involved in adding the DNA needed to grow wings, hollow out the bones, get rid of 2 legs completely, the correct muscles to flap the wings etc etc.

Tim Spence
Reply to  MarkW
September 17, 2021 8:04 am

Quite correct MarkW. I think Griff should come clean about his occupation but he won’t.

griff
Reply to  Tim Spence
September 17, 2021 8:14 am

I’ve told you lots of times, I’m a paid agent for the Comintern…

I mean, why else would I come here and get insulted if it wasn’t for red gold?

nyolci
Reply to  griff
September 18, 2021 4:39 am

it wasn’t for red gold?

🙂 Me too, me too! I’m counting the gold bars right now in the basement of my house!

Richard Page
Reply to  nyolci
September 18, 2021 6:22 am

“All that glisters is not gold.”

Chaswarnertoo
Reply to  Tim Spence
September 17, 2021 11:30 am

Bottle washer.

griff
Reply to  MarkW
September 17, 2021 8:12 am

I repeat the same facts derived from scientific research and recorded observations of the state of the Earth.

And, bless you Mark, you still haven’t come up with any actual evidence to counter it.

Pat Frank
Reply to  griff
September 17, 2021 9:39 am

Here you go, Griff: factual evidence destroying your position, root and branch.

https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/feart.2019.00223/full
http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1260/0958-305X.26.3.391
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1260/0958-305X.21.8.969

I’ve posted all of that before. You’ve never come to grips with any of it. You’ve a bit of chutzpah accusing others of your own repeated failing.

Others have come to grips with that body of work. They all came to grief.

ATheoK
Reply to  Pat Frank
September 17, 2021 11:07 pm

As has MarkW, Scissor, myself and a host of others.

Pat Frank
Reply to  ATheoK
September 19, 2021 8:58 am

Very true, A. I should have included that. 🙂

Rory Forbes
Reply to  griff
September 17, 2021 10:38 am

And, bless you Mark, you still haven’t come up with any actual evidence to counter it.

It is you who has the cart before the horse. You must provide the evidence of human caused warming. Simply repeating failed conjecture that “anthropogenic CO2 done it” isn’t helpful. First you must falsify the null hypothesis, then present an hypothesis you can offer some evidence to support.

Tim Spence
Reply to  griff
September 17, 2021 11:05 am

10 years of driveby sniping on social media?
It’s time you told the truth Griff.

David Kamakaris
Reply to  griff
September 17, 2021 12:09 pm

“any actual evidence to counter it.”
Here you go, Griff.

tree-stump-climate.jpg
ATheoK
Reply to  David Kamakaris
September 17, 2021 11:09 pm

There is the offensive tree in the Maldives that one alarmist had to uproot as it clearly showed the lack of sea level encroachment.

Editor
Reply to  griff
September 17, 2021 1:20 pm

That is a false statement since you rarely post any facts and and rarely reply to other who post supported facts in reply.

Your dishonest level is off the charts…..

alastair gray
Reply to  MarkW
September 17, 2021 9:04 am

I went on a field seminar in Colorado in the days when I worked for the evil oil companies. The leader of the excursion was a high up minister or bishop or something in the Mormons. he had no difficulty in talking about the 82.5 million year sequence being truncated by and 80 year unconformity.Both taken from Exxon Eustatic sea level charts – See – Exxon knew very well that sea level change was a cyclical and measureable pohenomenon.

Anyway over a beer (there being no other mormons present) I asked him how the multi million year chronology fit with his faith’s 7 days of creation. Ah well he said God made it look like it fitted the Exxon chart when he created it on day 4 , and he also chucked in a few dinosaur bones . Since we agreed on the hard geological facts of the matter why should we waste time squabbling over minor theological matters so I left him to his religious conceit, and he to mine.

ATheoK
Reply to  alastair gray
September 18, 2021 12:42 am

What folks forget is that the bible, i.e. the alleged Old Testament was a religion established by a foundation that begins with an omnipotent God.

Even so, the religion caters to stone age people and builds that religion from the perspective of stone age thinking.

Right from the beginning, God is in a geocentric, (Ptolmeic)  world centered on Earth.
e.g., “When God began creation, the earth was unformed and void, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and God’s wind swept over the water.” (Genesis 1:1:2)

On the first day, God created light and separated light from darkness, calling the light “Day” and the darkness “Night”.
Each day had a morning and an evening.

Yet that light has no source. Light and dark simply existed.
That is, time did not exist. How long God took in his creations is strictly God’s intent and need. God could very well have taken half of eternity.

Genesis is a surprisingly good explanation to stone age people that when this universe began it was all light and darkness.
Physical matter came later as it coalesced.

God did not create the possibilities for timekeeping until the fourth day when he is alleged to create the Great light (sun) to dominate the day and the lesser light (moon) to dominate the night. Stars were also created at this time.

It wasn’t until much later that the bible’s thinking began to become sort of Heliocentric.

That right there is enough to falsify the Bible as gospel in a modern world. It was good enough for stone, copper and bronze age people but began to lose it’s advantages in the iron age.

Then there is Leviticus.
Leviticus: rituals, rules and laws, a book which appears to be substantially altered by scribes and priests describes laws and how priests are lushly rewarded for their service.

Rituals and laws that rather frequently prescribe stoning the alleged guilty parties.
Child curses the parents? Stone the little bugger.
Adultery? Stone both man and woman.

Some justice. If one worships the irrationality of the first book, Genesis why is the third book ignored and discarded?

Basically a contradiction causing cognitive dissonance?

John Larson
Reply to  ATheoK
September 18, 2021 11:30 pm

“Yet that light had no source”.

Please explain how a Creator God that can make a star (Sun), could not make some light to get the day count going? It makes no sense to me, but I’ve heard this “complaint at least a dozen times, from what seem to be otherwise ration people.

Steve B
Reply to  ATheoK
September 19, 2021 12:34 am

Well that is your opinion Which is free and worth about that.

Alan the Brit
Reply to  MarkW
September 17, 2021 9:28 am

“If you repeat a lie often enough, it becomes the truth”!

Vladimir Illych Ulyanov, or Vladimir Lenin as he is more commonly known, worshipped & adored by the likes of Professor Michael Mann! Yet another purveyor of mass murder & bloody revolution, just to get his end-off (British slang for sexual indulgence) over it all!!! Griff is little more than one of Vladimir’s useful idiots, after all, he had millions of them back then, now numbering in the billions!!! Griff sadly can’t think for himself, he really ought to be in a special home where he can be looked after & cared for, hopefully without the need for a straight jacket!!! HAGWE everyone!!! 😉

markopanama
Reply to  Scissor
September 17, 2021 2:26 pm

Come on guys – Griff is having a great time. He knows just how to pull your strings and regularly gets more comments than almost anyone.

Actually, he serves a very important community service, sort of like having a punching bag in the training center. He shows up the weaklings and gives everyone a chance to practice their counter arguments. If Griff did not exist, he would have to be invented – as has happened many times on this site over the years.

While amateur trolls regale us with endless screeds, Griff is a master at posing the opposite view in just a few words. Whether he is pro or amateur, I can’t say, but WUWT wouldn’t be half as much fun without him.

griff
Reply to  Tom in Florida
September 17, 2021 8:11 am

Should I start a franchise?

Alan the Brit
Reply to  griff
September 17, 2021 9:36 am

Please don’t, there are plenty of Vladimir’s useful idiots already!!! 😉

Bryan A
Reply to  griff
September 17, 2021 9:44 am

Actually you should write a book…
“How to get insulted in 20 words or less”
You could use excerpts from the various climate realist blogs you post to and the verbose responses you get in return.

Richard Page
Reply to  Bryan A
September 17, 2021 11:30 am

I still maintain that, with all of his experience over the years, he’d be great writing children’s fairy stories. Of course they’d probably all end with “…and they all burnt up in a fiery thermageddon because, y’know – climate change”.

Bryan A
Reply to  Richard Page
September 17, 2021 1:11 pm

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Zig Zag Wanderer
Reply to  griff
September 17, 2021 2:25 pm

Should I start a franchise?

I thought you already had. Your writing style and attitude regularly changes, giving us hints…

John Endicott
Reply to  Nottoobrite
September 20, 2021 4:50 am

Mann made global warming pretty much requires you to be ignorant of history in order to believe it.

Caligula Jones
Reply to  Dr Ken Pollock
September 17, 2021 7:39 am

One point I made was that Mann uses the word “unprecedented” to mean “I have not heard of anything worse and will not look up weather records in case I find something that contradicts my prior belief

Yes, the old “start and end date bias”, which is never used to prove a point…

Reply to  Dr Ken Pollock
September 17, 2021 7:54 am

The rub. Weather is caused by micro and macro natural weather drivers interacting with terrain to make it more or less warm, more or less destructively powerful, and/or more or less wet. Therefore I contend that the teeny tiny amount of additional CO2 in the atmosphere must have significantly more powerful energy to force already powerful micro and macro weather drivers out of their normal workings. That is the rub.

Pop Piasa
Reply to  Pamela Gray
September 17, 2021 1:51 pm

Speaking of macro drivers of weather, higher SSTs have been blamed on Co2 increases, but if you do the math there’s no way one extra molecule in every 10K molecules of anhydrous atmosphere could have delivered that many joules/Sq. meter per year to account for the warm anomalies. Especially when one considers the fact that the surface water of the planet contains 99.9% of the planet’s heat.
A friend who has a (Penn State) PhD in biochemistry pointed out to me that the atmosphere would have to be much hotter to have raised SSTs this much since the 70’s when we were in college together.

Additionally, how does the greenhouse gas concentration in the atmosphere explain the cold anomalies in the ocean? Circulation? Then why does that not explain the warm anomalies also?

It appeals to common sense that the oceans drive the planetary climate and that the atmosphere is a slave of the water (in all it’s various states) on this planet.

Last edited 1 month ago by Pop Piasa
beng135
Reply to  Dr Ken Pollock
September 17, 2021 8:27 am

I have just finished reading Professor Mann’ latest book

I hope you took your anti-nausea medicine.

September 17, 2021 4:26 am

 Perhaps Jorge from Chico, has been indulging in too much of the Smirnoff. recently. to judge by his letter on choosing reliable sources on ‘Global Warming’.

Bill Powers
Reply to  nicholas tesdorf
September 17, 2021 6:43 am

Jorge would be better served to google corruption of the peer review process. And even better served if he abandoned google for duck duck go for his search engine. But then the real problem with global warming is that the brainwashed will only see and hear what they want to see and hear.

The world governments, with industrialized countries leading the way, have infected two full generations of undeveloped minds at the public school and college level with this AGW virus and as Twain observed it is easier to fool people then convince them that they have been fooled.

alastair gray
Reply to  Bill Powers
September 17, 2021 9:12 am

Really i could not give a damn whether AGW is real or not, and time will of course tell, and adaptible humans will accomodate any changes that occur. What is really vital is that the misguided faith that the Bidenocracy and Johnson Bumblemachine place in renewables being anything other than a hugely expensive distraction from our real planetary problems. These behemoths are neither green nor an effective replacement for fossil energy. I have bo hesitation in calling these charlatans reality deniers in every pejorative sense of the “Denier “word

Alan the Brit
Reply to  alastair gray
September 17, 2021 9:40 am

Griff & his cohorts are the true Climate Change deniers, as they deny that the Earth’s climate changes, it has always stayed the same for EVVAA!!!!

Ben Vorlich
Reply to  Alan the Brit
September 17, 2021 10:52 am

I tell people like Griff, and there are many, that they are denying natural climate change despite the evidence. None as far as I’m aware were creationists who could argue that God left the evidence of ice ages and warm periods.

Richard Page
Reply to  Ben Vorlich
September 17, 2021 11:39 am

It’s sort of circular reasoning. God gave man free will and faith so that he could choose the path to God. Because of this, there can be no proof of the existence of God, therefore God cannot have created evidence of ice ages and dinosaurs as well as creating the world in 7 days because that would be clear evidence. Therefore the bible simply cannot be correct.

Zig Zag Wanderer
Reply to  Richard Page
September 17, 2021 2:30 pm

It’s sort of circular reasoning. God gave man free will and faith so that he could choose the path to God. Because of this, there can be no proof of the existence of God, therefore God cannot have created evidence of ice ages and dinosaurs as well as creating the world in 7 days because that would be clear evidence. Therefore the bible simply cannot be correct.

“Oh dear, I hadn’t thought of that!” said God, and promptly disappeared in a puff of logic.

Richard Page went on to prove that black is white, and was run down on the next zebra crossing*.

H/T Douglas Adams

(*zebra crossings are a mainly English thing, where the pedestrian has right of way. Several other countries have adopted these, unfortunately some don’t give the pedestrian right of way, seriously endangering English tourists! This may sometimes be deliberate, eg France…

I could go on to discuss Pelican Crossings, but that normally leads to confusion.)

Last edited 1 month ago by Zig Zag Wanderer
Richard Page
Reply to  Zig Zag Wanderer
September 18, 2021 6:25 am

I had completely forgotten Douglas Adams when I wrote that. Thanks.

H.R.
Reply to  nicholas tesdorf
September 17, 2021 6:49 am

Unfair, nicholas. Let’s just stick to ridiculing Jorge for his religious faith in the high priests of ‘Climate Science®’, the new religion.

False Profits of Doom, the High Priests Jorge reveres have declared that salvation is assured for those that cast out Demon CO2. If the faithful do not defeat Evil Fossil Fuels, the Earth will perish in The Blazing Inferno of Hell!**



**Note: I’m confused here. Are the oceans supposed to boil away and the Earth burst into flames, or are they supposed to rise up until we all drown? I can never keep that one straight.

Abolition Man
Reply to  H.R.
September 17, 2021 7:28 am

H.R.,
The latest reading of chicken entrails by the High Priests of Climastrology have determined that the correct answer is: BOTH! The oceans will rapidly rise until we all drown, and then the waters will burst into flames! Only by casting out the Molecule of Evil, and relegating Mankind to a pre-industrial lifestyle can we prevent this disaster!
I’m getting conflicting rumors about the chicken entrails, too. They may have been using the Magic 8-Ball again!

Bill Powers
Reply to  H.R.
September 17, 2021 9:30 am

This is not an either/or proposition H.R. – The great floods, brought on by sea rise, will drive humanity to the mountain tops where they will burst into flames.

H.R.
Reply to  Bill Powers
September 17, 2021 9:41 am

LOL, Bill and Abolition Man.

I guess I have to work harder on believing two impossible things before breakfast.

fretslider
September 17, 2021 4:37 am

Nothing to do with Smirnoff vodka?

2hotel9
September 17, 2021 4:45 am

Are you sure this is not Mikee Mannie trolling the letters to the editor section? Perhaps a search of other papers will provide more examples. Sounds like the crap leftists always pull.

D. J. Hawkins
Reply to  Anthony Watts
September 17, 2021 6:44 am

Ho, ho! When he has his stroke, I wonder if they will investigate you for attempted murder? No worries, we’ll all pitch in for the defense fund.

2hotel9
Reply to  D. J. Hawkins
September 17, 2021 8:26 am

Not to worry, it will be listed as Chinese Disease.

Abolition Man
Reply to  Anthony Watts
September 17, 2021 7:35 am

Anthony,
Do you hear the distant sound of heads exploding in the days following one of your letters? As you are still in Commifornia, you’d better keep a sharp eye out for DemoKKKratic attempts to criminalize such writings! Right after they abolish recall campaigns and delegate ALL Republican’s votes to their stalwarts!

Steve Case
Reply to  Abolition Man
September 17, 2021 7:56 am

Commifornia!

Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha!

R Terrell
Reply to  Abolition Man
September 17, 2021 8:11 am

Never fear! I’m quite sure they are working on that at this very moment, having just ‘WON’ the recall election! Pelosi is also working on something like that, to INSURE that no Republican EVER wins an election for President again! Aren’t w living in interesting times?

Mark Stewart
Reply to  Anthony Watts
September 17, 2021 7:47 am

Anthony, how do you know what he is wearing? (“Tragically UNIFORMED”)

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Mark Stewart
September 17, 2021 12:23 pm

That’s easier to misspell than you think. 🙂

Rory Forbes
Reply to  Anthony Watts
September 17, 2021 10:47 am

Mikey still hasn’t recovered from the Josh calendar you sent him years ago.

Ron Long
September 17, 2021 4:57 am

Anthony, I am personally insulted by Jorge Vodka using the terms “pseudoscientific blogs” and “spreading disinformation”, as I greatly value the earnest and accurate contributions to your excellent website. I also enjoy seeing the griff insanity, it makes me feel smarter. Good luck with reply to chico news.

fretslider
Reply to  Ron Long
September 17, 2021 5:53 am

griff makes animals lying on their backs at the bottom of rock pools appear smart.

I suspect it is a bore-bot.

Pamela Matlack-Klein
Reply to  fretslider
September 17, 2021 7:43 am

A vague reference to Faulty Towers, I love it!

fretslider
Reply to  Pamela Matlack-Klein
September 17, 2021 8:21 am

There ain’t much new under the Sun

Hoyt Clagwell
Reply to  Pamela Matlack-Klein
September 17, 2021 9:07 am

Don’t mind Griff, he’s from Barcelona.

“Que?”

Fraizer
Reply to  Hoyt Clagwell
September 17, 2021 11:22 am

Basil in your Ratatouille?

griff
Reply to  fretslider
September 17, 2021 8:16 am

LOL

If I can elevate a starfish, my day is complete.

Alan the Brit
Reply to  griff
September 17, 2021 9:46 am

It’s how you elevate it that troubles many of us!!!

beng135
Reply to  Alan the Brit
September 17, 2021 10:15 am

Ugh… The image….

twobob
Reply to  griff
September 17, 2021 11:55 am

LoL

Elevate or imitate?

Jeff Alberts
Reply to  fretslider
September 17, 2021 8:47 am

Your obsession with griff is really troubling.

MarkW
Reply to  Ron Long
September 17, 2021 6:42 am

According to nyolci, everybody knows that WUWT is fully funded by fossil fuel companies.
It’s such common knowledge that it’s a claim that doesn’t need defending.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  MarkW
September 17, 2021 12:29 pm

I wonder if the Democrats will call any members of WUWT up to Capitol Hill to testify about when we knew CO2 was dangerous to the Earth, and how much money the oil companies are paying us to cover this up?

Gunga Din
Reply to  Tom Abbott
September 17, 2021 5:28 pm

I just got gas today. (The fuel, nor the result of eating broccoli.)
It would seem I paid them, not the other way around.

Lrp
Reply to  MarkW
September 18, 2021 2:07 pm

That’s, probably, his understanding for anyone not on the dole or some government income

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Ron Long
September 17, 2021 12:26 pm

“Anthony, I am personally insulted by Jorge Vodka using the terms “pseudoscientific blogs” and “spreading disinformation”,”

That would tell me that Jorge has read WUWT in the past. Maybe he’s reading now. He *should* be reading WUWT. It’s one of the few places that turns the climate change hyperbole into something understandable.

Gunga Din
Reply to  Ron Long
September 17, 2021 5:24 pm

In Griff’s defense, a few years ago a post went off on a humous side track unrelated to CAGW … er … “MMGW”.
Griff contributed a comment that was actually funny.

Pamela Matlack-Klein
September 17, 2021 5:08 am

How sad that he produced a fairly literate letter but is hopelessly delusional about how to judge the accuracy of statements on climate, weather, and related phenomena. I suspect he is young and a product of the worthless American education system. It really is unfortunate that kids today are taught compliance instead of being encouraged to question and demand answers. Not a lot has changed since the system was developed to create happy little workers for factories and mills.

Pamela Matlack-Klein
Reply to  Anthony Watts
September 17, 2021 5:25 am

Oh dear, that really is discouraging. Probably a social sciences person then.

beng135
Reply to  Pamela Matlack-Klein
September 17, 2021 10:13 am

Communications. Such as it is.

fretslider
Reply to  Anthony Watts
September 17, 2021 5:53 am

Old enough to know better

MarkW
Reply to  fretslider
September 17, 2021 6:43 am

I saw a great tee-shirt the other day:

When does this OLD ENOUGH TO KNOW BETTER stuff supposed to kick in?

With old enough to know better in much larger print.

D. J. Hawkins
Reply to  fretslider
September 17, 2021 6:45 am

…and stupid enough not to care.

Alan the Brit
Reply to  Anthony Watts
September 17, 2021 9:52 am

“Actually he’s 70 years old.”

Actually he’s 7 years old!!! There fixed, or perhaps that’s just his mental age!!! Both my parents went gaga so I know the trials & tribulations of such conditions!!!

Gunga Din
Reply to  Anthony Watts
September 17, 2021 5:32 pm

I’m only 67. Maybe in another 3 years I’ll forget what I’ve observed and learned and agree with him?
(Maybe I’ll even vote for the Joe-Kamal ticket?)

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Pamela Matlack-Klein
September 17, 2021 7:07 am

How sad that he produced a fairly literate letter …

I used to submit a lot of Letters to the Editor for the San Jose Mercury News (CA) on the topic of gun control. I got to know the editor, Phil Yost, fairly well. He shared with me that when they received letters supporting gun control, but had spelling or grammatical errors, they would clean it up before publishing it. I always thought that was wrong because it made the writer appear smarter and better educated than they were. However, it is a practice that other newspapers probably engage in. So, don’t assume that, just because a published letter appears to come from a literate person, it represents the work of the writer.

Pamela Matlack-Klein
Reply to  Clyde Spencer
September 17, 2021 7:33 am

Good point. I’ll bet they don’t rewrite anti-gun control letters to the editor….

Reply to  Clyde Spencer
September 17, 2021 8:21 am

Wow! Me too. For Grassroots Gun Rights SC, back when Elsa McDowell was the ‘public editor’. Elsa the Boring Cow like the cow at the dairy on St. Andrews. When I moved away she had an inch of my screeds on her desk.

I was on Warren Peper’s show a few times.

Alan the Brit
Reply to  Pamela Matlack-Klein
September 17, 2021 9:50 am

Hey there, what makes you think that the British education system is any better than yours in the good old US of A??? We have our own privately privileged educated Useful Idiots too you know, & that’s not including the State education system!!!!!!!!!

Rory Forbes
Reply to  Pamela Matlack-Klein
September 17, 2021 10:52 am

Young people haven’t cornered the market on ignorance or stupidity. I meet lots of my contemporaries (I’m pushing 80) who have mastered stupidity from long practice. They also believe great age has made them smart.

commieBob
September 17, 2021 5:17 am

Although he will for sure deny it, our dear Dr. Mann has admitted that he and his hockey stick are frauds and that he does indeed belong in state pen.

How’s that work, you ask. Mann sued Dr. Tim Ball because of Ball’s quip that Mann belonged in state pen, not Penn State. The case was tossed out of court because of Mann’s inexcusable delays. In other words, Mann kept avoiding a court appearance where he would be forced to testify under oath among other things. Thus he avoided presenting evidence over which he had control.

There’s a legal concept called adverse inference. It means that, if you do not present evidence over which you have control, a jury can infer that said evidence would not have supported your case.

By refusing to pursue his case against Ball in a timely manner, Mann allows us to infer that he does belong in state pen.

Although I have made similar comments many times before, it still brings great glee to my heart. 🙂

Editor
Reply to  commieBob
September 17, 2021 6:48 am

commieBob, thanks for the intro to the concept of adverse inference.

Regards,
Bob

fretslider
Reply to  commieBob
September 17, 2021 7:26 am

Mann kept avoiding a court appearance where he would be forced to testify under oath among other things. 

He’s selective

There Is No Question …. That Michael Mann Lied To Congress

https://realclimatescience.com/2017/03/there-is-no-question-that-michael-mann-lied-to-congress/

Michael Mann Embarrasses Himself before Congress

https://www.nationalreview.com/2017/03/michael-mann-house-testimony-climate-change-embarrassing-rude/

His track record indicates he’s prepared to lie where he thinks he can get away with it.

Rory Forbes
Reply to  fretslider
September 17, 2021 11:00 am

Mann’s lies are protected by the science establishment and government, just as Muslims must lie to protect Islam. It’s called Kitman and Taqiyya.

John Phillips
Reply to  fretslider
September 18, 2021 2:03 am

There Is No Question …. That Michael Mann Lied To Congress”

Tony Heller uses Surface Mass Balance to show Mann ‘lied’ about ice sheets losing mass. One small problem – Surface Mass Balance excludes basal melting and dynamic ice mass changes and thus can show no such thing. The climatic mass balance shows Mann was correct, and there is ‘no question’ that Heller is lying.

His track record indicates he’s prepared to lie where he thinks he can get away with it.” You’re talking about Heller, right? 😉

Peta of Newark
September 17, 2021 5:34 am

Awwwww- it’s rather sweet that such naive and gullible people still exist. Variety is the spice and all that..

Innit Common Knowledge that the best gamekeepers are reformed poachers.

Thus it would follow that foxes know a great deal more about chickens than the Official Keeper of Chickens do, or whoever is supposedly looking after them.
And that foxes are not extinct perfectly proves that point.

No need for a Keeper of Turkeys though, they’re all crowded into the kitchen, (don’t look) stripped off and in the process of being stuffed as they each scramble to be first into the oven

Last edited 1 month ago by Peta of Newark
beng135
Reply to  Peta of Newark
September 17, 2021 10:07 am

Of course — how else would turkeys celebrate Thanksgiving? 😉

Duane
September 17, 2021 5:44 am

In today’s world you can find anybody with a PhD after their name will will say or write literally anything. So mere degrees confer neither knowledge nor wisdom. After all, there are scientists and doctors who claim that the COVID vaccines “changes your RNA”, as well as the warmunistas who try to convince us all that we’re all going to die in 10 years (it’s always 10 years) if we don’t completely restructure all human society to fit their notions of proper behavior.

Any time any one declares “the science is settled” is an idiot, and must be ignored. Actual science is never settled, because the scientific method always requires testing and skepticism and willingness to change one’s mind in the face of new or better evidence.

rbabcock
Reply to  Duane
September 17, 2021 5:57 am

Additionally you can post just about anything and if you repeat it enough, it becomes fact whether it is or isn’t. For example: 61.25% of all statistics are made up (when in fact it is closer to 100%). Plus it isn’t that hard to give yourself accolades and awards. For example: Duane, PhD. There you go, instant expert!

Last edited 1 month ago by rbabcock
MarkW
Reply to  rbabcock
September 17, 2021 6:45 am

Mann keeps claiming that he’s won the Nobel prize.

Rory Forbes
Reply to  MarkW
September 17, 2021 11:03 am

He believes he’s entitled to share the award with the IPCC, as Al Gore did, because he was one of the editors of that year’s report.

Mandobob
Reply to  Duane
September 17, 2021 6:36 am

I concur. Because science is a process and not a thing, anyone who states “the science” really has no idea what they are are talking about. Much better to say “the numbers show” or “the research demonstrates”. As you said making the “the science is settled” statement revels a lack of understanding.

Jim Whelan
Reply to  Mandobob
September 17, 2021 7:13 am

making the “the science is settled” statement revels a lack of understanding.

As does saying, “the experts say,” or, “97% of scientists say” or any such unsupported appeal to authority.

R Terrell
Reply to  Jim Whelan
September 17, 2021 8:19 am

Well, if you asked 10 Warmist ‘scientist’s and 9 of them agreed on your ‘theory’ that makes it ‘90% of scientist’s agree’. So, you have to pick and chose your ‘scientists carefully.

Jeff Alberts
Reply to  Mandobob
September 17, 2021 8:50 am

A process isn’t a thing?

Jim Whelan
Reply to  Duane
September 17, 2021 7:10 am

In today’s world you can find anybody with a PhD after their name will will say or write literally anything.

In some fields getting a doctorate requires that you be able to write and defend the most absurd statements.

Alan the Brit
Reply to  Duane
September 17, 2021 10:04 am

All academic qualifications are merely a statement of one’s academic ability, but under no circumstances does it mean the achiever is actually intelligent & able to think for themselves, & put forward a reasoned argument!!! As I have said before, after attending an evening lecture as part of my professional commitment to Continuing Professional Education, or CPE as it was called, we held an informal dinner as hosts for our “professional” guest. He was a lecturer at Cambridge University in Civil Engineering, he had absolutely no practical experience whatsoever, yet proceeded to lecture me & a good professional mate on structural engineering procedures, demonstrating his ignorance of practical structural engineering practice outside of an academic environment!!! Where academics are concerned, accept with a pinch of salt!!!

bonbon
September 17, 2021 5:56 am

The wily letter author quoted experts like Michael E. Man, James E. Hansen, but forgot

61WcA0Y2Q-L._AC_SX679_.jpg
Richard Page
Reply to  bonbon
September 17, 2021 6:06 am

Bugs Bunny is also a far better climate scientist than Mikey Mann.

fretslider
Reply to  Richard Page
September 17, 2021 6:11 am

Bugs will ask “What’s up Doc”

Mann will say “Listen to the Doc – or else”

Rory Forbes
Reply to  Richard Page
September 17, 2021 11:06 am

The thing is, Bugs is on our side … a true skeptic. His opinion on Mann et al.

What A Maroon! – YouTube

John Endicott
Reply to  bonbon
September 20, 2021 10:33 am

Let’s not forget Wiley E Coyote is a super genius.

Wile E. Coyote, Super Genius – YouTube

September 17, 2021 6:02 am

I have pretty well given up on my local news-rag for the culpable epistemic trespass that it encourages. The conspiracy of ignorance masquerades as common sense.

Last edited 1 month ago by Doug Huffman
R Terrell
Reply to  Doug Huffman
September 17, 2021 8:25 am

I had not read the local liberal rag in my area, the St Louis Post Dispatch, for about 2 years. I always enjoyed the comics and the cross word puzzles. I bought one the other day, just for laughs. The Editorial section, as usual, was full of very funny stories, about the horrors of people NOT wearing a mask, and of course the usual tripe about global warming. The bias was so obvious, even the parts that were written by the editors, that after five minutes I flipped over to the comics. Even the comics aren’t as funny as they used to be. Sad. I will continue to get my ‘news’ from the internet, thank you, and save myself the $2.50!

Rod Smith
September 17, 2021 6:04 am

Perhaps by MMGW Jorge actually means “Michael Mann-made Global Warming”? In the light of the hockey-stick saga this is literally accurate. Worth noting that Dr Mann has spent most of the last 10 years in litigation with people who have accused him of fraud and still hasn’t won a case.

Danley Wolfe
September 17, 2021 6:23 am

The “man” that created the “Mann-made” hockey stick, the godfather of global warming..

ResourceGuy
Reply to  Danley Wolfe
September 17, 2021 10:08 am

Award-winning statistical fraud appeals to reporters who don’t know any better.

Sara
September 17, 2021 6:32 am

After reading Jorge’s letter, it is clear that MMGW has become a belief system which has built over time into a semi-coherent blob – something like that.

You have the radicals – people who engage in ridiculous protests such as spraying red paint on a bank or plopping down across a street and refusing to move, or climbing on commuter rail cars to stop the trains.

Essentially, a belief system becomes a “faith”, if you will, and while it’s likely off in some amorphous future cloud, waiting to be “presented” to us as hard facts, it is underway now. If you don’t “believe” in it, you are committing “heresy” or something. The Greenbeaners simply haven’t decided what they should do about unbelievers just yet. Their problem is that they are quite disorganized and seem to consistently disagree with each other.

Disorganized faith-based stuff doesn’t seem to hold up very well. This is why I’m waiting for the other shoe to drop, as it were…. and I think it will. OK, I sincerely believe the other shoe will drop…. eventually.

Last edited 1 month ago by Sara
H.R.
September 17, 2021 6:34 am

In comments, Anthony mentions Jorge Smirnoff is 70 years old.

I find Smirnoff’s reliance on self-titled ‘Climate Science’ experts ironic. He was in school at the same time I was, and the mantra then was “Question Authority.”

Don’t trust the Government. Don’t trust the Establishment. Don’t trust anyone over thirty. And the big one, Don’t trust ‘The Mann‘**.

I’d say there is a good chance that Smirnoff was right there with the signs and sit-ins of the ’60’s and ’70s. So where and when did Jorge Smirnoff go off the rails? When did he become the Establishment?

It’s always wise to question authority. In fact, at age 70, Jorge Smirnoff should know that it is quite scientific to do so. Nullius in verba. It’s what we do here.



**See what I did there? 😁

Bill Everett
Reply to  H.R.
September 17, 2021 6:54 am

Unfortunately the current administration in Washington appears to be firmly in Jorge’s camp.

Editor
September 17, 2021 7:15 am

You could point out that Dr. Mann was caught lying about being a Nobel Prize winner by the Nobel Institute.

MICHAEL MANN FALSELY CLAIMS HE WAS AWARDED NOBEL PEACE PRIZE

and from your own website:

Former NASA scientist disses @NASAGISS – says it’s a “monument to bad science

It was Robert Jastrow who Founded GISS for the singular purpose of supporting NASA in SPACE studies as Dr. Hansen himself admits in his short essay about Dr. Jastrow:

A Little Story About Dr. Robert Jastrow 

June 26, 2020

James Hansen

Excerpt:

Dr. Robert Jastrow founded the Goddard Institute for Space Studies in 1961 and was GISS Director for 20 years. For his 80th birthday, 7 September 2005, I wrote the following story about him and we dedicated the 2005 GISS Research Publications document to him. Dr. Jastrow persuasively advocated the value to NASA of what became known as the “GISS formula” for a research organization. Key ingredients: a small permanent research staff, an academic environment, post-docs and students, ability of staff to teach courses for student recruitment and work with university faculty and researchers, and public outreach to make results of NASA research understandable and available to the public. The GISS formula is designed to yield high research productivity and a flexibility that allows research directions to shift as NASA objectives develop. Thus an initial emphasis on astrophysics and lunar and planetary science has evolved into a focus on understanding the causes and consequences of global climate change on Earth, of direct relevance to the first objective in NASA’s mission “…to understand and protect our home planet.

bolding mine

=======

Dr. Jastrow NEVER advocated this mission change from “astrophysics and lunar and planetary science” to Climate Change that was Dr. Hansen’s doing as part of the politicization of NASA science.

GISS is now PISS as far as I am concerned.

John Phillips
Reply to  Sunsettommy
September 17, 2021 8:31 am

You could point out that Dr. Mann was caught lying about being a Nobel Prize winner by the Nobel Institute.
 
Sorry to inject a few facts but here we go.
 
When the IPCC were jointly awarded the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize the then head of the IPCC stated ‘All the scientists that have contributed to the work of the IPCC are the Nobel laureates who have been recognized and acknowledged by the Nobel Prize Committee’. The IPCC issued certificates incorporating a facsimile of the Nobel to selected individuals, including Dr Mann, for ‘contributing to the award of the Nobel Peace Prize for 2007 to the IPCC’
 
In a legal submission to the Steyn defamation case Dr Mann (or his legal team) initially and incorrectly claimed he had been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize. The submission was corrected when the IPCC issued guidance about the correct form of words:

The prize was awarded to the IPCC as an organization, and not to any individual associated with the IPCC. Thus it is incorrect to refer to any IPCC official, or scientist who worked on IPCC reports, as a Nobel laureate or Nobel Prize winner. It would be correct to describe a scientist who was involved with AR4 or earlier IPCC reports in this way: “X contributed to the reports of the IPCC, which was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 2007.
 
https://web.archive.org/web/20121111044614/https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/nobel/Nobel_statement_final.pdf
 
Dr Mann issued a clarification:-

There has been some confusion with respect to the proper terminology to be used in connection with the contributions to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change that resulted in the award of the Nobel Peace Prize to that organization. I am writing to try to clear up that confusion.
 
After the receipt of the award, the IPCC sent certificates to coordinating lead authors, lead authors, review editors, and IPCC staff congratulating them for “contributing to the award of the Nobel Peace Prize for 2007 to the IPCC.” A number of IPCC authors, including myself, understood from this commendation that it was appropriate to state that we either “shared” or were a “co-recipient” of the award.
 
To clarify the proper terminology to be used, IPCC has issued guidance regarding the matter. Needless to say, I couldn’t be prouder of our contribution and the recognition that the IPCC received for its work.
 
You could call it a lie. You could equally well call it the wrong form of words, quickly corrected. Yawn.

Mr.
Reply to  John Phillips
September 17, 2021 10:30 am

Yes I don’t really see what all the fuss is about with Nobel prizes.

Even Obama had the presence of mind to express embarrassment over that (now) bullshit organization the Nobel Committee giving him a peace prize just for winning a democratic election. He hadn’t even taken office.
(He then went on to preside over a record period of a US president being at war for every day of his 2 terms).

Richard Page
Reply to  John Phillips
September 17, 2021 11:50 am

Unfortunately the IPCC has since denied that Mann was involved with the AR4 or earlier reports – there was some confusion as to exactly what ‘involvement’ actually meant but the IPCC has clearly stated that Mann was not involved. Drawing a hockey stick graph is, apparently, not enough to qualify.

John Phillips
Reply to  Richard Page
September 17, 2021 3:51 pm

Pure fantasy.

Richard Page
Reply to  John Phillips
September 18, 2021 6:33 am

Then post an image of the email he’s supposed to have received from the IPCC. That’d be proof positive then. My money is with the IPCC on this and that there never was such an email. Mann has never been involved with the IPCC to any extent that would allow him to legitimately share in the Nobel award; only accredited authors and contributors would be able to do that.

John Phillips
Reply to  Richard Page
September 18, 2021 8:21 am

Dr Mann was Lead Author on the Observations Chapter of WG1. The IPCC honoured selected staff who had made a significant contribution to the work which won the Nobel with a facsimile of the Nobel Prize Diploma and a certificate, Dr Mann posted his to his website.

https://michaelmann.net/content/2007-nobel-peace-prize-commendation

It’s not the best photo – but the certificate clearly states it is for ‘contributing to the award of the Nobel Peace Prize for 2007 to the IPCC’

The idea that the IPCC in any way disowned Dr Mann is delusional.

WUWT Mann Nobel.JPG
Robert Alfred Taylor
Reply to  Sunsettommy
September 17, 2021 2:14 pm

Thank you for not writing, “advocated for,” a neologism I despise.
Another is, “between” (or any preposition) “Mary” (or any name) “and I,” instead of the correct “me.” The only times nominative case should be used is for subjects, subjunctives, and appositives. This “error of pretentious ignorance” always bugs me.

David Segal
September 17, 2021 7:32 am

Is my memory correct but didn’t Michael Mann in response to a request for details of data that formed the basis of his global warming commentaries say something like “ Why would I release such information to you when it’s clear your purpose is to discredit my conclusions. “
The irony is that what he’s suggesting is that his science shouldn’t be subject to scrutiny , which I think is one of the basic principals of science.

Mark BLR
Reply to  David Segal
September 17, 2021 8:34 am

Is my memory correct …

Not this time (though note that I also often suffer from similar lapses).

It was Phil Jones of the UK’s CRU who wrote, way back in February 2005, to Warwick Hughes :
“Why should I make the data available to you, when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it.”

For the “full” context see the following page on Warwick’s website :
http://www.warwickhughes.com/blog/?p=4203

beng135
Reply to  David Segal
September 17, 2021 9:09 am

That was IIRC Phil Jones, replying to someone emailing, asking for data. Not sure who was requesting — I think the late Warwick Hughes of Australia. OK, found a wattsup post about it:
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/11/27/an-open-letter-to-dr-phil-jones-of-the-uea-cru/

Last edited 1 month ago by beng135
beng135
Reply to  beng135
September 17, 2021 9:28 am

Correction, I believe Hughes is still around. It was the other, famous Australian skeptic (who pretty much started the whole AGW skeptic movement) I was thinking about that had unfortunately passed away — can’t remember his name.

Last edited 1 month ago by beng135
Mark BLR
Reply to  beng135
September 17, 2021 9:34 am

John Daly ?

beng135
Reply to  Mark BLR
September 17, 2021 9:53 am

That’s it! Thanks. I couldn’t find a single reference to him on any of the search engines (unless now that I know his name). That’s preposterous. His old website is still there:
http://www.john-daly.com/

Last edited 1 month ago by beng135
Mr.
Reply to  Mark BLR
September 17, 2021 10:34 am

Yes. And the Climategate cabal had all the class to rejoice among themselves at his sudden death.

beng135
Reply to  beng135
September 17, 2021 9:47 am

Dang, I’m searching for the famous (to us) Australian AGW skeptic that passed away prb’ly 15 yrs ago, who IIRC had the first website on the issue, and it seems he’s been erased from the web! Duckduckgo is just as biased and incomplete as google!!! He had a famous analysis of one of Australia’s harbors that hadn’t shown any sea-level rise in like 100 yrs. Anybody remember?

Pat Frank
Reply to  beng135
September 17, 2021 9:50 am

http://www.john-daly.com/

Still Waiting for Greenhouse. Still there, but not updated since 2008.

Steve Oregon
September 17, 2021 7:33 am

Jorge has been busy with more of his lecturing letters.
This one is just as funny.
https://www.chicoer.com/2021/08/28/letter-constitutional-rights-come-with-responsibilities-2/

Steve Oregon
September 17, 2021 7:47 am

Good grief, rabid Jorge may as well be a panelist on MSNBC.
His stream of letters is quite the spewing of progressive mob speak.
He parrots every derogatory maligning of all things non left.
https://www.chicoer.com/?s=Jorge+Smirnoff&orderby=date&order=desc

yirgach
Reply to  Steve Oregon
September 17, 2021 9:26 am

I believe he would be called a “crank”.

griff
September 17, 2021 8:10 am

Do not rely on pseudoscientific blogs, they spread disinformation and are the least reliable sources of the latest information on the greatest existential threat facing our planet today.

Seems like a sensible chap!

Editor
Reply to  griff
September 17, 2021 8:14 am

LOLOLOLOLOL, if you believe that claim why are you still here after 2,420 comments?

You think it is sensible but you persist commenting here anyway.

Bill Toland
Reply to  griff
September 17, 2021 8:23 am

Is that you, Jorge?

Pat Frank
Reply to  griff
September 17, 2021 9:51 am

WUWT is demonstrably not a pseudo-science blog.

Mr.
Reply to  griff
September 17, 2021 10:35 am

He was referring to realclimate.

Chaswarnertoo
Reply to  griff
September 17, 2021 11:39 am

So why do you validate this blog by staying? I made the appeal not to ban you, on that basis.

LdB
Reply to  griff
September 19, 2021 12:19 am

Griff you are kicking a lot of own goals these days.

September 17, 2021 8:21 am

So much of the climate scam depends upon basic human nature and our egos. We all have a need to feel exceptional. This projects to the need to feel like we (or I) are exceptional by living through calamities and enduring exceptional times. The Climate Scammers in their messaging (climate communications programs) exploit this human ego-driven need in order to incite their climate fear mongering and that we are now having “unprecedented” climate crises all around us. This is their planned path to total political power.

The opposite of a climate crisis couldn’t be more true.
Not only are we not having anything exceptional weather related today (by historical measures), we are also living in an Age of Abundance, mostly permitted by fossil fuel use, that allows us in the Western democracies to live healthier, better, more fulfilled lives than Kings and Queens did just 200 years before fossil fuels use changed everything. Fossil fuel use mitigates the effects of and shields us from the harshest of nature’s weather extremes.

The only exceptional thing is how well we in the middle class are living today compared to the short, brutish, and difficult lives on 98% of the human population just 200 years ago. The Marxist climate scammers are driven to eradicate OUR middle class affluence with demands we sacrifice everything in mystical belief to avoid 2 degrees of warming above the cold temps of the Little Ice Age, the coldest period of the last 10,000 years of human organized social existence.

We need to give the Octopus-version of the middle finger ( 🖕🏽 x 8) to the Marxists and their allied climate scammers who are intent on putting us all back into serfdom.
🐙 🖕🏽 🖕🏽 🖕🏽 🖕🏽 🖕🏽 🖕🏽 🖕🏽 🖕🏽

Last edited 1 month ago by joelobryan
beng135
September 17, 2021 8:24 am

I think he’s actually the comedian Yakov Smirnoff, and his letter is a joke.

Yakov_Smirnoff_headshot.jpg
Anon
September 17, 2021 8:27 am

This looks like it was written by a minimum wage NASA contractor, hired to rebut anything appearing in the MSM that might contradict CAGW, with the least effort possible.

I hope Anthony mailed Mark Steyn’s book directly to the Johnson Space Center (aka John Smirnoff Chico), because that is probably who owns the PO Box.

Last edited 1 month ago by Anon
Gordon A. Dressler
September 17, 2021 8:32 am

Apparently, one has to subscribe to the Chico Enterprise-Record in order to submit a letter-to-the-editor. I choose not to do that, thank you.

Here is the content of the short letter that I wanted to submit:

Regarding the recent letter by Jorge Smirnoff of Chico in rebuttal to the published letter from Anthony Watts, I thought that AGW/CAGW alarmists has agreed decades ago that the phrase “Man Made Global Warming” (MMGW) was to be replaced by the more inclusive, albeit more ambiguous, phrase “climate change”.

Apparently, Jorge didn’t get the notice.

Editor
September 17, 2021 8:42 am

Anthony writes, “Seriously, it’s my best birthday present evar.”

Well then, HAPPY BIRTHDAY, Anthony!!!!!

Regards,
Bob

Pat Frank
September 17, 2021 8:59 am

Michael Mann has not done any science since his work on lanthanide ceramics back in the early 1990’s. And has been greatly rewarded for it.

His work on climate models: not science.
His work on proxy paleo-temperature reconstructions: pseudo-science.
His work on the global air temperature record: ersatz (see “Systematic Errors in Climate Measurements.”)

The whole field ofconsesus climatology is a monument to the everlasting shame of the science establishment.

Gordon A. Dressler
Reply to  Pat Frank
September 17, 2021 9:31 am

“. . . a monument to the everlasting shame of the science establishment.”

And, in this regard, let’s not overlook the fact that the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) elected Michael Mann to its membership in April 2020.

There can be no finer an example of a once-respectable organization buying a pig-in-a-poke.

Pat Frank
Reply to  Gordon A. Dressler
September 17, 2021 3:26 pm

Except it wasn’t in a poke, Gorden. The pig was fully in view.

You’re right about the NAS. It has politicized itself into total incompetence. The NAS is become destructive.

John Phillips
Reply to  Gordon A. Dressler
September 18, 2021 2:58 am

Why stop there?

2020    Elected to National Academy of Sciences
2019    Tyler Prize for Environmental Achievement
2018    Climate Communication Prize, American Geophysical Union (AGU)
2018    Elected Fellow of the Geological Society of America (GSA)
2018    Award for Public Engagement with Science, American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS)
2015    Elected Fellow of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS)
2014-   Named Highly Cited Researcher, Institute for Scientific Information (ISI) 
2014    Article [Mann, M.E. et al, Northern Hemisphere Temperatures During the Past Millennium: Inferences, Uncertainties, and Limitations, Geophysical Research Letters, 26, 759-762, 1999] selected by American Geophysical Union for inclusion in GRL 40th anniversary collection.
2013    Appointed Distinguished Professor, Pennsylvania State University 
2013    Elected Fellow of the American Meteorological Society 
2012    Hans Oeschger Medal, European Geosciences Union
2012    Elected Fellow of the American Geophysical Union 

Truly, it’s a YUGE conspiracy!

https://michaelmann.net/about/cv