Breaking own record, three days in a row January 31, 2007Posted by Administrator in Idiots.
Myers must have a serious interior flagellation-desire complex. He keeps jamming his foot in his mouth.
Today, in reference to Scott Adams of Dilbert fame. . .
It’s nice to see that one constant on the internet is that Scott Adams is still a babbling idiot
Pot to kettle, come in please!!!!!
Pharyngula wins the Unintentional Irony Award two days running. . . January 30, 2007Posted by Administrator in Idiots.
add a comment
The title? “No More Microcephalics”. The irony? This quote:
We need more fossils!
. . .to determine whether or not the creature with a very tiny brain existed.
Look no farther than the mirror, PZ.
I MUST sign up for the Atheist Materialist Conspiracy. . . January 29, 2007Posted by Administrator in atheism, Idiots, Mechanistic Relativism.
1 comment so far
. . .I’ve NEVER SEEN a more compelling argument. I mean, Christianity might as well fold up its tent and go home now.
Let’s flaunt Jane Fonda and John Phillip Law, let’s disrespect religion, let’s give gay men and women some dignity, let’s just do everything to make the other side gnash their teeth and tear at their beards and rend their garments…because we’re so much better.
More verbal diarrhea from the Internet’s resident cholera-of-the-brain victim, PZ Myers.
The phrase in bold is just teeming with irony. Granted, Myers is attempting to be ironic in making such a statement. He would claim that he never makes ad hominem arguments. But therein lies the deeper irony: His arguments against religion are either deeply flawed, fallacious straw-man errors or outright ad-him claims/attacks. Basically, his argument in favor of unbridled atheistic nihilism is simply what he wrote above; “because we’re so much better.” This really is the best he can do. And he couches it as irony.
And he’ll keep sitting there in dumbfounded bemusement as hordes of American sensibilities continue to disregard his out-there ravings.
Notice I don’t provide a link. Frankly, I’m too lazy and nauseated. I simply don’t want to visit his sad little site again to copy-and-paste his address. It’s Pharyngula, if anyone is really interested.
Anchoress nails the heart of Catholic appeal January 26, 2007Posted by Administrator in Catholicism, Smart People.
Welcome Anchoress readers. Please feel free to look around my little Nothing site.
Stumbled on this outstanding quote from one of the Anchoress’s recent re-posts. . .and it is stellar.
Catholicism is a religion that is best suited to young children and mostly-mature adults. Young children “get” the possibilities of the supernatural. They “get” mysticism and. They “get” that “God is everywhere,” and that bread and wine may be changed, materially, into Flesh and Blood. While a little one may occasionally be heard in chuch singing “happy birthday to you,” when she sees an altar server light the candles, children understand the hush and wonder of the mass, particularly if they are in an older church – one that still has stained glass windows and statues for them to contemplate while the gist of the mass goes over their heads. (People forget how instructive and useful those windows are, but that’s another post) Young and more seasoned adults “get” Catholicism when they have reached the understanding that everything is not about them – that there are things greater than themselves.
This is why Catholicism is worst suited to adolescents and teenagers – whether the temporary ones or the perpetual ones. When the world is all about your pleasure, your nails, your car, your finances, your boyfriend, your cellphone and your angst, it’s tough to focus on something intangible which involves allowing oneself to be vulnerable and wrong, and which also involves some pursuit. When you are not accustomed to hearing the word “no,” Catholicism can seem like The Church of No. When taking responsibility for your bad choices and mistakes is foreign to you, well the idea of “sin” and “confession” all seems so quaintly unnecessary. And we cannot forget that the church herself – and some of her reps – is often too slow to deal with her own faults and mistakes.
Yah. Perpetual adolescents. Like PZ Myers and -when we get into these arguments- GodofBiscuits. Outstanding.
Winter blues January 23, 2007Posted by Administrator in Personal.
add a comment
There comes a time in every winter, usually late January or perhaps February, when I find myself absolutely fed up with winter.
I’ve had it with the seemingly endless darkness.
I’ve had it with trees that give every appearance of being dead.
I’ve had it with being cold.
I’ve had it with the neverending feeling of weariness, said weariness probably brought about by the long nights and short days.
Every season has its advantages. Winter brings us the holidays, and winter weather with its occasional snow, and no doubt the crispness of winter air is invigorating in early doses.
But this all begins to chafe much quicker than the stifling heat of summer. It’s January 23rd, and the chafing Dog Days of Winter have officially arrived.
Some common sense from the Global Warming crowd? January 22, 2007Posted by Administrator in Cultural Pessimism, Global Warming, Idiots, Smart People.
add a comment
Problem is, global warming may not have caused Hurricane Katrina, and last summer’s heat waves were equaled and, in many cases, surpassed by heat in the 1930s.
In their efforts to capture the public’s attention, then, have climate scientists oversold global warming? It’s probably not a majority view, but a few climate scientists are beginning to question whether some dire predictions push the science too far.
“Some of us are wondering if we have created a monster,” says Kevin Vranes, a climate scientist at the University of Colorado.
Vranes, who is not considered a global warming skeptic by his peers, came to this conclusion after attending an American Geophysical Union meeting last month. Vranes says he detected “tension” among scientists, notably because projections of the future climate carry uncertainties — a point that hasn’t been fully communicated to the public.
For example, last summer, Ralph Cicerone, president of the National Academy of Sciences, told the U.S. House Committee on Energy and Commerce: “I think we understand the mechanisms of CO2 and climate better than we do of what causes lung cancer. … In fact, it is fair to say that global warming may be the most carefully and fully studied scientific topic in human history.”
Vranes says, “When I hear things like that, I go crazy.”
And well he should.
But within the broad consensus are myriad questions about the details. How much of the recent warming has been caused by humans? Is the upswing in Atlantic hurricane activity due to global warming or natural variability? Are Antarctica’s ice sheets at risk for melting in the near future?
The first question of the previous paragraph is THE key question that keeps getting hidden in the general Chicken Little screeching.
To the public and policymakers, these details matter. It’s one thing to worry about summer temperatures becoming a few degrees warmer.
Other climate scientists, however, say there may be some tension as described by Vranes. One of them, Jeffrey Shaman, an assistant professor of atmospheric sciences at Oregon State University, says that unease exists primarily between younger researchers and older, more established scientists.Shaman says some junior scientists may feel uncomfortable when they see older scientists making claims about the future climate, but he’s not sure how widespread that sentiment may be. This kind of tension always has existed in academia, he adds, a system in which senior scientists hold some sway over the grants and research interests of graduate students and junior faculty members.
The question, he says, is whether it’s any worse in climate science.
And if it is worse? Would junior scientists feel compelled to mute their findings, out of concern for their careers, if the research contradicts the climate change consensus?
“I can understand how a scientist without tenure can feel the community pressures,” says environmental scientist Roger Pielke Jr., a colleague of Vranes’ at the University of Colorado.
Pielke says he has felt pressure from his peers: A prominent scientist angrily accused him of being a skeptic, and a scientific journal editor asked him to “dampen” the message of a peer-reviewed paper to derail skeptics and business interests.
BINGO!!!!!! RIGHT THERE!!!!!
(Snip) Pielke says, “But if we oversell the science, our credibility is at stake.”
No duh. Credibility has been at stake for some time now.
Meanwhile, Bjorn Lomborg of the excellent Skeptical Environmentalist questions why Al Gore begged out of a televised debate between Gore and Lomborg.
Al Gore is traveling around the world telling us how we must fundamentally change our civilization due to the threat of global warming. Last week he was in Denmark to disseminate this message. But if we are to embark on the costliest political project ever, maybe we should make sure it rests on solid ground. It should be based on the best facts, not just the convenient ones. This was the background for the biggest Danish newspaper, Jyllands-Posten, to set up an investigative interview with Mr. Gore. And for this, the paper thought it would be obvious to team up with Bjorn Lomborg, author of “The Skeptical Environmentalist,” who has provided one of the clearest counterpoints to Mr. Gore’s tune.
The interview had been scheduled for months. The day before the interview Mr. Gore’s agent thought Gore-meets-Lomborg would be great. Yet an hour later, he came back to tell us that Bjorn Lomborg should be excluded from the interview because he’s been very critical of Mr. Gore’s message about global warming and has questioned Mr. Gore’s evenhandedness. According to the agent, Mr. Gore only wanted to have questions about his book and documentary, and only asked by a reporter. These conditions were immediately accepted by Jyllands-Posten. Yet an hour later we received an email from the agent saying that the interview was now cancelled. What happened?
One can only speculate.
As in, we can speculate that Gore is a coward.
No surprise there,
HT to Mark Shea for the original links.
What composer are you? January 19, 2007Posted by Administrator in Polls.
add a comment
INCOMING POLLS (courtesy of the Happy Catholic)
The king of Italian opera.
No pictures. And this AFTER I chose to eliminate all opera. . .
What Science Fiction writer are you? January 19, 2007Posted by Administrator in Blogging, Polls.
The inventor of space opera. His purple space war tales remain well-read generations later.
Berserkness January 18, 2007Posted by Administrator in Cultural Pessimism, Family, Personal.
add a comment
The vacillations in human behavior continue to astound.
Sometime yesterday, a person very near and dear to my heart asked to speak to me, and, in response to what I thought was really a rather innocuous observation I had made just previously, then proceeded to rant at the top of her voice, screaming, stomping and crying, smacking herself on the thigh and slapping herself on the forehead, that another person in her household was driving her to drink, said person being unbelievably callous and cruel, and how she had bent over backwards to accommodate this person, and all she was getting was beaten in return. I’ve known this person for over twenty years, and have never seen her this overwrought.
She went on in this vein for close to ten minutes. I quickly came to the conclusion that my best course of action was simply to wait the storm out rather than venture out against it, so I just sat by and followed my own interior advice.
She finally calmed down to the point where she could ask me why I was “taking the other person’s side.” I responded that she was misunderstanding what I had said.
She then retorted that I was being a martyr in making such a claim.
“Martyr?” I replied, throwing caution to the wind and daring the storm to smite me down. “You have been stomping around here, beating yourself silly claiming that you are being treated like trash, throwing the worst tantrum I have seen you ever throw, and then I simply suggest that you may have misunderstood what I had said, and you are calling me a martyr??”
Trembling in fear of a renewed outbreak of rage, instead I was greeted with a twitch of the lips, and my dear proceeded to put her head down and laugh it off, choosing to see the irony I had pointed out to her. And from that point we were able to rationally contend with the source of her angst. I believe the problem is on the way to being solved.
I understand that the above scenario will see more than a trifle obscure to any readership I might have, because I am leaving numerous supporting details out. There is a good reason for this: I don’t want to provide the details.
My point in writing the above is that any of us, from the strongest to the most reasonable, can at any point, suddenly come under such sudden and unexpected pressure that our reason flees us, and we may be momentarily reduced to the level of beasts. It is fascinating to watch, though, how we can recover our reason just as quickly as we may have lost it. The spark of reason is said in some circles to be divine. I have little doubt that it is the Divine that at least provides the spark.