Thursday, February 11, 2010


I have decided to create a new word to describe scientists who promote Anthropogenic Global Warming as a forgone fact. These scientist are identified as intellectuals whose scientific pronouncements are unassailable and their conclusions worthy of unquestioned obeisance.

But it turns out not to be so. In case after case, these self-proclaimed deities of climate change have lied, cheated, threatened, squelched, manipulated and twisted the science and skeptics to fit their preconceived plans to rule the world using AGW.

They are, in fact, not intellectuals at all but "intellectoids." That is, persons masquerading as independent scientists but in reality are jack-booted thugs marching in android lock-step with socialistic/communistic wannabes to dictate highly questionable policies to control citizens and fleece their pockets.

So, here's to the intellectoids of science. You are no longer intellectual scientists whose fundamental creed is the essential concept of skepticism, but lock-stepping robotic goons who have abdicated your scientific responsibilities to the likes of money-grubbing types like Al Gore and George Soros, and have stolen taxpayer money for yourself in the guise of government grants while decrying real skeptics for using funds you say are tainted by corporations.


Anonymous said...

I can't believe all the so called intellects of the left have so much trust in this administration with no scrutiny whatsoever.
I guess they all want the same thing. They don't care who is driving the bus as long as they don't have to do the driving.
They better wake up and smell the "Tea Party" before they themselves regret what they have advocated.

TheLonelyArtistClub said...

so do creationist scientists who argue that the planet is 6,000 years old, and that the entire universe wast created in 6 days, fall into this anti-skepticism category?


TheLonelyArtistClub said...

I nominate creationists to fall into this category.


P.S. you might lose this post, just like you apparently lost my response to the cbs news/katie couric post. Hope to see this comment, as well as your lame excuse for not publishing my last comment, as well as a diatribe against my personal beliefes, that fails to answer the question posted.

I mean, come'on, you applaud citizens united on first amendment rights, but you screen your comments like Stalin and lie like Bill Clinton (although I'd wager my life you're going to tell me that you didn't get the post I'm referring to.)

NewGnome said...

So, do creationist scientists who argue that the planet is 6,000 years old, and that the entire universe was created in 6 days, fall into this anti-skepticism category?
Careful LAC your religious bigotry is showing.
Just as an example of the quagmire you get into trying to argue religious belief, you can’t get three words into the Genesis before you have a fundamental disagreement and by the time you get to the fourth everything breaks down because you cannot define three of the four words to everyone’s satisfaction. By the time you get to the tenth…there is agreement on almost nothing….so what’s the point?
I also think it’s amazingly hypocritical to say that AGW crowd relies totally on proven facts any more than the 6000-year scientists you cite. It is blatantly obvious that Mann and Jones and the IPCC were relying as much on faith as those scientists, so your underlying supposition is a fallacy to start with.
Your comparison is totally askew. I personally think it’s a waste of time to argue “faith based” beliefs. However, those scientists who argue for the 6-thousand year theory did not present a plethora of unsubstantiated guesses as absolute facts as climate change guessers did in the IPCC report that are being refuted daily. They also did not attempt to hide, manipulate and massage data to fit their twisted view of climate change to receive money grants from the taxpayers and socialists like Soros. They did not, as Mann and Jones did, try to destroy the reputations of other scientists with whom they had reasonable disagreements. They did not try to destroy a legitimate science journal for presenting both sides of an argument. They did not try to destroy and recommend that other scientists do the same, emails that revealed their nefarious efforts to squelch skeptical thought on AGW. They did not break and snub the law by refusing to release their data under the freedom of information act. In short, they did not act as true scientists should with a healthy skepticism of the facts collected, especially when their data did not support the thesis. Scientific dishonest is not the same as presenting facts into evidence that you believe to support your theories.
I think your comparison with a religious claim is not only extremely poorly thought out but also logically unsustainable. Go ahead and bring in religion if you want but you make your position less valid. I don’t see those scientists who believe in a 6-thousand year old earth attempting to make money on their beliefs or, trying to control governmental policy by allowing only one side of creationism.
They also did not try to eliminate evolution, from what I’ve read, but reasonably presented an alternative theory, especially in light of some serious discrepancies with Darwin.
I’m also perplexed because you’ve said in your previous blogs and comments that you have serious questions about AGW, as I recall because of papers your students have written which brought out reasonable objections. Have you returned to the AGW fold?

TheLonelyArtistClub said...

I didn't say one word in favor of AGW scientists. I think the frauds committed at West Anglia are repulsive.

Forgive me, I once again forgot that your blog is meant to incite and doesn't come close to presenting a balanced view. I was just wondering if you truly take issue with AGW abandoning the "essential concept of skepticism" by suggesting that there are groups more politically aligned with you that do the same, and prompting to see if you would consider them intellectoids or not. I am deeply suspicious that your issue is with AGW in general, and you don't care a bit about how they conduct their "science."

And yes, Creationist scientists do make money off of their "work." Have you ever stepped into a Christian bookstore? The textbook market for the growing numbers of home schooled fundamentalists is extremely lucrative. That's not to mention the theme park (called a museum) they've set up to showcase their work as well as the dvds and other media available for purchase. They may not exploit or receive tax payer dollars the way that AGW scientists do, but they certainly receive a profit.

I take issue with being identified as a religious bigot. I may not be a fundamentalist but I have a deep religious faith in Christianity. And I emphasize faith. I'm confident enough in my belief that I don't need hack scientists or historians to try and prove it.

If you want to get into Religion, I'd be happy to do it. You're the one who's ashamed to bring that up in public.

NewGnome said...

You're right LAC. I seldom argue faith based issues. As I said, it's pointless and I believe your response is a perfect example of why. You castigate people for writing and selling books. But, one has a choice to buy a book or not. We have not had a choice to give money to scientists who presented false data and who want to shut down capitalism using AGW as their tool.

Phil Jones, yesterday admitted in a BBC interview that global warming has NOT been occurring for the past 15 years despite what he's been claiming. In case you didn't know that's called a lie, when you have been saying the opposite for those 15 years. And I don't mind the science when it is scrutinized skeptically. I also have the right to judge and disagree or not. Yes, the issue is AGW. It doesn’t exist. Jones admitted as much. Not skeptics, but the man at the center of the AGW claim.

Your effort to deflect the issue to fundamental Christians is bogus. I do not consider myself a fundamentalist Christian particularly in the "born again" tradition. I still wonder what your problem is with them though. I have my own beliefs and the 6000-year issue is not on my radar. I wrote a piece on Helium about life on other planets that talks about the arrogance of man to think that there is not life elsewhere, or that God has not been creating for eons, not 6000 years which isn't even a blink in the universal continuum.

By the way, LAC, trying to bait me into a meaningless argument about religion isn't going to happen. One of your cheaper shots I must say. I do think that your feeling secure in your faith is extremely beneficial. I applaud you for that. But it doesn't belong on a highly conservative political blog. I have your own words to prove my point. You say you "don't need scientists or historians to try to prove it." In religion that's the point, it is not provable, it "is" a matter of faith.