Blowhard Istvan with his incessant self references to ebooks which is the epitomy of his intellectual prowess is also a bigot and declares (period) who can and cannot take part in the conversation.
Holy schit. The hubris of this insignificant phuckwad is mind boggling.
“read my ID example in published ebook The Arts of Truth”
Oh wow. *published*. You’re just all shades of awesome, huh?
ROFLMAO
Oh, and ID is just creationist pseudoscience. The federal courts have so ruled. A fact, not a personal opinion.
Smallest current living cell is 5e-19 grams, over 25 million atoms, and lives in undersea smokers. A tiny virus which lacks all the cell machinery for reproduction and energy capture/storage, basically raw DNA in a container is 200,000 atoms. It takes 60,000 atoms for the DNA itself. So perhaps 10 million atoms is the smallest a cell can get and be able to reproduce.
Stupid design (the opposing philosophy to Intelligent Design) claims that our 10 million atoms bonded in the correct sequence in the correct chains to form self replicating life by self assembly.
Statistical this doesn’t seem to be a great improvement on believing in God.
The WUWT thread fleshes out the story. Barry Woods has the details in comments. It looks to me like they will be claiming that they didn’t need “real” skeptic comments for the “experiment”. This will likely go no where, given that Cookie and Lewandumpski have gotten away with so much crap already. They are Heroes of the Cause.
You should read what you write.
You should read what you write.
I do. Carefully, with HTML resolved. Before I post. I also read what you write. And think about it.
JCH, your kneejerk reaction is showing. Read the WUWT thread and you can make up a credible defense for those clowns. Don’t worry, this won’t have any effect on Paris. It will still be a flop.
I meant plausible defense. There is nothing credible about those clowns.
Usually. Not always. As with most things in life. Regards.
Rud, the miracles of capitalism, political freedom, tech advance and heavy industrialisation are enabling me right now to loaf about all morning. I can look out to Mount Banda Banda through the bamboo as I sip tea…and let my thoughts wander to admiration of the industry and tenacity of Wisconsin farmers. But then I have to lie down.
If I was made to work like the dairy farmers further down river from here I’d be back living in the middle of Sydney within a day. They’re a good bunch, our dairy men. Half-mad, but you’d need to be.
If I was a walking tax like some brutalised serf living under the Dalai Lama and his theocratic/aristocratic mates, or a drudging comrade under Maoist agricultural policies…I’d be glad never to look at the sky or any piece of ground that wasn’t paved. I’d inhale those coal fumes like they were perfume.
My knee-jerk reaction is to wonder who the H tim Curtis is. It’s called skepticism.
This link has evidentiary usefulness:
As does this one:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/An-experiment-into-science-blogging.html
Yes jch, your links show how goofy and probably harmless the experiment was. And you are still stuck on Tim vs. Tom Curtis. That is irrelevant.
Search for “Plus you may run into problems if any lab rats have ever heard of him”.
I rarely read Skeptical Science. Look at the thing maybe once a month or less. It’s a boring website.
Meanwhile, the surface is getting hot as heck.
Who said that it was evidence.
It’s funny.
I posted funny stuff.
Laugh.
Do they make their own chain saws?
For what it’s worth, I don’t think the fact John Cook posted under another person’s name is a big deal. He only did so in the Skeptical Science forum. You can see the sort of comment he left on this page. I think it’s messed up he used a real person’s name rather than just a fake one, but… who cares? The only people he could have expected to see it were the Skeptical Science group. If he wants to pretend he’s Lubos Motl with them for a bit, whatever. It’s not like he was pretending to be a Nazi…
If there’s a story to be had here, I think it’s in the reason Cook used the fake identity. It’s not like he did it just for kicks. He made the fake account to post comments for an experiment he was doing with the UWA to judge how reading comprehension is affected by skeptic/warmist comments. To repeat, in an attempt to judge how skeptic comments affect reader comprehension, John Cook made a fake account to make fake comments.
The sad part is the “fake account” part is actually irrelevant. Cook invited the Skeptical Science group to make fake comments under their own names. He made the fake account because not enough of them did. He talked about the possibility of having to make a second fake account for the same reason. So really, all this comes down to is Cook needed to produce fake “skeptic” comments for an experiment so he and the UWA could try to draw conclusions about how skeptic comments affect reader comprehension.
Which is really weird. I’m not sure how fake skeptic comments let you determine the effect actual skeptic comments would have on reader comprehension.
