Forget that goofy crocoduck. I want a cephalogull.
Actually, this isn’t an octopus growing bird wings. I have a whole series of violent photos of the event — it’s a very cunning octopus that oozed up to the Ogden Point breakwater in Victoria, BC, reached up silently with it’s suckered arms, and dragged a seagull down to a watery doom, and a tasty fowl dinner. If you were eating nothing but crab every day you might want to try something different too.
(Also on Sb)
I mentioned Jack Chick in that last article, so I actually looked in on his site. He’s got a new tract! It’s on Global Warming! He doesn’t believe in it. Why? Because it snows sometime, and climate scientists include women and they all believe in pagan gods. Really! Would I lie to you?
You don’t have to worry about climate change, because Jesus is going to set you on fire and slaughter you with plagues. So there’s no problem.
How…reassuring.
Now Greta Christina promotes felines. All I can say is…this is what cats will see if they step outside.
James Inhofe, the ridiculous climate change denier, appeared on the Rachel Maddow show and made a series of ridiculous claims. Among them was the claim that those wacky environmentalists were greatly outspending the entire energy industry on propaganda. Wait, what? The top five oil companies made $1 trillion in profits from 2011 through 2011, and somehow the Sierra Club and George Soros and Michael Moore are able to outspend them? Where did such a patently absurd claim come from?
Inhofe revealed his source: the “very liberal publication”, Nature (yes, reality really does have a liberal bias) which cited a researcher who found that the environmental movement was filthy rich.
Propelled by an ultra wealthy donor base and key alliances with corporations and other organizations, the environmental movement appears to have closed the financial gap with its opponents.
One problem: that study has been thoroughly debunked and shown to be the work of a very sloppy researcher. Climate change deniers outspent environmentalists 8:1 in lobbying and donating to candidates (buying the government, in other words) in 2009.
And who was that sloppy shill for the denialists? Why, none other than snake oil salesman Matt Nisbet, who Greg Laden and I debated in 2007, and who butchers puppies for fun (←framing).
I admit to chortling with glee at seeing Nisbet exposed yet again as a tool of the status quo.
If you’re really interested, Nisbet has posted his list of excuses for his misleading report. The gist: he picked 45 environmentalist groups and 42 denialist groups (I think we already see a problem in his analysis). The environmental groups were open and revealed all of their expenditures, and were also capped in how much they could spend. The industry groups and right-wing think-tanks were shadier and did not provide figures, so Nisbet “estimated”. Industry associations have no caps on how much they can spend in direct lobbying.
I do regret the effort I spent arguing with this sleazeball in the past.
(Also on Sb)
Adam, David (2011) Money not the problem in US climate debate. Nature 19 April 2011.
Regal, triumphant…but so alone. Which reminds me that I must fly home soon to my 32nd wedding anniversary and some cephalove.
(Also on Sb)
Nothing. Nothing at all.
The ICR is a young earth creationist organization; we know they’re a bunch of anti-scientific loons. The Discovery Institute claims to be pursuing an “evidence-based scientific theory about life’s origins”. So why is the DI echoing the ICR’s totally bogus claim that 30% of the Gorilla Genome Contradicts the Supposed Evolutionary Phylogeny of Humans and Apes?
The bottom line is that the gorilla genome has confirmed that there is not a consistent story of common ancestry coming from the genomes of the great apes and humans. Hundreds of millions of base pairs in the gorilla genome conflict with the supposed phylogeny of great apes and humans. They might think their explanation salvages common ancestry, but clearly the gorilla genome data badly messes up the supposedly nice, neat, tidy arguments which they use to claim humans are related to the great-apes.
That’s breathtakingly wrong. I’ve already explained that incomplete lineage sorting is an expected outcome of evolutionary theory (see also Joe Felsenstein’s complementary explanation of the same phenomenon). There is a consistent explanation; coalescence does not represent a conflict with the phylogeny; the gorilla genome data does not mess up any arguments of common descent. That the Discovery Institute will so baldly mangle the evidence and distort its conclusions shows how dishonest or incompetent the organization is.
The article is by Casey Luskin, which does tilt the interpretation in the direction of incompetence. What a clown.
